In November 1998, the MSRB published an interpretation about the use of electronic media to deliver and receive information by brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers under Board rules (the “1998 interpretation”).  Since that time, the MSRB has been granted rulemaking authority over municipal advisors, and in the exercise of that authority, the MSRB has been developing a comprehensive regulatory framework for municipal advisors.

 

The Board believes that the use of electronic media to deliver and receive information under Board rules also is important for municipal advisors, and extends the guidance provided in the 1998 interpretation, as relevant, to municipal advisors.  See Rule G-32 Interpretation – Notice Regarding Electronic Delivery and Receipt of Information by Brokers, Dealers and Municipal Securities Dealers (November 20, 1998).

 

The MSRB is providing interpretive guidance to address the applicability of Rule G-42, which establishes core standards of conduct for municipal advisors [1] that engage in municipal advisory activities,[2] other than municipal advisory solicitation activities (for purposes of this guidance and Rule G-42, “municipal advisors”), in the area of conduit financing. Using various scenarios, the guidance discusses a municipal advisor’s relationship(s) with, and duties and obligations owed to, a municipal entity issuer, an obligated person that is a conduit borrower,[3] or both, in connection with the issuance of municipal securities for the conduit borrower. For purposes of this guidance, the MSRB assumes that the conduit borrower is not a municipal entity, as defined in Section 15B(e)(8) of the Exchange Act, except in the final section of the guidance entitled, “When a Conduit Borrower is also a Municipal Entity.”

 

A few broad principles should be noted. First, institutions that are often conduit borrowers, such as large universities, may choose to issue debt securities directly without the involvement of a municipal entity issuer. The exemption from registration under the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”)[4] may be based on Section 3(a)(4)[5] or Regulation D under the Securities Act,[6] rather than on Section 3(a)(2).[7] In such cases, there may be no municipal security, and Rule G-42 would not apply. In cases where there is a private placement “tail” (i.e., a non-municipal security) side-by-side with the issuance of a tax-exempt municipal security, the advice and the activities a municipal advisor engages in regarding the tax-exempt security, including any conduct or communication to fulfill the municipal advisor’s duties and obligations under Rule G-42, may have an impact or consequences for the municipal advisor with respect to its negotiations or other activities related to the non-municipal security (e.g., the disclosure to the client of a material conflict of interest as required under Rule G-42(b)).

 

Second, the scenarios described below may involve advice given to both the municipal entity issuer and the conduit borrower. Rule G-42 provides that a fiduciary duty is owed only to a municipal entity, and a duty of care is owed to both the municipal entity and the conduit borrower. If an issue arises as to an activity that involves only the duty of care, such as inquiry as to the facts that provide the basis for advice provided to the client, the duty owed may be the same to both the municipal entity and the conduit borrower. Other issues, however, may involve the duty of loyalty owed the municipal entity as part of the municipal advisor’s fiduciary duty, and thus the municipal advisor’s obligation to the issuer may be higher (or different) than the duty owed the conduit borrower.

 

Initially, the MSRB provides interpretive guidance regarding the applicability of Rule G-42 when an issuer hires a municipal advisor to provide advice directly to a conduit borrower (“First Scenario”). The MSRB then considers whether an issuer may retain a municipal advisor (either for a specific transaction, or on a long-term basis), and then provide advice that the issuer obtains from the municipal advisor, in connection with a specific issuance of municipal securities, indirectly through the issuer, to the conduit borrower in connection with the issuance (“Second Scenario”). In a third scenario, the MSRB considers whether a conduit borrower may retain a municipal advisor that, as a practical matter, will also provide advice to an issuer on which the issuer will rely, in cases where the issuer chooses not to retain a separate municipal advisor, and, in such circumstances, whether the municipal advisor must provide the issuer the disclosures set forth in Rule G-42 (“Third Scenario”). The MSRB also provides interpretive guidance regarding the application of Rule G-42 to an issuer and a conduit borrower when the issuer and the conduit borrower retain the same municipal advisor to provide advice regarding an issuance (“Fourth Scenario”). Finally, in a fifth scenario (“Fifth Scenario”), the MSRB interprets the applicability of Rule G-42 to a scenario involving two natural persons, A and B, who are employees or otherwise associated persons of a registered municipal advisor, where A is retained by the issuer to provide municipal advisory services to the issuer, and B is retained by the conduit borrower to provide municipal advisory services to the conduit borrower.

 

Section 1: First Scenario

 

In the First Scenario, the MSRB considers the applicability of Rule G-42, when, in connection with a specific issuance of municipal securities, an issuer hires a municipal advisor to provide advice directly to a conduit borrower. (For purposes of the First Scenario, the MSRB assumes that the municipal advisor does not provide municipal advisory services to the issuer. Instead, consistent with the issuer’s intent, the municipal advisor is retained for, and in fact, provides municipal advisory services solely to or on behalf of the conduit borrower.)

 

Under Rule G-42, a municipal advisor may provide municipal advisory services directly to a conduit borrower, in connection with an issuance of municipal securities by an issuer, if the municipal advisor is retained and compensated by the issuer. Whether a person (in this case, the municipal advisor retained by the issuer) is a municipal advisor to the issuer, another person (in this case, the conduit borrower), or both and therefore is subject to Rule G-42, is activity-based and turns on whether the person is providing advice or otherwise engaging in municipal advisory activities for or on behalf of the recipient. Although the First Scenario focuses on the payment of compensation by the issuer, the existence or non-existence of compensation is not a factor in determining whether the municipal advisor is a municipal advisor to the issuer or to the conduit borrower.[8] In addition, the fact that, as to the conduit borrower, the municipal advisor is paid compensation by a third party is also not a factor in determining if the municipal advisor is a municipal advisor to the conduit borrower.

 

In the First Scenario, the municipal advisor engages in municipal advisory activities solely for or on behalf of the conduit borrower, and is subject to the requirements of Rule G-42. The municipal advisor is required to comply with all the provisions of Rule G-42 as to the conduit borrower,[9] and the rule applies in all respects to the municipal advisor in its relationship with the conduit borrower, except provisions applicable solely to a municipal entity client.

 

The threshold question regarding the application of Rule G-42 to the municipal advisor in its relationship to the issuer is whether the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) would interpret the facts and circumstances of the First Scenario – where the issuer does not receive the municipal advisory services, and the services are in fact provided solely to and on behalf of the conduit borrower – as the municipal advisor engaging (as a legal matter) in municipal advisory activities also to or on behalf of the issuer.

 

The Exchange Act definition of municipal advisor includes a person that “[p]rovides advice[10] to or on behalf of [emphasis added] a municipal entity or obligated person with respect to municipal financial products or the issuance of municipal securities, including advice with respect to the structure, timing, terms, and other similar matters concerning such financial products or issues.”[11] The SEC has stated that the determination of “whether a person provides advice to or on behalf of a municipal entity or an obligated person regarding municipal financial products or the issuance of municipal securities depends on all the relevant facts and circumstances.”[12] The meaning of the phrase “on behalf of” in the context of the First Scenario and more broadly, whether a person is engaged in municipal advisory activities for or on behalf of another person and is a municipal advisor to such person are interpretive issues that are solely within the jurisdiction of the SEC. Requests for interpretation regarding such issues should be directed to the SEC’s Office of Municipal Securities.

 

If, in the First Scenario, the activities of the municipal advisor with the issuer are not interpreted by the SEC to mean that the municipal advisor is also a municipal advisor to the issuer, then the municipal advisor would not be required to comply with Rule G-42 with respect to the issuer. For example, the municipal advisor would not be required by Rule G-42 to provide disclosures of conflicts of interest, if any existed, to the issuer.

 

Although compensation is not a factor in determining whether a person is a municipal advisor to a particular party (except as to a solicitor municipal advisor), the MSRB believes that, in the First Scenario, the compensation paid by the issuer to the municipal advisor for services for a conduit borrower may present a material conflict of interest, requiring the municipal advisor to make full and fair disclosure of such conflict in writing to the conduit borrower. Rule G-42 requires a municipal advisor to disclose all material conflicts of interest under Rule G-42(b)(i). (Such requirements are also incorporated in Rule G-42(c)). The requirement is not limited to actual material conflicts of interest. As provided in Rule G-42(b)(i)(F), for example, the municipal advisor must disclose potential material conflicts of interest that the municipal advisor becomes aware of after reasonable inquiry, that could reasonably be anticipated to impair the municipal advisor’s ability to provide advice to or on behalf of the client in accordance with the applicable standards of conduct under the Rule – the duty of care, and if applicable, the duty of loyalty. In this scenario, the client is the conduit borrower and the municipal advisor owes its client the duty of care as provided in Rule G‑42(a)(i) and SM .01.[13] Even if the compensation paid by the issuer to the municipal advisor is not viewed as an actual material conflict of interest by the municipal advisor, the municipal advisor must carefully consider if such payments give rise to a potential material conflict of interest. In the MSRB’s view, the payments from the issuer to the municipal advisor may create a relationship between the municipal advisor and the issuer, that even if not a municipal advisor-client relationship, generally would give rise to a potential material conflict of interest that could reasonably be anticipated to impair the municipal advisor’s ability to provide advice to or on behalf of the conduit borrower in accordance with the standards of Rule G-42(a). Before making any such disclosures to the conduit borrower, the municipal advisor should consider the guidance set forth in SM .05. Under SM .05, when a municipal advisor is required to make disclosures of material conflicts of interest, including those required under Rule G-42(b)(i)(F), the municipal advisor’s disclosures must be sufficiently detailed to inform the conduit borrower of the nature, implications and potential consequences of each conflict, and must also include an explanation of how the municipal advisor addresses or intends to manage or mitigate each conflict.

