Select regulatory documents by category:
Notice 2011-18 - Request for Comment
Publication date: | Comment due:


1.  American Municipal Securities, Inc.: Letter from John C. Petagna, Jr., President, dated April 26, 2011

2.  Barker, Bill: E-mail dated April 18, 2011

3.  Bond Dealers of America: Letter from Mike Nicholas, Chief Executive Officer, dated April 21, 2011

4.  Chapdelaine & Co.: Letter from August J. Hoerrner, President, dated May 5, 2011

5.  Conners & Company, Inc.: E-mail from Jay White dated April 13, 2011

6.  Foard, Dale: E-mail dated April 21, 2011

7.  Hartfield, Titus & Donnelly, LLC: Letter from Mark J. Epstein, President and Chief Executive Officer, dated April 21, 2011

8.  KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc.: E-mail from Michael A. Burrello, Managing Director, Municipal Trading and Underwriting, dated April 21, 2011

9.  Kiley Partners, Inc.: E-mail from Michael Kiley dated April 12, 2011

10.  Knight BondPoint: Letter from Marshall Nicholson, Managing Director, dated April 21, 2011

11.  M.E. Allison & Co., Inc.: E-mail from Christopher R. Allison, Chief Financial Officer, dated April 20, 2011

12.  National Alliance Securities: E-mail from Bob Barnette, Municipal Trader, dated April 21, 2011

13.  Oppenheimer & Co., Inc.: Letter from Marty Campbell, Senior Director, Municipal Underwriting & Trading

14.  Potratz, Jay: E-mail dated April 21, 2011

15.  R. Seelaus & Co., Inc.: E-mail from Richard Seelaus dated April 13, 2011

16.  Regional Brokers, Inc.: Letter from Joseph A. Hemphill, III, CEO, and H. Deane Armstrong, CCO, dated April 21, 2011

17.  Regional Brokers, Inc.: Letter from Joseph A. Hemphill, III, President and CEO, and H. Deane Armstrong, CCO, dated May 12, 2011

18.  RH Investment Corporation: Letter from Andrew L. "Bud" Byrnes, III, Chief Executive Officer, dated April 21, 2011

19.  Robbins, Leonard Jack: Letter dated May 1, 2011

20.  RW Smith & Associates, Inc.: Letter from Paige W. Pierce, President and CEO, dated April 27, 2011

21.  Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association: Letter from Leslie M. Norwood, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, dated April 29, 2011

22.  Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association: Letter from Leslie M. Norwood, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, dated April 29, 2011

23.  Seidel & Shaw, LLC: Letter from Thomas W. Shaw, President

24.  Sentinel Brokers Company, Inc.: E-mail from Joseph M. Lawless, President, dated April 12, 2011

25.  Sentinel Brokers Company, Inc.: E-mail from Joseph M. Lawless, President, dated April 13, 2011

26.  Seven Points Capital: E-mail from Jerry Racasi dated April 13, 2011

27.  Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated: E-mail from Andy Jackson dated April 20, 2011

28.  Stoever Glass & Co.: Letter from Frederick J. Stoever, President, dated April 15, 2011

29.  TheMuniCenter, LLC: Letter from Thomas S. Vales, Chief Executive Officer, dated April 21, 2011

30.  Tradeweb Markets LLC: Letter from John Cahalane, Managing Director, Head of Tradeweb Retail, dated May 3, 2011

31.  Walsh, John: E-mail dated April 21, 2011

32.  Wiley Bros.-Aintree Capital, LLC: E-mail from Keener Billups, Managing Director, dated April 26, 2011, corrects Wiley Bros.-Aintree Capital, LLC: E-mail from Keener Billups, Managing Director, dated April 13, 2011

33.  William Blair: E-mail from Tom Greene dated April 21, 2011

34.  Welbourn, Steve: E-mail dated April 21, 2011

35.  Wolfe & Hurst Bond Brokers, Inc.: Letter from O. Gene Hurst, President, dated April 25, 2011, corrects Wolfe & Hurst Bond Brokers, Inc.: Letter from O. Gene Hurst, President, dated April 21, 2011

36.  Ziegler Capital Markets: E-mail from Kathleen R. Murphy dated April 13, 2011

Notice 2011-16 - Request for Comment
Publication date: | Comment due:


1. Catholic Finance Corporation: Letter from Michael P. Schaefer, Executive Director, dated February 16, 2011

2. Catholic Finance Corporation: Letter from Michael P. Schaefer, Executive Director, dated April 5, 2011

3. Fisher, Robert: E-mail dated April 6, 2011

4. Municipal Regulatory Consulting LLC: Letter from David Levy, Principal, dated April 1, 2011

5. National Association of Independent Public Finance Advisors: Letter from Colette J. Irwin-Knott, President, dated April 1, 2011

