Applicability of Trade Reporting for Certain Allocations to Customer Accounts By Dually-Registered Broker-Dealers/Investment Advisers¹

[Th]e MSRB acknowledges that in certain circumstances a customer allocation may be subject to trade reporting under Rule G-14. However, the MSRB observes that in the case of a purchase of a block order by a dually registered dealer/investment adviser (“BD/IA firm”) of municipal securities that are then allocated internally to advisory accounts at the same price as the block order (i.e., without transaction-based compensation, such as with a non-transaction-based wrap or similar advisory fee), the MSRB historically has only required that the original block order be reported and not the subsequent related allocations to customers in advisory accounts where, with respect to any such allocation, the BD/IA firm is acting as an investment adviser to such account directing an internal delivery of a portion of such block of municipal securities acquired by the BD/IA firm to the advisory account.²  This treatment would continue based on the core principle that, as a price transparency system, RTRS seeks to disseminate publicly only such pricing information that is indicative of market prices and not price information that may not reliably reflect such market prices. The MSRB believes that publishing price information for smaller customer allocations that were priced based on the larger block price of the original block trade is not only unlikely to be indicative of market prices, but could also be misleading.³

¹Excerpt from Letter to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, from Ernesto A. Lanza, Chief Regulatory and Policy Officer, MSRB, dated September 5, 2025, at 5–6, available at https://www.msrb.org/sites/default/files/2025-09/SR-MSRB-2025-01-MSRB-Response-to-Comments_0.pdf (internal citations renumbered). See also Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) Release No. 103987 (Sept. 16, 2025), File No. SR-MSRB-2025-01, 90 FR 45274, 45277 nn.58–60 and accompanying text (Sept. 19, 2025).

²See, e.g., Exchange Act Release No. 74564 (Mar. 23, 2015), 80 FR 16466, 16466 n.4 (Mar. 27, 2025), File No. SR-MSRB-2015-02 (“RTRS serves as an audit trail for municipal securities trading, with the exception of certain internal movements of securities within dealers that currently are not required to be reported”). See also MSRB Notice 2008-19, MSRB Seeks Comment on the Reporting of Proprietary Desk Transactions under Rule G-14, on Reports of Sales or Purchase (Apr. 11, 2008) (the “Prop Desk RFC”) (“Currently, internal movements of securities within a dealer organization are not considered to be reportable under Rule G-14.”). In the Prop Desk RFC, the MSRB proposed potentially requiring reporting to RTRS internal movements between a dealer’s proprietary desk and another part of the same dealer firm. The MSRB determined not to establish such a requirement with respect to such internal movements and continued to adhere to its position that internal movements are not reportable to RTRS. Of course, while the allocation is not reportable, the BD/IA firm would be subject to the full panoply of investment adviser duties, including a fiduciary duty to its customer, when it acts in this capacity as an investment adviser with respect to the customer’s advisory account.

³See, e.g., MSRB Notice 2003-20, Notice on Reporting and Comparison of Certain Transactions Effected by Investment Advisors: Rules G-12(f) and G-14 (May 23, 2003) (discussing the appropriateness of reporting only the price of the single block order trade with a third-party investment adviser rather than individual smaller transfers and allocations directed by such adviser that would be reportable at the same price as the block trade).

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)]

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.

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)]

"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.