Supervisory procedures relating to indirect contributions: conference accounts and 527 organizations.  This is in response to your request for confirmation that donations to segregated conference accounts of organizations such as the Democratic Governors Association (DGA) and Republican Governors Association (RGA) do not constitute contributions to an official of an issuer within the meaning of Rule G-37(b) without an intent to use the conference accounts as a device for contributing to the election activities of individual governors or other officials of issuers.  You describe both organizations as independent, voluntary political organizations constituted under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code to raise money for political activities.  You note that the organizations’ activities have the primary purpose of influencing gubernatorial elections but also seek to conduct policy conferences and workshops to help their members and other interested parties to understand and participate in public policy questions that confront state governments.  You state that all Democratic governors are members of the DGA and all Republican governors are members of the RGA.

You further note that each organization has a wide variety of accounts into which it receives funds from individuals, organizations and other entities, with some accounts used to provide financial support to gubernatorial candidates and other accounts (including conference accounts) used exclusively to fund policy conferences.  You state that the conference accounts are segregated from accounts that provide financial support to gubernatorial candidates and that neither organization permits transfers of funds from their conference accounts to any of their other accounts, including their administrative accounts.  You represent that both organizations follow a standard practice of honoring any request by a donor to place donated funds in a conference account and that they have further committed to provide, upon a donor’s request, written confirmation prior to accepting a donation that the donated funds will be allocated to the conference account.

The MSRB cannot provide confirmation regarding the status under Rule G-37 of payments to any particular organization or account of such organization as such a determination requires an analysis of, among other things, the specific facts and circumstances of each individual payment, the written supervisory procedures of the broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer (“dealer”), and the efforts of the dealer to enforce such procedures.  However, this letter reviews guidance previously provided by the MSRB that may assist you in undertaking such an analysis.

Under Rule G-37, on political contributions and prohibitions on municipal securities business, contributions to officials of an issuer by a dealer, a municipal finance professional (“MFP”) of the dealer, or a political action committee (“PAC”) controlled by the dealer or an MFP can result in the dealer being banned from municipal securities business with such issuer for a period of two years.[1]  Section (d) of Rule G-37 provides, in part, that no dealer or MFP shall, directly or indirectly, through or by any other person or means, do any act which would result in a violation of the ban on municipal securities business.

The MSRB has previously provided guidance regarding the potential for payments made to political parties, PACs or others to constitute indirect contributions to issuer officials for purposes of Rule G-37(d).  In guidance published in 1996, the MSRB stated that a dealer would violate Rule G-37 by doing municipal securities business with an issuer after providing money to any person or entity when the dealer knows that such money will be given to an official of an issuer who could not receive such a contribution directly from the dealer without triggering the rule’s prohibition on municipal securities business. Further, depending on the specific facts and circumstances, a payment to a PAC or political party that is soliciting funds for the purpose of supporting a limited number of issuer officials might result in the same prohibition on municipal securities business as would a contribution made directly to an issuer official.[2]  In such circumstances, dealers should inquire of the PAC or political party how any funds received from the dealer would be used.[3]

In 2005, the MSRB published guidance on dealers’ written supervisory procedures under Rule G-27, on supervision, relating to compliance with Rule G-37(d).  The MSRB noted that each dealer must adopt, maintain and enforce written supervisory procedures reasonably designed to ensure that neither the dealer nor its MFPs are using payments to political parties and non-dealer controlled PACs to contribute indirectly to an official of an issuer.[4]  Please note that the scope of Rule G-37(d) is not limited to the use of political parties and PACs as possible conduits for indirect contributions to issuer officials and, therefore, the need for such supervisory procedures would apply in connection with dealer and MFP payments to other types of political organizations as well, including but not limited to organizations constituted under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code.

