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 Notices
Publication date:
Confirmation Disclosure Requirements Applicable to Variable-Rate Municipal Securities
Rule Number:

Rule G-12, Rule G-15

The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board has recently received inquiries concerning the application of the Board’s confirmation disclosure requirements, which are contained in Board rules G-12 and G-15, to municipal securities with variable or "floating" interest rates.

 

Rule G-12(c)(v)(E)[*] requires a municipal securities dealer to set forth on an inter-dealer confirmation a description of the securities which are the subject of the transaction, including the interest rate. Rule G-15(a)(i)(E)[*] imposes the same requirement with respect to customer confirmations. The Board is of the view that these provisions require that the security description appearing on customer and inter-dealer confirmations for securities with variable interest rates include a clear indication that the interest rates are variable or "floating."

The Board also notes that due to the variability of the interest rates on these securities, it is not possible to derive a yield to a future call or maturity date. Therefore, the Board has concluded that the provision of rule G-15 which requires that customer confirmations for transactions effected at a dollar price set forth the yield resulting from such dollar price is not applicable to transactions in variable-rate municipal securities.


[*] [Currently codified at rule G-15(a)(1)(B)(4)]

Interpretive Guidance - Interpretive Notices
Publication date:
Pricing to Call
Rule Number:

Rule G-12, Rule G-15

Board rules G-12 on uniform practice and G-15 on customer confirmations set forth certain requirements concerning the computations of yields and dollar prices to premium call or par option features. Both rules currently require that, in the case of a transaction in callable securities effected on the basis of a yield price, the dollar price should be calculated to the lowest of the price to premium call, price to par option, or price to maturity. Further, confirmations of transactions on which the dollar price has been computed to a call or option feature must state the call date and price used in the computation. Amendments to rule G-15 which will become effective on October 1, 1981, generally require that confirmations of transactions in callable securities effected at a dollar price in excess of par must set forth the lowest of the yield to premium call, yield to par option, or yield to maturity resulting from such dollar price.[1]

Since the December 1977 effective dates of rule G-12 and G-15, the Board has received numerous inquiries concerning these provisions and their application to different issues of municipal securities. In view of the general interest in this subject, the Board is issuing this notice to provide guidance with respect to the general criteria to be used in selecting the appropriate call feature for yield or dollar price computations.

The requirement for the computation of dollar price to the lowest of price to premium call, par option, or maturity reflects the long-established practice of the industry in pricing transactions. This practice assures a customer that he or she will realize, at a minimum, the stated yield, even in the event that a call provision is exercised. The pending amendment to rule G-15, which requires the presentation of information concerning the lowest yield on confirmations of dollar price transactions, will provide investors with the equivalent information on these types of transactions.

In view of the variety of call provisions applicable to different kinds of municipal securities, there is often uncertainty concerning the selection of the appropriate call feature for use in the computation of yield or dollar price. Issues of municipal securities often have several different call features, ranging from calls associated with mandatory sinking fund requirements to optional calls from the proceeds of a refunding or funds in excess of debt service requirements. Certain issues have additional call provisions in the event that funds designated for specific purposes are not expended or obligations securing the issue are prepaid.[2] Most of the inquiries which the Board has received concerning the provisions of rules G-12 and G-15 focus on this question of selection of the call provisions to be used for computation purposes.

The Board is of the view that a distinction should be drawn between "in whole" call provisions, (i.e., those under which all outstanding securities of a particular issue may be called) and "in part" call provisions (i.e., those under which part of an issue, usually selected by lot or in inverse maturity or numerical order, may be called for redemption). The Board is of the view that for computation purposes only "in whole" calls should be used; sinking fund calls and other "in part" calls should not be used in making the computations required by rules G-12 and G-15.

Several inquiries have raised the question of which "in whole" call should be used in the case of issues which have more than one such call. The earlier call features of such issues are often subject to restrictions on the proceeds which may be used to redeem securities (e.g., a restriction that only unexpended funds from the original issue may be used for redemption purposes). Since such call features operate as a practical matter as "in part" calls, the Board is of the view that the "in whole" call feature which would be exercised in the event of a refunding is the call feature which should generally be used for purposes of the computation of yields and dollar prices.

Other concerned persons have inquired regarding the application of the "pricing to call" requirements in the case of an issue with a sequence of call dates at gradually declining premiums. The Board believes that, as a general matter, a trial computation to the first date on which a security is callable "in whole" at a premium will be sufficient to determine whether the price to the premium call is the lowest dollar price. However, in the rare instance where the price to an intermediate premium call (i.e., a call in the "middle" of a sequence of calls at declining premiums) is the lowest dollar price, such price should be used. The Board notes that, in such cases, the structure of the call schedule is sufficiently unusual (e.g., with sharp declines in the premium amount over a very short period of time) that dealers should be alerted to the need to take the intermediate calls into consideration.


[1] Effective December 1, 1980, customer confirmations of transactions in callable securities effected at a dollar price less than par must set forth the yield to maturity resulting from such dollar price. Confirmations of dollar-price transactions in non-callable securities, or securities which have been called or prerefunded, must set forth the resulting yield to maturity (or to the date for redemption of the securities, in the case of called or prerefunded securities).

[2] Other issues are also callable in the event that the financed project is damaged or destroyed, or the tax exempt status of the issue is revoked. Since the possibility of such a call being exercised is extremely remote, and beyond the control of the issuer of the securities, the Board does not believe that these "catastrophe" calls need be considered for computation purposes.

Interpretive Guidance - Interpretive Notices
Publication date:
Confirmation Requirements
Rule Number:

Rule G-12, Rule G-15

Rule G-12(c)(v)(E) requires a municipal securities dealer to set forth on an inter-dealer confirmation a description of the securities which are the subject of the transaction, including "…in the case of revenue bonds the type of revenue, if necessary for a materially complete description of the securities…."

 

Rule G-15(a)(v) [*] imposes the identical requirement with respect to customer confirmations. The Board has recently received an inquiry regarding whether these provisions require confirmations of transactions in Los Angeles Department of Water and Power bonds to distinguish between bonds secured by revenues of the electric power system and bonds secured by revenues of the waterworks system.

The Board is of the view that, if securities of a particular issuer are secured by separate sources of revenue, the source of revenue of the securities involved in a transaction is a material element of the description of the securities which should be set forth on customer and inter-dealer confirmations. Confirmations of transactions in Los Angeles Department of Water and Power bonds must therefore indicate whether the securities are "electric revenue" or "water revenue" bonds.


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

Interpretive Guidance - Interpretive Letters
Publication date:
"Person."

"Person." Your letter regarding rule G-20 has been referred to me. Rule G-20 prohibits a municipal securities professional from giving gifts or providing services to a person in relation to the municipal securities activities of such person's employer, in excess of a specified amount.

In your letter, you inquire whether the term "person" in rule G-20 is intended to include "a ‘corporate’ person as well as a ‘real’ person."As used in the rule, the term "person" refers only to a natural person. The rule is intended to discourage municipal securities professionals from attempting to induce individual employees from acting in a manner inconsistent with their obligations to, or contrary to the interests of, their employers. MSRB interpretation of March 19, 1980.

Print