In November 1998, the MSRB published an interpretation about the use of electronic media to deliver and receive information by brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers under Board rules (the “1998 interpretation”).  Since that time, the MSRB has been granted rulemaking authority over municipal advisors, and in the exercise of that authority, the MSRB has been developing a comprehensive regulatory framework for municipal advisors.

 

The Board believes that the use of electronic media to deliver and receive information under Board rules also is important for municipal advisors, and extends the guidance provided in the 1998 interpretation, as relevant, to municipal advisors.  See Rule G-32 Interpretation – Notice Regarding Electronic Delivery and Receipt of Information by Brokers, Dealers and Municipal Securities Dealers (November 20, 1998).

 

The MSRB is providing interpretive guidance to address the applicability of Rule G-42, which establishes core standards of conduct for municipal advisors [1] that engage in municipal advisory activities,[2] other than municipal advisory solicitation activities (for purposes of this guidance and Rule G-42, “municipal advisors”), in the area of conduit financing. Using various scenarios, the guidance discusses a municipal advisor’s relationship(s) with, and duties and obligations owed to, a municipal entity issuer, an obligated person that is a conduit borrower,[3] or both, in connection with the issuance of municipal securities for the conduit borrower. For purposes of this guidance, the MSRB assumes that the conduit borrower is not a municipal entity, as defined in Section 15B(e)(8) of the Exchange Act, except in the final section of the guidance entitled, “When a Conduit Borrower is also a Municipal Entity.”

 

A few broad principles should be noted. First, institutions that are often conduit borrowers, such as large universities, may choose to issue debt securities directly without the involvement of a municipal entity issuer. The exemption from registration under the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”)[4] may be based on Section 3(a)(4)[5] or Regulation D under the Securities Act,[6] rather than on Section 3(a)(2).[7] In such cases, there may be no municipal security, and Rule G-42 would not apply. In cases where there is a private placement “tail” (i.e., a non-municipal security) side-by-side with the issuance of a tax-exempt municipal security, the advice and the activities a municipal advisor engages in regarding the tax-exempt security, including any conduct or communication to fulfill the municipal advisor’s duties and obligations under Rule G-42, may have an impact or consequences for the municipal advisor with respect to its negotiations or other activities related to the non-municipal security (e.g., the disclosure to the client of a material conflict of interest as required under Rule G-42(b)).

 

Second, the scenarios described below may involve advice given to both the municipal entity issuer and the conduit borrower. Rule G-42 provides that a fiduciary duty is owed only to a municipal entity, and a duty of care is owed to both the municipal entity and the conduit borrower. If an issue arises as to an activity that involves only the duty of care, such as inquiry as to the facts that provide the basis for advice provided to the client, the duty owed may be the same to both the municipal entity and the conduit borrower. Other issues, however, may involve the duty of loyalty owed the municipal entity as part of the municipal advisor’s fiduciary duty, and thus the municipal advisor’s obligation to the issuer may be higher (or different) than the duty owed the conduit borrower.

 

Initially, the MSRB provides interpretive guidance regarding the applicability of Rule G-42 when an issuer hires a municipal advisor to provide advice directly to a conduit borrower (“First Scenario”). The MSRB then considers whether an issuer may retain a municipal advisor (either for a specific transaction, or on a long-term basis), and then provide advice that the issuer obtains from the municipal advisor, in connection with a specific issuance of municipal securities, indirectly through the issuer, to the conduit borrower in connection with the issuance (“Second Scenario”). In a third scenario, the MSRB considers whether a conduit borrower may retain a municipal advisor that, as a practical matter, will also provide advice to an issuer on which the issuer will rely, in cases where the issuer chooses not to retain a separate municipal advisor, and, in such circumstances, whether the municipal advisor must provide the issuer the disclosures set forth in Rule G-42 (“Third Scenario”). The MSRB also provides interpretive guidance regarding the application of Rule G-42 to an issuer and a conduit borrower when the issuer and the conduit borrower retain the same municipal advisor to provide advice regarding an issuance (“Fourth Scenario”). Finally, in a fifth scenario (“Fifth Scenario”), the MSRB interprets the applicability of Rule G-42 to a scenario involving two natural persons, A and B, who are employees or otherwise associated persons of a registered municipal advisor, where A is retained by the issuer to provide municipal advisory services to the issuer, and B is retained by the conduit borrower to provide municipal advisory services to the conduit borrower.

 

Section 1: First Scenario

 

In the First Scenario, the MSRB considers the applicability of Rule G-42, when, in connection with a specific issuance of municipal securities, an issuer hires a municipal advisor to provide advice directly to a conduit borrower. (For purposes of the First Scenario, the MSRB assumes that the municipal advisor does not provide municipal advisory services to the issuer. Instead, consistent with the issuer’s intent, the municipal advisor is retained for, and in fact, provides municipal advisory services solely to or on behalf of the conduit borrower.)

 

Under Rule G-42, a municipal advisor may provide municipal advisory services directly to a conduit borrower, in connection with an issuance of municipal securities by an issuer, if the municipal advisor is retained and compensated by the issuer. Whether a person (in this case, the municipal advisor retained by the issuer) is a municipal advisor to the issuer, another person (in this case, the conduit borrower), or both and therefore is subject to Rule G-42, is activity-based and turns on whether the person is providing advice or otherwise engaging in municipal advisory activities for or on behalf of the recipient. Although the First Scenario focuses on the payment of compensation by the issuer, the existence or non-existence of compensation is not a factor in determining whether the municipal advisor is a municipal advisor to the issuer or to the conduit borrower.[8] In addition, the fact that, as to the conduit borrower, the municipal advisor is paid compensation by a third party is also not a factor in determining if the municipal advisor is a municipal advisor to the conduit borrower.

 

In the First Scenario, the municipal advisor engages in municipal advisory activities solely for or on behalf of the conduit borrower, and is subject to the requirements of Rule G-42. The municipal advisor is required to comply with all the provisions of Rule G-42 as to the conduit borrower,[9] and the rule applies in all respects to the municipal advisor in its relationship with the conduit borrower, except provisions applicable solely to a municipal entity client.

 

The threshold question regarding the application of Rule G-42 to the municipal advisor in its relationship to the issuer is whether the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) would interpret the facts and circumstances of the First Scenario – where the issuer does not receive the municipal advisory services, and the services are in fact provided solely to and on behalf of the conduit borrower – as the municipal advisor engaging (as a legal matter) in municipal advisory activities also to or on behalf of the issuer.

 

The Exchange Act definition of municipal advisor includes a person that “[p]rovides advice[10] to or on behalf of [emphasis added] a municipal entity or obligated person with respect to municipal financial products or the issuance of municipal securities, including advice with respect to the structure, timing, terms, and other similar matters concerning such financial products or issues.”[11] The SEC has stated that the determination of “whether a person provides advice to or on behalf of a municipal entity or an obligated person regarding municipal financial products or the issuance of municipal securities depends on all the relevant facts and circumstances.”[12] The meaning of the phrase “on behalf of” in the context of the First Scenario and more broadly, whether a person is engaged in municipal advisory activities for or on behalf of another person and is a municipal advisor to such person are interpretive issues that are solely within the jurisdiction of the SEC. Requests for interpretation regarding such issues should be directed to the SEC’s Office of Municipal Securities.

 

If, in the First Scenario, the activities of the municipal advisor with the issuer are not interpreted by the SEC to mean that the municipal advisor is also a municipal advisor to the issuer, then the municipal advisor would not be required to comply with Rule G-42 with respect to the issuer. For example, the municipal advisor would not be required by Rule G-42 to provide disclosures of conflicts of interest, if any existed, to the issuer.

 

Although compensation is not a factor in determining whether a person is a municipal advisor to a particular party (except as to a solicitor municipal advisor), the MSRB believes that, in the First Scenario, the compensation paid by the issuer to the municipal advisor for services for a conduit borrower may present a material conflict of interest, requiring the municipal advisor to make full and fair disclosure of such conflict in writing to the conduit borrower. Rule G-42 requires a municipal advisor to disclose all material conflicts of interest under Rule G-42(b)(i). (Such requirements are also incorporated in Rule G-42(c)). The requirement is not limited to actual material conflicts of interest. As provided in Rule G-42(b)(i)(F), for example, the municipal advisor must disclose potential material conflicts of interest that the municipal advisor becomes aware of after reasonable inquiry, that could reasonably be anticipated to impair the municipal advisor’s ability to provide advice to or on behalf of the client in accordance with the applicable standards of conduct under the Rule – the duty of care, and if applicable, the duty of loyalty. In this scenario, the client is the conduit borrower and the municipal advisor owes its client the duty of care as provided in Rule G‑42(a)(i) and SM .01.[13] Even if the compensation paid by the issuer to the municipal advisor is not viewed as an actual material conflict of interest by the municipal advisor, the municipal advisor must carefully consider if such payments give rise to a potential material conflict of interest. In the MSRB’s view, the payments from the issuer to the municipal advisor may create a relationship between the municipal advisor and the issuer, that even if not a municipal advisor-client relationship, generally would give rise to a potential material conflict of interest that could reasonably be anticipated to impair the municipal advisor’s ability to provide advice to or on behalf of the conduit borrower in accordance with the standards of Rule G-42(a). Before making any such disclosures to the conduit borrower, the municipal advisor should consider the guidance set forth in SM .05. Under SM .05, when a municipal advisor is required to make disclosures of material conflicts of interest, including those required under Rule G-42(b)(i)(F), the municipal advisor’s disclosures must be sufficiently detailed to inform the conduit borrower of the nature, implications and potential consequences of each conflict, and must also include an explanation of how the municipal advisor addresses or intends to manage or mitigate each conflict.