The 2005 guidance on supervisory procedures included examples of certain provisions that dealers might include in their written supervisory procedures to ensure compliance with Rule G-37(d).  The MSRB stated that such examples are not exclusive and are only suggestions, and that each dealer is required to evaluate its own circumstances and develop written supervisory procedures reasonably designed to ensure that the conduct of the municipal securities activities of the dealer and its associated persons are in compliance with Rule G-37(d).[5]  Thus, a dealer need not include the specific supervisory procedures described in the 2005 guidance in order to meet its obligation under Rule G-27(c) so long as the dealer in fact has, and enforces, other written supervisory procedures reasonably designed to ensure that the conduct of the municipal securities activities of the dealer and its associated persons are in compliance with Rule G-37(d).

The MSRB also has stated that payments to “housekeeping,” “conference” or “overhead” accounts of political parties are not safe harbors under Rule G-37 and that a dealer’s written supervisory procedures designed to ensure compliance with Rule G-37(d) must take into account such payments.  The MSRB noted that “preemptive” instructions accompanying payments to housekeeping accounts of political parties stating that such payments are not to be used for the benefit of one or a limited number of issuer officials are not considered sufficient to meet the dealer’s obligations with regard to ensuring that the payment is not being made to circumvent the requirements of Rule G-37.[6]  Although payments to housekeeping, conference or overhead accounts are not safe harbors and preemptive instructions are not by themselves sufficient to establish compliance with Rule G-37(d), procedures permitting payments to political parties and other political organizations only if made to these types of accounts and/or requiring preemptive instructions regarding the use of such payments may be elements in a supervisory program that, together with other appropriate procedures, could adequately ensure compliance with Rule G-37(d), depending on the specific facts and circumstances. MSRB Interpretation of December 21, 2006.
__________

[1] MFPs may make certain de minimis contributions to issuer officials without triggering the ban on business.

[2] See Rule G-37 Question and Answer No. III.4 (August 6, 1996), reprinted in MSRB Rule Book.

[3] See Rule G-37 Question and Answer No. III.5 (August 6, 1996), reprinted in MSRB Rule Book.

[4] See Rule G-37 Question and Answer No. III.7 (September 22, 2005) (“Q&A-III.7”), reprinted in MSRB Rule Book.

[5] See Q&A-III.7.

[6] See Rule G-37 Question and Answer No. III.8 (September 22, 2005), reprinted in MSRB Rule Book.

The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (“MSRB”) is publishing this interpretation to ensure that brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers (“dealers”) effecting transactions in the 529 college savings plan market fully understand their fair practice and disclosure duties to their customers.[1]

Basic Customer Protection Obligation

At the core of the MSRB’s customer protection rules is Rule G-17, which provides that, in the conduct of its municipal securities activities, each dealer shall deal fairly with all persons and shall not engage in any deceptive, dishonest or unfair practice.  The rule encompasses two basic principles: an anti-fraud prohibition similar to the standard set forth in Rule 10b-5 adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), and a general duty to deal fairly even in the absence of fraud.  All activities of dealers must be viewed in light of these basic principles, regardless of whether other MSRB rules establish specific requirements applicable to such activities.

Disclosure

The MSRB has interpreted Rule G-17 to require a dealer, in connection with any transaction in municipal securities, to disclose to its customer, at or prior to the sale of the securities to the customer (the “time of trade”), all material facts about the transaction known by the dealer, as well as material facts about the security that are reasonably accessible to the market.[2]  This duty applies to any dealer transaction in a 529 college savings plan interest regardless of whether the transaction has been recommended by the dealer.

Many states offer favorable state tax treatment or other valuable benefits to their residents in connection with investments in their own 529 college savings plan.  In the case of sales of out-of-state 529 college savings plan interests to a customer, the MSRB views Rule G-17 as requiring a dealer to make, at or prior to the time of trade, additional disclosures that:

(i) depending upon the laws of the home state of the customer or designated beneficiary, favorable state tax treatment or other benefits offered by such home state for investing in 529 college savings plans may be available only if the customer invests in the home state’s 529 college savings plan;

(ii) any state-based benefit offered with respect to a particular 529 college savings plan should be one of many appropriately weighted factors to be considered in making an investment decision; and

(iii) the customer should consult with his or her financial, tax or other adviser to learn more about how state-based benefits (including any limitations) would apply to the customer’s specific circumstances and also may wish to contact his or her home state or any other 529 college savings plan to learn more about the features, benefits and limitations of that state’s 529 college savings plan.

