Select regulatory documents by category:
Back to top
Notice 2014-08 - Request for Comment
Publication date: | Comment due:
Information for:

Bank Dealers, Dealers, Municipal Advisors


1.  Arrow Partners: Letter from Steven Rubenstein dated May 16, 2014

2.  Association of Registration Management: Letter from Michele Van Tassel, President, dated May 16, 2014

3.  Bond Dealers of America: Letter from Michael Nicholas, Chief Executive Officer, dated May 16, 2014

4.  Cedar Partners Ltd: Letter from Christy Ping, Director/Chief Compliance Officer, dated May 16, 2014

5.  Central States Capital Markets: E-mail from Mark Detter dated April 17, 2014

6.  CFA Institute: Letter from Inigo Bengoechea, Director, and Dan Larocco, Manager, dated April 25, 2014

7.  Compass Securities Corporation: Letter from John R. Ahern, President

8.  Dixworks LLC: E-mail from Dennis Dix, Jr. dated April 11, 2014

9.  Fitzgibbon Toigo Associates, LLC: E-mail from Brian X. Fitzgibbon dated May 16, 2014

10.  Fortress Group, Inc.: Letter from Bruce A. Williamson, Managing Director and Chief Compliance Officer, dated May 16, 2014

11.  Frank Taylor: E-mail dated March 19, 2014

12.  George K. Baum & Company: Letter from Guy E. Yandel, EVP Public Finance, Dana L. Bjornson, EVP and Chief Compliance Officer, and Andrew F. Sears, SVP and General Counsel, dated May 16, 2014

13.  Government Credit Corporation: E-mail from Joseph Mooney dated March 18, 2014

14.  Hamersley Partners, LLC: Letter from Andrew Phillips, Principal and CCO, dated May 16, 2014

15.  IMMS LLC: E-mail from John Daly dated May 16, 2014

16.  Investment Company Institute: Letter from Tamara K. Salmon, Senior Associate Counsel, dated May 8, 2014

17.  Jorge Rosso: E-mail dated April 3, 2014

18.  Monahan & Roth, LLC: Letter from Lisa Roth, President, dated May 16, 2014

19.  MVision Private Equity Advisers USA LLC: Letter from Victoria Sherliker, General Counsel, dated May 16, 2014

20.  National Association of Independent Public Finance Advisors: Letter from Jeanine Rodgers Caruso, President, dated May 16, 2014

21.  New Albany Capital Partners, LLC: Letter from Rick Wayman dated May 14, 2014

22.  Oyster River Capital LP: Letter from Richard A. Murphy dated May 16, 2014

23.  Perkins Fund Marketing LLC: Letter from Gilman C. Perkins, Principal and Managing Member, dated May 16, 2014

24.  Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc.: Letter from Alexis F. Warmath, Vice President, and Christopher P.N. Woodcock, President, Woodcock & Associates, Inc., dated May 16, 2014

25.  Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association: Letter from Leslie M. Norwood, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, dated May 16, 2014

26.  Sonja Sullivan: E-mail dated May 16, 2014

27.  Stacy Havener: E-mail dated May 16, 2014

28.  Stonehaven: Letter from Steven Jafarzadeh, Managing Director and Partner, dated May 16, 2014

29.  Tessera Capital Partners: Letter from Donna DiMaria, CEO/CCO, dated May 16, 2014

30.  Third Party Marketers Association: Letter from Donna DiMaria, Chairman of the Board of Directors, dated May 16, 2014

31. Tibor Partners Inc.: E-mail from William Johnston dated March 18, 2014

32. Timothy D. Wasson: Letter

33.  Yuba Group: Letter from Linda Fan, Managing Partner, dated April 28, 2014

34.  Zions First National Bank: Letter from W. David Hemingway, Executive Vice President, dated May 16, 2014

35.  Zions First National Bank: Letter from James G. Livingston, Senior Vice President, dated May 16, 2014

Interpretive Guidance - Interpretive Letters
Publication date:
Execution of Infrequent Unsolicited Orders
Rule Number:

Rule G-2, Rule G-3

Execution of infrequent unsolicited orders. This is in response to your letter in which you state that your firm is a discount broker that executes orders on an unsolicited basis and that occasionally a customer will approach your firm to sell a municipal security they own or to purchase a specific issue.  You ask that the Board give consideration to allowing a firm like yours to act as a broker/dealer for customers on an unsolicited basis without being required to have an associated person qualified as a municipal securities principal.

