The MSRB
has received reports of problems with automated comparison and transaction
reporting of certain inter-dealer transactions involving syndicate
managers. These reports indicate that
some dealers may have incorrectly identified some of their when, as and if
issued (“when-issued”) transactions in new issue municipal securities as
“syndicate transactions.” The MSRB
reminds dealers that erroneous coding of comparison reports is a violation of
Rule G-14, on transaction reporting, and that transactions with dealers that
are not members of the syndicate or selling group for a new issue, by definition,
cannot be considered “syndicate transactions” for purposes of comparison
procedures.
MSRB Rule
G-12(f), on automated comparison of inter-dealer transactions, requires dealers
to submit for automated comparison all transactions eligible for comparison
under National Securities Clearing Corporation’s (NSCC) rules and
procedures. For transactions by a
syndicate manager with syndicate or selling group members, NSCC procedures call
for the use of a special “syndicate” submission, which does not require a submission
by the contra-side for comparison to occur.[1] Transactions between syndicate managers and
dealers that are not members of the syndicate or selling group are not
“syndicate transactions” under NSCC’s rules and procedures and both the selling
and purchasing dealers are required to report its side to the transaction for
automated comparison.
Various problems arise in the
comparison process if the parties to a trade do not follow the correct
procedures for comparison of the trade.
Moreover, since the trade report submitted for comparison also serves as
the transaction report to the MSRB, identifying a transaction as a “syndicate
transaction” in trade reports, when such transaction is not a syndicate
transaction under NSCC’s rules and procedures, represents a violation of a
dealer’s obligation to accurately report transactions to the MSRB under Rule
G-14.
Questions
on this notice should be directed to Justin Pica, Uniform Practice Specialist.
September 28, 2004