This disclosure obligation is hereinafter referred to as the “out-of-state disclosure obligation.”[3]

The out-of-state disclosure obligation may be met if the disclosure appears in the program disclosure document, so long as the program disclosure document has been delivered to the customer at or prior to the time of trade and the disclosure appears in the program disclosure document in a manner that is reasonably likely to be noted by an investor.[4]  A presentation of this disclosure in the program disclosure document in close proximity and with equal prominence to the principal presentation of substantive information regarding other federal or state tax-related consequences of investing in the 529 college savings plan, and the inclusion of a reference to this disclosure in close proximity and with equal prominence to each other presentation of information regarding state tax-related consequences of investing in the 529 college savings plan, would be deemed to satisfy this requirement.[5]

The MSRB has no authority to mandate inclusion of any particular items in the issuer’s program disclosure document.[6]  Dealers who wish to rely on the program disclosure document for fulfillment of the out-of-state disclosure obligation are responsible for understanding what is included within the program disclosure document of any 529 college savings plan they market and for determining whether such information is sufficient to meet this disclosure obligation.  Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, disclosure through the program disclosure document as described above is not the sole manner in which a dealer may fulfill its out-of-state disclosure obligation.  Thus, if the issuer has not included this information in the program disclosure document in the manner described, inclusion in the program disclosure document in another manner may nonetheless fulfill the dealer’s out-of-state disclosure obligation so long as disclosure in such other manner is reasonably likely to be noted by an investor.  Otherwise, the dealer would remain obligated to disclose such information separately to the customer under Rule G-17 by no later than the time of trade.[7]

If the dealer proceeds to provide information to an out-of-state customer about the state tax or other benefits available through such customer’s home state, Rule G-17 requires that the dealer ensure that the information is not false or misleading.  For example, a dealer would violate Rule G-17 if it were to inform a customer that investment in the 529 college savings plan of the customer’s home state did not provide the customer with any state tax benefit even though such a state tax benefit is in fact available.  Furthermore, a dealer would violate Rule G-17 if it were to inform a customer that investment in the 529 college savings plan of another state would provide the customer with the same state tax benefits as would be available if the customer were to invest in his or her home state’s 529 college savings plan even though this is not the case.[8]  Dealers should make certain that information they provide to their customers, whether provided under an affirmative disclosure obligation imposed by MSRB rules or in response to questions from customers, is correct and not misleading.

Dealers are reminded that this out-of-state disclosure obligation is in addition to their general obligation under Rule G-17 to disclose to their customers at or prior to the time of trade all material facts known by dealers about the 529 college savings plan interests they are selling to their customers, as well as material facts about such 529 college savings plan that are reasonably accessible to the market.  Further, dealers are reminded that disclosures made to customers as required under MSRB rules with respect to 529 college savings plans do not relieve dealers of their suitability obligations—including the obligation to consider the customer’s financial status, tax status and investment objectives—if they have recommended investments in 529 college savings plans.

Suitability

Under Rule G-19, a dealer that recommends to a customer a transaction in a security 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 or otherwise known about the customer.[9]  To assure that a dealer effecting a recommended transaction with a non-institutional customer has the information needed about the customer to make its suitability determination, the rule requires the dealer to make reasonable efforts to obtain information concerning the customer’s financial status, tax status and investment objectives, as well as any other information reasonable and necessary in making the recommendation.[10]  Dealers are reminded that the obligation arising under Rule G-19 in connection with a recommended transaction requires a meaningful analysis, taking into consideration the information obtained about the customer and the security, that establishes the reasonable grounds for believing that the recommendation is suitable.  Such suitability determinations should be based on the appropriately weighted factors that are relevant in any particular set of facts and circumstances, which factors may vary from transaction to transaction.[11]  Pursuant to Rule G-27(c), dealers must have written supervisory procedures in place that are reasonably designed to ensure compliance with this Rule G-19 obligation to undertake a suitability analysis in connection with every recommended transaction, and dealers must enforce these procedures to ensure that such meaningful analysis does in fact occur in connection with the dealer’s recommended transactions.