 

Finally, the relationship between the issuer and the municipal advisor, however characterized or limited, may create other compliance concerns under Rule G-42. For example, in some cases, the issuer, although not the client, may wish to provide policy direction or instructions to the municipal advisor regarding the issuance of the municipal securities. If the issuer communicates, explicitly or implicitly, an instruction or direction which the municipal advisor follows and which inhibited or limited the municipal advisor’s ability to fulfill its duties and obligations to the conduit borrower client under Rule G-42, the municipal advisor would violate the rule.

 

Section 2: Second Scenario

 

The MSRB has been asked to provide guidance regarding a scenario where a municipal advisor is engaged in municipal advisory activities as directed by an issuer and for such issuer, pursuant to an explicit arrangement or agreement, and the municipal advisor “indirectly” also provides advice to a conduit borrower, because the issuer provides to the conduit borrower the advice the issuer receives from the municipal advisor. For purposes of this Second Scenario, the MSRB assumes that the municipal advisor is aware of the flow of information from the issuer to the conduit borrower.

 

To assess whether the municipal advisor owes duties to the conduit borrower when the municipal advisor provides advice to the issuer that then flows through to the conduit borrower, again, a threshold question must be answered: Is the municipal advisor also engaged in municipal advisory activities for or on behalf of the conduit borrower because the conduit borrower is receiving, through the issuer, some or all of the advice that was provided by the municipal advisor to the issuer, establishing a municipal advisory relationship between the municipal advisor and the conduit borrower?

 

As set forth above, the SEC has stated that the determination of “whether a person provides advice to or on behalf of a municipal entity or an obligated person regarding municipal financial products or the issuance of municipal securities depends on all the relevant facts and circumstances,”[14] and whether a person is engaged in municipal advisory activities for or on behalf of another person and is a municipal advisor to such person are interpretive issues that are solely within the jurisdiction of the SEC.[15] 

 

 

If, in the Second Scenario, the transfer of advice from the issuer to the conduit borrower is interpreted by the SEC to mean that the municipal advisor is engaged in municipal advisory activities for or on behalf of the conduit borrower, the municipal advisor must comply with the requirements of Rule G-42 with respect to the issuer and the conduit borrower. This dual representation may raise several compliance issues.

 

Rule G-42 distinguishes the duties and obligations that a municipal advisor owes to an issuer client (i.e., a municipal entity) from those owed to a conduit borrower client in two provisions. First, in the conduct of all municipal advisory activities for and on behalf of an issuer client, a municipal advisor is subject to a fiduciary duty as provided in Rule G-42(a)(ii). The fiduciary duty is more specifically described as a requirement to act in accordance with a duty of loyalty[16] and a duty of care,[17] as described in, respectively, SM .02 and SM .01. In contrast and as discussed above, when the municipal advisor’s client is a conduit borrower, the municipal advisor owes a duty of care to the client as provided in Rule G-42(a)(i) and SM .01, but not a duty of loyalty. Second, in connection with a municipal advisor’s municipal advisory activities for and on behalf of an issuer client, a municipal advisor, and any affiliate of the municipal advisor, is prohibited from engaging in certain principal transactions with the issuer, as provided in Rule G-42(e)(ii).[18] This specific prohibition does not apply to a municipal advisor when its client is a conduit borrower. However, all other provisions and protections in Rule G-42 apply in the same manner to a municipal advisor whether its client is an issuer (i.e., a municipal entity) or a conduit borrower. For example, municipal advisors must provide the same timely disclosures of material conflicts of interest and material legal and disciplinary events in the earliest stages of their dealings with their conduit borrower clients as they provide to their municipal entity clients (and supplement such disclosures as necessary during the relationship). Similarly, municipal advisors have the same obligations to an issuer client and a conduit borrower to provide written documentation of the municipal advisory relationship (and supplement such documentation as necessary during the relationship). Also, if a municipal advisor makes a recommendation of a municipal securities transaction to either type of client, the municipal advisor must have a reasonable basis to believe that the recommended municipal securities transaction is suitable for the client.

 

The MSRB believes that a municipal advisor’s dual representation of an issuer and a conduit borrower with respect to the same issuance raises at least two types of compliance issues and concerns. First, the differing standards and other distinctions that Rule G-42 makes between issuer clients and conduit borrower clients will require a municipal advisor to consider whether, in every aspect of its conduct and representation, the municipal advisor acts in compliance with the more stringent standard applicable to its issuer client, and also fulfills its duties and obligations to its conduit borrower client. Moreover, under Rule G-42, compliance concerns and issues may require greater diligence to identify and address, because although certain duties and obligations are specified in Rule G-42(a)(i) and (ii) and SM. 01 and SM .02, generally, all of the specific duties or obligations that fall under the broad umbrella of the fiduciary duty cannot be specifically enumerated. Among other things, the MSRB cannot anticipate and identify all the situations that may arise in a particular offering, and, as a result, the rule cannot provide explicit instruction or guidance to a municipal advisor to an issuer, regarding what acts must be taken (or avoided) or what must be communicated (or not communicated) to an issuer to comply fully with the municipal advisor’s fiduciary duty. Similarly, all duties and obligations that a municipal advisor owes to a conduit borrower under the duty of care in a particular offering also cannot be specifically enumerated for the same reasons.

 

Further, when compliance issues or concerns arise, whether the duty owed is a fiduciary duty (a duty of loyalty and a duty of care) or a duty of care, under Rule G-42 and SM .04, the standards of conduct applicable to the municipal advisor and, except as provided in SM .04, the duties and obligations owed to the municipal advisor’s client(s), cannot be eliminated, diminished or modified by disclosure, mutual agreement or otherwise. SM .04 makes clear that nothing in the rule shall be construed to permit a municipal advisor to alter the standards of conduct or impose limitations on any of the duties prescribed in Rule G-42. For example, in various requests for guidance, the MSRB was asked, regarding dual representations, if the MSRB could confirm a municipal advisor engaged in dual representations could continue its representation of both clients if full and fair disclosures of any conflicts of interest or other issues were made to both clients. Generally, disclosure alone would not be sufficient for a municipal advisor to ensure, in all facts and circumstances, that a municipal advisor would be in compliance with all the duties and obligations owed to one or both clients, including, as to a fiduciary, the obligation of a municipal advisor not to “engage in municipal advisory activities for a municipal entity client if it cannot manage or mitigate its conflicts of interest in a manner that will permit it to act in the municipal entity’s best interests.”[19] However, certain limitations may be placed on the scope of a municipal advisory relationship with a client, and the ability to do so is not limited to dual representation scenarios. Under SM .04, if requested or expressly consented to by a client, a municipal advisor may limit the scope of the municipal advisory activities to be performed to certain specified activities or services. (The effectiveness of any such specified limitation of the scope of municipal advisory activities may be negated, however, if the municipal advisor then engages in a course of conduct that is inconsistent with the specified limitations.)

 

In the Second Scenario and any other scenario involving a dual representation, before entering into the dual representation, a municipal advisor must determine if it is possible to meet its duties and obligations to both clients under Rule G-42. The municipal advisor must determine it can comply with Rule G-42 when the duties and obligations owed to one client, the issuer, are more stringent and more difficult to fulfill, than those duties and obligations that the municipal advisor owes to the second client, the conduit borrower. Among other things, the duty of loyalty owed to the issuer requires a municipal advisor to act in the best interests of the issuer client without regard to the financial or other interests of the municipal advisor. The municipal advisor must consider whether it will be able to act consistently with this standard during the entire engagement while also providing municipal advisory services to the conduit borrower client, without putting its interests or the interests of the conduit borrower, before or above those of the issuer client, including not providing any advantages or benefits to itself or any other client to the loss or detriment of the issuer, including any financial loss or lost opportunity.