 

Finally, the relationship between the issuer and the municipal advisor, however characterized or limited, may create other compliance concerns under Rule G-42. For example, in some cases, the issuer, although not the client, may wish to provide policy direction or instructions to the municipal advisor regarding the issuance of the municipal securities. If the issuer communicates, explicitly or implicitly, an instruction or direction which the municipal advisor follows and which inhibited or limited the municipal advisor’s ability to fulfill its duties and obligations to the conduit borrower client under Rule G-42, the municipal advisor would violate the rule.

 

Section 2: Second Scenario

 

The MSRB has been asked to provide guidance regarding a scenario where a municipal advisor is engaged in municipal advisory activities as directed by an issuer and for such issuer, pursuant to an explicit arrangement or agreement, and the municipal advisor “indirectly” also provides advice to a conduit borrower, because the issuer provides to the conduit borrower the advice the issuer receives from the municipal advisor. For purposes of this Second Scenario, the MSRB assumes that the municipal advisor is aware of the flow of information from the issuer to the conduit borrower.

 

To assess whether the municipal advisor owes duties to the conduit borrower when the municipal advisor provides advice to the issuer that then flows through to the conduit borrower, again, a threshold question must be answered: Is the municipal advisor also engaged in municipal advisory activities for or on behalf of the conduit borrower because the conduit borrower is receiving, through the issuer, some or all of the advice that was provided by the municipal advisor to the issuer, establishing a municipal advisory relationship between the municipal advisor and the conduit borrower?

 

As set forth above, the SEC has stated that the determination of “whether a person provides advice to or on behalf of a municipal entity or an obligated person regarding municipal financial products or the issuance of municipal securities depends on all the relevant facts and circumstances,”[14] and whether a person is engaged in municipal advisory activities for or on behalf of another person and is a municipal advisor to such person are interpretive issues that are solely within the jurisdiction of the SEC.[15] 

 

 

If, in the Second Scenario, the transfer of advice from the issuer to the conduit borrower is interpreted by the SEC to mean that the municipal advisor is engaged in municipal advisory activities for or on behalf of the conduit borrower, the municipal advisor must comply with the requirements of Rule G-42 with respect to the issuer and the conduit borrower. This dual representation may raise several compliance issues.

 

Rule G-42 distinguishes the duties and obligations that a municipal advisor owes to an issuer client (i.e., a municipal entity) from those owed to a conduit borrower client in two provisions. First, in the conduct of all municipal advisory activities for and on behalf of an issuer client, a municipal advisor is subject to a fiduciary duty as provided in Rule G-42(a)(ii). The fiduciary duty is more specifically described as a requirement to act in accordance with a duty of loyalty[16] and a duty of care,[17] as described in, respectively, SM .02 and SM .01. In contrast and as discussed above, when the municipal advisor’s client is a conduit borrower, the municipal advisor owes a duty of care to the client as provided in Rule G-42(a)(i) and SM .01, but not a duty of loyalty. Second, in connection with a municipal advisor’s municipal advisory activities for and on behalf of an issuer client, a municipal advisor, and any affiliate of the municipal advisor, is prohibited from engaging in certain principal transactions with the issuer, as provided in Rule G-42(e)(ii).[18] This specific prohibition does not apply to a municipal advisor when its client is a conduit borrower. However, all other provisions and protections in Rule G-42 apply in the same manner to a municipal advisor whether its client is an issuer (i.e., a municipal entity) or a conduit borrower. For example, municipal advisors must provide the same timely disclosures of material conflicts of interest and material legal and disciplinary events in the earliest stages of their dealings with their conduit borrower clients as they provide to their municipal entity clients (and supplement such disclosures as necessary during the relationship). Similarly, municipal advisors have the same obligations to an issuer client and a conduit borrower to provide written documentation of the municipal advisory relationship (and supplement such documentation as necessary during the relationship). Also, if a municipal advisor makes a recommendation of a municipal securities transaction to either type of client, the municipal advisor must have a reasonable basis to believe that the recommended municipal securities transaction is suitable for the client.

 

The MSRB believes that a municipal advisor’s dual representation of an issuer and a conduit borrower with respect to the same issuance raises at least two types of compliance issues and concerns. First, the differing standards and other distinctions that Rule G-42 makes between issuer clients and conduit borrower clients will require a municipal advisor to consider whether, in every aspect of its conduct and representation, the municipal advisor acts in compliance with the more stringent standard applicable to its issuer client, and also fulfills its duties and obligations to its conduit borrower client. Moreover, under Rule G-42, compliance concerns and issues may require greater diligence to identify and address, because although certain duties and obligations are specified in Rule G-42(a)(i) and (ii) and SM. 01 and SM .02, generally, all of the specific duties or obligations that fall under the broad umbrella of the fiduciary duty cannot be specifically enumerated. Among other things, the MSRB cannot anticipate and identify all the situations that may arise in a particular offering, and, as a result, the rule cannot provide explicit instruction or guidance to a municipal advisor to an issuer, regarding what acts must be taken (or avoided) or what must be communicated (or not communicated) to an issuer to comply fully with the municipal advisor’s fiduciary duty. Similarly, all duties and obligations that a municipal advisor owes to a conduit borrower under the duty of care in a particular offering also cannot be specifically enumerated for the same reasons.

 

Further, when compliance issues or concerns arise, whether the duty owed is a fiduciary duty (a duty of loyalty and a duty of care) or a duty of care, under Rule G-42 and SM .04, the standards of conduct applicable to the municipal advisor and, except as provided in SM .04, the duties and obligations owed to the municipal advisor’s client(s), cannot be eliminated, diminished or modified by disclosure, mutual agreement or otherwise. SM .04 makes clear that nothing in the rule shall be construed to permit a municipal advisor to alter the standards of conduct or impose limitations on any of the duties prescribed in Rule G-42. For example, in various requests for guidance, the MSRB was asked, regarding dual representations, if the MSRB could confirm a municipal advisor engaged in dual representations could continue its representation of both clients if full and fair disclosures of any conflicts of interest or other issues were made to both clients. Generally, disclosure alone would not be sufficient for a municipal advisor to ensure, in all facts and circumstances, that a municipal advisor would be in compliance with all the duties and obligations owed to one or both clients, including, as to a fiduciary, the obligation of a municipal advisor not to “engage in municipal advisory activities for a municipal entity client if it cannot manage or mitigate its conflicts of interest in a manner that will permit it to act in the municipal entity’s best interests.”[19] However, certain limitations may be placed on the scope of a municipal advisory relationship with a client, and the ability to do so is not limited to dual representation scenarios. Under SM .04, if requested or expressly consented to by a client, a municipal advisor may limit the scope of the municipal advisory activities to be performed to certain specified activities or services. (The effectiveness of any such specified limitation of the scope of municipal advisory activities may be negated, however, if the municipal advisor then engages in a course of conduct that is inconsistent with the specified limitations.)

 

In the Second Scenario and any other scenario involving a dual representation, before entering into the dual representation, a municipal advisor must determine if it is possible to meet its duties and obligations to both clients under Rule G-42. The municipal advisor must determine it can comply with Rule G-42 when the duties and obligations owed to one client, the issuer, are more stringent and more difficult to fulfill, than those duties and obligations that the municipal advisor owes to the second client, the conduit borrower. Among other things, the duty of loyalty owed to the issuer requires a municipal advisor to act in the best interests of the issuer client without regard to the financial or other interests of the municipal advisor. The municipal advisor must consider whether it will be able to act consistently with this standard during the entire engagement while also providing municipal advisory services to the conduit borrower client, without putting its interests or the interests of the conduit borrower, before or above those of the issuer client, including not providing any advantages or benefits to itself or any other client to the loss or detriment of the issuer, including any financial loss or lost opportunity.

 

In addition, as discussed above, in all municipal advisory relationships, a municipal advisor must identify and disclose to its client material conflicts of interest, after reasonable inquiry, and such disclosures must be sufficiently detailed to inform the client of the nature, implications and potential consequences of each conflict. In the MSRB’s view, conflicts of interest are, in most cases, inherent in a dual representation, although they may not always be material. In a dual representation, the MSRB believes that such conflicts of interest should be identified prior to or upon engaging in municipal advisory activities with each client. Further, in the MSRB’s view, the potential for an identified, but non-material conflict to become a material conflict of interest during the dual representation is great enough that the municipal advisor will have an obligation to make an initial disclosure pursuant to Rule G-42(b)(i)(F), of the facts and circumstances of the dual representation, how such dual representation is a potential material conflict of interest and the risk that such conflict could reasonably be anticipated to impair the municipal advisor’s ability to dually represent both clients in accordance with the standards of conduct under Rule G-42(a).[20] Further, for each client, the municipal advisor must include an explanation of how the municipal advisor addresses or intends to manage or mitigate each conflict, as provided in SM .05.

 

However, because the municipal advisor owes a fiduciary duty to one client but not the other, if any material conflict of interest is identified that the municipal advisor cannot manage or mitigate in a manner that will permit the municipal advisor to act in the issuer’s best interests, the municipal advisor must not engage in, or must cease engaging in, the municipal advisory activities for the issuer. Practically, this would require the municipal advisor to terminate the relationship with the issuer, or act to eliminate the material conflict of interest. For example, if such conflicts derive from the municipal advisor’s relationship with the conduit borrower, as an alternative to terminating its relationship with the issuer, the municipal advisor may be able to eliminate such material conflicts by amending or terminating its relationship with the conduit borrower. The MSRB notes that, in either scenario, the municipal advisor’s elimination of its conflicts of interest, by terminating its relationship with the issuer, or by amending or terminating its municipal advisory relationship with the conduit borrower, may create both legal and related business issues. If termination of the municipal advisory relationship with the issuer or the conduit borrower is required, among other things, the termination may have a detrimental impact on the schedule or costs of completing the issuance, or impair the terminated client’s ability to obtain informed advice. For these reasons, municipal advisors are cautioned to determine before or upon beginning a dual representation how either municipal advisory relationship would be modified or terminated if the municipal advisor is no longer able to comply with its Rule G-42 obligations in a dual representation. Among other things, a municipal advisor may wish to consider if, prior to finalizing the initial documentation of the municipal advisory relationship as required in Rule G-42(c), the municipal advisor should negotiate the specific terms and conditions that would apply to a future termination of a municipal advisory relationship with either of the clients. As required by Rule G-42(c), if specific terms regarding termination are agreed upon, such terms must be incorporated in the writing(s) that document the municipal advisory relationship.[21]

 

An example of a difficult circumstance for the municipal advisor to resolve arises when, for example, a major university or hospital chain is engaged in multiple conduit financings in different jurisdictions around the country. The conduit borrower may have developed a certain type of financing to fit within its own broader financing plan, such as consistently structured variable rate securities. One state education authority, which is approached by the university conduit borrower, may, however, have a strong policy against the issuance of variable rate debt. The municipal advisor should bring the conflict to both parties at the earliest possible stage in the financing and make a determination whether it can advise both parties and fulfill its obligations under Rule G-42.

