Background

In the municipal securities markets, dealers[1] typically communicate with investors one-on-one, in person, or by telephone. These dealer/customer communications are made to provide the investor with information concerning the municipal securities the dealer wants to sell and to allow the dealer to find out about the customer’s investment objectives. Over the last few years there has been a dramatic increase in the use of the Internet for communication between dealers and their customers. Dealers are looking to the Internet as a mechanism for offering customers new and improved services and for enhancing the efficiency of delivering traditional services to customers. For example, dealers have developed online search tools that computerize the process by which customers can obtain and compare information on the availability of municipal securities of a specific type that are offered for sale by a particular dealer.[2] Technological advancements have provided many benefits to investors and the brokerage industry. These technological innovations, however, also have presented new regulatory challenges, including those arising from the application of the suitability rule to online activities. In consideration of this, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (“MSRB”) is issuing this notice to provide dealers with guidance concerning their obligations under MSRB Rule G-19, relating to suitability of recommendations,[3] in the electronic environment.[4]

Rule G-19 prohibits a dealer from recommending transactions in municipal securities to a customer unless the dealer makes certain determinations with respect to the suitability of the transactions.[5] Specifically, the dealer must have reasonable grounds for believing that the recommendation is suitable based upon information available from the issuer of the security or otherwise and the facts disclosed by the customer or otherwise known about such customer.

As the rule states, a dealer's suitability obligation only applies to securities that the dealer recommends to a customer.[6] A dealer or associated person who simply effects a trade initiated by a customer without a related recommendation from the dealer or associated person is not required to perform a suitability analysis. However, under MSRB Rules, even when a dealer does not recommend a municipal security transaction to a customer but simply effects or executes the transaction, the dealer is obligated to fulfill certain other important fair practice obligations. For example, under Rule G-17, when effecting a municipal security transaction for a customer, a dealer is required to disclose all material facts about a municipal security that are known by the dealer and those that are reasonably accessible.[7] In addition, Rule G-18 requires that each dealer, when executing a municipal securities transaction for or on behalf of a customer as agent, make a reasonable effort to obtain a price for the customer that is fair and reasonable in relation to prevailing market conditions. Similarly, under Rule G-30, if a dealer engages in principal transactions with a customer, the dealer is responsible for ensuring that it is charging a fair and reasonable price. The MSRB wishes to emphasize the importance of these fair practice obligations even when a dealer effects a non-recommended transaction online.[8]

Applicability of the Suitability Rule to Electronic Communications—General Principles  

There has been much debate about the application of the suitability rule to online activities.[9]  Industry commentators and regulators have debated two questions: first, whether the current suitability rule should even apply to online activities, and second, if so, what types of online communications constitute recommendations for purposes of the rule. The NASD published NASD Notice to Members 01-23, Online Suitability-Suitability Rule and Online Communication (the “NASD Online Suitability Notice”) (April 2001) to provide guidance to its members in April 2001.[10] In answer to the first question, the MSRB, like the NASD, believes that the suitability rule applies to all recommendations made by dealers to customers—including those made via electronic means—to purchase, sell, or exchange a security. Electronic communications from dealers to their customers clearly can constitute recommendations. The suitability rule, therefore, remains fully applicable to online activities in those cases where the dealer recommends securities to its customers. 

With regard to the second question, the MSRB does not seek to identify in this notice all of the types of electronic communications that may constitute recommendations. As the MSRB has often emphasized, "[w]hether a particular transaction is in fact recommended depends on an analysis of all the relevant facts and circumstances."[11] That is, the test for determining whether any communication (electronic or traditional) constitutes a recommendation remains a "facts and circumstances" inquiry to be conducted on a case-by-case basis. 

The MSRB also recognizes that many forms of electronic communications defy easy characterization. The MSRB believes this is especially true in the online municipal securities market, which is in a relatively early stage of development. Nevertheless, the MSRB offers as guidance the following general principles for dealers to use in determining whether a particular communication could be deemed a recommendation.[12] The "facts and circumstances" determination of whether a communication is a recommendation requires an analysis of the content, context, and presentation of the particular communication or set of communications. The determination of whether a recommendation has been made, moreover, is an objective rather than a subjective inquiry. An important factor in this regard is whether—given its content, context, and manner of presentation—a particular communication from a dealer to a customer reasonably would be viewed as a "call to action," or suggestion that the customer engage in a securities transaction. Dealers should bear in mind that an analysis of the content, context, and manner of presentation of a communication requires examination of the underlying substantive information transmitted to the customer and consideration of any other facts and circumstances, such as any accompanying explanatory message from the dealer.[13] Another principle that dealers should keep in mind is that, in general, the more individually tailored the communication is to a specific customer or a targeted group of customers about a security or group of securities, the greater the likelihood is that the communication may be viewed as a recommendation.

Scope of the Term Recommendation

As noted earlier, the MSRB agrees with and has in this guidance adopted the general principles enunciated in the NASD Online Suitability Notice as well as the NASD guidelines for evaluating suitability obligations discussed below. While the MSRB believes that the additional examples of communications that do not constitute recommendations provided by the NASD in its Online Suitability Notice are useful instruction for dealers who develop equity trading web sites, as the examples are based upon communications that exist with great regularity in the Nasdaq market, the MSRB believes that the examples have limited application to the types of information and electronic trading systems that are present in the municipal securities market. 

