Select regulatory documents by category:
Back to top
Notice 2022-13 - Request for Comment
Publication date: | Comment due:
Information for:

Issuers, Municipal Advisors

Rule Number:

Rule G-3

All Comments to Notice 2022-13

  1. National Association of Municipal Advisors: Letter from Susan Gaffney, Executive Director, dated January 30, 2023
  2. Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association: Letter from Leslie M. Norwood, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, dated January 30, 2023
  3. Wulff, Hansen & Co.: Letter from Chris Charles, President, dated December 29, 2022
Notice 2022-11 - Request for Comment
Publication date: | Comment due:
Rule Number:

Rule G-32

All Comments to Notice 2022-11

  1. Bond Dealers of America: Letter from Michael Decker, Senior Vice President, January 17, 2023
  2. Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association: Letter from Leslie M. Norwood, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, dated January 27, 2023
  3. XBRL US: Letter from Campbell Pryde, President and CEO, dated December 15, 2022
Notice 2022-07 - Request for Comment
Publication date: | Comment due:
Information for:

Bank Dealers

Rule Number:

Rule G-14

All Comments to Notice 2022-07

  1. American Securities Association: Letter from Kelli McMorrow, Head of Government Affairs, dated September 30, 2022
  2. Amuni Financial, Inc.: Letter from Mike Petagna, President, dated August 23, 2022
  3. Bailey, Bill: Email dated August 4. 2022
  4. Belle Haven Investments, L.P.: Letter from Matt Dalton, Chief Executive Officer, dated October 3, 2022
  5. Bernardi Securities, Inc.: Letter from Ronald P. Bernardi, President and CEO, dated September 30, 2022
  6. BetaNXT: Letter from Will Leahey, Head of Regulatory Compliance, dated October 3, 2022
  7. Bond Dealers of America: Letter from Michael Decker, Senior Vice President for Public Policy, dated October 3, 2022
  8. Bryant Bank: Letter from David Long, Executive Vice President, Correspondent Banking/Capital Markets, and Vincent Webb, Managing Director, Bryant Bank Capital Markets, dated September 28, 2022
  9. Cambridge Investment Research, Inc.: Letter from Seth A. Miller, General Counsel, President, Advocacy and Administration, dated October 3, 2022
  10. Cantella & Co., Inc.: Email from Jay Lanstein, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Technology Officer, dated September 16, 2022
  11. Cantone Research, Inc.: Email from Maryann Cantone dated August 2, 2022
  12. Colwell, J.D.: Letter dated September 9, 2022
  13. DeRobbio, Raymond: Email dated August 3, 2022
  14. Dimensional Fund Advisors LP: Letter from Gerard O’Reilly, Co-CEO and Chief Investment Officer, and David A. Plecha, Global Head of Fixed Income, dated September 26, 2022
  15. Estrada Hinojosa & Co., Inc.: Letter from Robert A. Estrada, Chairman (Emeritus), dated October 3, 2022
  16. Falcon Square Capital, LLC: Letter from Melissa P. Hoots, CEO/CCO, dated October 3, 2022
  17. Financial Information Forum: Letter from Howard Meyerson, Managing Director, dated October 3, 2022; Supplemental Letter from Howard Meyerson, Managing Director, dated April 27, 2023
  18. Ford & Associates, Inc.: Letter from Jonathan W. Ford, Senior Vice President, dated September 9, 2022
  19. Hartfield, Titus & Donnelly, LLC: Letter from Edward J. Smith, General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer, dated September 14, 2022
  20. Herbert J. Sims & Co., Inc.: Letter from Melissa Messina, Executive Vice President, Associate General Counsel, R. Jeffrey Sands, Managing Principal, General Counsel, and William Sims, Managing Principal, dated October 3, 2022
  21. Higgins Capital Management, Inc.: Email from Deborah Higgins dated September 19, 2022
  22. Hilltop Securities: Letter from Lana Calton, Executive Managing Director, Head of Clearing, dated October 3, 2022
  23. Honey Badger Investment Securities, LLC: Letter from Joe Lee, CEO, dated September 30, 2022
  24. ICE Bonds Securities Corporation: Letter from Robert Laorno, General Counsel, dated September 30, 2022
  25. InspereX LLC: Letter from Robert D. Bullington, Vice President, Compliance Officer, dated October 3, 2022
  26. Institutional Securities Corporation: Letter from Scott Hayes, President and CEO, and Chris Neidlinger, CCO, dated September 30, 2022
  27. Investment Company Institute: Letter from Sarah A. Bessin, Associate General Counsel, dated October 3, 2022
  28. Investment Placement Group: Email from Darius Lashkari dated August 2, 2022
  29. Isaak Bond Investments: Letter from John Isaak, Sr. Vice President, dated August 16, 2022
  30. Isaak Bond Investments, Inc.: Letter from Donald J. Lemek, VP-Operations and CFO
  31. Kiley Partners, Inc.: Email from Mike Kiley, Owner, dated September 27, 2022
  32. Madison Paige Securities: Letter from Gary Herschitz, CEO, dated September 30, 2022
  33. Mayes, Christopher: Email dated September 27, 2022
  34. Miner, Kathy: Letter dated October 2, 2022
  35. Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board: Memorandum dated September 12, 2022
  36. Northland Securities Inc.: Letter from Randy Nitzsche, President and CEO, dated October 3, 2022
  37. Oberweis Securities, Inc.: Letter from James W. Oberweis, President, dated September 28, 2022
  38. Regional Brokers, Inc.: Letter from H. Deane Armstrong, CCO, and Joseph A. Hemphill III, CEO, dated October 3, 2022
  39. Robert Blum Municipals, Inc.: Letter from Robert Blum, President, dated September 16, 2022
  40. Roosevelt & Cross, Inc.: Letter from F. Gregory Finn, Chief Executive Officer, dated October 3, 2022
  41. RW Smith & Associates, LLC: Letter from Christopher Ferreri, President, dated September 13, 2022
  42. SAMCO Capital Markets, Inc.: Letter from Lee Maverick, Chief Compliance Officer, dated September 30, 2022
  43. Sanderlin Securities LLC: Letter from Matthew Kamler, President, dated September 27, 2022
  44. Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and the SIFMA Asset Management Group: Letter from Kenneth E. Bentsen, Jr., President and CEO, dated October 3, 2022
  45. Sentinel Brokers Company, Inc.: Letter from Joseph Lawless, CEO, dated September 30, 2022
  46. Sheedy, Edward: Email dated August 2, 2022
  47. Stern Brothers and Co.: Letter dated October 3, 2022
  48. TRADEliance, LLC: Letter from Jesy LeBlanc and Kat Miller dated September 28, 2022
  49. Tuma, William: Email dated August 8, 2022
  50. Wells Fargo & Company: Letter from Nyron Latif, Head of Operations, Wells Fargo Wealth and Investment Management, and Todd Primavera, Head of Operations, Wells Fargo Corporate and Investment Bank, dated October 3, 2022
  51. Wiley Bros.-Aintree Capital, LLC: Letter from Keener Billups, Managing Director, Municipal Bond Department, dated September 20, 2022
  52. Wintrust Investments, LLC: Email from Thomas Kiernan dated August 2, 2022
  53. Zia Corporation: Email from Glenn Burnett dated September 6, 2022
Interpretive Guidance - Interpretive Letters
Publication date:
Disclosures in Connection with New Issues
Rule Number:

Rule G-32

Disclosures in connection with new issues. This is in response to your November 30, 1993 letter requesting interpretive guidance regarding Board rule G-32(a)(ii)(C). That provision requires dealers in connection with a negotiated sale of new issue municipal securities to disclose "the initial offering price for each maturity in the issue that is offered or to be offered in whole or in part by the underwriters." You inquired as to whether the term "initial offering price" as used in this provision could be stated in terms of yield. The Board has reviewed your request and authorized this response.

Rule G-32 requires dealers selling new issue municipal securities to provide certain written information to customers. In connection with new negotiated issues, paragraph (a)(ii) of the rule requires that this written information include the underwriting spread, the amount of any fee received by a dealer as agent for the issuer in the distribution of the securities for each maturity in the issue that is offered or to be offered in whole or in part by the underwriters, and the initial offering price of each maturity.[1]

With respect to the "initial offering price," the Board has concluded that this price may be expressed either in terms of dollar price or yield. Since customer confirmations generally must show both dollar price and yield, the Board believes that either form of "initial offering price" would provide customers with the requisite comparative data about the relationship between the initial offering price and the price of the securities being purchased. MSRB Interpretation of December 22, 1993.

[1] If this information is stated in the official statement, compliance can be achieved by delivering the official statement to the customer, prior to settlement, as is required, in any case, by rule G-32(a)(i).  However, if the information is not in the official statement, this information must be delivered no later than the settlement of the transaction.
Interpretive Guidance - Interpretive Notices
Publication date:
Educational Notice on Bonds Subject to "Detachable" Call Features
Rule Number:

Rule G-15, Rule G-47

New products are constantly being introduced into the municipal securities market. Dealers must ensure that, prior to effecting transactions with customers in municipal securities with new features, they obtain all necessary information regarding these features. The Board will attempt periodically through educational notices to describe new products or features of municipal securities and review the responsibilities of dealers to customers in these transactions. In this notice, the Board will review detachable call features.