 

The MSRB also cautions municipal advisors that neither the facts and circumstances characterizing an issuance involving an issuer and a conduit borrower, nor the duties and obligations under Rule G-42 as applied to a relationship, are static or fixed. The requirements of Rule G-42 apply at any time during which municipal advisory activities are engaged in for or on behalf of an issuer or a conduit borrower, and with equal rigor throughout the representation. For example, although the standards of conduct do not change, as facts and circumstances change, a municipal advisor must assess if, under such changed circumstances, there are specific acts, duties or obligations that are not enumerated under Rule G-42 that must be performed or attended to arising from the broad duty of care and, if applicable, duty of loyalty.[22] Rule G-42 also incorporates protections for municipal advisory clients in certain key provisions, which are based on the recognition that key facts and circumstances may change (i.e., the continuing obligation to provide promptly to a client amended or supplemental information in writing, regarding any changes and additions in the relationship documentation, such as amendments or supplements needed regarding the material conflicts of interest disclosures, or the disclosures regarding certain legal and disciplinary events).

 

Changes in the facts and circumstances regarding the municipal securities issuance, or in the municipal advisory relationships with an issuer, a conduit borrower or both may require the municipal advisor to review if such changes may affect its ability to continue the dual representation and fully comply with Rule G-42. Even if an issuer, a conduit borrower and a municipal advisor believe at the beginning of the dual representation that the issuer and conduit borrower will be in agreement on all major issues that may arise during the course of the issuance, the interests and goals of each client may diverge later. Either the issuer, the conduit borrower, or both, may develop substantially divergent views on issues material to the issuance. Municipal advisors considering dual representation should assess initially the extent to which the interests and goals of the issuer and the conduit borrower are the same or substantially similar and make reassessments periodically thereafter.

 

Although challenging, in certain circumstances, the MSRB believes that it may be possible for a municipal advisor to provide municipal advisory services to an issuer and, in the manner described in the Second Scenario, indirectly, to engage in municipal advisory activities for or on behalf of a conduit borrower and remain in compliance with Rule G-42. Specifically, the circumstances where dual representation as described in the Second Scenario may be most feasible are those where the interests of the issuer and the conduit borrower are aligned. This may occur when the issuer is created to finance a specific project for the benefit of a metropolitan area, or in instances where the issuer applies a policy-neutral or hands-off approach to proposed projects, provided that such projects and the related financings comply with fundamental legal requirements for issuance. In such circumstances where an issuer and a conduit borrower have a complete or substantially complete convergence of interests and goals, or where the issuer’s concerns are somewhat limited and related for the most part to determining that an issuance will fully comply with the applicable legal and regulatory requirements, it may be possible for the municipal advisor to deal honestly and with the utmost good faith and act in the best interests of the issuer without regard to the financial or other interests of the municipal advisor (including the municipal advisor’s financial or other interest arising from its relationship with the conduit borrower) as required under the duty of loyalty, and also meet its obligations to both clients under the duty of care. It also may be possible for the municipal advisor, which by the very status of its dual representation creates a potential material conflict of interest that must be disclosed in the initial disclosures made pursuant to Rule G-42(b), to manage or mitigate this and any other of “its conflicts of interest in a manner that will permit it to act in the municipal entity’s best interests,” as required under SM .02.

 

Conversely, where there is not a substantially complete convergence of interests and goals of the issuer and the conduit borrower, or when the shared interests and goals of the issuer and the conduit borrower at the beginning of the issuance process diverge during the course of the issuance, it may not be possible for a municipal advisor to fulfill its duties of loyalty and care to its municipal entity client, and also provide, under the duty of care, the appropriate expert professional advice to the conduit borrower and otherwise fulfill its obligations to the conduit borrower that arise under the duty of care. Although dual representation is possible, for every action taken during an issuance, it is incumbent upon a municipal advisor to assess and determine, as to each client, if such actions comply with the standards of conduct and other requirements under Rule G-42.

 

Given the broad scope of the duty of care and the broader and more strict obligations arising in a fiduciary relationship, the MSRB concludes that it may be possible for a municipal advisor in the Second Scenario to engage in dual representations for or on behalf of both an issuer and a conduit borrower, but the municipal advisor will face a number of challenges in such situations. Moreover, the challenges to fully and completely comply with its obligations to each client will be heightened in lengthier and more complex engagements.

 

Section 3: Third, Fourth and Fifth Scenarios

 

The Third, Fourth and Fifth Scenarios raise the same compliance issues and concerns under Rule G-42 as discussed in the First and Second Scenarios. In the Third Scenario, the municipal advisor, an issuer and a conduit borrower expressly recognize that the municipal advisor is retained by and provides municipal advisory services for the conduit borrower and, also, as a practical matter, provides advice to the issuer, on which the issuer relies.[23] Although in the Third Scenario, the conduit borrower, rather than the issuer compensates the municipal advisor, all the compliance and regulatory issues arising regarding Rule G-42 are the same as those discussed above regarding the Second Scenario.

 

In relation to the Third Scenario, municipal advisors also have requested guidance regarding the municipal advisor’s responsibilities to the issuer when the municipal advisor is retained and compensated by the conduit borrower. For example, does the municipal advisor have a fiduciary responsibility to the issuer to whom advice is being provided, and is the municipal advisor required to provide disclosures of conflicts of interest to the issuer? If the provision of such advice to the issuer means, under SEC rules, that the provider is a municipal advisor to the issuer, then the municipal advisor would be a fiduciary to the issuer and subject to all the duties and obligations under Rule G-42. Thus, the municipal advisor would be required, among other things, to comply with the requirements to make disclosures of material conflicts of interest as provided in Rule G-42(b), and to provide such conflicts of interest disclosures as part of the relationship documentation as provided in Rule G-42(c).

 

The Fourth Scenario is another scenario in which a municipal advisor is engaged in a dual representation of an issuer and a conduit borrower. Rule G-42 would apply in the Fourth Scenario in the same manner as it applies in the Second Scenario.

 

The Fifth Scenario is also an example of dual representation by one municipal advisor of an issuer and a conduit borrower regarding the same issuance of municipal securities and, thus, raises the same issues regarding the municipal advisor’s compliance with Rule G-42 that are discussed for the Second Scenario. The duties and obligations of Rule G-42 run not only from a municipal advisor firm’s associated persons but also from the municipal advisor firm to the issuer and the conduit borrower. Although, in the Fifth Scenario, one employee is designated to act on behalf of the issuer and a second is designated to act on behalf of the conduit borrower, the employees are agents of their employer, a single municipal advisor firm. In the MSRB’s view, therefore, how Rule G-42 applies in the Fifth Scenario does not differ in any material respect from the Second, Third and Fourth Scenarios. In a dual representation, and, in particular, a dual representation purposefully established from the beginning of the issuance, a municipal advisor firm having the capacity to do so is likely to rely on the services of more than one of its associated persons, whether structured to work in coordination as one team, or separately.

 

Section 4: When a Conduit Borrower is also a Municipal Entity

 

In the discussion above regarding the five scenarios, the MSRB assumes that, in dual representations, the issuer client is a municipal entity, and the second client, the conduit borrower, is not. As discussed above, because under the Exchange Act and Rule G-42, a municipal advisor owes more rigorous obligations and duties to a municipal entity client – that is, a fiduciary duty – than are owed to a conduit borrower, in certain scenarios involving dual representation, a municipal advisor may find it difficult, or not possible, to fully comply with its obligations to both clients under Rule G-42.

 

The MSRB recognizes that, at times, both the issuer and the conduit borrower are municipal entities, and, in this discussion, a conduit borrower that is a municipal entity is referred to as a municipal entity conduit borrower. In such cases, a municipal advisor that provides advice to or on behalf of the issuer and the municipal entity conduit borrower would owe the more rigorous duties required of a fiduciary to both clients equally (e.g., the municipal advisor would be required, in all contexts, to deal honestly and with the utmost good faith with the issuer and the municipal entity conduit borrower, and, as to each, to act in the client’s best interests without regard to the financial or other interests of the municipal advisor).

 

Before undertaking such a dual engagement, the municipal advisor must assess its ability to comply with Rule G-42, including the proscription in Rule G-42, SM .02, which prohibits a municipal advisor from engaging in municipal advisory activities for a client if the municipal advisor could not manage or mitigate its conflicts of interest in a manner that would permit the municipal advisor to act in the best interests of the client. In addition, if the dual representation were undertaken, the municipal advisor’s assessment of its ability to fully comply with Rule G-42, including SM .02, should be carefully considered at the beginning of the dual representation and thoughtfully re-considered periodically during the course of the dual engagement. In the MSRB’s view, the facts and circumstances wherein a municipal advisor would be able to fully comply with Rule G-42, including all obligations as a fiduciary to each municipal entity, are not likely to occur frequently.

 

This interpretive guidance is intended for use only as a resource. It does not describe all provisions of Rule G-42. In addition, the MSRB has adopted other rules and interpretations that may be applicable to the conduct described in the five scenarios.