For example, the NASD’s third example of a communication that is not a recommendation describes a system that permits customer-directed searches of a “wide-universe” of securities and references all exchange-listed or Nasdaq securities, or externally recognized indexes.[14] The NASD example therefore applies to dealer web sites that effectively allow customers to request lists of securities that meet broad objective criteria from a list of all the securities available on an exchange or Nasdaq. These are examples of groups of securities in which the dealer does not exercise any discretion as to which securities are contained within the group of securities shown to customers. This example makes sense in the equity market where there are centralized exchanges and where electronic trading platforms routinely utilize databases that provide customer access to all of the approximately 7,300 listed securities on Nasdaq, the NYSE and Amex. However, no dealer in the municipal securities market has the ability to offer all of the approximately 1.3 million outstanding municipal securities for sale or purchase. The municipal securities market is a fragmented dealer market. Municipal securities do not trade through a centralized exchange and only a small number of securities (approximately 10,000) trade at all on any given day. Therefore, there is no comparable central exchange that could serve as a reference point for a database that is used in connection with municipal securities research engines. The databases used by dealer systems typically are limited to the municipal securities that a dealer, or a consortium of dealers, holds in inventory. In these types of systems the customer’s ability to search for desirable securities that meet the broad, objective criteria chosen by the customer (e.g., all insured investment grade general obligation bonds offered by a particular state) is limited. The concept of a wide universe of securities, which is central to all of the NASD’s examples, is thus difficult to define and has extremely limited, or no, application in the municipal securities market. 

Given the distinct features of the municipal securities market and the existing online trading systems, the MSRB believes it would be impractical to attempt to define the features of an electronic trading system that would have to be present for the system transactions to not be considered the result of a dealer recommendation. The online trading systems for municipal securities that are in place today limit customer choices to the inventory that the dealer or dealer consortium hold, and therefore, the dealer will always have a significant degree of discretion over the securities offered to the customer. A system that allows this degree of dealer discretion is a dramatic departure from the types of no recommendation examples provided by the NASD guidance, and thus, these communications must be carefully analyzed to determine whether or not a recommendation has been made.  

 The MSRB, however, does believe that the examples of communications that are recommendations provided in the NASD Online Suitability Notice are communications that take place in the municipal securities market. Therefore, the MSRB has adopted these examples and generally would view the following communications as falling within the definition of recommendation:

• A dealer sends a customer-specific electronic communication (e.g., an e-mail or pop-up screen) to a targeted customer or targeted group of customers encouraging the particular customer(s) to purchase a municipal security.[15]
• A dealer sends its customers an e-mail stating that customers should be invested in municipal securities from a particular state or municipal securities backed by a particular sector (such as higher education) and urges customers to purchase one or more stocks from a list with "buy" recommendations.
• A dealer provides a portfolio analysis tool that allows a customer to indicate an investment goal and input personalized information such as age, financial condition, and risk tolerance. The dealer in this instance then sends (or displays to) the customer a list of specific municipal securities the customer could buy or sell to meet the investment goal the customer has indicated.[16]
• A dealer uses data-mining technology (the electronic collection of information on Web Site users) to analyze a customer's financial or online activity—whether or not known by the customer—and then, based on those observations, sends (or "pushes") specific investment suggestions that the customer purchase or sell a municipal security.

Dealers should keep in mind that these examples are meant only to provide guidance and are not an exhaustive list of communications that the MSRB does consider to be recommendations. As stated earlier, many other types of electronic communications are not easily characterized. In addition, changes to the factual predicates upon which these examples are based (or the existence of additional factors) could alter the determination of whether similar communications may or may not be viewed as recommendations. Dealers, therefore, should analyze all relevant facts and circumstances, bearing in mind the general principles noted earlier and discussed below, to determine whether a communication is a recommendation, and they should take the necessary steps to fulfill their suitability obligations. Furthermore, these examples are based on technological services that are currently used in the marketplace. They are not intended to direct or limit the future development of delivery methods or products and services provided online.  

Guidelines for Evaluating Suitability Obligations 

Dealers should consider, at a minimum, the following guidelines when evaluating their suitability obligations with respect to municipal securities transactions.[17] None of these guidelines is determinative of whether a recommendation exists. However, each should be considered in evaluating all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the communication and transaction.

• A dealer cannot avoid or discharge its suitability obligation through a disclaimer where the particular communication reasonably would be viewed as a recommendation given its content, context, and presentation.[18] The MSRB, however, encourages dealers to include on their web sites (and in other means of communication with their customers) clear explanations of the use and limitations of tools offered on those sites.[19]   
• Dealers should analyze any communication about a security that reasonably could be viewed as a "call to action" and that they direct, or appear to direct, to a particular individual or targeted group of individuals—as opposed to statements that are generally made available to all customers or the public at large—to determine whether a recommendation is being made.[20]
• Dealers should scrutinize any communication to a customer that suggests the purchase, sale, or exchange of a municipal security—as opposed to simply providing objective data about a security—to determine whether a recommendation is being made.[21] 
• A dealer's transmission of unrequested information will not necessarily constitute a recommendation. However, when a dealer decides to send a particular customer unrequested information about a security that is not of a generalized or administrative nature (e.g., notification of an official communication), the dealer should carefully review the circumstances under which the information is being provided, the manner in which the information is delivered to the customer, the content of the communication, and the original source of the information. The dealer should perform this review regardless of whether the decision to send the information is made by a representative employed by the dealer or by a computer software program used by the dealer.
• Dealers should be aware that the degree to which the communication reasonably would influence an investor to trade a particular municipal security or group of municipal securities—either through the context or manner of presentation or the language used in the communication—may be considered in determining whether a recommendation is being made to the customer.