In the context of a recommended transaction relating to a 529 college savings plan, the MSRB believes that it is crucial for dealers to remain cognizant of the fact that these instruments are designed for a particular purpose and that this purpose generally should match the customer’s investment objective.  For example, dealers should bear in mind the potential tax consequences of a customer making an investment in a 529 college savings plan where the dealer understands that the customer’s investment objective may not involve use of such funds for qualified higher education expenses.[12]  Dealers also should consider whether a recommendation is consistent with the customer’s tax status and any customer investment objectives materially related to federal or state tax consequences of an investment.

Furthermore, investors generally are required to designate a specific beneficiary under a 529 college savings plan.  The MSRB believes that information known about the designated beneficiary generally would be relevant in weighing the investment objectives of the customer, including (among other things) information regarding the age of the beneficiary and the number of years until funds will be needed to pay qualified higher education expenses of the beneficiary.  The MSRB notes that, since the person making the investment in a 529 college savings plan retains significant control over the investment (e.g., may withdraw funds, change plans, or change beneficiary, etc.), this person is appropriately considered the customer for purposes of Rule G-19 and other MSRB rules.  As noted above, information regarding the designated beneficiary should be treated as information relating to the customer’s investment objective for purposes of Rule G-19.

In many cases, dealers may offer the same investment option in a 529 college savings plan sold with different commission structures.  For example, an A share may have a front-end load, a B share may have a contingent deferred sales charge or back-end load that reduces in amount depending upon the number of years that the investment is held, and a C share may have an annual asset-based charge.  A customer’s investment objective—particularly, the number of years until withdrawals are expected to be made—can be a significant factor in determining which share class would be suitable for the particular customer.

Rule G-19(e), on churning, prohibits a dealer from recommending transactions to a customer that are excessive in size or frequency, in view of information known to such dealer concerning the customer’s financial background, tax status and investment objectives.  Thus, for example, where the dealer knows that a customer is investing in a 529 college savings plan with the intention of receiving the available federal tax benefit, such dealer could, depending upon the facts and circumstances, violate rule G-19(e) if it were to recommend roll-overs from one 529 college savings plan to another with such frequency as to lose the federal tax benefit.  Even where the frequency does not imperil the federal tax benefit, roll-overs recommended year after year by a dealer could, depending upon the facts and circumstances (including consideration of legitimate investment and other purposes), be viewed as churning.  Similarly, depending upon the facts and circumstances, where a dealer recommends investments in one or more plans for a single beneficiary in amounts that far exceed the amount that could reasonably be used by such beneficiary to pay for qualified higher education expenses, a violation of rule G-19(e) could result.[13]

Other Sales Practice Principles

Dealers must keep in mind the requirements under Rule G-17—that they deal fairly with all persons and that they not engage in any deceptive, dishonest or unfair practice—when considering the appropriateness of day-to-day sales-related activities with respect to municipal fund securities, including 529 college savings plans.  In some cases, certain sales-related activities are governed in part by specific MSRB rules, such as Rule G-19 (as described above) and Rule G-30(b), on commissions.[14]  Other activities may not be explicitly addressed by a specific MSRB rule.  In either case, the general principles of Rule G-17 always apply.

In particular, dealers must ensure that they do not engage in transactions primarily designed to increase commission revenues in a manner that is unfair to customers under Rule G-17.  Thus, in addition to being a potential violation of Rule G-19 as discussed above, recommending a particular share class to a customer that is not suitable for that customer, or engaging in churning, may also constitute a violation of Rule G-17 if the recommendation was made for the purpose of generating higher commission revenues.  Also, where a dealer offers investments in multiple 529 college savings plans, consistently recommending that customers invest in the one 529 college savings plan that offers the dealer the highest compensation may, depending on the facts and circumstances, constitute a violation of Rule G-17 if the recommendation of such 529 college savings plan over the other 529 college savings plans offered by the dealer does not reflect a legitimate investment-based purpose.