[1] This guidance is limited to persons that are municipal advisors as defined in Section 15B(e)(4) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), and the relevant rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the Exchange Act (“Exchange Act rules”), but excludes municipal advisors engaged solely in the undertaking of a solicitation of a municipal entity or an obligated person, for compensation, on behalf of certain third parties (“solicitor municipal advisors”), because Rule G-42 does not apply to solicitor municipal advisors. See Exchange Act Release No. 70462 (September 20, 2013), 78 FR 67467 (November 12, 2013) (“Order Adopting SEC Final Rule”) (the Exchange Act rules and regulations referred to above include, but are not limited to, Exchange Act Rules 15Ba1-1 through 15Ba1-8. See also Section 15B(e)(4)(A)(ii); Exchange Act Rule 15Ba1-1(d)(1)(i) (the term “municipal advisor” includes solicitors of obligated persons); Section 15B(e)(9) of the Exchange Act (definition of “solicitation of a municipal entity or obligated person”); and Order Adopting SEC Final Rule, 78 FR 67467, at n. 138 and n. 408.

 

[2] In Exchange Act Rule 15Ba1-1(e), the term “municipal advisory activities” means “(1) [p]roviding advice to or on behalf of a municipal entity or obligated person with respect to municipal financial products or the issuance of municipal securities, including advice with respect to the structure, timing, terms, and other similar matters concerning such financial products or issues; or (2) [s]olicitation of a municipal entity or an obligated person.” Further, the Rule provides that, in the absence of an exclusion or an exemption, these activities would cause a person to be a municipal advisor.

 

[3] Although the term “conduit borrower” is not specifically defined in the Exchange Act, a conduit borrower in a municipal securities issuance, such as a private university, non-profit hospital, private corporation, or a public hospital or public university, is a type of “obligated person.” See Order Adopting SEC Final Rule, at 67483, n. 200 (the term obligated person can include entities acting as conduit borrowers, such as private universities and non-profit hospitals).

 

The term, “obligated person,” is defined in Exchange Act Section 15B(e)(10) to mean:

 

any person, including an issuer of municipal securities, who is either generally or through an enterprise, fund, or account of such person, committed by contract or other arrangement to support the payment of all or part of the obligations on the municipal securities to be sold in an offering of municipal securities.

 

Generally, for purposes of this guidance, the terms “obligated person” and “conduit borrower” have the same meaning. In addition, for this guidance, both terms exclude a municipal entity acting as an issuer of municipal securities.

 

[4] 15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.

 

[5] 15 U.S.C. 77c(a)(4).

 

[6] 17 CFR 230.500 – 508.

 

[7] 15 U.S.C. 77c(a)(2).

 

[8] See Order Adopting SEC Final Rule, at 67477 (the SEC concluded that compensation should not factor into a determination of whether a person must register (or be registered) as a municipal advisor, except in connection with solicitor municipal advisors; in such cases, the person must becompensated for such solicitation activity to be required to register (or be registered) as a municipal advisor).

 

[9] These requirements include, but are not limited to: complying with the broad obligations under the duty of care under Rule G-42(a)(i) and Supplemental Material (“SM”) .01 under the rule in all aspects of the municipal advisor’s municipal advisory relationship with the conduit borrower; making the required disclosures to the conduit borrower regarding material conflicts of interest and material legal and disciplinary events (and updating them as necessary) as set forth in Rule G-42(b) and SM .05; providing relationship documentation to the conduit borrower (and updating the documentation as necessary) as provided in Rule G-42(c) and SM .05 and SM .06; if making a recommendation to the conduit borrower, or if reviewing a recommendation from the issuer or another party to the conduit borrower, following the requirements of Rule G-42(d) and SM .09 and SM .10; and not engaging in the specifically prohibited conduct as outlined in Rule G-42(e)(i) and SM .11.

 

[10] In the Order Adopting SEC Final Rule, the SEC provided guidance to interpret “advice” as that term is used in the definition of municipal advisor and related terms. See Order Adopting SEC Final Rule, at 67471 (providing examples of communications that are excluded from the term “advice”) and 67478 - 80 (SEC guidance regarding the meaning of “advice,” statement that the SEC does not believe that the term “advice” is susceptible to a bright-line definition).

 

Jurisdiction to resolve the interpretive issue of whether “advice” has been provided, based on the facts and circumstances, lies with the SEC.

 

[11] See Exchange Act Section 15B(e)(4)(A)(i).

 

[12] See Order Adopting SEC Final Rule, at 67479.

 

[13] SM .01 of Rule G-42 sets forth core principles regarding the duty of care a municipal advisor owes to all clients, whether issuers or conduit borrowers. The duty of care includes, but is not limited to, the specific duties enumerated in the rule. For example, to fulfill its obligations under the duty of care, the municipal advisor must, among other things: possess the degree of knowledge and expertise needed to provide the client with informed advice; make a reasonable inquiry as to the facts that are relevant to a client’s determination as to whether to proceed with a course of action or that form the basis for advice provided to the client; and undertake a reasonable investigation to determine that it is not basing any recommendation on materially inaccurate or incomplete information. Also, a municipal advisor must have a reasonable basis for any advice provided to or on behalf of a client; any representations made in a certificate that it signs that will be reasonably foreseeably relied upon by the client, any other party involved in the municipal securities transaction, or investors in the issuer’s securities or municipal securities secured by payments from the conduit borrower client; and any information provided to the client or other parties involved in the municipal securities transaction in connection with the preparation of an official statement for any issue of municipal securities as to which the municipal advisor is advising. For example, to make a recommendation that complies with the duty of care, prior to making a recommendation, a municipal advisor is required to determine if the recommended municipal securities transaction is suitable, based on numerous factors, as applicable to the particular type of client. Various factors are set forth in SM .09 and include, but are not limited to: the client’s financial situation and needs, objectives, tax status, risk tolerance, liquidity needs, the client’s experience with, in this scenario, the issuance of municipal securities and related municipal securities transactions, the client’s experience with municipal securities issuance and related municipal securities transactions of the type and complexity being recommended, the client’s financial capacity to withstand changes in market conditions during the period that the municipal securities to be issued are reasonably expected to be outstanding and any other material information known by the municipal advisor about the client and the municipal securities issuance, after reasonable inquiry.

 

[14] See Order Adopting SEC Final Rule, at 67479.

 

 

[15] See supra notes 10-12, and accompanying text.

 

[16] SM .02 of Rule G-42 sets forth core principles regarding the duty of loyalty owed to the issuer. Under SM .02, the duty of loyalty includes, but is not limited to, the duties and obligations to “deal honestly and with the utmost good faith with a municipal entity client and act in the client’s best interests without regard to the financial or other interests of the municipal advisor.” In addition, “[a] municipal advisor must not engage in municipal advisory activities for a municipal entity client if it cannot manage or mitigate its conflicts of interest in a manner that will permit it to act in the municipal entity’s best interests.”

 

[17] See n. 13, supra.

 

[18] Additional information and requirements regarding the specific prohibition in Rule G‑42(e)(ii) are set forth in SM .13, SM .14 and SM .15.

 

[19] More specifically, requestors asked if the MSRB would confirm that full and fair disclosure of any conflicts of interest or other issues would address any concerns under the Rule with the result that there would be no unmanageable conflict of interest or issue that would prevent a municipal advisor from advising both an issuer and a conduit borrower (or two advisors from the same firm from representing, separately, an issuer and the related conduit borrower) as required under SM .02.

 

 

[20] The MSRB believes that a conflict of interest arises in a dual representation described in the Second Scenario as it does in the First Scenario, when a municipal advisor provides municipal advisory services to a conduit borrower and the payment for such services is provided by a third-party, such as an issuer, in that such circumstances often can create or foster divided loyalties. In both cases, the MSRB believes that the potential that such conflicts of interest, which are present at the onset of such relationship(s), may later become material conflicts of interest requires, at a minimum, that such conflict(s) be disclosed initially to the client(s) pursuant to Rule G-42(b)(i)(F).

 

 

[21] Rule G-42(c)(vi) requires that the written documentation of the municipal advisory relationship include, in writing, “the date, triggering event, or means for the termination of the municipal advisory relationship, or, if none, a statement that there is none.” Rule G‑42(c)(vii) requires that the written documentation include “any terms relating to withdrawal from the municipal advisory relationship.”

 

 

[22] As noted above, all of the municipal advisor’s obligations and duties cannot be specifically enumerated or identified at the beginning of the dual representation. Instead, the duties and obligations under either standard of conduct will unfold during the dual representation.

 

 

[23] The Third Scenario is limited to situations where an issuer chooses not to retain a separate municipal advisor. However, changing the facts and circumstances of the Third Scenario to include the retention of another municipal advisor by the issuer is not conclusive in determining if Rule G-42 would apply to the municipal advisor retained by the conduit borrower in its conduct with the issuer. If the municipal advisor retained by the conduit borrower provides municipal advisory services indirectly or, as a practical matter, to the issuer, and if the SEC interprets such conduct as engaging in municipal advisory activity for or on behalf of the issuer, the provision of such advice makes Rule G-42 applicable to the provider, except where the provider is subject to an exclusion or an exemption (from the definition of municipal advisor), such as the Independent Registered Municipal Advisor exemption provided under Exchange Act Rule 15Ba1-1(d)(3)(vi).

 

The MSRB amended Rule G-17, regarding fair dealing, to require that, in the conduct of their municipal advisory activities, municipal advisors, including solicitor municipal advisors, and their associated persons must deal fairly with all persons and not engage in any deceptive, dishonest, or unfair practice. (Previously, the rule applied only to dealers and their associated persons.) Rule G-17 became applicable to all municipal advisors, including solicitor municipal advisors, and their associated persons, on December 22, 2010.