The MSRB emphasizes that the factors listed above are guidelines that may assist dealers in complying with the suitability rule. Again, the presence or absence of any of these factors does not by itself control whether a recommendation has been made or whether the dealer has complied with the suitability rule. Such determinations can be made only on a case-by-case basis taking into account all of the relevant facts and circumstances.

Conclusion

The foregoing discussion highlights some suggested principles and guidelines to assist in determining when electronic communications constitute recommendations, thereby triggering application of the MSRB's suitability rule. The MSRB acknowledges the numerous benefits that may be realized by dealers and their customers as a result of the Internet and online brokerage services. The MSRB emphasizes that it neither takes a position on, nor seeks to influence, any dealer's or customer's choice of a particular business model in this electronic environment. At the same time, however, the MSRB urges dealers both to consider carefully whether suitability requirements are adequately being addressed when implementing new services and to remember that customers' best interests must continue to be of paramount importance in any setting, traditional or online.

As new technologies and/or services evolve, the MSRB will continue to work with regulators, members of the industry and the public on these and other important issues that arise in the online trading environment.

[1] The term “dealer” is used in this notice as shorthand for “broker,” “dealer” or “municipal securities dealer,” as those terms are defined in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The use of the term in this notice does not imply that the entity is necessarily taking a principal position in a municipal security.

[2] The Bond Market Association’s (“TBMA”) 2001 Review of Electronic Transaction Systems found that at the end of 2001, there were at least 23 systems based in the United States that allow dealers or institutional investors to buy or sell municipal securities electronically compared to just 3 such systems in 1997. While dealers are also developing electronic trading platforms that allow retail customers to buy or sell municipal securities online, the development of online retail trading systems for municipal securities lags far behind that for equities.

[3] Rule G-19 provides in pertinent part:

(c) Suitability of Recommendations. In recommending to a customer any municipal security transaction, a [dealer] shall have reasonable grounds:

(i) based upon information available from the issuer of the security or otherwise, and

(ii) based upon the facts disclosed by such customer or otherwise known about such customer for believing that the recommendation is suitable.

[4] Although the focus of this notice is on the application of the suitability rule to electronic communications, much of the discussion is also relevant to more traditional communications, such as discussions made in person, over the telephone, or through postal mail.

[5] This notice focuses on customer-specific suitability under Rule G-19. Under Rule G-19, a dealer must also have a reasonable basis to believe that the recommendation could be suitable for at least some customers. See e.g., Rule G-19 Interpretation—Notice Concerning the Application of Suitability Requirements to Investment Seminars and Customer Inquiries Made in Response to a Dealer’s Advertisement, May 7, 1985, MSRB Rule Book (July 1, 2002) at 143; In re F.J. Kaufman and Company of Virginia, 50 S.E.C. 164, 168, 1989 SEC LEXIS 2376, *10 (1989) (the “reasonable basis” obligation relates only to the particular recommendation, rather than to any particular customer). The SEC, in its discussion of municipal underwriters’ responsibilities in a 1988 Release, noted that “a broker-dealer recommending securities to investors implies by its recommendation that it has an adequate basis for the recommendation.” Municipal Securities Disclosure, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 26100 (September 22, 1988) (the “1988 SEC Release”) at text accompanying note 72.

[6] Similarly, the suitability rule does not apply where a dealer merely gathers information on a particular customer, but does not make any recommendations. This is true even if the information is the type of information generally gathered to satisfy a suitability obligation. Dealers should nonetheless remember that regardless of any determination of whether the dealer is making a recommendation and subject to the suitability requirement, the dealer is required to make reasonable efforts to obtain certain customer specific information pursuant to rule G-8 (a)(xi) so that dealers can protect themselves and the integrity of the securities markets from customers who do not have the financial means to pay for transactions.

[7] See Rule G-17 Interpretation—Notice Regarding Rule G-17, on Disclosure of Material Facts, March 20, 2002, MSRB Rule Book (July 1, 2002) at 135.

[8] On April 30, 2002, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) approved a proposed rule change relating to the manner in which dealers fulfill their fair practice obligations to certain institutional customers.  Release No. 34-45849 (April 30, 2002), 67 FR 30743.  See Rule G-17 Interpretation—Notice Regarding the Application of MSRB Rules to Transactions With Sophisticated Municipal Market Professionals (“SMMPs”) (the “SMMP Notice”), MSRB Rule Book (July 1, 2002) at 136. The SMMP Notice recognizes the different capabilities of SMMPs and retail or non-sophisticated institutional customers and provides that dealers may consider the nature of the institutional customer when determining what specific actions are necessary to meet the dealer’s fair practice obligations to such customers. The SMMP Notice provides that, while it is difficult to define in advance the scope of a dealer’s fair practice obligations with respect to a particular transaction, by making a reasonable determination that an institutional customer is an SMMP, then certain of the dealer’s fair practice obligations remain applicable but are deemed fulfilled.

[9] See generally Report of Commissioner Laura S. Unger to the SEC, On-Line Brokerage: Keeping Apace of Cyberspace, at n. 64 (Nov. 1999) (“Unger Report”) (discussing various views espoused by online brokerage firms, regulators and academics on the topic of online suitability); Developments in the Law—The Law of Cyberspace, 112 Harv. L. Rev. 1574, 1582-83 (1999) (The article highlights the broader debate by academics and judges over whether "to apply conventional models of regulation to the Internet.").

[10] The guidance contained in this notice is intended to be consistent with the general statements and guidelines contained in the NASD Online Suitability Notice. 

