Background

In the municipal securities markets, dealers[1] typically communicate with investors one-on-one, in person, or by telephone. These dealer/customer communications are made to provide the investor with information concerning the municipal securities the dealer wants to sell and to allow the dealer to find out about the customer’s investment objectives. Over the last few years there has been a dramatic increase in the use of the Internet for communication between dealers and their customers. Dealers are looking to the Internet as a mechanism for offering customers new and improved services and for enhancing the efficiency of delivering traditional services to customers. For example, dealers have developed online search tools that computerize the process by which customers can obtain and compare information on the availability of municipal securities of a specific type that are offered for sale by a particular dealer.[2] Technological advancements have provided many benefits to investors and the brokerage industry. These technological innovations, however, also have presented new regulatory challenges, including those arising from the application of the suitability rule to online activities. In consideration of this, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (“MSRB”) is issuing this notice to provide dealers with guidance concerning their obligations under MSRB Rule G-19, relating to suitability of recommendations,[3] in the electronic environment.[4]

Rule G-19 prohibits a dealer from recommending transactions in municipal securities to a customer unless the dealer makes certain determinations with respect to the suitability of the transactions.[5] Specifically, the dealer must have reasonable grounds for believing that the recommendation is suitable based upon information available from the issuer of the security or otherwise and the facts disclosed by the customer or otherwise known about such customer.

As the rule states, a dealer's suitability obligation only applies to securities that the dealer recommends to a customer.[6] A dealer or associated person who simply effects a trade initiated by a customer without a related recommendation from the dealer or associated person is not required to perform a suitability analysis. However, under MSRB Rules, even when a dealer does not recommend a municipal security transaction to a customer but simply effects or executes the transaction, the dealer is obligated to fulfill certain other important fair practice obligations. For example, under Rule G-17, when effecting a municipal security transaction for a customer, a dealer is required to disclose all material facts about a municipal security that are known by the dealer and those that are reasonably accessible.[7] In addition, Rule G-18 requires that each dealer, when executing a municipal securities transaction for or on behalf of a customer as agent, make a reasonable effort to obtain a price for the customer that is fair and reasonable in relation to prevailing market conditions. Similarly, under Rule G-30, if a dealer engages in principal transactions with a customer, the dealer is responsible for ensuring that it is charging a fair and reasonable price. The MSRB wishes to emphasize the importance of these fair practice obligations even when a dealer effects a non-recommended transaction online.[8]

Applicability of the Suitability Rule to Electronic Communications—General Principles  

There has been much debate about the application of the suitability rule to online activities.[9]  Industry commentators and regulators have debated two questions: first, whether the current suitability rule should even apply to online activities, and second, if so, what types of online communications constitute recommendations for purposes of the rule. The NASD published NASD Notice to Members 01-23, Online Suitability-Suitability Rule and Online Communication (the “NASD Online Suitability Notice”) (April 2001) to provide guidance to its members in April 2001.[10] In answer to the first question, the MSRB, like the NASD, believes that the suitability rule applies to all recommendations made by dealers to customers—including those made via electronic means—to purchase, sell, or exchange a security. Electronic communications from dealers to their customers clearly can constitute recommendations. The suitability rule, therefore, remains fully applicable to online activities in those cases where the dealer recommends securities to its customers. 

With regard to the second question, the MSRB does not seek to identify in this notice all of the types of electronic communications that may constitute recommendations. As the MSRB has often emphasized, "[w]hether a particular transaction is in fact recommended depends on an analysis of all the relevant facts and circumstances."[11] That is, the test for determining whether any communication (electronic or traditional) constitutes a recommendation remains a "facts and circumstances" inquiry to be conducted on a case-by-case basis. 

The MSRB also recognizes that many forms of electronic communications defy easy characterization. The MSRB believes this is especially true in the online municipal securities market, which is in a relatively early stage of development. Nevertheless, the MSRB offers as guidance the following general principles for dealers to use in determining whether a particular communication could be deemed a recommendation.[12] The "facts and circumstances" determination of whether a communication is a recommendation requires an analysis of the content, context, and presentation of the particular communication or set of communications. The determination of whether a recommendation has been made, moreover, is an objective rather than a subjective inquiry. An important factor in this regard is whether—given its content, context, and manner of presentation—a particular communication from a dealer to a customer reasonably would be viewed as a "call to action," or suggestion that the customer engage in a securities transaction. Dealers should bear in mind that an analysis of the content, context, and manner of presentation of a communication requires examination of the underlying substantive information transmitted to the customer and consideration of any other facts and circumstances, such as any accompanying explanatory message from the dealer.[13] Another principle that dealers should keep in mind is that, in general, the more individually tailored the communication is to a specific customer or a targeted group of customers about a security or group of securities, the greater the likelihood is that the communication may be viewed as a recommendation.