Further, recommending transactions to customers in amounts designed to avoid commission discounts (i.e., sales below breakpoints where the customer would be entitled to lower commission charges) may also violate Rule G-17, depending upon the facts and circumstances.  For example, a recommendation that a customer make two smaller investments in separate but nearly identical 529 college savings plans for the purposes of avoiding a reduced commission rate that would be available upon investing the full amount in a single 529 college savings plan, or that a customer time his or her multiple investments in a 529 college savings plan so as to avoid being able to take advantage of a lower commission rate, in either case without a legitimate investment-based purpose, could violate Rule G-17.

With respect to sales incentives, the MSRB has previously interpreted Rule G-20, relating to gifts, gratuities and non-cash compensation, to require a dealer that sponsors a sales contest involving representatives who are not employed by the sponsoring dealer to have in place written agreements with these representatives.[15]  In addition, the general principles of Rule G-17 are applicable.  Thus, if a dealer or any of its associated persons engages in any marketing activities that result in a customer being treated unfairly, or if the dealer or any of its associated persons engages in any deceptive, dishonest or unfair practice in connection with such marketing activities, Rule G-17 could be violated.  The MSRB believes that, depending upon the specific facts and circumstances, a dealer may violate Rule G-17 if it acts in a manner that is reasonably likely to induce another dealer or such other dealer’s associated persons to violate the principles of Rule G-17 or other MSRB customer protection rules, such as Rule G-19 or Rule G-30.  Dealers are also reminded that Rule G-20 establishes standards regarding incentives for sales of municipal securities, including 529 college savings plan interests, that are substantially similar to those currently applicable to sales of mutual fund shares under NASD rules.

Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board ("MSRB") Rule G-38, on solicitation of municipal securities business, defines "solicitation" as any direct or indirect communication with an issuer for the purpose of obtaining or retaining municipal securities business. This definition is important for purposes of determining whether payments made by a broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer ("dealer") to persons who are not affiliated persons of the dealer are prohibited under Rule G-38.[1] In addition, the definition is central to determining whether communications by dealer personnel would result in such personnel being considered municipal finance professionals ("MFPs") of the dealer for purposes of Rule G-37, on political contributions and prohibitions on municipal securities business. This notice provides interpretive guidance relating to the status of certain types of communications as solicitations for purposes of Rules G-37 and G-38.

Purpose of Communication

The concept of solicitation under Rules G-37 and G-38 includes as a central element the notion that the communication occurs with the purpose of obtaining or retaining municipal securities business. The determination of whether a particular communication is a solicitation is dependent upon the specific facts and circumstances relating to such communication. As a general proposition, any communication made under circumstances reasonably calculated to obtain or retain municipal securities business for the dealer may be considered a solicitation unless the circumstances otherwise indicate that the communication does not have the purpose of obtaining or retaining municipal securities business. This notice provides examples of circumstances in which a communication may or may not be considered a solicitation. These examples are illustrative only and are not the only instances in which a solicitation may be deemed to have or have not occurred.

Limited Communications with Issuer Representative

If an issuer representative asks an affiliated person of a dealer whether the dealer has municipal securities capabilities, such affiliated person generally would not be viewed as having solicited municipal securities business if he or she provides a limited affirmative response, together with either providing the issuer representative with contact information for an MFP of the dealer or informing the issuer representative that dealer personnel who handle municipal securities business will contact him or her. Similarly, if an issuer representative is discussing governmental cash flow management issues with an affiliated person of a dealer who concludes, in his or her professional judgment, that an appropriate means of addressing the issuer's needs may be through an issue of municipal securities, the affiliated person generally would not be viewed as having solicited business if he or she provides a limited communication to the issuer representative that such alternative may be appropriate, together with either providing the issuer representative with contact information for an MFP or informing the issuer representative that dealer personnel who handle municipal securities business will contact him or her.