[11] See e.g., Rule G-19 Interpretive Letter dated February 17, 1998, MSRB Rule Book (July 1, 2002) at 144.

[12] These general principles were first enunciated in the NASD Online Suitability Notice.

[13] For example, if a dealer transmitted a rating agency research report to a customer at the customer's request, that communication may not be subject to the suitability rule; whereas, if the same dealer transmitted the very same research report with an accompanying message, either oral or written, that the customer should act on the report, the suitability analysis would be different.

[14] NASD Online Suitability Notice at 3.

[15] Note that there are instances where sending a customer an electronic communication that highlights a particular municipal security (or securities) will not be viewed as a recommendation. For instance, while each case requires an analysis of the particular facts and circumstances, a dealer generally would not be viewed as making a recommendation when, pursuant to a customer's request, it sends the customer (1) electronic "alerts" (such as account activity alerts, market alerts, or rating agency changes) or (2) research announcements (e.g., sector reports) that are not tailored to the individual customer, as long as neither—given their content, context, and manner of presentation—would lead a customer reasonably to believe that the dealer is suggesting that the customer take action in response to the communication.

[16] Note, however, that a portfolio analysis tool that merely generates a suggested mix of general classes of financial assets (e.g., 60 percent equities, 20 percent bonds, and 20 percent cash equivalents), without an accompanying list of securities that the customer could purchase to achieve that allocation, would not trigger a suitability obligation. On the other hand, a series of actions which may not constitute recommendations when considered individually, may amount to a recommendation when considered in the aggregate. For example, a portfolio allocator's suggestion that a customer could alter his or her current mix of investments followed by provision of a list of municipal securities that could be purchased or sold to accomplish the alteration could be a recommendation. Again, however, the determination of whether a portfolio analysis tool's communication constitutes a recommendation will depend on the content, context, and presentation of the communication or series of communications.

[17] These guidelines were originally set forth in the NASD Online Suitability Notice.

[18] Although a dealer cannot disclaim away its suitability obligation, informing customers that generalized information provided is not based on the customer's particular financial situation or needs may help clarify that the information provided is not meant to be a recommendation to the customer. Whether the communication is in fact a recommendation would still depend on the content, context, and presentation of the communication. Accordingly, a dealer that sends a customer or group of customers information about a security might include a statement that the dealer is not providing the information based on the customers' particular financial situation or needs. Dealers may properly disclose to customers that the opinions or recommendations expressed in research do not take into account individual investors' circumstances and are not intended to represent recommendations by the dealer of particular municipal securities to particular customers. Dealers, however, should refer to previous guidelines issued by the SEC that may be relevant to these and/or related topics. For instance, the SEC has issued guidelines regarding whether and under what circumstances third-party information is attributable to an issuer, and the SEC noted that the guidance also may be relevant regarding the responsibilities of dealers. See SEC Guidance on the Use of Electronic Media, Release Nos. 34-7856, 34-42728, IC-24426, 65 Fed. Reg. 25843 at 25848-25849 (April 28, 2000).

[19] The MSRB believes that a dealer should, at a minimum, clearly explain the limitations of its search engine and the decentralized nature of the municipal securities market. The dealer should also clearly explain that securities that meet the customer’s search criteria might be available from other sources.

[20] The MSRB notes that there are circumstances where the act of sending a communication to a specific group of customers will not necessarily implicate the suitability rule. For instance, a dealer's business decision to provide only certain types of investment information (e.g., research reports) to a category of "premium" customers would not, without more, trigger application of the suitability rule. Conversely, dealers may incur suitability obligations when they send a communication to a large group of customers urging those customers to invest in a municipal security.

[21] As with the other general guidelines discussed in this notice, the presence of this factor alone does not automatically mean that a recommendation has been made. 

The MSRB understands that an issuer [of municipal fund securities] may make minor modifications to the official statement in order to correct typographical or grammatical errors, or to make such other modifications that the issuer may deem to be immaterial.  If the issuer has acknowledged in writing to the primary distributor that it does not consider such modification to be material to investors and does not believe that such modification is required to make the statements in the official statement not misleading, then the modification need not be sent by a dealer to a customer that has previously received the official statement, notwithstanding the provisions of Rule G-32(a)(i).[1]  The primary distributor must maintain the issuer’s written acknowledgement under Rule G-8(a)(xiii), relating to records concerning deliveries of official statements.  The primary distributor must send all amendments, regardless of materiality, to the MSRB under Rule G-36.

ENDNOTES

[*] [This interpretation is an excerpt from “Application of Fair Practice and Advertising Rules to Municipal Fund Securities,” May 14, 2002.  The remaining portions of the 2002 interpretation have been superseded by other interpretations and rule changes.]

[1] Rule G-32(a)(i) requires delivery of an official statement to a customer purchasing municipal fund securities by settlement of the transaction.  In the case of a repeat purchaser who has already received the official statement, dealers generally are required to deliver any amendments or supplements to the official statement in connection with subsequent purchases of the securities. [footnote has been renumbered]

Rule G-37, on political contributions and prohibitions on municipal securities business, prohibits any broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer (a "dealer") from engaging in municipal securities business with an issuer within two years after any contribution (other than certain de minimis contributions) to an official of such issuer made by: (i) the dealer; (ii) any municipal finance professional associated with such dealer; or (iii) any political action committee controlled by the dealer or any municipal finance professional. The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board ("MSRB") has received inquiries regarding the effect of a ban on municipal securities business with an issuer arising from a contribution made after a dealer has entered into a long-term contract to serve as the primary distributor of the issuer's municipal fund securities.