 

In addition, as discussed above, in all municipal advisory relationships, a municipal advisor must identify and disclose to its client material conflicts of interest, after reasonable inquiry, and such disclosures must be sufficiently detailed to inform the client of the nature, implications and potential consequences of each conflict. In the MSRB’s view, conflicts of interest are, in most cases, inherent in a dual representation, although they may not always be material. In a dual representation, the MSRB believes that such conflicts of interest should be identified prior to or upon engaging in municipal advisory activities with each client. Further, in the MSRB’s view, the potential for an identified, but non-material conflict to become a material conflict of interest during the dual representation is great enough that the municipal advisor will have an obligation to make an initial disclosure pursuant to Rule G-42(b)(i)(F), of the facts and circumstances of the dual representation, how such dual representation is a potential material conflict of interest and the risk that such conflict could reasonably be anticipated to impair the municipal advisor’s ability to dually represent both clients in accordance with the standards of conduct under Rule G-42(a).[20] Further, for each client, the municipal advisor must include an explanation of how the municipal advisor addresses or intends to manage or mitigate each conflict, as provided in SM .05.

 

However, because the municipal advisor owes a fiduciary duty to one client but not the other, if any material conflict of interest is identified that the municipal advisor cannot manage or mitigate in a manner that will permit the municipal advisor to act in the issuer’s best interests, the municipal advisor must not engage in, or must cease engaging in, the municipal advisory activities for the issuer. Practically, this would require the municipal advisor to terminate the relationship with the issuer, or act to eliminate the material conflict of interest. For example, if such conflicts derive from the municipal advisor’s relationship with the conduit borrower, as an alternative to terminating its relationship with the issuer, the municipal advisor may be able to eliminate such material conflicts by amending or terminating its relationship with the conduit borrower. The MSRB notes that, in either scenario, the municipal advisor’s elimination of its conflicts of interest, by terminating its relationship with the issuer, or by amending or terminating its municipal advisory relationship with the conduit borrower, may create both legal and related business issues. If termination of the municipal advisory relationship with the issuer or the conduit borrower is required, among other things, the termination may have a detrimental impact on the schedule or costs of completing the issuance, or impair the terminated client’s ability to obtain informed advice. For these reasons, municipal advisors are cautioned to determine before or upon beginning a dual representation how either municipal advisory relationship would be modified or terminated if the municipal advisor is no longer able to comply with its Rule G-42 obligations in a dual representation. Among other things, a municipal advisor may wish to consider if, prior to finalizing the initial documentation of the municipal advisory relationship as required in Rule G-42(c), the municipal advisor should negotiate the specific terms and conditions that would apply to a future termination of a municipal advisory relationship with either of the clients. As required by Rule G-42(c), if specific terms regarding termination are agreed upon, such terms must be incorporated in the writing(s) that document the municipal advisory relationship.[21]

 

An example of a difficult circumstance for the municipal advisor to resolve arises when, for example, a major university or hospital chain is engaged in multiple conduit financings in different jurisdictions around the country. The conduit borrower may have developed a certain type of financing to fit within its own broader financing plan, such as consistently structured variable rate securities. One state education authority, which is approached by the university conduit borrower, may, however, have a strong policy against the issuance of variable rate debt. The municipal advisor should bring the conflict to both parties at the earliest possible stage in the financing and make a determination whether it can advise both parties and fulfill its obligations under Rule G-42.

 

The MSRB also cautions municipal advisors that neither the facts and circumstances characterizing an issuance involving an issuer and a conduit borrower, nor the duties and obligations under Rule G-42 as applied to a relationship, are static or fixed. The requirements of Rule G-42 apply at any time during which municipal advisory activities are engaged in for or on behalf of an issuer or a conduit borrower, and with equal rigor throughout the representation. For example, although the standards of conduct do not change, as facts and circumstances change, a municipal advisor must assess if, under such changed circumstances, there are specific acts, duties or obligations that are not enumerated under Rule G-42 that must be performed or attended to arising from the broad duty of care and, if applicable, duty of loyalty.[22] Rule G-42 also incorporates protections for municipal advisory clients in certain key provisions, which are based on the recognition that key facts and circumstances may change (i.e., the continuing obligation to provide promptly to a client amended or supplemental information in writing, regarding any changes and additions in the relationship documentation, such as amendments or supplements needed regarding the material conflicts of interest disclosures, or the disclosures regarding certain legal and disciplinary events).

 

Changes in the facts and circumstances regarding the municipal securities issuance, or in the municipal advisory relationships with an issuer, a conduit borrower or both may require the municipal advisor to review if such changes may affect its ability to continue the dual representation and fully comply with Rule G-42. Even if an issuer, a conduit borrower and a municipal advisor believe at the beginning of the dual representation that the issuer and conduit borrower will be in agreement on all major issues that may arise during the course of the issuance, the interests and goals of each client may diverge later. Either the issuer, the conduit borrower, or both, may develop substantially divergent views on issues material to the issuance. Municipal advisors considering dual representation should assess initially the extent to which the interests and goals of the issuer and the conduit borrower are the same or substantially similar and make reassessments periodically thereafter.

 

Although challenging, in certain circumstances, the MSRB believes that it may be possible for a municipal advisor to provide municipal advisory services to an issuer and, in the manner described in the Second Scenario, indirectly, to engage in municipal advisory activities for or on behalf of a conduit borrower and remain in compliance with Rule G-42. Specifically, the circumstances where dual representation as described in the Second Scenario may be most feasible are those where the interests of the issuer and the conduit borrower are aligned. This may occur when the issuer is created to finance a specific project for the benefit of a metropolitan area, or in instances where the issuer applies a policy-neutral or hands-off approach to proposed projects, provided that such projects and the related financings comply with fundamental legal requirements for issuance. In such circumstances where an issuer and a conduit borrower have a complete or substantially complete convergence of interests and goals, or where the issuer’s concerns are somewhat limited and related for the most part to determining that an issuance will fully comply with the applicable legal and regulatory requirements, it may be possible for the municipal advisor to deal honestly and with the utmost good faith and act in the best interests of the issuer without regard to the financial or other interests of the municipal advisor (including the municipal advisor’s financial or other interest arising from its relationship with the conduit borrower) as required under the duty of loyalty, and also meet its obligations to both clients under the duty of care. It also may be possible for the municipal advisor, which by the very status of its dual representation creates a potential material conflict of interest that must be disclosed in the initial disclosures made pursuant to Rule G-42(b), to manage or mitigate this and any other of “its conflicts of interest in a manner that will permit it to act in the municipal entity’s best interests,” as required under SM .02.

 

Conversely, where there is not a substantially complete convergence of interests and goals of the issuer and the conduit borrower, or when the shared interests and goals of the issuer and the conduit borrower at the beginning of the issuance process diverge during the course of the issuance, it may not be possible for a municipal advisor to fulfill its duties of loyalty and care to its municipal entity client, and also provide, under the duty of care, the appropriate expert professional advice to the conduit borrower and otherwise fulfill its obligations to the conduit borrower that arise under the duty of care. Although dual representation is possible, for every action taken during an issuance, it is incumbent upon a municipal advisor to assess and determine, as to each client, if such actions comply with the standards of conduct and other requirements under Rule G-42.

 

Given the broad scope of the duty of care and the broader and more strict obligations arising in a fiduciary relationship, the MSRB concludes that it may be possible for a municipal advisor in the Second Scenario to engage in dual representations for or on behalf of both an issuer and a conduit borrower, but the municipal advisor will face a number of challenges in such situations. Moreover, the challenges to fully and completely comply with its obligations to each client will be heightened in lengthier and more complex engagements.

 

Section 3: Third, Fourth and Fifth Scenarios

 

The Third, Fourth and Fifth Scenarios raise the same compliance issues and concerns under Rule G-42 as discussed in the First and Second Scenarios. In the Third Scenario, the municipal advisor, an issuer and a conduit borrower expressly recognize that the municipal advisor is retained by and provides municipal advisory services for the conduit borrower and, also, as a practical matter, provides advice to the issuer, on which the issuer relies.[23] Although in the Third Scenario, the conduit borrower, rather than the issuer compensates the municipal advisor, all the compliance and regulatory issues arising regarding Rule G-42 are the same as those discussed above regarding the Second Scenario.

 

In relation to the Third Scenario, municipal advisors also have requested guidance regarding the municipal advisor’s responsibilities to the issuer when the municipal advisor is retained and compensated by the conduit borrower. For example, does the municipal advisor have a fiduciary responsibility to the issuer to whom advice is being provided, and is the municipal advisor required to provide disclosures of conflicts of interest to the issuer? If the provision of such advice to the issuer means, under SEC rules, that the provider is a municipal advisor to the issuer, then the municipal advisor would be a fiduciary to the issuer and subject to all the duties and obligations under Rule G-42. Thus, the municipal advisor would be required, among other things, to comply with the requirements to make disclosures of material conflicts of interest as provided in Rule G-42(b), and to provide such conflicts of interest disclosures as part of the relationship documentation as provided in Rule G-42(c).