Scope of the Term Recommendation

As noted earlier, the MSRB agrees with and has in this guidance adopted the general principles enunciated in the NASD Online Suitability Notice as well as the NASD guidelines for evaluating suitability obligations discussed below. While the MSRB believes that the additional examples of communications that do not constitute recommendations provided by the NASD in its Online Suitability Notice are useful instruction for dealers who develop equity trading web sites, as the examples are based upon communications that exist with great regularity in the Nasdaq market, the MSRB believes that the examples have limited application to the types of information and electronic trading systems that are present in the municipal securities market. 

For example, the NASD’s third example of a communication that is not a recommendation describes a system that permits customer-directed searches of a “wide-universe” of securities and references all exchange-listed or Nasdaq securities, or externally recognized indexes.[14] The NASD example therefore applies to dealer web sites that effectively allow customers to request lists of securities that meet broad objective criteria from a list of all the securities available on an exchange or Nasdaq. These are examples of groups of securities in which the dealer does not exercise any discretion as to which securities are contained within the group of securities shown to customers. This example makes sense in the equity market where there are centralized exchanges and where electronic trading platforms routinely utilize databases that provide customer access to all of the approximately 7,300 listed securities on Nasdaq, the NYSE and Amex. However, no dealer in the municipal securities market has the ability to offer all of the approximately 1.3 million outstanding municipal securities for sale or purchase. The municipal securities market is a fragmented dealer market. Municipal securities do not trade through a centralized exchange and only a small number of securities (approximately 10,000) trade at all on any given day. Therefore, there is no comparable central exchange that could serve as a reference point for a database that is used in connection with municipal securities research engines. The databases used by dealer systems typically are limited to the municipal securities that a dealer, or a consortium of dealers, holds in inventory. In these types of systems the customer’s ability to search for desirable securities that meet the broad, objective criteria chosen by the customer (e.g., all insured investment grade general obligation bonds offered by a particular state) is limited. The concept of a wide universe of securities, which is central to all of the NASD’s examples, is thus difficult to define and has extremely limited, or no, application in the municipal securities market. 

Given the distinct features of the municipal securities market and the existing online trading systems, the MSRB believes it would be impractical to attempt to define the features of an electronic trading system that would have to be present for the system transactions to not be considered the result of a dealer recommendation. The online trading systems for municipal securities that are in place today limit customer choices to the inventory that the dealer or dealer consortium hold, and therefore, the dealer will always have a significant degree of discretion over the securities offered to the customer. A system that allows this degree of dealer discretion is a dramatic departure from the types of no recommendation examples provided by the NASD guidance, and thus, these communications must be carefully analyzed to determine whether or not a recommendation has been made.  

 The MSRB, however, does believe that the examples of communications that are recommendations provided in the NASD Online Suitability Notice are communications that take place in the municipal securities market. Therefore, the MSRB has adopted these examples and generally would view the following communications as falling within the definition of recommendation:

• A dealer sends a customer-specific electronic communication (e.g., an e-mail or pop-up screen) to a targeted customer or targeted group of customers encouraging the particular customer(s) to purchase a municipal security.[15]
• A dealer sends its customers an e-mail stating that customers should be invested in municipal securities from a particular state or municipal securities backed by a particular sector (such as higher education) and urges customers to purchase one or more stocks from a list with "buy" recommendations.
• A dealer provides a portfolio analysis tool that allows a customer to indicate an investment goal and input personalized information such as age, financial condition, and risk tolerance. The dealer in this instance then sends (or displays to) the customer a list of specific municipal securities the customer could buy or sell to meet the investment goal the customer has indicated.[16]
• A dealer uses data-mining technology (the electronic collection of information on Web Site users) to analyze a customer's financial or online activity—whether or not known by the customer—and then, based on those observations, sends (or "pushes") specific investment suggestions that the customer purchase or sell a municipal security.