In an interpretive notice published in 1997 (the "1997 Interpretation"), the MSRB stated that a dealer subject to a prohibition on municipal securities business with an issuer is allowed to continue to execute certain issue-specific contractual obligations in effect prior to the date of the contribution that caused the prohibition.[1] For example, dealers that had already executed a contract with the issuer to serve as underwriter or financial advisor for a new issue of debt securities prior to the contribution could continue in these capacities.

The 1997 Interpretation also addressed certain types of on-going, non-issue-specific municipal securities business that a dealer may have contracted with an issuer to perform prior to the making of a contribution that causes a prohibition on municipal securities business with the issuer. For example, the MSRB noted that a dealer may act as remarketing agent for an outstanding issue of municipal securities or may continue to underwrite a specific commercial paper program so long as the contract for such services was in effect prior to the contribution. The MSRB stated that these activities are not considered new municipal securities business and may be performed by dealers that are banned from municipal securities business with an issuer. The MSRB further stated, however, that provisions in existing contracts that allow for changes in the services provided by the dealer or compensation paid by the issuer would be viewed by the MSRB as new municipal securities business and, therefore, rule G-37 would preclude a dealer subject to a ban on municipal securities business from performing such additional functions or receiving additional compensation. The MSRB cited two examples of these types of provisions. The first involved a contract to serve as remarketing agent for a variable rate issue that might permit a fixed rate conversion, with a concomitant increase in the per bond compensation. The second example involved an agreement to underwrite a commercial paper program that might include terms for increasing the size of the program, with no increase in per bond fees but an increase in overall compensation resulting from the larger outstanding balance of commercial paper. In both cases, the MSRB viewed the exercise of these provisions as new municipal securities business that would be banned under the rule.

In the 1997 Interpretation, the MSRB recognized that there is great variety in the terms of agreements regarding municipal securities business and that its guidance in the 1997 Interpretation may not adequately deal with all such agreements. The MSRB sought input on other situations where contracts obligate dealers to perform various types of activities after the date of a contribution that triggers a ban on municipal securities business and stated that additional interpretations might be issued based upon such input.

The MSRB understands that dealers typically are selected by issuers to serve as primary distributors of municipal fund securities on terms that differ significantly from those of a dealer selected to underwrite an issue of debt securities. Issuers generally enter into long-term agreements (in many cases with terms of ten years or longer) with the primary distributor of municipal fund securities for services that include the sale in a continuous primary offering of one or more categories or classes of the securities issued within the framework of a single program of investments.[2] In addition, an issuer may often engage a particular dealer to serve as the primary distributor of its municipal fund securities as part of a team of professionals that includes the dealer's affiliated investment management firm, which is charged with managing the investment of the underlying portfolios.

The MSRB believes that the guidance provided in the 1997 Interpretation, although appropriate for the circumstances discussed therein, may not be adequate to address the unique features of municipal fund securities programs. For example, so long as a program realizes net in-flows of investor cash, the size of an offering of municipal fund securities will necessarily increase over time. Under most compensation arrangements in the market, any net in-flow of cash generally would result in an increase in total compensation, causing any new sales of municipal fund securities that exceed redemptions to be considered new municipal securities business under the 1997 Interpretation. Also, the addition by the issuer of a new category of investments (e.g., a new portfolio in an aged-based Section 529 college savings plan created for children born in the most recent year) could be considered a new offering from which such dealer might be banned, even where such new category may have been clearly contemplated at the outset of the dealer's engagement. Further, the MSRB understands that the repercussions to an issuer of municipal fund securities or investors in such securities of a sudden change in the primary distributor (and possible concurrent change in the investment manager) resulting from a ban on municipal securities business arising during the term of an existing arrangement often will be significantly greater than in the case of an underwriting or other primary market activity relating to the typical debt offering. Issuers could be faced with redesigning existing programs and investors may need to establish new relationships with different dealers in order to maintain their investments.

As a result, the MSRB believes that further interpretive guidance is necessary in this area. The MSRB is of the view that, where a dealer has become subject to a ban on municipal securities business with an issuer of municipal fund securities with which it is currently serving as primary distributor, any continued sales of existing categories of municipal fund securities for such issuer during the duration of the ban would not be considered new municipal securities business if the basis for determining compensation does not change during that period, even if total compensation increases as a result of net in-flows of cash. Further, the MSRB believes that any changes in the services to be provided by the dealer to the issuer throughout the duration of the ban that are contemplated under the pre-existing contractual arrangement (e.g., the addition of new categories of securities within the framework of the existing program) would not be considered new municipal securities business so long as such changes do not result in: (1) an increase in total compensation received by the dealer for services performed for the duration of the ban (whether paid during the ban or as a deferred payment after the ban); or (2) in an extension of the term of the dealer in its current role.

Clerical or ministerial duties. This will acknowledge receipt of your letter in which you request advice concerning whether certain persons employed by [Name deleted] must qualify as municipal securities representatives under rule G-3.

In the case of one of the individuals, you state in your letter that he is responsible for calculating coupon rates for new issue securities, based on information provided to him by persons in [Name deleted] underwriting department. According to your letter, the individual has some discretion to "revise coupon rates to a more marketable figure," but all of his activities are subject to the approval of, and supervised by, municipal securities professionals in the department. We understand that he does not communicate with issuers, customers or other municipal securities dealers.

Based upon the facts set forth in your letter, we are of the view that the individual described performs only clerical or ministerial functions in calculating the coupon scale, and he is therefore not a municipal securities representative within the meaning of rule G-3.