 

The Fourth Scenario is another scenario in which a municipal advisor is engaged in a dual representation of an issuer and a conduit borrower. Rule G-42 would apply in the Fourth Scenario in the same manner as it applies in the Second Scenario.

 

The Fifth Scenario is also an example of dual representation by one municipal advisor of an issuer and a conduit borrower regarding the same issuance of municipal securities and, thus, raises the same issues regarding the municipal advisor’s compliance with Rule G-42 that are discussed for the Second Scenario. The duties and obligations of Rule G-42 run not only from a municipal advisor firm’s associated persons but also from the municipal advisor firm to the issuer and the conduit borrower. Although, in the Fifth Scenario, one employee is designated to act on behalf of the issuer and a second is designated to act on behalf of the conduit borrower, the employees are agents of their employer, a single municipal advisor firm. In the MSRB’s view, therefore, how Rule G-42 applies in the Fifth Scenario does not differ in any material respect from the Second, Third and Fourth Scenarios. In a dual representation, and, in particular, a dual representation purposefully established from the beginning of the issuance, a municipal advisor firm having the capacity to do so is likely to rely on the services of more than one of its associated persons, whether structured to work in coordination as one team, or separately.

 

Section 4: When a Conduit Borrower is also a Municipal Entity

 

In the discussion above regarding the five scenarios, the MSRB assumes that, in dual representations, the issuer client is a municipal entity, and the second client, the conduit borrower, is not. As discussed above, because under the Exchange Act and Rule G-42, a municipal advisor owes more rigorous obligations and duties to a municipal entity client – that is, a fiduciary duty – than are owed to a conduit borrower, in certain scenarios involving dual representation, a municipal advisor may find it difficult, or not possible, to fully comply with its obligations to both clients under Rule G-42.

 

The MSRB recognizes that, at times, both the issuer and the conduit borrower are municipal entities, and, in this discussion, a conduit borrower that is a municipal entity is referred to as a municipal entity conduit borrower. In such cases, a municipal advisor that provides advice to or on behalf of the issuer and the municipal entity conduit borrower would owe the more rigorous duties required of a fiduciary to both clients equally (e.g., the municipal advisor would be required, in all contexts, to deal honestly and with the utmost good faith with the issuer and the municipal entity conduit borrower, and, as to each, to act in the client’s best interests without regard to the financial or other interests of the municipal advisor).

 

Before undertaking such a dual engagement, the municipal advisor must assess its ability to comply with Rule G-42, including the proscription in Rule G-42, SM .02, which prohibits a municipal advisor from engaging in municipal advisory activities for a client if the municipal advisor could not manage or mitigate its conflicts of interest in a manner that would permit the municipal advisor to act in the best interests of the client. In addition, if the dual representation were undertaken, the municipal advisor’s assessment of its ability to fully comply with Rule G-42, including SM .02, should be carefully considered at the beginning of the dual representation and thoughtfully re-considered periodically during the course of the dual engagement. In the MSRB’s view, the facts and circumstances wherein a municipal advisor would be able to fully comply with Rule G-42, including all obligations as a fiduciary to each municipal entity, are not likely to occur frequently.

 

This interpretive guidance is intended for use only as a resource. It does not describe all provisions of Rule G-42. In addition, the MSRB has adopted other rules and interpretations that may be applicable to the conduct described in the five scenarios.

[1] This guidance is limited to persons that are municipal advisors as defined in Section 15B(e)(4) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), and the relevant rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the Exchange Act (“Exchange Act rules”), but excludes municipal advisors engaged solely in the undertaking of a solicitation of a municipal entity or an obligated person, for compensation, on behalf of certain third parties (“solicitor municipal advisors”), because Rule G-42 does not apply to solicitor municipal advisors. See Exchange Act Release No. 70462 (September 20, 2013), 78 FR 67467 (November 12, 2013) (“Order Adopting SEC Final Rule”) (the Exchange Act rules and regulations referred to above include, but are not limited to, Exchange Act Rules 15Ba1-1 through 15Ba1-8. See also Section 15B(e)(4)(A)(ii); Exchange Act Rule 15Ba1-1(d)(1)(i) (the term “municipal advisor” includes solicitors of obligated persons); Section 15B(e)(9) of the Exchange Act (definition of “solicitation of a municipal entity or obligated person”); and Order Adopting SEC Final Rule, 78 FR 67467, at n. 138 and n. 408.

 

[2] In Exchange Act Rule 15Ba1-1(e), the term “municipal advisory activities” means “(1) [p]roviding advice to or on behalf of a municipal entity or obligated person with respect to municipal financial products or the issuance of municipal securities, including advice with respect to the structure, timing, terms, and other similar matters concerning such financial products or issues; or (2) [s]olicitation of a municipal entity or an obligated person.” Further, the Rule provides that, in the absence of an exclusion or an exemption, these activities would cause a person to be a municipal advisor.

 

[3] Although the term “conduit borrower” is not specifically defined in the Exchange Act, a conduit borrower in a municipal securities issuance, such as a private university, non-profit hospital, private corporation, or a public hospital or public university, is a type of “obligated person.” See Order Adopting SEC Final Rule, at 67483, n. 200 (the term obligated person can include entities acting as conduit borrowers, such as private universities and non-profit hospitals).

 

The term, “obligated person,” is defined in Exchange Act Section 15B(e)(10) to mean:

 

any person, including an issuer of municipal securities, who is either generally or through an enterprise, fund, or account of such person, committed by contract or other arrangement to support the payment of all or part of the obligations on the municipal securities to be sold in an offering of municipal securities.

 

Generally, for purposes of this guidance, the terms “obligated person” and “conduit borrower” have the same meaning. In addition, for this guidance, both terms exclude a municipal entity acting as an issuer of municipal securities.

 

[4] 15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.

 

[5] 15 U.S.C. 77c(a)(4).

 

[6] 17 CFR 230.500 – 508.

 

[7] 15 U.S.C. 77c(a)(2).

 

[8] See Order Adopting SEC Final Rule, at 67477 (the SEC concluded that compensation should not factor into a determination of whether a person must register (or be registered) as a municipal advisor, except in connection with solicitor municipal advisors; in such cases, the person must becompensated for such solicitation activity to be required to register (or be registered) as a municipal advisor).

 

[9] These requirements include, but are not limited to: complying with the broad obligations under the duty of care under Rule G-42(a)(i) and Supplemental Material (“SM”) .01 under the rule in all aspects of the municipal advisor’s municipal advisory relationship with the conduit borrower; making the required disclosures to the conduit borrower regarding material conflicts of interest and material legal and disciplinary events (and updating them as necessary) as set forth in Rule G-42(b) and SM .05; providing relationship documentation to the conduit borrower (and updating the documentation as necessary) as provided in Rule G-42(c) and SM .05 and SM .06; if making a recommendation to the conduit borrower, or if reviewing a recommendation from the issuer or another party to the conduit borrower, following the requirements of Rule G-42(d) and SM .09 and SM .10; and not engaging in the specifically prohibited conduct as outlined in Rule G-42(e)(i) and SM .11.

 

[10] In the Order Adopting SEC Final Rule, the SEC provided guidance to interpret “advice” as that term is used in the definition of municipal advisor and related terms. See Order Adopting SEC Final Rule, at 67471 (providing examples of communications that are excluded from the term “advice”) and 67478 - 80 (SEC guidance regarding the meaning of “advice,” statement that the SEC does not believe that the term “advice” is susceptible to a bright-line definition).

 

Jurisdiction to resolve the interpretive issue of whether “advice” has been provided, based on the facts and circumstances, lies with the SEC.

 

[11] See Exchange Act Section 15B(e)(4)(A)(i).

 

[12] See Order Adopting SEC Final Rule, at 67479.

 

[13] SM .01 of Rule G-42 sets forth core principles regarding the duty of care a municipal advisor owes to all clients, whether issuers or conduit borrowers. The duty of care includes, but is not limited to, the specific duties enumerated in the rule. For example, to fulfill its obligations under the duty of care, the municipal advisor must, among other things: possess the degree of knowledge and expertise needed to provide the client with informed advice; make a reasonable inquiry as to the facts that are relevant to a client’s determination as to whether to proceed with a course of action or that form the basis for advice provided to the client; and undertake a reasonable investigation to determine that it is not basing any recommendation on materially inaccurate or incomplete information. Also, a municipal advisor must have a reasonable basis for any advice provided to or on behalf of a client; any representations made in a certificate that it signs that will be reasonably foreseeably relied upon by the client, any other party involved in the municipal securities transaction, or investors in the issuer’s securities or municipal securities secured by payments from the conduit borrower client; and any information provided to the client or other parties involved in the municipal securities transaction in connection with the preparation of an official statement for any issue of municipal securities as to which the municipal advisor is advising. For example, to make a recommendation that complies with the duty of care, prior to making a recommendation, a municipal advisor is required to determine if the recommended municipal securities transaction is suitable, based on numerous factors, as applicable to the particular type of client. Various factors are set forth in SM .09 and include, but are not limited to: the client’s financial situation and needs, objectives, tax status, risk tolerance, liquidity needs, the client’s experience with, in this scenario, the issuance of municipal securities and related municipal securities transactions, the client’s experience with municipal securities issuance and related municipal securities transactions of the type and complexity being recommended, the client’s financial capacity to withstand changes in market conditions during the period that the municipal securities to be issued are reasonably expected to be outstanding and any other material information known by the municipal advisor about the client and the municipal securities issuance, after reasonable inquiry.