Dealers should keep in mind that these examples are meant only to provide guidance and are not an exhaustive list of communications that the MSRB does consider to be recommendations. As stated earlier, many other types of electronic communications are not easily characterized. In addition, changes to the factual predicates upon which these examples are based (or the existence of additional factors) could alter the determination of whether similar communications may or may not be viewed as recommendations. Dealers, therefore, should analyze all relevant facts and circumstances, bearing in mind the general principles noted earlier and discussed below, to determine whether a communication is a recommendation, and they should take the necessary steps to fulfill their suitability obligations. Furthermore, these examples are based on technological services that are currently used in the marketplace. They are not intended to direct or limit the future development of delivery methods or products and services provided online.  

Guidelines for Evaluating Suitability Obligations 

Dealers should consider, at a minimum, the following guidelines when evaluating their suitability obligations with respect to municipal securities transactions.[17] None of these guidelines is determinative of whether a recommendation exists. However, each should be considered in evaluating all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the communication and transaction.

• A dealer cannot avoid or discharge its suitability obligation through a disclaimer where the particular communication reasonably would be viewed as a recommendation given its content, context, and presentation.[18] The MSRB, however, encourages dealers to include on their web sites (and in other means of communication with their customers) clear explanations of the use and limitations of tools offered on those sites.[19]   
• Dealers should analyze any communication about a security that reasonably could be viewed as a "call to action" and that they direct, or appear to direct, to a particular individual or targeted group of individuals—as opposed to statements that are generally made available to all customers or the public at large—to determine whether a recommendation is being made.[20]
• Dealers should scrutinize any communication to a customer that suggests the purchase, sale, or exchange of a municipal security—as opposed to simply providing objective data about a security—to determine whether a recommendation is being made.[21] 
• A dealer's transmission of unrequested information will not necessarily constitute a recommendation. However, when a dealer decides to send a particular customer unrequested information about a security that is not of a generalized or administrative nature (e.g., notification of an official communication), the dealer should carefully review the circumstances under which the information is being provided, the manner in which the information is delivered to the customer, the content of the communication, and the original source of the information. The dealer should perform this review regardless of whether the decision to send the information is made by a representative employed by the dealer or by a computer software program used by the dealer.
• Dealers should be aware that the degree to which the communication reasonably would influence an investor to trade a particular municipal security or group of municipal securities—either through the context or manner of presentation or the language used in the communication—may be considered in determining whether a recommendation is being made to the customer.

The MSRB emphasizes that the factors listed above are guidelines that may assist dealers in complying with the suitability rule. Again, the presence or absence of any of these factors does not by itself control whether a recommendation has been made or whether the dealer has complied with the suitability rule. Such determinations can be made only on a case-by-case basis taking into account all of the relevant facts and circumstances.

Conclusion

The foregoing discussion highlights some suggested principles and guidelines to assist in determining when electronic communications constitute recommendations, thereby triggering application of the MSRB's suitability rule. The MSRB acknowledges the numerous benefits that may be realized by dealers and their customers as a result of the Internet and online brokerage services. The MSRB emphasizes that it neither takes a position on, nor seeks to influence, any dealer's or customer's choice of a particular business model in this electronic environment. At the same time, however, the MSRB urges dealers both to consider carefully whether suitability requirements are adequately being addressed when implementing new services and to remember that customers' best interests must continue to be of paramount importance in any setting, traditional or online.

As new technologies and/or services evolve, the MSRB will continue to work with regulators, members of the industry and the public on these and other important issues that arise in the online trading environment.

[1] The term “dealer” is used in this notice as shorthand for “broker,” “dealer” or “municipal securities dealer,” as those terms are defined in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The use of the term in this notice does not imply that the entity is necessarily taking a principal position in a municipal security.

[2] The Bond Market Association’s (“TBMA”) 2001 Review of Electronic Transaction Systems found that at the end of 2001, there were at least 23 systems based in the United States that allow dealers or institutional investors to buy or sell municipal securities electronically compared to just 3 such systems in 1997. While dealers are also developing electronic trading platforms that allow retail customers to buy or sell municipal securities online, the development of online retail trading systems for municipal securities lags far behind that for equities.

[3] Rule G-19 provides in pertinent part:

(c) Suitability of Recommendations. In recommending to a customer any municipal security transaction, a [dealer] shall have reasonable grounds:

(i) based upon information available from the issuer of the security or otherwise, and

(ii) based upon the facts disclosed by such customer or otherwise known about such customer for believing that the recommendation is suitable.