In your letter, you also request advice regarding certain individuals whose only function is to receive telephonic orders for municipal securities from municipal securities dealers. We understand that these individuals do not solicit orders, negotiate prices or the terms of transactions, or transmit offers to prospective purchasers, nor do they communicate at any time with customers. Based upon the facts you have provided, we are of the opinion that these individuals perform only clerical or ministerial functions, and they are therefore also not municipal securities representatives within the meaning of rule G-3. MSRB interpretation of December 8, 1978.

Communication of information. I refer to your letter dated October 23, 1978 in which you request advice concerning the application of certain provisions of rule G-11. In your letter, you state that it is your understanding that the requirement in the rule for a syndicate manager to communicate information regarding the priority to be accorded to different orders could be satisfied if an agreement among underwriters provides for the managing underwriters, in their discretion, to establish the priorities to be accorded to different types of orders for the purchase of bonds from the syndicate so long as information as to the priorities so established is furnished to the members of the syndicate prior to the beginning of the order period.

Rule G-11 would permit the inclusion of a provision delegating to the managing underwriters the authority to establish the priority provisions under which the syndicate would operate. However, under section (f) of rule G-11, such information must be provided by the senior syndicate manager in writing to other members of a syndicate "prior to the first offer of any securities by a syndicate." Accordingly, if there is a presale period, the required disclosure must be made prior to the commencement of such period, and not prior to "the beginning of the order period." The procedures outlined in your letter would be permissible under the rule only if no securities are offered by a syndicate prior to the order period. MSRB interpretation of November 9, 1978.

Settlement of syndicate accounts. Your letter dated September 25, 1978, regarding rule G-12 has been referred to me for reply. In your letter, you inquire as to whether the requirement in section (j) of rule G-12 to settle syndicate accounts within 60 days following the date all securities are delivered to syndicate members, applies in all circumstances. Specifically, you ask whether the time for settlement may be extended under the rule in the event that the syndicate has not received all expense bills prior to the expiration of that period.

There is no provision in rule G-12 for extending the 60-day period in the circumstances which you described. In adopting this requirement, the Board sought to achieve an equitable balance between the interests of syndicate members and syndicate managers in settling syndicate accounts. The Board believes that the 60-day period provides sufficient time to enable syndicate managers to settle on syndicate accounts and represents a reasonable time within which such accounts should be settled. It is therefore incumbent upon a syndicate manager to encourage persons to submit bills to the syndicate on a timely basis. The syndicate manager will otherwise have to settle the account within the prescribed time period and make adjustments subsequently when late bills are finally received. MSRB interpretation of November 1, 1978.

Municipal securities representative. Your letter dated October 16, 1978, has been referred to me for response. In your letter, you request clarification of whether personnel in your firm will have to take and pass the Board's qualification examination for municipal securities representatives, since they only effect transactions with other municipal securities professionals.

Board rule G-3(a)(iii)[*] defines the term "municipal securities representative" to mean a natural person associated with a municipal securities broker or municipal securities dealer who performs certain specified functions, which include "trading or sales of municipal securities." A person is deemed to be a municipal securities representative under the rule whether he or she engages in such activities with customers or only other municipal securities professionals. Accordingly, personnel in your firm who only trade with, or sell securities to other municipal securities professionals will have to take and pass the examination for municipal securities representatives, unless they are exempted under the provisions of rule G-3(e)(ii)[†]. MSRB interpretation of October 27, 1978.

[*] [Currently codified at rule G-3(a)(i)]

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

Records of original entry. Your letter dated October 13, 1978, has been referred to me for response. In your letter you inquire whether a certain method of keeping "records of original entry" is satisfactory for purposes of the requirement to maintain "current" books and records. In particular, you suggest that such records could be maintained by means of a "unit" or "ticket" system during the period from trade date to settlement date, and then recorded on a blotter as of the settlement date.

As indicated to you, such a method of preserving these records is acceptable, provided that all information required to be shown is clearly and accurately reflected in both forms of the record, and both forms provide adequate audit controls. MSRB interpretation of October 26, 1978.

Rule D-10 defines a discretionary account as an account for which a municipal securities professional has been authorized to determine what municipal securities will be purchased, sold or exchanged by or for the account. The definition covers accounts for which a municipal securities professional exercises discretionary authority from time to time, as well as accounts in which the customer sometimes, but not always, makes investment decisions. Under rule D-10, a discretionary account will not be deemed to  exist if the professional’s discretion is limited to the price at which, or the time at which, an order given by a customer for a definite amount of a specified security is executed. The definition relates to discretion concerning what municipal securities will be purchased, sold or exchanged, rather than when or at what price such transactions may occur.

Rule D-11 is designed to eliminate the need to make specific reference to personnel of securities firms and bank dealers in each Board rule that applies both to the organization and its personnel.

The term “associated person” in rule D-11 has the same meaning as set forth in section 3(a)(18) and 3(a)(32) of the Act, except that clerical and ministerial personnel are excluded from the definition for purposes of the Board’s rules, unless otherwise specified. Although the statutory definitions of associated persons include individuals and organizations in a control relationship with the securities professional, the context of the fair practice rules indicates that such rules will ordinarily not apply to persons who are associated with securities firms and bank deal- ers solely by reason of a control relationship.

Rule D-9 codifies, as a definitional rule of general application, the definition of the term “customer” presently set forth in various Board rules. Employees and other associated persons of brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers would, under this definition, be “customers” with respect to transactions effected for their personal accounts. An issuer would be a “customer” within the meaning of the rule except in the case of a sale by it of a new issue of its securities.