In the examples above, if the affiliated person receives compensation such as a finder's or referral fee for such business or if the affiliated person engages in other activities that could be deemed a solicitation with respect to such business (for example, attending presentations of the dealer's municipal finance capabilities or responding to a request for proposals), the affiliated person generally would be viewed as having solicited the municipal securities business. The MSRB has long regarded receipt of a finder's fee for bringing municipal securities business to the dealer and activities such as attending presentations to issuer personnel of the dealer's municipal finance capabilities or responding to issuer requests for proposals as presumptively constituting solicitations of municipal securities business and does not view this notice as altering such presumption.

Promotional Communication

The MSRB understands that an affiliated person of a dealer may provide information to potential clients and others regarding the general capabilities of the dealer through either oral or written communications. Any such communication that is not made with the purpose of obtaining or retaining municipal securities business would not be considered a solicitation. Thus, depending upon the specific facts and circumstances, a communication that merely lists the significant business lines of a dealer without further descriptive information and which does not give the dealer's municipal securities practice a place of prominence within such listing generally would not be considered a solicitation unless the facts and circumstances indicate that it was aimed at obtaining or retaining municipal securities business. To the extent that a communication, such as a dealer brochure or other promotional materials, contains more than a mere listing of business lines, such as brief descriptions of each business line (including its municipal securities capabilities), determining whether such communication is a solicitation depends upon whether the facts and circumstances indicate that it was undertaken for the purpose of obtaining or retaining municipal securities business. The nature of the information provided and the manner in which it is presented are relevant factors to consider. Although no single factor is necessarily controlling in determining whether a communication was undertaken for the purpose of obtaining or retaining municipal securities business, the following considerations, among others, may often be relevant: (i) whether the municipal securities practice is the only business line included in the communication that would reasonably be of interest to an issuer representative; (ii) whether the portions of the communication describing the dealer's municipal securities capabilities are designed to garner more attention than other portions describing different business lines; (iii) whether the communication contains quantitative or qualitative information on the nature or extent of the dealer's municipal securities capabilities that is promotional in nature (e.g., quantitative or qualitative rankings, claims of expertise, identification of specific transactions, language associated with "puffery," etc.); and (iv) whether the dealer is currently seeking to obtain or retain municipal securities business from the issuer.

Work-Related Communications

Communications that are incidental to undertaking tasks to complete municipal securities business for which the dealer has already been engaged generally would not be solicitations. For example, if a dealer has engaged an independent contractor as a cash flow consultant to provide expert services on a negotiated underwriting for which the dealer has already been selected and the contractor communicates with the issuer on cash flow matters relevant to the financing, such communication would not be a solicitation under Rule G-38. Similarly, if a dealer has already been selected to serve as the underwriter for an airport financing and a non-MFP affiliated person of the dealer who normally works on airline corporate matters is used to provide his or her expertise to complete the financing, communications in this regard by the affiliated person with the issuer would not be a solicitation under Rule G-38. In addition, the fact that the work product of persons such as those described above may be used by MFPs of the dealer in their solicitation activities would not make the producer of the work product a solicitor unless such person personally presents his or her work to the issuer in connection with soliciting the municipal securities business.