 

[14] See Order Adopting SEC Final Rule, at 67479.

 

 

[15] See supra notes 10-12, and accompanying text.

 

[16] SM .02 of Rule G-42 sets forth core principles regarding the duty of loyalty owed to the issuer. Under SM .02, the duty of loyalty includes, but is not limited to, the duties and obligations to “deal honestly and with the utmost good faith with a municipal entity client and act in the client’s best interests without regard to the financial or other interests of the municipal advisor.” In addition, “[a] municipal advisor must not engage in municipal advisory activities for a municipal entity client if it cannot manage or mitigate its conflicts of interest in a manner that will permit it to act in the municipal entity’s best interests.”

 

[17] See n. 13, supra.

 

[18] Additional information and requirements regarding the specific prohibition in Rule G‑42(e)(ii) are set forth in SM .13, SM .14 and SM .15.

 

[19] More specifically, requestors asked if the MSRB would confirm that full and fair disclosure of any conflicts of interest or other issues would address any concerns under the Rule with the result that there would be no unmanageable conflict of interest or issue that would prevent a municipal advisor from advising both an issuer and a conduit borrower (or two advisors from the same firm from representing, separately, an issuer and the related conduit borrower) as required under SM .02.

 

 

[20] The MSRB believes that a conflict of interest arises in a dual representation described in the Second Scenario as it does in the First Scenario, when a municipal advisor provides municipal advisory services to a conduit borrower and the payment for such services is provided by a third-party, such as an issuer, in that such circumstances often can create or foster divided loyalties. In both cases, the MSRB believes that the potential that such conflicts of interest, which are present at the onset of such relationship(s), may later become material conflicts of interest requires, at a minimum, that such conflict(s) be disclosed initially to the client(s) pursuant to Rule G-42(b)(i)(F).

 

 

[21] Rule G-42(c)(vi) requires that the written documentation of the municipal advisory relationship include, in writing, “the date, triggering event, or means for the termination of the municipal advisory relationship, or, if none, a statement that there is none.” Rule G‑42(c)(vii) requires that the written documentation include “any terms relating to withdrawal from the municipal advisory relationship.”

 

 

[22] As noted above, all of the municipal advisor’s obligations and duties cannot be specifically enumerated or identified at the beginning of the dual representation. Instead, the duties and obligations under either standard of conduct will unfold during the dual representation.

 

 

[23] The Third Scenario is limited to situations where an issuer chooses not to retain a separate municipal advisor. However, changing the facts and circumstances of the Third Scenario to include the retention of another municipal advisor by the issuer is not conclusive in determining if Rule G-42 would apply to the municipal advisor retained by the conduit borrower in its conduct with the issuer. If the municipal advisor retained by the conduit borrower provides municipal advisory services indirectly or, as a practical matter, to the issuer, and if the SEC interprets such conduct as engaging in municipal advisory activity for or on behalf of the issuer, the provision of such advice makes Rule G-42 applicable to the provider, except where the provider is subject to an exclusion or an exemption (from the definition of municipal advisor), such as the Independent Registered Municipal Advisor exemption provided under Exchange Act Rule 15Ba1-1(d)(3)(vi).

 

The MSRB amended Rule G-17, regarding fair dealing, to require that, in the conduct of their municipal advisory activities, municipal advisors, including solicitor municipal advisors, and their associated persons must deal fairly with all persons and not engage in any deceptive, dishonest, or unfair practice. (Previously, the rule applied only to dealers and their associated persons.) Rule G-17 became applicable to all municipal advisors, including solicitor municipal advisors, and their associated persons, on December 22, 2010.

Rule G-17 contains an anti-fraud prohibition similar to the standard set forth in Rule 10b-5 adopted by the SEC under the Exchange Act. Thus, all municipal advisors must refrain from engaging in certain conduct and must not misrepresent or omit the facts, risks, or other material information about municipal advisory activities undertaken. However, Rule G-17 does not merely prohibit deceptive conduct on the part of a municipal advisor. The rule also establishes a general duty of a municipal advisor to deal fairly with all persons, even in the absence of fraud.

Rule G-17 imposes a duty of fair dealing on solicitor municipal advisors when they are soliciting business from municipal entities and obligated persons on behalf of third parties. Again, municipal advisors are reminded that the term “municipal entity” also includes certain entities that do not issue municipal securities. Thus, in addition to owing the specific obligations discussed below to issuers of municipal securities, solicitor municipal advisors also owe such obligations to, for example, state and local government sponsored public pension plans and local government investment pools.

The duty of fair dealing includes, but is not limited to, a duty to disclose to the municipal entity or obligated person being solicited material facts about the solicitation, such as the name of the solicitor’s client; the type of business being solicited; the amount and source of all of the solicitor’s compensation; payments (including in-kind) made by the solicitor to another solicitor municipal advisor (including an affiliate, but not an employee) to facilitate the solicitation regardless of characterization; and any relationships of the solicitor with any employees or board members of the municipal entity or obligated person being solicited or any other persons affiliated with the municipal entity or obligated person or its officials who may have influence over the selection of the solicitor’s client.

Additionally, if a solicitor municipal advisor is engaged by its client to present information about a product or service offered by the third-party client to the municipal entity or obligated person, the solicitor municipal advisor must disclose all material risks and characteristics of the product or service. The solicitor municipal advisor must also advise the municipal entity or obligated person of any incentives received by the solicitor (that are not already disclosed as part of the solicitor municipal advisor’s compensation from its client) to recommend the product or service, as well as any other conflicts of interest regarding the product or service, and must not make material misstatements or omissions when discussing the product or service.

Under the Exchange Act, municipal advisors and their associated persons are deemed to owe a fiduciary duty to their municipal entity clients.[*] Similarly, Rule G-42 (which applies only to non-solicitor municipal advisors) follows the Exchange Act in deeming municipal advisors to owe a fiduciary duty, for purposes of Rule G-42, to such municipal entity clients. However, because a solicitor municipal advisor’s clients are not the municipal entities that they solicit, but rather the third parties that retain or engage the solicitor municipal advisor to solicit such municipal entities, solicitor municipal advisors do not owe a fiduciary duty under the Exchange Act or MSRB rules to their clients (or the municipal entity) in connection with such activity. Nonetheless, as noted above, solicitor municipal advisors are subject to the fair dealing standards under Rule G-17 (including with respect to their clients and the entities that they solicit).

This notice addresses several questions that have arisen concerning Board rules G-12 and G-15. Board rule G-12 establishes uniform industry procedures for the processing, clearance, and settlement of transactions in municipal securities... Board rule G-15 requires municipal securities professionals to send written confirmations of transactions to customers, and specifies the information required to be set forth on the confirmation.

 

Settlement Dates

In order to establish uniform settlement dates for "regular way" transactions in municipal securities, rule G-12(b)(i)(B) defines the term "business day" as "a day recognized by the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. [the "NASD"] as a day on which securities transactions may be settled." The practice of the NASD has been to exclude from the category of "business day," any day widely designated as a legal bank holiday, and to notify the NASD membership accordingly. Such notices set forth the NASD’s trade and settlement date schedules for periods which include a legal holiday.

"Catastrophe" Call Features

Rules G-12 and G-15 require that confirmations of transactions set forth a "description of the securities, including at a minimum… if the securities are subject to redemption prior to maturity (callable)… an indication to such effect…" (paragraphs G-12(c)(v)(E) and G-15(a)(v)[*]). Both rules also require that in transactions in callable securities effected on a yield basis, dollar price must be shown and "the calculation of dollar price shall be to the lower of price to call or price to maturity" (paragraphs G-12(c)(v)(I) and G-15(a)(viii)[†]).

The references to "callable" securities and pricing to call in rules G-12 and G-15 do not refer to "catastrophe" call features, such as those relating to acts of God or eminent domain, which are beyond the control of the issuer of the securities.

---

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

[†] [Currently codified at rule G-15(a)(i)(A)(5)]

Agency transactions: remuneration. This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated November 1, 1977 in which you request an interpretation concerning the provision in Board rule G-15(b)(ii)[*] which requires that "the source and amount of any commission or other remuneration" received by a municipal securities dealer in a transaction in which the municipal securities dealer is acting as agent for a customer be disclosed on the confirmation to the customer.