Rule G-17 contains an anti-fraud prohibition similar to the standard set forth in Rule 10b-5 adopted by the SEC under the Exchange Act. Thus, all municipal advisors must refrain from engaging in certain conduct and must not misrepresent or omit the facts, risks, or other material information about municipal advisory activities undertaken. However, Rule G-17 does not merely prohibit deceptive conduct on the part of a municipal advisor. The rule also establishes a general duty of a municipal advisor to deal fairly with all persons, even in the absence of fraud.

Rule G-17 imposes a duty of fair dealing on solicitor municipal advisors when they are soliciting business from municipal entities and obligated persons on behalf of third parties. Again, municipal advisors are reminded that the term “municipal entity” also includes certain entities that do not issue municipal securities. Thus, in addition to owing the specific obligations discussed below to issuers of municipal securities, solicitor municipal advisors also owe such obligations to, for example, state and local government sponsored public pension plans and local government investment pools.

The duty of fair dealing includes, but is not limited to, a duty to disclose to the municipal entity or obligated person being solicited material facts about the solicitation, such as the name of the solicitor’s client; the type of business being solicited; the amount and source of all of the solicitor’s compensation; payments (including in-kind) made by the solicitor to another solicitor municipal advisor (including an affiliate, but not an employee) to facilitate the solicitation regardless of characterization; and any relationships of the solicitor with any employees or board members of the municipal entity or obligated person being solicited or any other persons affiliated with the municipal entity or obligated person or its officials who may have influence over the selection of the solicitor’s client.

Additionally, if a solicitor municipal advisor is engaged by its client to present information about a product or service offered by the third-party client to the municipal entity or obligated person, the solicitor municipal advisor must disclose all material risks and characteristics of the product or service. The solicitor municipal advisor must also advise the municipal entity or obligated person of any incentives received by the solicitor (that are not already disclosed as part of the solicitor municipal advisor’s compensation from its client) to recommend the product or service, as well as any other conflicts of interest regarding the product or service, and must not make material misstatements or omissions when discussing the product or service.

Under the Exchange Act, municipal advisors and their associated persons are deemed to owe a fiduciary duty to their municipal entity clients.[*] Similarly, Rule G-42 (which applies only to non-solicitor municipal advisors) follows the Exchange Act in deeming municipal advisors to owe a fiduciary duty, for purposes of Rule G-42, to such municipal entity clients. However, because a solicitor municipal advisor’s clients are not the municipal entities that they solicit, but rather the third parties that retain or engage the solicitor municipal advisor to solicit such municipal entities, solicitor municipal advisors do not owe a fiduciary duty under the Exchange Act or MSRB rules to their clients (or the municipal entity) in connection with such activity. Nonetheless, as noted above, solicitor municipal advisors are subject to the fair dealing standards under Rule G-17 (including with respect to their clients and the entities that they solicit).

The Board has received questions concerning the appropriate allocation of supervisory responsibility between municipal securities principals and the new category of municipal securities sales principals. The Board recently amended its rule G-3 to permit a person associated with a securities firm whose activities with respect to municipal securities are limited to supervising sales to and purchases from customers to qualify as a "municipal securities sales principal" ("sales principal"). The Board also amended rules G-8 on recordkeeping, G-26 on the administration of customer accounts, and G-27 on supervision to permit securities firms to designate sales principals as responsible for certain supervisory functions insofar as they relate directly to transactions in municipal securities with customers.

In particular, rule G-27 concerning supervision requires municipal securities dealers to designate at least one municipal securities principal as responsible for supervising its municipal securities activities, including the municipal securities activities of branch offices or similar locations. In addition, rule G-27 permits the municipal securities dealer to designate a sales principal (e.g., a branch office manager) as responsible for the "direct supervision of sales to and purchases from customers." The rule also requires that a dealer adopt written supervisory procedures which, among other matters, reflect the delegation of supervisory authority to these personnel.

As a result of these amendments, in designating under rule G-27 one or more municipal securities principals as responsible for supervising the business and activities of the firm’s associated persons, a securities firm may choose to designate a qualified sales principal with limited responsibility for the direct supervision of sales to and purchases from customers. If so, the firm’s written supervisory procedures may allocate responsibility to a sales principal for reviewing and approving (to the extent that they relate to sales to and purchases from customers) the suitability of the opening of, and transactions in, customer accounts, the handling of customer complaints and other correspondence, and other matters permitted by Board rule to be reviewed or approved by a sales principal. A municipal securities principal, however, must be responsible for directly supervising the firm’s other municipal securities activities such as underwriting, trading, and pricing of inventories.

With respect to the relationship between a sales principal and the designated municipal securities principal, Board rule G-27 provides that a branch office manager who acts as the sales principal for his office will be responsible for the municipal securities sales activities under his direct supervision. Rule G-27 also provides that a designated municipal securities principal will be responsible for all municipal securities activities of the branch office including those that may be under the direct supervision of a sales principal. However, the branch office manager, under the particular organizational structure of a firm, may be responsible to some other designated supervisor for the discharge of his other duties.

Syndicate records: participations. This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of November 24, 1981 concerning certain of the requirements of Board rule G-8(a)(viii) regarding syndicate records to be maintained by managers of underwritings of new issues of municipal securities.

You note that this provision requires, in pertinent part, that,

[w]ith respect to each syndicate..., records shall be maintained ... showing ... the name and percentage of participation of each member of the syndicate or account...

You inquire whether this provision necessitates the designation of an actual percentage or decimal participation, or, alternatively,

whether a listing of the ... dollar participation [of each member] ... along with [the] aggregate par value of the syndicate meets the requirement ... of the Rule.

The rule should not be construed to require in all cases an indication of a numerical percentage for each member's participation, if other information from which a numerical percentage can easily be determined is set forth. The method you propose, showing the par value amount of the member's participation, is certainly acceptable for purposes of compliance with this provision of the rule. MSRB interpretation of December 8, 1981.

Records of original entry: unit system. This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of November 20, 1981 concerning compliance with certain of the provisions of Board rule G-8 through the use of a "unit system" method of recordkeeping. In your letter you indicate that the bank wishes to maintain the record of original entry required under rule G-8(a)(i) in the form of a collection of duplicate copies of confirmations filed in transaction settlement date order; in addition, you enclose a copy of the confirmation form used by the bank. You inquire whether maintaining the record in this manner would be satisfactory for purposes of the rule.

In a July 29, 1977 interpretive notice on rule G-8 the Board stated:

Under rule G-8, records may be maintained in a variety of ways, including a unit system of recordkeeping. In such a system, records are kept in the form of a group of documents or related groups of documents....

A unit system of recordkeeping is an acceptable system for purposes of rule G-8 if the information required to be shown is clearly and accurately reflected and there is an adequate basis for audit. This would require in most instances that each record in a unit system be arranged in appropriate sequence, whether chronological or numerical, and fully integrated into the over-all recordkeeping system for purposes of posting to general ledger accounts.

Therefore, the type of recordkeeping system you propose may be used for purposes of compliance with rule G-8 if (1) the records show, in a clear and accurate fashion, all of the information that is required to be shown, and (2) the records are maintained in a form that provides an adequate basis for audit by bank employees or examiners. It is my understanding that recordkeeping systems similar to that which you propose have been inspected by banking regulatory authorities during examinations of other bank municipal securities dealer departments, and have been found to meet these two criteria.

In your letter you indicate that the confirmation form used by your bank "contains all the information needed" to meet the recordkeeping requirement. Our review of your form indicates that this is not the case. The rule requires the record of original entry to contain

an itemized daily record of all purchases and sales of municipal securities, all receipts and deliveries of municipal securities (including bond or note numbers and, if the securities are in registered form, an indication to such effect), all receipts and disbursements of cash with respect to transactions in municipal securities, [and] all other debits and credits pertaining to transactions in municipal securities ... The records of original entry shall show the name or other designation of the account for which each such transaction was effected (whether effected for the account of such municipal securities broker or municipal securities dealer, the account of a customer, or otherwise), the description of the securities, the aggregate par value of the securities, the dollar price or yield and aggregate purchase or sale price of the securities, accrued interest, the trade date, and the name or other designation of the person from whom purchased or received or to whom sold or delivered.

The confirmation form you enclosed does not appear to provide a space for notation of "the name or other designation of the account for which [the] transaction was effected." This information is distinct from "the name or other designation of the person from whom purchased ... or to whom sold ..." (which would appear in the "name and address" portion of your form) and requires an indication of the account, whether it be the bank's trading inventory or portfolio, or the contra-principal on an agency transaction, in which the securities were held prior to a sale or will be held subsequent to a purchase. For example, if the bank sells $100,000 par value securities from its trading account to "Mr. Smith", the record of original entry would reflect that this transaction was effected for the account of the [bank's] trading account. A subsequent sale of these securities effected as agent for the customer would be reflected on the record of original entry as for the account of "Mr. Smith."

I note also that, in addition to a record of purchase and sale transactions (which could easily be maintained in the form of duplicate copies of confirmations), the record of original entry must contain information about transactions cleared on the date of the record as well as cash disbursements and receipts. Your letter does not indicate how your bank would comply with these latter requirements. As you may be aware, other banks using unit recordkeeping systems use additional copies of the confirmation as "clearance" records, with information on receipts and deliveries of securities and movements of cash noted on these copies. These "clearance" records are then aggregated with the purchase and sale records to form a complete record of original entry.

In summary, the method of maintaining a record of original entry which your bank proposes can be used to comply with the requirements of the rule. Certain aspects of the information required by the rule are not contained on the document you propose to use, however, and provision would have to be made for inclusion of these items in the records before the system you propose would be satisfactory for compliance with the rule's requirements. MSRB interpretation of November 24, 1981.

Syndicate records. I am writing in response to your letters of October 2 and October 19, 1981 concerning a particular recordkeeping arrangement used by an NASD-member firm in connection with its underwriting activities. In your letters you indicate that the firm conducts its underwriting activities from its main office and four regional branch office "commitment centers," with the committing branch offices authorized to commit to underwriting new issues on the firm's behalf. You inquire whether the firm is in compliance with the Board's recordkeeping and record retention rules if it maintains only part of the records on its underwritings in the main office. Correspondence from a field examiner attached to your letters indicates that the committing branch office originating a particular underwriting maintains all of the records with respect to such underwriting. The majority of these records are the original copies; the copies of confirmations, good faith checks, and syndicate settlement checks maintained at the committing branch office are duplicates of original records maintained at the firm's main office.

