The MSRB wishes to remind brokers,
dealers and municipal securities dealers (collectively “dealers”)
that certain elements of the rule changes concerning minimum
denominations become effective for issues issued after June
1, 2002. The rule changes consist of an amendment to Rule G-15,
on confirmation, clearance, settlement and other uniform practice
requirements with respect to transactions with customers, an
interpretation of Rule G-17, on conduct of municipal securities
activities, and a Rule G-8 recordkeeping requirement.
The amendment to Rule G-15 prohibits dealers from
effecting transactions with customers in below-minimum denomination
amounts for securities issued after June 1, 2002. There are
two limited exceptions to this rule. First, dealers may purchase
a below-minimum denomination position from a customer provided
that the customer liquidates his or her entire position. Second,
dealers may sell such a liquidated position to another customer
but would be required to provide written disclosure, either
on the confirmation or separately, to the effect that the security
position is below the minimum denomination and that liquidity
may be adversely affected by this fact. While it will be possible
for a customer to liquidate a below-minimum denomination position,
the liquidated position has to be kept whole and cannot be further
subdivided as it is sold in the secondary market. The amendment
to Rule G-8 requires that, if written disclosure is provided
on a separate document for sales to customers under the second
exception of Rule G-15, dealers retain such disclosure for a
period of at least three years.
The interpretation of Rule G-17, which became effective
upon SEC approval on January 30, 2002, applies regardless of
the date of issuance of the securities involved. The interpretation
states that any time a dealer is selling to a customer a quantity
of municipal securities below the minimum denomination for the
issue, the dealer should consider this to be a material fact
about the transaction. The MSRB believes that a dealer’s failure
to disclose such a material fact to the customer, and to explain
how this could affect the liquidity of the customer’s position,
generally would constitute a violation of the dealer’s duty
under Rule G-17 to disclose all material facts about the transaction
to the customer.
May 15, 2002