Certain recent issues of municipal securities include a new feature called a detachable call right. This feature allows the issuer to sell its right to call the bond. Thus, upon the sale of this call right, the owner of the right has the ability, at certain times, to require the mandatory tender of the underlying municipal bond. The dates of mandatory tender of the underlying bonds generally correlate with the optional call dates. If the holder exercises such rights, the underlying bondholder tenders its bond to the issuer (just as if the issuer had called the bond) and the holder of the call right purchases the bond. In some instances, issuers already have issued municipal call rights and the underlying bonds in such cases are sometimes referred to as being subject to "detached" call rights.

Bonds subject to detachable call rights generally include a provision that permits an investor that owns both the detached call right and the underlying bond to link the two instruments together, subject to certain conditions. Such "linked" municipal securities would not be subject to being called at certain times by holders of call rights or the issuer. They may, however, be subject to other calls, such as sinking fund provisions. If a customer obtains a linked security, thereafter the customer has the option to de-link the security, again subject to certain conditions, into a municipal call right and an underlying bond subject to a right of mandatory tender.

 

Applicability of Board Rules

Of course, the Board’s rules apply to bonds subject to detachable call features and "linked" securities just as they apply to all other municipal securities. The Board, however, would like to remind dealers of certain Board rules that should be considered in transactions involving these municipal securities.

Rule G-15(a) on Customer Confirmations

Rule G-15(a)(i)(E)[*] requires customer confirmations to set forth "a description of the securities, including… if the securities are… subject to redemption prior to maturity…, an indication to such effect." Additionally, rule G-15(a)(iii)(F)[*] requires a legend to be placed on customer confirmations of transactions in callable securities which notes that "Call features may exist which could affect yield; complete information will be provided upon request."

Confirmations of transactions in bonds subject to detachable call rights, therefore, would have to indicate this information.[1] In addition, the details of the call provisions of such securities would have to be provided to the customer upon the customer’s request.

Confirmation disclosure, however, serves merely to support—not to satisfy—a dealer’s general disclosure obligations. More specifically, the disclosure items required on the confirmation do not encompass "all material facts" that must be disclosed to customers at the time of trade pursuant to rule G-17.

Rule G-17 on Fair Dealing

Rule G-17 of the Board’s rules of fair practice requires municipal securities dealers to deal fairly with all persons and prohibits them from engaging in any deceptive, dishonest, or unfair practice. The Board has interpreted this rule to require that a dealer must disclose, at or before the sale of municipal securities to a customer, all material facts concerning the transaction, including a complete description of the security, and must not omit any material facts which would render other statements misleading. Among other things, a dealer must disclose at the time of trade whether a security may be redeemed prior to maturity in-whole, in-part, or in extraordinary circumstances because this knowledge is essential to a customer’s investment decision.

Clearly, bonds subject to detachable calls must be described as callable at the time of the trade.[2] In addition, if a dealer is asked by a customer at the time of trade for specific information regarding call features, this information must be obtained and relayed promptly.

Although the Board requires dealers to indicate to customers at the time of trade whether municipal securities are callable, the Board has not categorized which, if any, specific call features it considers to be material and therefore also must be disclosed. Instead, the Board believes that it is the responsibility of the dealer to determine whether a particular feature is material.

With regard to detachable calls, dealers must decide whether the ability of a third party to call the bond is a material fact that should be disclosed to investors. Dealers should make this determination in the same way they determine whether other facets of a municipal securities transaction are material—is it a fact that a reasonable investor would want to know when making an investment decision? For example, would a reasonable investor who knows a bond is callable base an investment decision on whether someone other than the issuer can call the bond? Does this new feature affect the pricing of the bond?

*  *  *

The Board is continuing its review of detachable call rights and may take additional related action at a later date. The Board welcomes the views of all persons on the application of Board rules to transactions in securities subject to detachable call rights.


[1] With regard to the confirmation requirement for linked securities, if these securities are subject to other call provisions such as sinking fund calls, the customer confirmation must indicate that these securities are callable.

 

[2] Similarly, when considering the application of rule G-17 to transactions in "linked" securities, as with other municipal securities, dealers have the obligation to ensure that investors understand the features of the security. In particular, if a linked security to other call provisions, dealers should ensure that retail customers do not mistakenly believe the bond is "non-callable."

[*] [Currently codified at rule G-15(a)(i)(C)(2)(a)]