Rule G-9(d) requires that books and records shall be maintained and preserved in an easily accessible place for two years and shall be available for ready inspection by the proper regulatory authorities. The fact that the member firm does not maintain all records with respect to all of its underwriting activities in a single location does not contravene these provisions of Board rule G-9. Rule G-9 would permit the arrangement described in your letters, whereby a firm maintains copies of all of the records pertaining to a particular underwriting in the office responsible for that underwriting.

Thank you for your prompt assistance in providing the additional information we needed in order to respond to your inquiry. MSRB interpretation of October 21, 1981.

Settlement of syndicate accounts. This is in response to your letter of July 28, 1981, suggesting that requirements analogous to those placed on syndicate managers in rule G-12(j) be imposed on syndicate members who must remit their share of syndicate losses to their syndicate managers. You state that syndicate members frequently do not remit their losses to the manager in a timely fashion and that such a requirement would establish an "equitable balance between the interests of syndicate members and syndicate managers."

Rule G-12(j) provides:

Final settlement of a syndicate or similar account formed for the purchase of securities shall be made within 60 days following the date all securities have been delivered by the syndicate or account manager to the syndicate or account members.

The rule is not expressly limited to money payments by syndicate managers, but broadly requires that final settlement shall be made within 60 days following the date the manager delivers the securities to the syndicate members. Thus, the rule requires syndicate members to remit their share of syndicate losses to the syndicate manager within the 60-day period set forth in the rule. Since a syndicate member cannot remit his share of losses until he is apprised by the syndicate manager of the amount of his share, a member should remit his share of the losses to the manager within a reasonable period of time after receiving the syndicate accounting required by rule G-11(h). MSRB interpretation of September 28, 1981.

Certain amendments to Board rule G-15 on customer confirmations became effective on December 1, 1980. Among other matters, these amendments require that customer confirmations of transactions effected on the basis of dollar price, including confirmations of purchases from customers, set forth certain yield information concerning the transaction. Confirmations of dollar price transactions in non-callable securities, or in callable securities traded at prices below par, must set forth the yield to maturity resulting from the dollar price. Confirmations of dollar price transactions in securities which have been called or prerefunded must show the yield to the maturity date established by the call or prerefunding. Confirmations of transactions in callable securities traded at dollar prices in excess of par are exempt from yield disclosure requirements until October 1, 1981; after that date such confirmations must show the lowest of the yield to premium call, yield to par option, or yield to maturity resulting from such dollar price.[1]

Since the effective date of these amendments, the Board has received several inquiries as to whether all confirmations of purchases from customers, including purchases effected at a price derived from a yield price less a spread or concession, must show the yield resulting from the actual unit dollar price of the transaction.

The Board is of the view that all confirmations of purchasers from customers (except for purchases at par) must set forth the net or effective yield resulting from the actual unit dollar price of the transaction. The yield disclosure on confirmations of purchases from customers is intended to provide customers with a means of assessing the merits of alternative investment strategies (such as different possible reinvestment transactions) and the merits of the particular transaction being confirmed. The Board believes that the disclosure of the net or effective yield (i.e., that derived from the actual unit dollar price of the transaction) best serves these purposes.

---

[1] Confirmations of transactions effected at a dollar price of par ("100") continue to be exempt from any yield disclosure requirements.

The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board has recently received inquiries concerning the provisions of rule G-12(h)(iii) regarding close-out procedures in the event of a firm's liquidation. The Board has been advised that a SIPC trustee has been appointed in connection with the liquidation of a general securities firm with which certain municipal securities brokers and dealers have uncompleted transactions in municipal securities, and that the New York Stock Exchange and the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., have notified their respective members that they may institute "immediate" close-out procedures on open transactions with the firm in liquidation. In accordance with a previous understanding between the Board and the NASD, the NASD has also advised municipal securities brokers and dealers that, pursuant to rule G-12(h)(iii), they may execute "immediate" close-outs on open transactions in municipal securities.

Rule G-12(h)(iii) provides:

Nothing herein contained shall be construed to prevent brokers, dealers or municipal securities dealers from closing out transactions as directed by a ruling of a national securities exchange, a registered securities by a ruling of a national securities exchange, a registered securities association or an appropriate regulatory agency issued in connection with the liquidation of a broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer.

Therefore, in the event that a national securities exchange or registered securities association makes a ruling that close-outs may be effected "immediately" on transactions with a firm in liquidation, municipal securities brokers and dealers may take such action. In these circumstances, a purchasing dealer seeking to execute such a close-out need not follow the procedures for initiation of a close-out procedure, nor is the dealer required to wait the prescribed time periods prior to executing the close-out notice. Similarly, a selling dealer need not attempt delivery prior to using the procedure for close-outs by sellers. In both cases dealers may proceed to execute the close-out immediately--that is, the purchasing dealer may immediately "buy in" the securities in question for the account and liability of the firm in liquidation (or utilize one of the other options available for execution of the close-out), and a selling dealer may immediately "sell out" the subject securities. Notification of the execution of the close-out should be provided in accordance with the normal procedure.

Dealers executing close-outs in these circumstances should advise the trustee of the firm in liquidation of their actions in closing out these transactions. If proceeds from the close-out execution are due to the firm in liquidation, they should be remitted to the trustee. Requests for payment of amounts due on close-out executions should also be sent to the trustee; the trustee will resolve these claims in the course of the liquidation.

The Board also notes that dealers having open transactions with a firm in liquidation may, but are not required to, execute "immediate" close-outs in these circumstances. If individual dealers wish to attempt some other means of completing these transactions, such as seeking to complete a transaction with the liquidated firm's other contra-side, they may do so.

Blanket consent. This is in response to your April 7, 1981, letter asking whether, consistent with rule G-23(d)(ii), a municipal securities dealer acting as a financial advisor to an issuer may obtain from the issuer prospective approval to participate in any and all new issues the issuer may sell on a competitive basis at some future date.

Rule G-23(d)(ii) provides that a municipal securities dealer which is acting as a financial advisor may not acquire or participate in the distribution of a new issue unless

if such issue is to be sold by the issuer at competitive bid the issuer has consented in writing to such acquisition or participation.

The rule is designed to minimize the "prima facie" conflict of interest that exists when a municipal securities professional acts as both financial advisor and underwriter with respect to the same issue. Rule G-23(d) speaks in terms of "a new issue" and the implication is that consent should be obtained on an issue-by-issue basis.

The Board believes that such a reading of the rule is consistent with the rule’s rationale—that an issuer should have an opportunity to consider whether, under the particular circumstances of an offering, the financial advisor’s potential conflict of interest is sufficient to warrant not consenting to its participation in the sale. The Board has concluded that an unrestricted consent would not afford an issuer such an opportunity and, accordingly, has determined that such a consent would not satisfy the requirements of rule G-23(d)(ii). MSRB interpretation of July 30, 1981.

Disclosure of pricing: accrued interest. This is in response to your request by telephone for an interpretation of Board rule G-15 which requires that a municipal securities dealer provide to his customer, at or prior to completion of a transaction, a written confirmation containing certain general information including the amount of accrued interest. Specifically, you have asked whether the rule permits a municipal securities dealer, in using one confirmation to confirm transactions in several different municipal securities of one issuer, to disclose the amount of accrued interest for the bonds as an aggregate figure. You have advised us that, typically, such a confirmation will show other items of information required by the rule such as yield and dollar price, separately for each issue.

Rule G-15 was adopted by the Board to assure that confirmations of municipal securities transactions provide investors with certain fundamental information concerning transactions. The Board believes that disclosure of accrued interest as an aggregate sum does not permit investors to determine easily from the confirmation the amount of accrued interest attributable to each security purchased, but rather necessitates the performance of several computations. It, thus, would be more difficult for an investor to determine whether the information concerning accrued interest is correct if the information is presented in aggregate form.

Such a result is inconsistent with the purposes of rule G-15. Accordingly, the Board has concluded that, under rule G-15, the amount of accrued interest must be shown for each issue of bonds to which the customer confirmation relates. MSRB interpretation of July 27, 1981.

Letters of credit. This is in response to your April 9, 1981, letter asking whether Board rule G-22, regarding control relationships, and G-23, regarding financial advisory agreements, would apply if a bank’s issuance of a letter of credit were contingent upon its being named underwriter or manager for the issue, or if a bank issuing a letter of credit retained authority to require an issuer, in effect, to call the securities.

Rule G-22 provides that

a control relationship with respect to a municipal security shall be deemed to exist if a broker, dealer, or municipal securities dealer (or a bank or other person of which the broker, dealer, or municipal securities dealer is a department or division) controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the issuer of the security or a person other than the issuer who is obligated, directly or indirectly, with respect to debt service on the security.

The existence of a control relationship is a question of fact to be determined from the entire situation. Most recently, the Securities and Exchange Commission suggested that, for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, a registered broker-dealer would be deemed to be controlled by a person or entity who, among other things, has the ability to direct or cause the direction of management or the policies of the broker-dealer. Based upon the above, it is questionable whether a bank that conditions the issuance of a letter of credit upon being named an underwriter or upon a tie-in deposit arrangement should be deemed to control the issuer. Similarly, it does not appear that a bank that retains discretion under a letter of credit to cause the trustee to call the whole issue has a control relationship with the issuer.