The reference to the "amount of any commission or other remuneration" requires that an aggregate dollar amount be shown, in a purchase transaction on behalf of an equivalent of the dealer concession, and, if applicable, any additional charge to the customer above the price paid to the seller of the securities. In a sale transaction on behalf of a customer, this would normally be the difference between the net price paid by the purchaser of the securities and the proceeds to the customer. If a percentage of par value or unit profit were shown it would be difficult for many customers to relate this information to the "total dollar amount of [the] transaction" required by rule G-15(a)(xi)[†] to be shown on the confirmation.

The reference in rule G-15(b)(ii)[*] to the "source" of remuneration would not require you to differentiate between the concession and any additional charge. Standard language could be included on the confirmation to indicate that your remuneration may include dealer concessions and other charges. MSRB interpretation of November 10, 1977.

 

---

 

[†] [Currently codified at rule G-15(a)(i)(A)(6)(a)]

[*] [Currently codified at rule G-15(a)(i)(A)(1)(e)]

Callable securities: "catastrophe" calls. This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated October 20, 1977 which has been referred to me for reply. In your letter you request an interpretation of the provisions in rules G-12 and G-15 requiring that the dollar price for transactions in callable securities effected on a yield basis be priced to the lower of price to call or price to maturity. (See rules G-12(c)(v)(I) and G-15(a)(viii))[*].

At its meeting held October 25-26, 1977, the Board confirmed that the requirements in rules G-12 and G-15 relating to pricing to call do not include "catastrophe" calls, that is, calls which occur as a result of events specified in the bond indenture which are beyond the control of the issuer. MSRB interpretation of November 7, 1977.

 

---

 

[*] [Currently codified at rule G-15(a)(i)(A)(5)]

The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (the "Board") has received a number of inquiries concerning Board rules G-8 and G-9. These rules require municipal securities brokers and municipal securities dealers to make and keep current certain specified records concerning their municipal securities business and to preserve such records for specified periods of time. This interpretive notice addresses several of the more frequent inquiries received by the Board regarding these rules.

General Purposes of Recordkeeping Rules

The Board’s recordkeeping rules are designed to require organizations engaged in the municipal securities business to maintain appropriate records concerning their activities in such business. In writing the rules, the Board adopted the approach of specifying in some detail the information to be reflected in the various records. The Board believed that this approach would provide helpful guidance to municipal securities professionals as well as the regulatory agencies charged with the responsibility of examining the records of such firms. At the same time, the Board attempted to provide a degree of flexibility to firms concerning the manner in which their records are to be maintained, recognizing that various recordkeeping systems could provide a complete and accurate record of a firm’s municipal securities activities. The interpretations set forth in this notice are intended to be consistent with the foregoing purposes.

This notice is not intended to address all of the questions which have arisen, or may arise; the Board will continue its policy of responding to written requests for individual interpretations and may issue further interpretive notices on recordkeeping should additional questions of general interest arise.

The following topics are covered in this interpretive notice:General Purposes of Recordkeeping Rules

Election to Follow Board or Commission Recordkeeping Rules

Maintenance of Records on a Trade Date or Settlement Date Basis

Current Posting of Records

Unit System Method of Recordkeeping

Rule G-8(a)(ii)—Account Records

Rule G-8(a)(iii)—Securities Records

Rules G-8(a)(vi) and (vii)—Records for Agency and Principal Transactions

Rule G-8(a)(xi)—Customer Account Information

Rule G-8(c)—Non-Clearing Municipal Securities Brokers and Municipal Securities Dealers

Rule G-9(b)(viii)(C)—Preservation of Written Communications

Election to Follow Board or Commission Recordkeeping Rules

Rules G-8(f) and G-9(g) provide that municipal securities brokers and municipal securities dealers other than bank dealers, who are in compliance with the recordkeeping rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission"), will be deemed to be in compliance with Board rules G-8 and G-9, provided that the following additional records, not specified in the Commission’s rules, are maintained by such firms: records of uncompleted transactions involving customers (subparagraph (a)(iv)(D)); records relating to syndicate transactions (paragraph (a)(viii)); new account information (paragraph (a)(xi)); and information concerning customer complaints (paragraph (a)(xii)). Conversely, Commission rules 17a-3 and 17a-4 provide that securities firms engaged in the municipal securities business will satisfy all regulatory requirements concerning recordkeeping with respect to their municipal securities business if they are in compliance with the Board’s rules.

Securities firms must determine to comply with either the Board or Commission rules, but are not required to file with either the Board or the commission a formal written notice of election. Satisfactory compliance with either set of rules will be subject to determination in the course of periodic compliance examinations conducted by the regulatory organizations charged with enforcement of Board and Commission rules.

Maintenance of Records on a Trade Date or Settlement Date Basis

Under rule G-8, records concerning purchases and sales of municipal securities may be maintained on either a trade date or settlement date basis, provided that all records relating to purchases and sales are maintained on a consistent basis. For example, if a municipal securities broker or municipal securities dealer maintains its records of original entry concerning purchases and sales (rule G-8(a)(i)) on a settlement date basis, the municipal securities broker or municipal securities dealer must also maintain its account records (rule G-8(a)(ii)) and securities records (rule G-8(a)(iii)) on the same basis.

The above records may not be maintained on a clearance date basis, that is, the date the securities are actually delivered or received. Records maintained on a clearance date basis would not accurately reflect obligations of a municipal securities broker or municipal securities dealer to deliver or accept delivery of securities. Of course, the date of clearance should be noted in the records of original entry, account records and securities records, regardless of whether these records are kept on a trade date or settlement date basis.

Current Posting of Records

Rule G-8 provides that every municipal securities broker or municipal securities dealer must make and keep current the records specified in the rule. The Board has received inquiries as to the time within which records must be posted to satisfy the currency requirement.

Blotters or other records of original entry showing purchases and sales of municipal securities should be prepared no later than the end of the business day following the trade date. Transactions involving the purchase and sale of securities should be posted to the account records no later than settlement date and to the securities records no later than the end of the business day following the settlement date. Records relating to securities movements and cash receipts and disbursements should reflect such events on the date they occur and should be posted to the appropriate records no later than the end of the following business day.

Commission rule 17a-11 requires municipal securities dealers, other than bank dealers, to give immediate notice to the Commission and their designated examining authorities of any failure to make and keep current the required records, and to take corrective action within forty-eight hours after the transmittal of such notice.

Unit System Method of Recordkeeping

Under rule G-8, records may be maintained in a variety of ways, including a unit system of recordkeeping. In such a system, records are kept in the form of a group of documents or related groups of documents. For example, customer account records may consist of copies of confirmations and other related source documents, if necessary, arranged by customer.

A unit system of recordkeeping is an acceptable system for purposes of rule G-8 if the information required to be shown is clearly and accurately reflected and there is an adequate basis for audit. This would require in most instances that each record in a unit system be arranged in appropriate sequence, whether chronological or numerical, and fully integrated into the overall recordkeeping system for purposes of posting to general ledger accounts.

Rules G-8(a)(ii)—Account Records

Rule G-8(a)(ii) requires every municipal securities broker and municipal securities dealer to maintain account records for each customer account and the account of the municipal securities broker and municipal securities dealer, showing all purchases and sales, all receipts and deliveries of securities, all receipts and disbursements of cash, and all other debits and credits to such account.

The account records may be kept in several different formats. Ledger entries organized separately for each customer and for the municipal securities broker or municipal securities dealer, showing the requisite information, would clearly satisfy the requirements of rule G-8(a)(ii).

The requirements of rule G-8(a)(ii) can also be satisfied by a unit system of recordkeeping. See discussion above. Under such a system, a municipal securities professional might maintain files, organized by customer, containing copies of confirmations and other pertinent documents, if necessary, which reflect all the information required by rule G-8(a)(ii).

The question has also been raised whether the account records requirement of rule G-8(a)(ii) can be satisfied by an electronic data processing system which can produce account records by tracing through separate transactions. The Board is of the view that such a system is acceptable if the account records should be obtainable without delay, although the records need not be maintained by customer prior to being produced. The account records so produced must also reflect clearly and accurately all the required information, provide an adequate basis for audit and be fully integrated into the overall recordkeeping system. Under rule G-27, on supervision, a municipal securities principal is required to supervise the activities of municipal securities representatives with respect to customer accounts and other matters. In this connection, it may be appropriate to obtain printouts of customer accounts on a periodic basis.

The Board believes that it is important to maintain account records in the fashion described above in view of several of the Board’s fair practice rules, such as the rules on suitability and churning. Account records will be important both as a tool for management to detect violations of these rules and for enforcement of these rules by the regulatory agencies conducting compliance examinations or responding to complaints.