Callable securities: pricing to call. Your letter dated May 1, 1978 concerning the pricing to call provisions of rules G-12 and G-15 has been referred to me for response. In your letter, you request clarification of the application of such provisions to a situation in which securities have been prerefunded and the escrow fund is to be held to the maturity date of the securities. We understand that the securities in question are part of a term issue, sold on a yield basis, and are subject to a mandatory sinking fund call beginning two years prior to maturity.

Under rules G-12 and G-15, the dollar price of a transaction effected on a yield basis must be calculated to the lowest of price to premium call price to par option or price to maturity. The calculation of dollar price to a premium call or par option date should be to that date at which the issuer may exercise an option to call the whole of a particular issue or, in the case of serial bonds, a particular maturity, and not to the date of a call in part.

Accordingly, the calculation of the dollar price of a transaction in the securities in your example should be made to the maturity date. The existence of the sinking fund call should, however, be disclosed on the confirmation by an indication that the securities are "callable." The fact that the securities are prerefunded should also be noted on the confirmation. MSRB interpretation of June 8, 1978.

Portfolio credit analyst. This will acknowledge with thanks receipt of your letter dated May 2, 1978 concerning the status of persons occupying the position of portfolio credit analyst at your bank. Your letter, as well as our telephone conversations prior and subsequent to the letter, raise two questions concerning the status of such persons under Board rules. First, are the functions of a portfolio credit analyst subject to the requirements of rule G-1, which defines a separately identifiable dealer department or division of a bank? Second, must a portfolio credit analyst qualify as a municipal securities representative or municipal securities principal under Board rule G-3?

Although we recognize that the primary purpose of the portfolio credit analyst, as set forth in the material you furnished to me, is to review your bank's investment portfolio, a function not subject to Board regulation, to the extent that the analyst provides research advice and analysis in connection with your bank's underwriting, trading or sales activities, the analyst must be included within the municipal securities dealer department for purposes of rule G-1, and is subject to the qualification requirements of rule G-3.

Under Board rule G-1, a separately identifiable department or division of a bank is that unit of the bank which conducts all of the municipal securities dealer activities of the bank. Section (b) of the rule defines municipal securities dealer activities to include research with respect to municipal securities to the extent such research relates to underwriting, trading, sales or financial advisory and consultant services performed by the bank. Thus, we think it clear that for purposes of rule G-1, persons functioning as portfolio credit analysts who render research in connection with underwriting, trading or sales activities at your bank must be included within the separately identifiable department or division of the bank for purposes of rule G-1. This is consistent with the underlying purpose of rule G-1 to assure that all of the functions performed at the bank relating to the business of the bank as a municipal securities dealer are appropriately identified for purposes of supervision, inspection and enforcement.

Under rule G-3(a)(iii)[*] a municipal securities representative is defined as a person associated with a municipal securities broker or municipal securities dealer who performs certain functions similar to those defined as municipal securities dealer activities in rule G-1. The position of portfolio credit analyst as described in your letter and accompanying material appears to fit the definition of municipal securities representative to the extent that persons occupying such position perform research in connection with the bank's underwriting, trading or sales activities. Under rule G-3(e)[†], municipal securities representatives are required to qualify in accordance with Board rules. A similar result would obtain with respect to qualification as a municipal securities principal, if the portfolio credit analyst functions in a supervisory capacity. MSRB interpretation of June 8, 1978.

[*] [Currently codified at rule G-3(a)(i)]

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

Extent and type of municipal securities activities. Your letter dated March 23, 1978 concerning compliance with the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board's requirements has been referred to me for response.

The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board was established by the Securities Acts Amendments of 1975 as the primary rulemaking authority with respect to the activities of municipal securities brokers and dealers and with respect to transactions in municipal securities. The Board's rules apply to each municipal securities broker and municipal securities dealer within the meaning of sections 3(a)(31) and 3(a)(30), respectively, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and all municipal securities brokers and dealers regardless of the volume of their municipal securities business, are subject to the rules promulgated by the Board insofar as transactions in municipal securities are concerned, whether such transactions are solicited or unsolicited.

Under section 15B(b)(2)(J) of the Act, the Board is directed to prescribe fees and charges payable by each municipal securities dealer and municipal securities broker to defray the costs and expenses of operating the Board. Pursuant to this authority, the Board adopted rules A-12 and A-14 which impose an initial fee and an annual fee on each municipal securities broker and municipal securities dealer. A copy of these rules are enclosed.

In approving MSRB rules A-12 and A-14, the Securities and Exchange Commission determined that these assessments are consistent with the statutory requirement that the MSRB be self-funding. We therefore request that you comply with these rules and forward your checks to us promptly. MSRB interpretation of May 3, 1978.

Securities control. Your letter dated February 24, 1978, has been referred to me for response. In addition, I understand that you have had several subsequent telephone conversations about your question. In these conversations, you describe the procedures for securities control followed by your bank's dealer department.

Briefly, as we understand your procedures, the dealer department records all certificate numbers of municipal securities received or delivered by the department. This information is recorded in a manner which relates the physical receipt and delivery of specific certificates to specific transactions. Once in safekeeping, the certificates are kept in a vault, and filed by issue, rather than filed separately by account, chronologically, or by transaction. In your letter, you inquired whether this system of filing in the vault raises problems of compliance with Board rule G-8.

Since your bank records in records of original entry the certificate numbers upon receipt and delivery of municipal securities by your dealer department, it appears that your system satisfies the requirement under rule G-8(a)(i) that such information be recorded on the "record of original entry." The safekeeping procedures used by the bank are specifically excluded from the scope of the rule under the provisions of paragraph G-8(a)(iii), which requires

[r]ecords showing...all positions (including, in the case of a municipal securities broker or municipal securities dealer other than a bank dealer, securities in safekeeping)...