You also ask whether under Board rule G-23 a financial advisory relationship is created if a bank conditions the issuance of a letter of credit upon being named an underwriter or upon obtaining a tie-in deposit arrangement. Under rule G-23, a financial advisory relationship is deemed to exist when a municipal securities professional provides, or enters into an agreement to provide, financial advisory services to, or on behalf of, an issuer with respect to a new issue of securities regarding such matters as the structure, timing or terms of the issue, in return for compensation or for the expectation of compensation. It does not appear that rule G-23 would apply in your example since the bank is not providing financial advisory or consulting services with respect to the structure, timing or other substantive terms of the issue. MSRB interpretation of July 27, 1981.

Yield disclosures. This letter is in response to your inquiry of April 14, 1981 concerning the application of the yield disclosure requirements of Board rule G-15 to a particular transaction effected by your firm. As I indicated to you in my letter of May 9, 1981, the Board was unable to consider your inquiry at its April meeting, and, accordingly, deferred the matter to its July meeting. At that meeting the Board took up your question and authorized my sending you this answer to your inquiry. While we realize that the matter is now moot with respect to the particular transaction about which you were writing, we assume that this question may arise again with respect to future transactions.

In your April 14 letter you inquired concerning a recent sale of new issue securities to a customer. You indicated that the firm had sold all twenty maturities of the new issue to a customer. This sale had been effected at the same premium dollar price for all maturities, and the customer had been advised of the average life of the issue and the yield to the average life. You inquired whether the final money confirmation of this sale should show "one dollar price ... and one yield to the average life," or the dollar price and each of the yields to the twenty different maturities of the issue.[1]

Rule G-15(a)(viii)(B)[*] requires that customer confirmations of transactions in noncallable securities effected on the basis of a dollar price set forth the dollar price and the resulting yield to maturity. In the situation you describe, it would be difficult to conclude that the rule would permit the confirmation to show only a "yield to the average life," omitting any yield to maturity information. Although the "yield to the average life" would provide the customer with some indication of the return on his or her investment, the customer could easily make the mistake of assuming that this would be the yield on all of the securities, and not realize that it is the result of differing yields, with lower yields on the short-term maturities and higher yields on the long-term ones. The Board believes that disclosure of each of the yields to the twenty maturities of the issue would provide the customer with much more accurate information concerning the return on his or her investments. Accordingly, the Board concludes that, in a transaction of this type, the final money confirmation(s) should set forth each of the yields. MSRB interpretation of July 27, 1981.

---

[1] Although you did not indicate this, we assume that all of these securities are noncallable.

[*] [Currently codified at rule G-15(a)(i)(A)(5)(b)]

Contents of advertisement: put options. Your letter dated June 15, 1981, has been referred to me for response. In your letter you mention our previous conversation regarding the appropriate definition of "put bonds", which definition your firm would like to use in advertisements offering such securities for sale. You request confirmation of the Board’s views concerning the aspects of the "put option" feature on these securities that would be appropriate to cover in such a definition.

The type of "put option" issue with which the Board is familiar, and which we discussed, has a provision in the indenture which permits the holder of the securities to tender or "put" the securities back to the issuer on specified dates at par. This feature typically commences six (or more) years after the date of issuance, is exercisable only once annually (on an interest payment date), and is exercisable only upon the provision of irrevocable prior notice to the issuer (typically three or more months before the exercise date).

If I remember our conversation correctly, you indicated that the firm wished to describe a security of this type in an advertisement as having a "put option" feature, available once annually, permitting redemption of the securities at par. I suggested that, while the items of information you detailed were appropriate, it might also be advisable to mention in the advertisement the "prior notice" requirement under the option exercise procedure. It would also be helpful to make clear the irrevocable nature of such notice.

If the content of your definition of the "put option" feature goes beyond the items we discussed (for example, by indicating that the "put option" is secured by a bank letter of credit, additional disclosures might also be appropriate. MSRB interpretation of July 13, 1981.

The Board continues to be concerned about industry compliance with certain of the requirements of Board rules G-11, "Sales of New Issue Municipal Securities During the Underwriting Period," and G-12, "Uniform Practice," with respect to the settlement of syndicate accounts. Board rule G-11(g)[*] requires, among other matters, that syndicate managers provide to members at the time of settlement of a syndicate account a detailed statement of the expenses incurred by the syndicate.[1] Rule G-12(j) requires that settlement of a syndicate account and distribution of any profit due to members be made within 60 days of delivery of the syndicate's securities. In addition, rule G-12(i) requires that good faith deposits be returned within two business days of settlement with an issuer, and rule G-12(k) requires that sales credits designated by a customer be distributed within 30 days following delivery of the securities [by the issuer to the syndicate]. 

The Board has from time to time received complaints from industry members concerning certain managers' non-compliance with these requirements. These persons allege that certain managers unduly delay the sending of syndicate settlement checks and other disbursements, and furnish settlement statements that provide little or no detail about the nature of the expenses incurred by the syndicate. These persons have also, on occasion, furnished to the Board copies of syndicate statements which illustrate clearly these managers' failure to provide the requisite information and to meet the time requirement for these disbursements. The Board has referred each of these complaints to the appropriate regulatory agency for investigation and appropriate action.

The Board wishes to emphasize strongly the need for compliance with these provisions. The Board continues to be of the view that the time periods and other requirements of the rules, which were arrived at after considerable deliberation, are fair and reasonable. The Board believes that failure to comply with these provisions is inexcusable. The Board does not accept the rationale offered by some, that the difficulties in obtaining bills for syndicate expenses justify these undue delays; the Board believes that it is incumbent upon managers to assure that such bills are received and processed in timely fashion, to permit compliance with the rule. The Board strongly urges syndicate managers who have failed to comply with these requirements to bring their practices into compliance with the requirements of the rules.

The Board also is communicating these views to the enforcement organizations and stressing its concern with respect to compliance with these provisions. It strongly urges all syndicate members to notify the appropriate enforcement organization of any violations by managers of these provisions.

---

 

 

 

[1] The rule contemplates that the statement will set forth a detailed breakdown of expenses into specified categories, such as advertising, printing, legal, computer services, packaging and handling, etc. The statement may include an item for miscellaneous expenses, provided that the amount shown under such an item is not disproportionately large in relation to other items of expense shown and includes only items of expense which cannot be easily categorized elsewhere in the statement.

[*] [Currently codified at rule G-11(h)]

NOTE: Revised to reflect subsequent amendments.

"Finder" of potential issuers. This responds to your letter of May 14, 1981 requesting our advice concerning the application of the qualification provisions of rule G-3 to a person employed by a municipal securities broker or dealer whose activities are limited solely to acting as a "finder" of potential issuers. Based upon the facts contained in your letter, and assuming that such person is not providing financial advisory or consultant services for issuers, it would appear that he or she is not performing functions, which are enumerated in rule G-3(a), the performance of which would require qualification as a municipal securities principal or a municipal securities representative. MSRB interpretation of June 24, 1981.

Registered municipal securities dealer. Your letter dated February 11, 1981 has been referred to me for response.

In your letter you state that [the firm] "has had no transactions in municipal securities since a trade on September 13, 1979." You note that according to rule A-14 of the Board relating to annual fees, a fee . . . is payable for each fiscal year in which the municipal securities broker or municipal securities dealer conducts business. You conclude that "[s]ince we did not conduct any business during the last fiscal year (10/1/79-9/30/80) it would appear that [the firm] should be entitled to a refund" for the fiscal year ending October, 1980, and should not be liable for payment of the annual fee for the fiscal year ending October, 1981.

The purpose of the annual fee imposed by rule A-14 is to defray the costs of the Board's communications with those firms which are qualified to do a municipal securities business. There is no threshold level of municipal securities business which triggers liability for payment of the annual fee. Rather, the fee is imposed on all brokers and dealers who are registered as municipal securities brokers with the S.E.C. Since [the firm] is registered as a municipal securities dealer, it is liable for payment of the annual fee imposed by rule A-14 for the fiscal year ending October 1981.

If your firm no longer intends to do a municipal securities business, rule A-15 of the Board provides a procedure for withdrawal from registration as a municipal securities dealer. Withdrawal from registration would, of course, enable your firm to avoid paying annual fees to the Board. However, at such time as your firm resumes any municipal securities business, it would be required to pay the initial and annual fees imposed by rules A-12 and A-14, respectively. MSRB interpretation of June 11, 1981

Board rule G-3 sets forth standards of qualifications for municipal securities brokers and municipal securities dealers and their associated persons, including examination requirements for municipal securities principals, municipal securities financial and operations principals, municipal securities sales principals, and municipal securities representatives.

In order to assure that its examinations constitute valid tests of the qualifications of persons who take them, the Board has instituted various procedures, in the question writing as well as the administration phases, which are designed to preserve the confidentiality of the examinations. In addition, on one occasion the Board found it necessary to take legal action, alleging copyright violations, against a securities training school which had used in its training material questions and answers that appeared to have been taken from questions contained in Board qualification examinations.

The Board wishes to point out that the practice of "debriefing" persons who have taken a municipal securities qualifications examination (i.e. requesting or encouraging such persons to reveal the contents of the examinations) may not only give rise to an infringement of the Board's copyright but would, if engaged in by members of the municipal securities industry, constitute a violation of the Board's rules. In this regard, rule G-3(g) [*] provides that no person associated with a municipal securities broker or municipal securities dealer shall (i) disclose to any person any question on any municipal securities qualification examination or the answers to any such questions, (ii) engage in any activity inconsistent with the confidential nature of any such qualification examination or its purpose as a test of the qualifications of persons taking such examination, or (iii) knowingly sign a false certification concerning any such qualification examination.

 

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

Confirmation disclosure: put option bonds. This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of March 17, 1981, with respect to "put option" or "tender option" features on certain new issues of municipal securities. In your letter you note that an increasing number of issues with "put option" features are being brought to market, and you inquire concerning the application of the Board’s rules to these securities.

The issues of this type with which we are familiar have a "put option" or "tender option" feature permitting the holder of securities of an issue to sell the securities back to the trustee of the issue at par. The "put" or "tender option" privilege normally becomes available a stated number of years (e.g., six years) after issuance, and is available on stated dates thereafter (e.g., once annually, on an interest payment date). The holder of the securities must usually give several months prior notice to the trustee of his intention to exercise the "put option."