Rule G-2, on standards of professional qualification, states that no dealer shall effect any transaction in, or induce or attempt to induce the purchase or sale of, any municipal security unless such dealer and every natural person associated with such dealer is qualified in accordance with the rules of the Board.  Rule G-3, on professional qualifications, states that a dealer that conducts a general securities business shall have at least one associated person qualified as a municipal securities principal to supervise the dealer’s municipal securities activities.

The Board’s rules do not provide an exemption from the numerical requirements for municipal securities principals based on the type of transactions in municipal securities in which a dealer engages.  There also is no exemption from the Board’s rules based on a de minimus number of transactions in municipal securities.  MSRB interpretation of October 2, 1998.

Interpretive Guidance - Interpretive Letters
Publication date:
Underwriting Aassessment: Application to Private Placements
Rule Number:

Rule A-13

Underwriting assessment: application to private placements. This is in response to your request for a clarification of the application of Board rule A-13, concerning the underwriting assessment for municipal securities brokers and municipal securities dealers, to private placements of municipal securities.

Rule A-13 imposes an assessment fee on the underwriting of new issue municipal securities as an equitable means of defraying the costs and expenses of operating the Board. The assessment fee applies to new issue municipal securities which are "... purchased from an issuer by or through [a] municipal securities broker, or municipal securities dealer, whether acting as principal or agent." The Board has consistently interpreted the rule as requiring payment of the assessment fee where a municipal securities dealer acting as agent for the issuer arranges the direct placement of new issue municipal securities with institutional customers or individuals. In such cases it can be said that the securities are purchased from an issuer "through" the municipal securities dealer.

Of course, a municipal securities dealer who serves in an advisory role to an issuer on such matters as the structure or timing of a new issue, but who plays no part in arranging a private placement of the securities, would not be required to pay the assessment fee prescribed by rule A-13. MSRB interpretation of February 22, 1982.

Interpretive Guidance - Interpretive Letters
Publication date:
Underwriting Assessment: Intrastate Underwriting
Rule Number:

Rule A-13

Underwriting assessment: intrastate underwriting. This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated March 3, 1978 requesting that [Company name deleted] be granted an exemption from rule A-13 of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (the "Board"). Rule A-13 requires municipal securities brokers and municipal securities dealers to pay a fee to the Board based on their municipal securities underwriting activity. In your letter, you suggest that "the Company" should not be subject to the underwriting assessment imposed by the rule because it engages only in intrastate sales of municipal securities "to registered broker-dealers or institutional investors."

As a technical matter, although the Board has the authority to interpret its rules and to amend them through prescribed statutory procedures, the Board does not have the authority to grant exemptions from the rules. The authority to grant exemptions is vested in the Securities and Exchange Commission by section 15B(a)(4) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act").

In considering whether "the Company" should request an exemption from the Commission, the following information concerning rule A-13 may be helpful. The purpose of rule A-13 is to provide a reasonable and equitable means of defraying the costs and expenses of operating and administering the Board, as contemplated by section 15B(b)(2)(J) of the Act. The rule applies to all municipal securities dealers, with respect to their municipal securities underwriting activities, and covers situations in which new issue municipal securities are sold by or through a municipal securities professional to other securities professionals and institutional customers, as well as to individuals.

With respect to the intrastate character of "the Company's" underwriting activity, we note that certain provisions of the Securities Acts Amendments of 1975 (Pub. L. 94-29) had the effect of including within the scope of municipal securities dealer regulation the intrastate activities of municipal securities dealers. (See sections 3(a)(17), 15(a)(1) and 15B(a)(1) of the Act.) Rule A-13 makes no distinction between interstate and intrastate offerings. MSRB interpretation of March 27, 1978.

Interpretive Guidance - Interpretive Notices
Publication date:
Interpretive Notice on Underwriting Assessment
Rule Number:

Rule A-13

The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (the “Board”) has received several requests for interpretation of rule A-13, which requires each municipal securities broker and municipal securities dealer to pay the Board a fee [on] … the face amount of municipal securities purchased from an issuer as part of a new issue. These requests concern the applicability of the fee to securities which have a stated maturity of [nine months or less], but are part of a new issue having a final stated maturity of [more than nine months]. Rule A-13 is intended to impose the … underwriting assessment on the face amount of all securities purchased from an issuer that are part of a new issue of municipal securities if any part of the issue has a final stated maturity of [nine months or less]… from the date of the securities. Thus, calculation of the fee should be based upon all municipal securities which are part of such new issue, including securities having a stated maturity of [nine months or less]. The assessment is not intended to apply, however, to short-term issues having a final maturity of [nine months or less].
NOTE: Revised to reflect subsequent amendments.