Communications with Conduit Borrowers

The MSRB understands that dealers often work closely with private entities on their capital and other financing needs. In many cases, this work may evolve into a conduit borrowing through a conduit issuer. Although the ultimate obligor on such a financing is the private entity, if the dealer acts as underwriter for a financing undertaken through a conduit issuer on other than a competitive bid basis, it is engaging in municipal securities business for purposes of Rule G-37. The selection of the underwriter for such a financing frequently is made by the conduit borrower. While in many cases conduit issuers have either formal procedures or an informal historical practice of accepting the dealer selected by the conduit borrower, some conduit issuers may set minimum standards that dealers must meet to qualify to underwrite a conduit issue, and other conduit issuers may have a slate of dealers selected by the conduit issuer from which the conduit borrower chooses the underwriter for its issue. Still other conduit issuers may defer to the conduit borrower's selection of lead underwriter but may require the underwriting syndicate to include additional dealers selected by the issuer or selected by the conduit borrower from a slate of issuer-approved underwriters, often with the purpose of ensuring participation by local dealers or historically disadvantaged dealers. A smaller number of conduit issuers retain more significant control over which dealers act as underwriters, either by making the selection for the conduit borrower or by considering the conduit borrower's selection to be merely a suggestion which in some cases the conduit issuer does not follow. However, in virtually all cases, the conduit issuer will maintain ultimate power to control which dealer underwrites a conduit issue since the conduit issuer has discretion to withhold its agreement to issue the securities through any particular dealer.

From a literal perspective, any communication by a dealer with a conduit borrower that is intended to cause the borrower to select the dealer to serve as underwriter for a conduit issue could be considered a solicitation of municipal securities business. This is because the conduit borrower eventually communicates its selection of the dealer to act as underwriter to the conduit issuer for approval. This series of communications would, by its terms, constitute an indirect communication by the dealer through the conduit borrower to the conduit issuer for the purpose of obtaining or retaining municipal securities business.

However, the MSRB believes that a dealer's communication with a conduit borrower generally should not be deemed an indirect solicitation of the issuer unless a reasonable nexus can be established between the making of contributions to officials of the conduit issuer within the meaning of Rule G-37 and the selection of the underwriter for such conduit financing. A determination of whether such a reasonable nexus could exist depends on the specific facts and circumstances.

Further, if an affiliated person of a dealer who is providing investment banking services and corporate financing advice to a private company concludes, in his or her professional judgment, that an appropriate financing alternative may be a conduit financing, a limited communication to the company by the affiliated person that such financing alternative may be appropriate, together with the provision to the company of contact information for an MFP of the dealer, generally would not be presumed to be a solicitation. Alternatively, the affiliated person could inform the company that dealer personnel who handle municipal securities business will contact it. In addition, if a dealer has already been selected by the conduit borrower to serve as the underwriter for a conduit financing and a non-MFP affiliated person of the dealer communicates with the conduit borrower in furtherance of the financing, such communications by the affiliated person would not be a solicitation under Rule G-38.

Communications by Non-Affiliated Professionals

So long as non-affiliated persons providing legal, accounting, engineering or other professional services in connection with specific municipal securities business are not being paid directly or indirectly by a dealer for communicating with an issuer for the purpose of obtaining or retaining municipal securities business for the dealer (i.e., they are paid solely for their provision of legal, accounting, engineering or other professional services with respect to the business), they would not become subject to Rule G-38. Dealers are reminded that the term "payment" as used in Rules G-37 and G-38 refers to anything of value and can, depending on the specific facts and circumstances, include quid pro quo arrangements whereby a non-affiliated person solicits municipal securities business for the dealer in exchange for being hired by the dealer to provide other unrelated services.

529 college savings plan advertisements.  Thank you for your letter of April 21, 2006 in which you request interpretive guidance on the application of Rule G-21, on advertising, with respect to advertisements of 529 college savings plans.  Rule G-21 was amended in 2005 by adding new section (e) relating to advertisements by brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers (“dealers”) of interests in 529 college savings plans and other municipal fund securities (collectively referred to as “municipal fund securities”).  These new provisions were modeled after the provisions of Securities Act Rules 482 and 135a relating to mutual fund advertisements, with certain modifications.