Most Board rules will, of course, apply to "put option" issues as they would to any other municipal security. As you recognize in your letter, the only requirements raising interpretive questions appear to be the requirements of rules G-12 and G-15 concerning confirmations. These present two interpretive issues: (1) does the existence of the "put option" have to be disclosed and if so, how, and (2) should the "put option" be used in the computation of yield and dollar price.

Both rules require confirmations to set forth a

description of the securities, including ... if the securities are ... subject to redemption prior to maturity ..., an indication to such effect

Confirmations of transactions in "put option" securities would therefore have to indicate the existence of the "put option," much as confirmations concerning callable securities must indicate the existence of the call feature. The confirmation need not set forth the specific details of the "put option" feature.

The requirements of the rules differ with respect to disclosure of yields and dollar prices. Rule G-12, which governs inter-dealer confirmations, requires such confirmations to set forth the

yield at which transaction was effected and resulting dollar price, except in the case of securities which are traded on the basis of dollar price or securities sold at par, in which event only dollar price need be shown (in cases in which securities are priced to premium call or to par option, this must be stated and the call or option date and price used in the calculation must be shown, and where a transaction is effected on a yield basis, the dollar price shall be calculated to the lowest of price to premium call, price to par option, or price to maturity)

Rule G-15 requires customer confirmations to contain yield and dollar price as follows:

(A) for transactions effected on a yield basis, the yield at which transaction was effected and the resulting dollar price shall be shown. Such dollar price shall be calculated to the lowest of price to premium call, price to par option, or price to maturity. In cases in which the dollar price is calculated to premium call or par option, this must be stated, and the call or option date and price used in the calculation must be shown.

(B) for transactions effected on the basis of dollar price, the dollar price at which transaction was effected, and the lowest of the resulting yield to premium call, yield to par option, or yield to maturity shall be shown; provided, however, that yield information for transactions in callable securities effected at a dollar price in excess of par, other than transactions in securities which have been called or prerefunded, is not required to be shown until October 1, 1981.

(C) for transactions at par, the dollar price shall be shown[.]

Therefore, with respect to transactions in "put option" securities effected on the basis of dollar price, rule G-12 requires that confirmations simply set forth the dollar price. Rule G-15 requires that confirmations of such transactions set forth the dollar price and the yield to maturity resulting from such dollar price. With respect to transactions effected on the basis of yield, both rules require that the confirmations set forth the yield at which the transaction was effected and the resulting dollar price. Unless the parties otherwise agree, the yield should be computed to the maturity date when deriving the dollar price. If the parties explicitly agree that the transaction is effected at a yield to the "put option" date, then such yield may be shown on the confirmation, together with a statement that it is a "yield to the [date] put option," and an indication of the date the option first becomes available to the holder.

Since the exercise of the "put option" is at the discretion of the holder of the securities, and not, as in the case of a call feature, at the discretion of someone other than the holder, the Board concludes that the presentation of a yield to maturity on the confirmation, and the computation of yield prices to the maturity date, is appropriate, and accords with the goal of advising the purchaser of the minimum assured yield on the transaction. The Board further believes that the ability of the two parties to a transaction to agree to price the transaction to the "put option" date, should they so desire, provides sufficient additional flexibility in applying the rules to transactions in "put option" securities. MSRB interpretation of April 24, 1981.

Agency transaction: pricing. This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of March 17, 1981 concerning the appropriate method of disclosing remuneration on agency transactions. In your letter you indicate that the bank wishes to use one of the following two legends, as appropriate, in disclosing such remuneration:

1) "Commission: Agency Fee $ ... per $1,000 of par value included in/deducted from net price to customer;" or

2) "Commission: Concession received from broker/dealer $ ... per $1,000 of par value."

You inquire whether these legends, indicating the amount of remuneration on a "dollars per bond" basis, are satisfactory for purposes of rule G-15.

Rule G-15(b)[*] requires that

[i]f the broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer is effecting a transaction as agent for the customer or as agent for both the customer and another person, the confirmation shall set forth ... the source and amount of any commission or other remuneration received or to be received by the broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer in connection with the transaction.

As you are aware, the Board has previously interpreted this provision to require that an aggregate dollar amount be shown. The Board adopted this position due to its belief that many customers would find it difficult to interpret the meaning of a statement disclosing the remuneration as a percentage of par value or a unit profit per bond, or to relate this information to the "total dollar amount of [the] transaction" required to be shown under G-15(a)(xi)[†].

Accordingly, we are unable to conclude that disclosure of the remuneration in the manner in which you suggest would be satisfactory for purposes of the rule. The total dollar amount of the remuneration should be set forth on the confirmation. MSRB interpretation of April 23, 1981.

 

---

 

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

[†] [Currently codified at rule G-15(a)(i)(A)(6)(a)]

Indemnity agreement. This is in response to your letter dated March 18, 1981, regarding your client's (the "Bank") proposal to sell participations in industrial development bonds to one or more unit investment trusts or closed-end investment company (the "trust"), which bonds would be insured against default by the American Municipal Bond Assurance Corporation (AMBAC). Specifically you ask whether an agreement by the Bank to indemnify AMBAC to the extent of 25 percent of any losses suffered in the event of default would violate Board rule G-25(b) which generally prohibits a municipal securities dealer from guaranteeing a customer against loss in municipal securities transactions.

As you note in your letter, the Board has taken the position that a municipal securities bank dealer issuing a letter of credit which is publicly disclosed and for the benefit of all holders of the security would not violate the provisions of rule G-25(b). You state that the Bank’s agreement to indemnify AMBAC would be disclosed to and, at least indirectly would be for the benefit, of all investors.

Based upon the facts contained in your letter, it appears that the proposed agreement would not be prohibited by rule G-25(b). MSRB interpretation of March 26, 1981.

Financial advisory relationship: identity of issuer. This is in response to your letter of February 27, 1981, asking whether a dealer bank which is retained by the Board of Water Governors of a water utility owned by City X to provide advice regarding the structure, timing, and terms of a new issue of mortgage revenue bonds to be issued by City X has entered into a financial advisory agreement for purposes of rule G-23. You note that the bonds would be sold at a competitive underwriting and payable from the revenues of the water utility.

Under rule G-23, a financial advisory relationship is deemed to exist when a broker, dealer, or municipal securities dealer renders or enters into an agreement to render financial advisory services to or on behalf of an issuer with respect to a new issue or issues of municipal securities. Based solely upon the facts contained in your letter, it appears that the Board of Water Commissioners is a political subdivision of City X. It further appears that the Board of Water Governors entered into the financial advisory agreement for the specific purpose of obtaining advice regarding the new issue of bonds on behalf of the City. Thus, the fact that City X, rather than the Board of Water Governors, actually will issue the bonds would not itself support a conclusion that the financial advisory agreement is not subject to the provisions of rule G-23. MSRB interpretation of March 13, 1981.

Disclosure of underwriting spread. As you know, Board rule G-32 provides that a dealer selling new issue municipal securities must furnish its customers with certain information at or prior to sending final money confirmations. Under subparagraph (a)(ii) of the rule, in the case of a negotiated sale, the dealer must furnish certain specified information about the underwriting arrangements, including the "underwriting spread." The Board has interpreted this provision to require that the gross spread (i.e., the difference between the initial reoffering prices and the amount paid to the issuer) be shown. The Board has also indicated that the gross spread may be expressed either in dollars or in points per bond.

The Board recently issued an interpretation of rule G-32(a)(ii) to the effect that the underwriting spread may be expressed either as a total amount or as a listing of the components of the gross spread. Thus, for example, the following disclosure would meet the requirements of the rule:

Application of Proceeds

 

Construction Costs .............................................................$120,000,000

Underwriter’s discount[1]...........................................................2,500,000

Legal expenses ..........................................................................200,000

Printing and Miscellaneous expenses......................................... ..300,000

Principal amount of bonds ....................................................123,000,000

 Should you have any questions concerning this interpretation, please call me. MSRB interpretation of March 9, 1981.

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

---

[1] If a dealer expresses the underwriting spread as a listing of the components of the gross spread, that portion of the proceeds which represents compensation to the underwriters must, in the Board's view, be clearly identified as such. Thus, use of the terms "underwriter's discount" or "net to underwriters" would be acceptable; the term "bond discount," however, is confusing and is, therefore, inappropriate.

 

Letters of credit. This is in response to your letter dated August 1, 1980, requesting the Board’s views on the application of rule G-25 to bank standby letters of credit issued in connection with new issues of securities which the dealer department of the bank intends to underwrite. Specifically, you have asked our views on whether such transactions would violate rule G-25(b), which generally prohibits a municipal securities dealer from guaranteeing a customer against loss in municipal securities transactions.

For the reasons discussed below, rule G-25(b) would not prohibit a municipal securities bank dealer from issuing a letter of credit which is publicly disclosed and for the benefit of all holders of the security.

Rule G-25(b) is an antimanipulation rule which is primarily designed to prevent a municipal securities dealer from artificially stimulating the market in a security, for example, by "parking" it with a customer who has assumed no market risk. It does not appear that the issuance of a fully disclosed letter of credit provided by a bank dealer for the benefit of all bondholders could be used to serve a market manipulative purpose, even though the letter would also serve to protect the bank’s own customers. Generally, such letters of credit protect bondholders from particular risks of loss, such as the inability of the issuer to make payments of principal or interest. Bondholders are not protected from general market risks, however, and, like all bona fide purchasers of securities, they incur gains or losses as the market price of the bonds fluctuates. Moreover, unlike the situation contemplated by rule G-25 which addresses guarantees made by dealers to their customers, the bondholders for whose benefit a letter of credit is issued would not necessarily have a customer relationship with the bank dealer issuing the letter. MSRB interpretation of March 6, 1981.