The requirement to maintain account records does not apply to a firm which effects transactions exclusively with other municipal securities professionals and has no customers, as defined in paragraph (e) of rule G-8.

Rule G-8(a)(iii)—Securities Records

Rule G-8(a)(iii) requires that records be kept showing separately for each municipal security all long and short positions carried by a municipal securities broker or municipal securities dealer for its account or for the account of a customer, the location of all such securities long and the offsetting position to all such securities short, and the name or other designation of the account in which each position is carried.

The securities records should reflect not only purchases and sales, but also any movement of securities, such as whether securities have been sent out for validation or transfer. If there is no activity with respect to a particular security, it is not necessary to make daily entries for the security in the securities records. The last entry will be deemed to be carried forward until there is further activity involving the security.

Rule G-8(a)(iii) requires that the securities records show all long security count differences and short count differences classified by the date of physical count and verification on which they were discovered. The Board currently has no rule requiring municipal securities professionals to make periodic securities counts. However, if such counts are made, all count differences must be noted as provided in this section. Commission rule 17a-13 requires municipal securities dealers, other than bank dealers and certain securities firms exempted from the rule, to examine and count securities at least once in each quarter.

The requirement to maintain securities records under rule G-8 does not apply to a firm which effects municipal securities transactions exclusively with other municipal securities professionals and has no customers, as defined in paragraph (e) of rule G-8, provided the firm does not carry positions for its own account and records or fails to deliver, fails to receive and bank loans are reflected in other records of the firm.

Rules G-8(a)(vi) and (vii)—Records for Agency and Principal Transactions

Rules G-8(a)(vi) and (vii) require municipal securities brokers and municipal securities dealers to make and keep records for each agency order and each transaction effected by the municipal securities broker or municipal securities dealer as principal. The records may be in the form of trading tickets or similar documents. In each case, the records must contain certain specified information, including "to the extent feasible, the time of execution."

The phrase "to the extent feasible" is intended to require municipal securities professionals to note the time of execution for each agency and principal transaction except in extraordinary circumstances when it is impossible to determine the exact time of execution. In such cases, the municipal securities professional should note the approximate time of execution and indicate that it is an approximation.

Rule G-8(a)(xi)—Customer Account Information

Rule G-8(a)(xi) requires a municipal securities broker or municipal securities dealer to obtain certain information for each customer. Several distinct questions have been raised with respect to this provision.

The requirement to obtain the requisite information may be satisfied in a number of ways. Some municipal securities brokers and municipal securities dealers have prepared questionnaires which they have had their customers complete and return. Others have instructed their salesmen to obtain the information from customers over the telephone at the time orders are placed. It is not necessary to obtain a written statement from a customer to be in compliance with the provision.

Except for the tax identification or social security number of a customer, the customer account information required by this provision must be obtained prior to the settlement of a transaction. The Board believes that such a requirement is reasonable since the information is basic and important.

The requirement in subparagraph (C) of rule G-8(a)(xi) to obtain the tax identification or social security number of a customer tracks the requirement in section 103.35, Part 103 of Title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which was adopted by the Treasury Department and became effective in June 1972. Under this section, every broker, dealer and bank must obtain the tax identification or social security number of customers. If a broker, dealer or bank is unable to secure such information after reasonable effort, it must maintain a record identifying all such accounts. The Board interprets subparagraph (C) of rule G-8(a)(xi) in a similar fashion to require municipal securities professionals to make a reasonable effort to obtain a customer’s tax identification or social security number and, if they are unable to do so, to keep a record of that fact.

Several inquiries have focused on the scope of subparagraph (G) of rule G-8(a)(xi) which requires that a record be made and kept of the name and address of the beneficial owner or owners of such account if other than the customer and transactions are to be confirmed to such owner or owners.

This provision applies to the situation in which securities are confirmed to an account which has not directly placed the order for the securities. This frequently occurs in connection with investment advisory accounts, where the investment advisor places an order for a client and directs the executing firm to confirm the transaction directly to the investment advisor’s client.

Under rule G-8, the only information which must be obtained in such circumstances for the account to which the transaction is confirmed is the name and address of the account, information which would have to be obtained in any event in order to transmit the confirmation. Since the investment advisor itself is the customer, the other items of customer account information set forth in rule G-8(a)(xi) need not be obtained for the investment advisor’s client. The customer account information applicable to institutional accounts, however, must be obtained with respect to the investment advisor. Also, the account records required by rule G-8(a)(ii) would not be required to be maintained for the investment advisor’s client, although such records would have to be maintained with respect to the account of the investment advisor.

A municipal securities professional is not required to ascertain the name and address of the beneficial owner or owners of an account if such information is not voluntarily furnished. Subparagraph G-8(a)(xi)(G) applies only when an order is entered on behalf of another person and the transaction is to be confirmed directly to the other person.

A recent court decision, Rolf v. Blyth Eastman Dillon & Co. Inc., et al. issued on January 17, 1977, in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, may have important implications with respect to the obligations generally of securities professionals to beneficial owners of accounts, especially to clients of investment advisors. We commend your attention to this decision, which has been appealed.

Rule G-8(c)—Non-Clearing Municipal Securities Brokers and Municipal Securities Dealers

Rule G-8(c) provides that a non-clearing municipal securities broker or municipal securities dealer is not required to make and keep the books and records prescribed by rule G-8 if they are made and kept by a clearing broker, dealer, bank or clearing agency. Accordingly, to the extent that records required by rule G-8 are maintained for a municipal securities broker or municipal securities dealer by a clearing agent, the municipal securities broker or municipal securities dealer does not have to maintain such records. A non-clearing municipal securities broker or municipal securities dealer is still responsible for the accurate maintenance and preservation of the records if they are maintained by a clearing agent other than a clearing broker or dealer, and should assure itself that the records are being maintained by the clearing agent in accordance with applicable recordkeeping requirements of the Board.

In the case of a bank dealer, clearing arrangements must be approved by the appropriate regulatory agency for the bank dealer. The bank regulatory agencies are each considering the adoption of procedures to approve clearing arrangements. It is contemplated that these procedures will require the inclusion of certain provisions in clearing agreements, such as an undertaking by the clearing agent to maintain the bank dealer’s records in compliance with rules G-8 and G-9, and will specify the mechanics for having such arrangements considered and approved. The bank regulatory agencies indicate that they will advise bank dealers subject to their respective jurisdictions on this matter in the near future.

In the case of a securities firm, Commission approval is required for all clearing arrangements with entities other than a broker, dealer or bank. The Commission has recently proposed an amendment to its rule 17a-4 which would eliminate the need to obtain Commission approval of clearing arrangements with such other entities, provided that certain specified conditions are met. If the proposed rule is adopted, the Board would make a corresponding change in rule G-8.

If an agent clears transactions, but transmits copies of all records to the municipal securities broker or municipal securities dealer, and these records are preserved by the municipal securities broker or municipal securities dealer in accordance with rule G-9, the clearing arrangement is not subject to the rule G-8(c).

Rule G-9(b)(viii)(C)—Preservation of Written Communications

Subparagraph (C) of rule G-9(b)(viii) requires municipal securities brokers and municipal securities dealers to preserve for three years all written communications received or sent, including inter-office memoranda, relating to the conduct of the activities of such municipal securities broker or municipal securities dealer with respect to municipal securities.

The communications required to be preserved by this provision relate to the conduct of a firm’s activities with respect to municipal securities. Accordingly, such documents as internal memoranda regarding offerings or bids, letters to or from customers and other municipal securities professionals regarding municipal securities, and research reports must be preserved. Documents pertaining purely to administrative matters, such as vacation policy and the like, would not have to be preserved for purposes of the rule.

Quotation of municipal securities. This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated February 9, 1977 concerning the Board’s proposed rule G-13 on quotations relating to municipal securities. In your letter you raise certain questions concerning the intent and application of paragraph (b)(ii) of proposed rule G-13, which prohibits a municipal securities professional from distributing or publishing a municipal securities quotation, or causing such a quotation to be distributed or published, unless the quotation is based upon the professional’s best judgment as to the fair market value of the security.

While the provision in question would undoubtedly apply to situations involving outright fraud, the Board believes the rule to have appropriate application in other circumstances as well.  Thus, the Board has attempted in paragraph (b)(ii) to proscribe conduct which, in the Board’s opinion, constitutes bad business practice but may not, depending on the circumstances, constitute fraud. The Board firmly believes that as a matter of just and equitable principles of trade in the municipal securities industry and with a view to promoting free and open markets in municipal securities, certain practices should not be condoned, even though they do not necessarily rise to the level of fraud or cannot be proven to constitute fraud.