6. Public Financial Management, Inc.: Letter from Joseph J. Connolly, General Counsel, dated April 4, 2011

7. Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association: Letter from Leslie M. Norwood, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, dated April 5, 2011

8. WM Financial Strategies: Letter from Joy A. Howard, Principal, dated April 2, 2011

Notice 2011-14 - Request for Comment
Publication date: | Comment due:


1.  American Bankers Association: Letter from Cristeena G. Naser, Senior Counsel, dated April 11, 2011

2.  American Council of Engineering Companies: Letter from David A. Raymond, President and CEO, dated April 11, 2011

3.  American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees: Letter from Gerald W. McEntee, International President, dated April 11, 2011

4.  American Governmental Financial Services: E-mail from Robert Doty, President, dated April 11, 2011

5.  B-Payne Group: Letter from John B. Payne, Principal, dated March 28, 2011

6.  Education Finance Council: Letter from Vince Sampson, President, dated April 11, 2011

7.  Fi360: Letter from Blaine F. Aikin, CEO, and Kristina A. Fausti, Director of Legal and Regulatory Affairs, dated April 11, 2011

8.  Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham, Inc.: Letter from Scott J. Robertson, Principal, dated April 11, 2011

9.  Michigan Bankers Association: Letter from Richard D. Lavolette, General Counsel

10.  Municipal Regulatory Counsulting LLC: Letter from David Levy, Principal, dated April 11, 2011

11.  National Association of Independent Public Finance Advisors: Letter from Colette J. Irwin-Knott, President, dated April 11, 2011

12.  Not For Profit Capital Strategies: E-mail from Ed Crouch, dated February 14, 2011

13.  Phoenix Advisors, LLC: E-mail from Peter G. Egan, Managing Director, dated March 3, 2011

14.  Phoenix Advisors, LLC: E-mail from Peter G. Egan, Managing Director, dated March 4, 2011

15.  Public Financial Management: Letter from Joseph J. Connolly, General Counsel, dated April 8, 2011

16.  Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association: Letter from Leslie M. Norwood, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, dated April 11, 2011

17.  Wisconsin Bankers Association: Letter from Rose Oswald Poels, Interim CEO/President, dated April 11, 2011

Notice 2011-12 - Request for Comment
Publication date: | Comment due:
Rule Number:

Rule G-17


1.  American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees: Letter from Gerald W. McEntee, International President, dated April 11, 2011

2.  Bond Dealers of America: Letter from Mike Nicholas, Chief Executive Officer, dated April 11, 2011

3.  Municipal Regulatory Consulting LLC: Letter from David Levy, Principal, dated April 11, 2011

4.  National Association of Independent Public Finance Advisors: Letter from Colette J. Irwin-Knott, President, dated April 11, 2011

5.  Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association: Letter from Leslie M. Norwood, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, dated April 11, 2011

Notice 2011-13 - Request for Comment
Publication date: | Comment due:
Rule Number:

Rule G-17

1.  American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees: Letter from Gerald W. McEntee, International President, dated April 11, 2011

2.  American Governmental Financial Services: E-mail from Robert Doty, President, dated April 11, 2011

3.  B-Payne Group: Letter from John B. Payne, Principal, dated March 28, 2011

4.  Catholic Finance Corporation: Letter from Michael P. Schaefer, Executive Director, dated April 11, 2011

5.  Municipal Regulatory Consulting LLC: Letter from David Levy, Principal, dated April 11, 2011

6.  National Association of Independent Public Finance Advisors: Letter from Colette J. Irwin-Knott, President, dated April 11, 2011

7.  Not For Profit Capital Strategies: E-mail from Ed Crouch, dated February 14, 2011

8.  Public Financial Management: Letter from Joseph J. Connolly, General Counsel, dated April 8, 2011

9.  Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association: Letter from Leslie M. Norwood, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, dated April 11, 2011

Notice 2011-11 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Notice 2011-10 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Notice 2011-07 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Notice 2011-06 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Notice 2011-05 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Notice 2011-04 - Request for Comment
Publication date: | Comment due:

1.  Acacia Financial Group, Inc.: Letter from Kim M. Whelan, Co-President, dated February 25, 2011

2.  American Bankers Association: Letter from Cristeena G. Naser, Senior Counsel, dated February 25, 2011

3.  American Governmental Financial Services: E-mail from Robert Doty, President, dated March 1, 2011

4.  BMO Capital Markets GKST Inc.: Letter from Robert J. Stracks, Counsel, dated February 25, 2011

5.  Callcott, W. Hardy: Letter dated February 8, 2011

6.  Fisher, Robert: E-mail dated February 25, 2011

7.  G.L. Hicks Financial LLC: E-mail from Dareth Goulding, dated January 14, 2011

8.  H.J. Umbaugh & Associates: Letter from Gerald G. Malone, dated February 24, 2011

9.  National Association of Independent Public Finance Advisors: Letter from Colette Irwin-Knott, President, dated February 24, 2011