[4] Although the focus of this notice is on the application of the suitability rule to electronic communications, much of the discussion is also relevant to more traditional communications, such as discussions made in person, over the telephone, or through postal mail.

[5] This notice focuses on customer-specific suitability under Rule G-19. Under Rule G-19, a dealer must also have a reasonable basis to believe that the recommendation could be suitable for at least some customers. See e.g., Rule G-19 Interpretation—Notice Concerning the Application of Suitability Requirements to Investment Seminars and Customer Inquiries Made in Response to a Dealer’s Advertisement, May 7, 1985, MSRB Rule Book (July 1, 2002) at 143; In re F.J. Kaufman and Company of Virginia, 50 S.E.C. 164, 168, 1989 SEC LEXIS 2376, *10 (1989) (the “reasonable basis” obligation relates only to the particular recommendation, rather than to any particular customer). The SEC, in its discussion of municipal underwriters’ responsibilities in a 1988 Release, noted that “a broker-dealer recommending securities to investors implies by its recommendation that it has an adequate basis for the recommendation.” Municipal Securities Disclosure, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 26100 (September 22, 1988) (the “1988 SEC Release”) at text accompanying note 72.

[6] Similarly, the suitability rule does not apply where a dealer merely gathers information on a particular customer, but does not make any recommendations. This is true even if the information is the type of information generally gathered to satisfy a suitability obligation. Dealers should nonetheless remember that regardless of any determination of whether the dealer is making a recommendation and subject to the suitability requirement, the dealer is required to make reasonable efforts to obtain certain customer specific information pursuant to rule G-8 (a)(xi) so that dealers can protect themselves and the integrity of the securities markets from customers who do not have the financial means to pay for transactions.

[7] See Rule G-17 Interpretation—Notice Regarding Rule G-17, on Disclosure of Material Facts, March 20, 2002, MSRB Rule Book (July 1, 2002) at 135.

[8] On April 30, 2002, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) approved a proposed rule change relating to the manner in which dealers fulfill their fair practice obligations to certain institutional customers.  Release No. 34-45849 (April 30, 2002), 67 FR 30743.  See Rule G-17 Interpretation—Notice Regarding the Application of MSRB Rules to Transactions With Sophisticated Municipal Market Professionals (“SMMPs”) (the “SMMP Notice”), MSRB Rule Book (July 1, 2002) at 136. The SMMP Notice recognizes the different capabilities of SMMPs and retail or non-sophisticated institutional customers and provides that dealers may consider the nature of the institutional customer when determining what specific actions are necessary to meet the dealer’s fair practice obligations to such customers. The SMMP Notice provides that, while it is difficult to define in advance the scope of a dealer’s fair practice obligations with respect to a particular transaction, by making a reasonable determination that an institutional customer is an SMMP, then certain of the dealer’s fair practice obligations remain applicable but are deemed fulfilled.

[9] See generally Report of Commissioner Laura S. Unger to the SEC, On-Line Brokerage: Keeping Apace of Cyberspace, at n. 64 (Nov. 1999) (“Unger Report”) (discussing various views espoused by online brokerage firms, regulators and academics on the topic of online suitability); Developments in the Law—The Law of Cyberspace, 112 Harv. L. Rev. 1574, 1582-83 (1999) (The article highlights the broader debate by academics and judges over whether "to apply conventional models of regulation to the Internet.").

[10] The guidance contained in this notice is intended to be consistent with the general statements and guidelines contained in the NASD Online Suitability Notice. 

[11] See e.g., Rule G-19 Interpretive Letter dated February 17, 1998, MSRB Rule Book (July 1, 2002) at 144.

[12] These general principles were first enunciated in the NASD Online Suitability Notice.

[13] For example, if a dealer transmitted a rating agency research report to a customer at the customer's request, that communication may not be subject to the suitability rule; whereas, if the same dealer transmitted the very same research report with an accompanying message, either oral or written, that the customer should act on the report, the suitability analysis would be different.

[14] NASD Online Suitability Notice at 3.

[15] Note that there are instances where sending a customer an electronic communication that highlights a particular municipal security (or securities) will not be viewed as a recommendation. For instance, while each case requires an analysis of the particular facts and circumstances, a dealer generally would not be viewed as making a recommendation when, pursuant to a customer's request, it sends the customer (1) electronic "alerts" (such as account activity alerts, market alerts, or rating agency changes) or (2) research announcements (e.g., sector reports) that are not tailored to the individual customer, as long as neither—given their content, context, and manner of presentation—would lead a customer reasonably to believe that the dealer is suggesting that the customer take action in response to the communication.