Some examples of how paragraph (b)(ii) would operate may be useful.  First, assume that a dealer submits a bid for bonds, knowing that they have been called by the issuer.  The bonds are not general market bonds and the fact that they have been called is not widely known. While called bonds ordinarily trade at a premium, the dealer’s bid is based on the value of the bonds as though they had not been called and is accepted by the dealer on the other side of the trade who is unaware of the called status of the bonds.  In these circumstances, the bid clearly would not have been based upon the best judgment of the dealer making it as to the fair market value of the bonds. While one might argue that the dealer accepting the bid should have known of the called status of the bonds, the dealer making the bid acted unethically and in a manner not conducive to free and open markets in municipal securities. In the Board’s view, the actions of the dealer making the bid should not be condoned, although a charge of fraud might be difficult to sustain in dealings between professionals and might be inappropriate. The improper nature of the dealer’s conduct would be exacerbated, of course, if the person on the other side of the transaction is a non-professional.  However, difficulties in proof that the conduct of the dealer was fraudulent suggest that the best judgment rule would provide an appropriate alternative basis for enforcement action.

Another situation that would be covered by the best judgment rule is one in which a dealer submits a bid for bonds based on valuations obtained from independent sources, which in turn are based on mistaken assumptions concerning the nature of the securities in question.  The circumstances indicate that the dealer submitting the bid knows that the securities have a substantially greater market value than the price bid, but the fact that independent valuations were obtained, albeit based on mistaken facts, clouds the dealer’s culpability.

A third situation to which the best judgment rule would apply is one in which a dealer makes a bid for or offer of a security without any knowledge as to the value of the security or the value of comparable securities. While the Board does not intend that the best judgment of a dealer as to the fair market value of a security be second-guessed for purposes of the proposed rule, the Board does intend that the dealer be required to act responsibly and to exercise some judgment in submitting a quotation.  In other words, a quotation which has been “pulled out of the air” is not based on the best judgment of the dealer and, in the interests of promoting free and open markets in municipal securities, should not be encouraged.

Given the manner in which the Board intends the “best judgment” rule to operate, the Board concluded that it would not have an anti-competitive impact on the municipal markets. The proposed rule is not intended to prohibit legitimate price discounts or mark-ups, as the case may be, based upon a dealer’s anticipation of the direction of the movement of the markets and other factors. The Board does not intend to interfere with legitimate pricing mechanisms and recognizes that there may be a variety of quotations with respect to a given security, each of which would comply with the terms of the proposed rule.

While it is not possible to anticipate all of the specific fact situations that might run afoul of the “best judgment” rule, I would like to make some general observations concerning the operation of the proposed rule. As you know, one of Congress’ principal purposes in calling for the establishment of the Board was to promote the development of a body of rules for the municipal securities industry that would furnish quidelines for good business conduct. The Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs observed in its Report on the Securities Acts Amendments of 1975 that prior to the legislation, the conduct of municipal market professionals could be controlled only after the fact through enforcement by the Commission of the fraud prohibitions of the federal securities laws.  The Senate Committee expressed hope that a self-regulatory body like the Board would develop prophylactic rules for the industry which would deter unethical and fraudulent practices in the first instance. See Senate Report 94-75, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., 42-43. MSRB interpretation of February 24, 1977.

On December 23, 1976, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (the "Board") issued an interpretive notice addressing certain questions received by the Board with respect to its professional qualifications rules (rules G-2 through G-7). Since that time, the Board has received additional questions concerning rule G-3 which are discussed in this interpretive notice.

1. Requirements for Financial and Operations Principals.

Under the rule G-3(b)(ii)[*], every municipal securities broker and municipal securities dealer other than a bank dealer is required to have at least one qualified financial and operations principal. As defined in the rule, this person is responsible for the overall supervision and preparation of financial reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission and self-regulatory organizations and for the processing, clearance, safekeeping and recordkeeping activities of the firm. If more than one person shares these overall supervisory responsibilities, each such person must be qualified as a financial and operations principal.

The question has been asked whether a financial and operations principal whose duties relate solely to financial and operational matters and not, for example, to underwriting, trading, or sales functions must qualify also as a municipal securities principal by passing the Board's municipal securities principal examination when it is prescribed. The Board does not intend to impose such a requirement on persons whose functions are limited to those set forth in the definition of a financial and operations principal.

The question has also been asked whether a person performing only the functions of a financial and operations principal on and after December 1, 1975 would be "grandfathered" as a municipal securities principal for purposes of taking the Board's municipal securities principal examination when prescribed if such person begins supervising underwriting, trading or sales functions. Activities relating to financial and operational matters are substantially different from those relating to underwriting, trading and sales or other categories of activities supervised by municipal securities principals. The Board does not intend, therefore, that financial and operations principals be "grandfathered" for purposes of the Board's examination requirements for municipal securities principals, or that a financial and operations principal would be qualified to engage in such other supervisory activities solely by reason of having met the Board's requirements for financial and operations principals.

The Board has also been asked whether senior officers or general partners of a firm, who may bear ultimate legal responsibility for the financial and operational activities of the firm, must be qualified as financial and operations principals under the Board's rules. Although the answer depends on the particular factual situation, officers or partners not directly involved in the financial and operations affairs of a firm generally would not be required to qualify as financial and operations principals.

2. Activities Requiring Qualification as a Municipal Securities Principal.

The question has been asked whether supervisory personnel in the processing and clearance areas must qualify as the municipal securities principals under rule G-3. In a securities firm, the financial and operations principal ordinarily would be the only person supervising operations-related activities who will be required to pass an examination. With respect to bank dealer supervisory personnel, to whom the financial and operations principal classification does not apply, qualification in a principal capacity in the operations area will not be required unless the person in question exercises policy-making authority. Thus, an individual may supervise a bank dealer's processing activities without qualifying as a municipal securities principal, regardless of the number of persons supervised by such individual, if policy-making functions and discretionary authority are delegated to a higher level.

Somewhat different considerations apply in determining which persons are required to be qualified as municipal securities principals in connection with underwriting, trading, sales or other activities referred to in the Board's rules as municipal securities principal activities. In these areas, the qualification requirements apply to persons having supervisory responsibility with respect to the day-to-day conduct of the activities in question, even though such persons may not have a policy-making role. The Board's conclusions in this regard are based on the fact that in these other areas the supervisory person is responsible for the activities of personnel who communicate directly with issuers, traders, and investors.

3. Activities Requiring Qualification as a Municipal Securities Representative.

In certain cases, communications from customers may be received at a time when a duly qualified municipal securities representative or municipal securities principal is unavailable. Similarly, there may be situations in which it becomes important to advise a customer promptly of transactions effected and orders confirmed, even though the individual responsible for the account may not be able to communicate with the customer at that time.

In many cases under the rules of other self-regulatory organizations, communications of this nature, which in essence reflect a mechanical function, may be received and made by properly supervised competent individuals whose clerical and ministerial functions would not otherwise subject them to qualification requirements. The Board believes the principle underlying this practice and the application of other self-regulatory organizations' qualification rules is sound.

Accordingly, the Board interprets rule G-3 to permit the recording and transmission in customary channels of orders, the reading of approved quotations, and the giving of reports of transactions by non-qualified clerical personnel when the duly qualified municipal securities representative or municipal securities principal who normally handles the account or customer is unavailable. The foregoing interpretation is applicable only to clerical personnel who are: (a) deemed capable and competent by a municipal securities principal or general securities principal to engage in such activities; (b) specifically authorized in writing to perform such functions on an occasional basis as necessary or directed to perform such functions in specific instances, in either case by a duly qualified municipal securities principal or general securities principal; (c) familiar with the normal type and size of transaction effected with or for the customer or the account; and (d) closely supervised by duly qualified municipal personnel.

All orders for municipal securities received by clerical personnel under the foregoing interpretation must be reviewed and approved by duly qualified municipal personnel familiar with the customer or account prior to being accepted or effected by the municipal securities broker or municipal securities dealer. Solicitation of orders by clerical personnel is not permitted. Confirmations of transactions may be given and quotations read by clerical personnel only when approved by duly qualified municipal personnel. Individuals subject to the 90-day apprenticeship requirements of rule G-3(i)[†] are not clerical personnel and are not authorized or permitted to engage in such activities with members of the public.

Also, the question has been raised whether a bank's branch office personnel, who are not otherwise required to be qualified under rule G-3, will be required to take and pass the qualification examination for municipal securities representatives in order to respond to a depositor's inquiry concerning possible investments in municipal securities. Insofar as the branch office personnel merely refer the depositor to qualified bank dealer personnel for discussion concerning the merits of an investment in municipal securities and execution of the depositor's order, the branch office personnel would not be required to be qualified under the Board's professional qualifications requirements. However, if branch office personnel seek to advise the depositor concerning the merits of a possible investment, or otherwise perform more than a purely ministerial function, qualification under the Board's rules would be required.

 

---

 

[*] [ Currently codified at rule G-3(d)(iii)]

[†] [ Currently codified at rule G-3(a)(iii)]