10.  Repex & Co., Inc.: E-mail from Erich Sokolower, dated January 14, 2011

11.  Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association: Letter from Leslie M. Norwood, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, dated February 25, 2011

12.  State of Texas: Letter from Susan Combs, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, dated February 25, 2011

13.  State of Texas: Letter from Charles B. McDonald, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Attorney General of Texas, dated February 25, 2011

14.  T. Rowe Price: Letter from David Oestreicher, Chief Legal Counsel, dated February 25, 2011

15.  The PFM Group: Letter from Joseph J. Connolly, General Counsel, dated February 23, 2011

16.  WM Financial Strategies: Letter from Joy A. Howard, Principal, dated February 21, 2011

Notice 2011-03 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Notice 2011-02 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Notice 2011-01 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Interpretive Guidance - Interpretive Letters
Publication date:
Municipal Securities Representative: Credit Department Employees
Rule Number:

Rule G-3

Municipal securities representative: credit department employees. This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of October 18, 1979, concerning a proposed arrangement for the performance of municipal credit analysis functions at your bank. In your letter you indicate that the bank wishes to have certain basic statistical and data gathering activities with respect to proposed new issues of municipal securities performed by its Credit Department. The Credit Department will provide the information resulting from these activities to registered personnel in the Investment Department, which will evaluate the credit of the issuer and determine the appropriateness of the issue for the bank's own investment activities and for the bank's customers. You inquire whether the personnel in the Credit Department would be required to register and qualify as municipal securities representatives due to their performance of these activities.

Your question was referred to a committee of the Board which has the responsibility for administering the professional qualifications program on the Board's behalf. The Committee concluded that such persons would not be required to register and qualify as representatives if their functions are limited to information-gathering and performance of basic statistical computations. However, if such persons engage in any type of evaluative activity or if such persons make recommendations or suggest conclusions with respect to the securities, registration and qualification would be required. Further, should these persons produce any documents or research products intended for distribution or for use in the solicitation of customers, they would be required to register and qualify. MSRB interpretation of December 10, 1979.

Interpretive Guidance - Interpretive Letters
Publication date:
Legend Satisfying Requirement
Rule Number:

Rule G-21, Rule G-32

Legend satisfying requirement. I refer to your letter of June 29, 1979 in which you request advice regarding rule G-21(c) on product advertisements. As you noted in your letter, the notice of approval of rule G-34 [prior rule on advertising] stated that the Board believes that the advertisements may be misleading if they show

only a percentage rate without specifying whether it is the coupon rate or yield and, if yield, the basis on which calculated (for example, discount, par or premium securities and if discount securities, whether before-tax or after-tax yield).

You have requested advice as whether the following legend, to be used in connection with the sale of discount bonds, would be satisfactory for purposes of the rule:

"Discount bonds may be subject to capital gains tax. Rates of such tax vary for individual taxpayers. Discount yields shown herein are gross yields to maturity."

As I previously indicated to you in our telephone conversation, the proposed legend would satisfy the requirements of rule G-21(c). MSRB interpretation of August 28, 1979.

Interpretive Guidance - Interpretive Letters
Publication date:
Records of Original Entry
Rule Number:

Rule G-8

Records of original entry. This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of June 13, 1979, concerning the requirement under Board rule G-8 for records of original entry. In your letter you discuss a "Bond Register" used by your firm, which is organized by security, and presents on separate cards all transactions in particular securities arranged in chronological order. You inquire whether this is satisfactory for purposes of the Board's recordkeeping rule.

The "record of original entry" required under rule G-8(a)(i) is intended to reflect all transactions effected by a municipal securities dealer on a particular day, all transactions cleared on such day, and all receipts and disbursements of cash on such day. The record is intended to provide a complete review of the dealer's activity for the day in question. It is therefore necessary that the record be organized by date. A record organized by security would not serve the purposes of a record of original entry as envisioned in the Board's rule. MSRB interpretation of August 9, 1979.

Interpretive Guidance - Interpretive Letters
Publication date:
Clerical or Ministerial Duties
Rule Number:

Rule G-3

Clerical or ministerial duties. I refer to your letter of June 22, 1979, in which you request advice regarding the applicability of rule G-3 on professional qualifications to an employee of [Company name deleted]. According to your letter, the activities of the employee in question are limited to checking the mathematical accuracy of bids received by an issuer for which [Company name deleted] acts as financial advisor and reporting the results to the issuer.