The Board expects to undertake a detailed review of issues relating to the implementation of section (e) of its advertising rule in the coming months and your views will be instrumental in that review.  We appreciate your interest in the operation of the rule and the commitment of your organization and your individual members to assure that investors receive appropriate disclosures.  As you are aware, MSRB rules apply solely to dealers, not to issuers or other parties.  The MSRB has previously stated that Rule G-21 does not govern advertisements published by issuers but that an advertisement produced by a dealer as agent for an issuer must comply with Rule G-21.  Similarly, a dealer cannot avoid application of Rule G-21 merely by hiring a third party to produce and publish advertisements on its behalf.[1]  Pending our detailed review of section (e) of Rule G-21, I would like to address certain basic principles under the current rule language and existing interpretive guidance that may prove helpful in the context of some of the issues you raise in your letter.[2]

Section (a) of the rule provides a broad definition of “advertisement.”[3]  Sections (b) through (e) of the rule establish requirements with respect to specific types of advertisements.  Section (b) establishes standards for professional advertisements, which are advertisements concerning the dealer’s facilities, services or skills with respect to municipal securities.  Section (c) establishes general standards for product advertisements, with additional specific standards relating to advertisements for new issue debt securities set forth in Section (d) and specific standards relating to advertisements for municipal fund securities set forth in Section (e).  In addition, all advertisements are subject to the MSRB’s basic fair dealing rule, Rule G-17,[4] and are subject to approval by a principal pursuant to Section (f) of Rule G-21.

Where an advertisement does not identify specific securities, specific issuers of securities or specific features of securities, but merely refers to one or more broad categories of securities with respect to which the dealer provides services, the MSRB would generally view such advertisement as a professional advertisement under Section (b) rather than as a product advertisement.  For example, if an advertisement simply states that the dealer provides investment services with respect to 529 college savings plans – without identifying any specific 529 college savings plan, specific municipal fund securities issued through a 529 college savings plan, or specific features of any such municipal fund securities – the advertisement would be subject to Section (b) of Rule G-21, rather than to Sections (c) and (e).

On the other hand, advertisements that identify specific securities, specific issuers of securities or specific features of securities generally are viewed as product advertisements under Rule G-21 and therefore would be subject to Section (c), as well as Section (d) or (e), if applicable.  However, in some circumstances, an advertisement that identifies an issuer of securities without identifying its securities or specific features of such securities effectively may not constitute an advertisement of such issuer’s securities and therefore would not be treated as a product advertisement under the rule, particularly if the dealer or any of its affiliates is not identified.  For example, if an advertisement identifies the state or other governmental entity that operates a 529 college savings plan without identifying its municipal fund securities, the specific features of such securities or the dealer and its affiliates that may participate in the marketing of its municipal fund securities, the MSRB generally would not view such advertisement as a product advertisement subject to Sections (c) and (e) of Rule G-21.[5] MSRB Interpretation of May 12, 2006.

[1] The MSRB expresses no opinion at this time as to the applicability of MSRB rules to advertisements relating to municipal fund securities produced and published by issuers with funds provided directly or indirectly by a dealer.

[2] Other issues you raise in your letter will be considered during the upcoming review of Rule G-21.

[3] An advertisement is defined as any material (other than listings of offerings) published or designed for use in the public, including electronic, media, or any promotional literature designed for dissemination to the public, including any notice, circular, report, market letter, form letter, telemarketing script or reprint or excerpt of the foregoing. The term does not apply to preliminary official statements or official statements (including program disclosure documents), but does apply to abstracts or summaries of official statements, offering circulars and other such similar documents prepared by dealers.  The MSRB expresses no opinion at this time as to whether the specific communications or promotional materials described in your letter would constitute advertisements under this definition.

[4] Rule G-17 requires each dealer, in the conduct of its municipal securities activities, to deal fairly with all persons and prohibits the dealer from engaging in any deceptive, dishonest or unfair practice.

[5] The advertisement may, in addition to or instead of identifying the state or other governmental entity that operates the 529 college savings plan, include the state’s marketing name for such plan so long as such name does not identify the dealer or any dealer affiliates that may participate in the marketing of its municipal fund securities.  Further, any contact information (such as a telephone number or Internet address) included in the advertisement should be for the state or other governmental entity and must not be for the dealer or its affiliates.

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)]