Therefore, based on the information you have provided, we believe that your system is in compliance with the applicable provisions of rule G-8. MSRB interpretation of April 10, 1978.

Securities record. In your letter, you question the application of Board rule G-8(a)(iii) and, in particular, the requirement that "such [securities] records shall consist of a single record system," to a situation in which a securities firm maintains such records organized by ownership of the securities. It is my understanding that the firm in question maintains records showing securities in the firm's trading account, and offsetting positions long and short, and separate records showing securities owned by customers and the offsetting location for those securities.

Rule G-8(a)(iii) requires, in part

[r]ecords showing separately for each municipal security all positions ... carried by such municipal securities broker or municipal securities dealer for its account or for the account of a customer...

Therefore, securities records should be maintained by security, although this can be accomplished by separate sheets showing positions in that security held for trading or investment purposes and positions owned by customers. A record organized by customer, showing several securities and offsetting positions held by that customer, is not acceptable for purposes of rule G-8(a)(iii).

With respect to your question regarding the multiple maturity provision of rule G-8(a)(iii), the relevant position of the rule states

multiple maturities of the same issue of municipal securities, as well as multiple coupons of the same maturity, may be shown on the same record, provided that adequate secondary records exist to identify separately such maturities and coupons.

Therefore, the securities to be shown on a single securities record must be identical as to issue date or maturity date. Securities which are identical as to issuer may be shown on a single securities record only if the securities have either the same issue date or the same maturity date, and if adequate secondary records exist to identify separately the securities grouped on the record. MSRB interpretation of April 8, 1978.

Fully disclosed broker. I refer to your letter of March 24, 1978 in which you request a determination concerning whether as a broker who passes all of his business through a dealer on a fully disclosed basis you are subject to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board's rules A-12 and A-14 which impose an initial and annual fee on municipal securities brokers and municipal securities dealer.

I note that the term "broker" as defined in section 3(a)(4) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Act") is not restricted to securities firms that directly effect transactions in securities for the account of others. I call your attention to various rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission governing the activities of "brokers" and "dealers" that recognize introducing brokers as "brokers" under the Act. See e.g., rules 15c-3-1 1(a)(2) and 15c3-3(k)(2). The definition of the term "municipal securities broker" set forth in section 3(a)(31) of the Act incorporates the statutory definition of "broker" and therefore appears similarly not limited to firms directly effecting transactions in municipal securities for the account of others.

Pursuant to rule D-1 of the Board, which incorporates the definition of terms used in the Act for purposes of the Board's rules, the term "municipal securities broker" as used in rules A-12 and A-14 has the same meaning as set forth in section 3(a)(31) of the Act.

Accordingly, we are unable to conclude that the fees imposed by the Board are inapplicable to your situation. MSRB interpretation of April 4, 1978.

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

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

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

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

Delivery requirements: coupons and coupon checks. This letter is to confirm the substance of conversations you had with the Board’s staff concerning the application of certain provisions of rule G-12, the uniform practice rule, to deliveries of securities bearing past-due coupons. You inquire whether, in the case where a transaction is effected for a settlement date prior to the coupon payment date, a delivery of securities with this past-due coupon attached constitutes "good delivery" for purposes of the rule.

Rule G-12(e)(vii)(C) provides that a seller may, but is not required to, deliver a check in lieu of coupons if delivery is made within thirty calendar days prior to an interest payment date. Thus, in the circumstances you set forth, the seller would have the option to detach the coupons and provide a check, but is under no obligation to do so. A delivery with these coupons still attached would constitute "good delivery," and a rejection of the delivery for this reason would be an improper rejection. MSRB interpretation of March 9, 1978.

Delivery requirements: partials. I am writing to confirm the substance of our telephone conversation concerning the provision of rule G-12(e)(iv) on partial deliveries. In our discussion, you posed a specific example of a single purchase of securities in which half are of one maturity and half of another maturity and inquired whether or not delivery of only one of the maturities would constitute a "partial" under the terms of the rule.

As I stated to you, if the transaction is effected on an "all or none" basis, and your confirmation is marked "all or none" or "AON," this would suffice to indicate that the purchase of both maturities constitutes a single transaction, and that both maturities must be delivered to effect good delivery. MSRB interpretation of February 23, 1978.

This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated February 2, 1978 in which you request a clarification of Board rule G-16 relating to periodic compliance examinations.

In your letter you express your understanding that rule G-16 does not apply to bank dealers. This understanding is incorrect. Rule G-16 applies to all municipal securities brokers and municipal securities dealers and requires that all such organizations be examined at least once each [two calendar years] to determine compliance with, among other things, rules of the Board. Under section 15B(c)(7) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Act”), such examinations of bank dealers will be conducted by the appropriate federal bank regulatory agency. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is designated by the Act as the appropriate agency for national banks. MSRB interpretation of February 17, 1978.
NOTE: revised to reflect subsequent amendments.

Apprenticeship. This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated January 30, 1978 and will confirm our recent telephone conversation.

In your letter you seek clarification of the applicability of the requirements of rule G-3(i)[*]relating to apprenticeship periods to a municipal securities representative who has previously qualified as a general securities representative. As I indicated in our conversation, an individual who was previously qualified as a general securities representative is not required to serve the 90-day apprenticeship period. MSRB interpretation of February 17, 1978.

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