Based on the facts stated in your letter, the employee is not required to qualify as a municipal securities representative under rule G-3. The Board does not intend the qualification requirements of the rule to apply to persons performing solely clerical or ministerial functions, such as in this case. MSRB interpretation of July 24, 1979.

Interpretive Guidance - Interpretive Letters
Publication date:
Maintenance of Securities Record
Rule Number:

Rule G-8

Maintenance of securities record. I refer to your letter of April 9, 1979 concerning rule G-8(a)(iii), which requires the maintenance of a securities record. This letter is intended to address your questions concerning that provision.

Rule G-8(a)(iii) requires every municipal securities dealer to make and keep

records showing separately for each municipal security all positions (including, in the case of a municipal securities dealer other than a bank dealer, securities in safekeeping) carried by such municipal securities dealer for its own account or for the account of a customer (with all "short" trading positions so designated), the location of all such securities long and the offsetting position to all such securities short, and the name or other designation of the account in which each position is carried.

Rule G-8(a)(iii) further provides that "[s]uch records shall consist of a single record system...," and that "...a bank dealer shall maintain records of the location of securities in its own trading account."

The purpose of the requirement to maintain a "securities record" is to provide a means of securities control, ensuring that all securities owned by the dealer or with respect to which the dealer has outstanding contractual commitments are accounted for in the dealer's records. To achieve this purpose, the record is commonly constructed in "trial balance" format, with information as to the "ownership" of securities reflected on the "long," or debit side, and information as to the location on the "short," or credit side of the record. The record therefore serves a different function from the subsidiary records, such as the "fail" records, required to be maintained under other provisions of the rule. The subsidiary records reflect the details of particular securities transactions; the securities record assures that a municipal securities dealer's over-all position is in balance.

In your letter you inquire specifically whether this record can be constructed through the use of duplicate copies of subsidiary records. The rule requires a system of records organized by security, showing all positions in such security. Record systems organized by position or locations, showing all securities held in such position or location, cannot serve the same balancing and control function.

The securities record, however, does not have to be maintained on a single sheet or ledger card per security. Although this is the most common means of maintaining a securities record, certain municipal securities dealers prepare segments of the record in different physical locations, bringing the segments together at the close of the business day to compose the securities record. This practice is permissible under the rule.

Finally, you have inquired regarding the possibility of maintaining the securities record on a unit system basis. Records in such a system are kept in the form of a group of documents or related groups of documents, most often files of duplicate confirmations. The maintenance of the securities record on such a basis would be acceptable provided that the required information is clearly and accurately reflected and there is an adequate basis for audit. I would note, however, that utilization of a unit system would probably only be feasible for a municipal securities dealer with very limited activity.

I hope this letter is helpful to you in responding to inquiries from your members. If you or any of your members have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us. MSRB interpretation of April 16, 1979.

Interpretive Guidance - Interpretive Letters
Publication date:
Furnishing of Official Statements: Duplication of Copies
Rule Number:

Rule G-21, Rule G-32

Furnishing of official statements: duplication of copies. [It] is the Board’s position that if an official statement is made available by an issuer, it is incumbent upon municipal securities dealers to see that their customers receive copies of the official statement. A municipal securities dealer cannot avoid the rule on the grounds that the issuer did not supply a sufficient number of official statements for distribution. The dealer in such a case has to bear the burden of reproducing the official statement. MSRB interpretation of March 7, 1979.

Note: The above letter refers to the text of rule G-32 as in effect prior to the amendments effective on August 30, 1985.

Interpretive Guidance - Interpretive Letters
Publication date:
Particularity of Legend
Rule Number:

Rule G-15

Particularity of legend. I refer to your recent letter in which you inquired regarding the appropriateness of using a particular legend to satisfy certain requirements of rule G-15 on customer confirmations. As you note in your letter, rule G-15 requires that information concerning time of execution of a transaction and the identity of the contra-side of an agency transaction be furnished to customers, at least upon request. You have requested advice as to whether the following legend satisfies the requirements of rule G-15 with respect to this information:

"Other details about this trade may be obtained by written request to the above address."

We are of the opinion that the legend in question does not satisfy the requirements of rule G-15 because it is too general in nature. The legend does not sufficiently apprise customers of their right to obtain information pertaining to the time of execution of a transaction or the identity of the contra-party, as contemplated by rule G-15. A legend specifically alluding to the availability of such information is necessary to satisfy the rule.

The Board has not adopted a standardized form, nor approved particular language for use in compliance with the requirements of the rule. I believe, however, that [Name deleted] is a member of the Dealer Bank Association. I suggest that you refer to the Forms Book prepared by the Dealer Bank Association, which may be of help to you. MSRB interpretation of March 6, 1979.

Print