[16] Note, however, that a portfolio analysis tool that merely generates a suggested mix of general classes of financial assets (e.g., 60 percent equities, 20 percent bonds, and 20 percent cash equivalents), without an accompanying list of securities that the customer could purchase to achieve that allocation, would not trigger a suitability obligation. On the other hand, a series of actions which may not constitute recommendations when considered individually, may amount to a recommendation when considered in the aggregate. For example, a portfolio allocator's suggestion that a customer could alter his or her current mix of investments followed by provision of a list of municipal securities that could be purchased or sold to accomplish the alteration could be a recommendation. Again, however, the determination of whether a portfolio analysis tool's communication constitutes a recommendation will depend on the content, context, and presentation of the communication or series of communications.

[17] These guidelines were originally set forth in the NASD Online Suitability Notice.

[18] Although a dealer cannot disclaim away its suitability obligation, informing customers that generalized information provided is not based on the customer's particular financial situation or needs may help clarify that the information provided is not meant to be a recommendation to the customer. Whether the communication is in fact a recommendation would still depend on the content, context, and presentation of the communication. Accordingly, a dealer that sends a customer or group of customers information about a security might include a statement that the dealer is not providing the information based on the customers' particular financial situation or needs. Dealers may properly disclose to customers that the opinions or recommendations expressed in research do not take into account individual investors' circumstances and are not intended to represent recommendations by the dealer of particular municipal securities to particular customers. Dealers, however, should refer to previous guidelines issued by the SEC that may be relevant to these and/or related topics. For instance, the SEC has issued guidelines regarding whether and under what circumstances third-party information is attributable to an issuer, and the SEC noted that the guidance also may be relevant regarding the responsibilities of dealers. See SEC Guidance on the Use of Electronic Media, Release Nos. 34-7856, 34-42728, IC-24426, 65 Fed. Reg. 25843 at 25848-25849 (April 28, 2000).

[19] The MSRB believes that a dealer should, at a minimum, clearly explain the limitations of its search engine and the decentralized nature of the municipal securities market. The dealer should also clearly explain that securities that meet the customer’s search criteria might be available from other sources.

[20] The MSRB notes that there are circumstances where the act of sending a communication to a specific group of customers will not necessarily implicate the suitability rule. For instance, a dealer's business decision to provide only certain types of investment information (e.g., research reports) to a category of "premium" customers would not, without more, trigger application of the suitability rule. Conversely, dealers may incur suitability obligations when they send a communication to a large group of customers urging those customers to invest in a municipal security.

[21] As with the other general guidelines discussed in this notice, the presence of this factor alone does not automatically mean that a recommendation has been made. 

The MSRB understands that an issuer [of municipal fund securities] may make minor modifications to the official statement in order to correct typographical or grammatical errors, or to make such other modifications that the issuer may deem to be immaterial.  If the issuer has acknowledged in writing to the primary distributor that it does not consider such modification to be material to investors and does not believe that such modification is required to make the statements in the official statement not misleading, then the modification need not be sent by a dealer to a customer that has previously received the official statement, notwithstanding the provisions of Rule G-32(a)(i).[1]  The primary distributor must maintain the issuer’s written acknowledgement under Rule G-8(a)(xiii), relating to records concerning deliveries of official statements.  The primary distributor must send all amendments, regardless of materiality, to the MSRB under Rule G-36.

ENDNOTES

[*] [This interpretation is an excerpt from “Application of Fair Practice and Advertising Rules to Municipal Fund Securities,” May 14, 2002.  The remaining portions of the 2002 interpretation have been superseded by other interpretations and rule changes.]

[1] Rule G-32(a)(i) requires delivery of an official statement to a customer purchasing municipal fund securities by settlement of the transaction.  In the case of a repeat purchaser who has already received the official statement, dealers generally are required to deliver any amendments or supplements to the official statement in connection with subsequent purchases of the securities. [footnote has been renumbered]

Rule G-37, on political contributions and prohibitions on municipal securities business, prohibits any broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer (a "dealer") from engaging in municipal securities business with an issuer within two years after any contribution (other than certain de minimis contributions) to an official of such issuer made by: (i) the dealer; (ii) any municipal finance professional associated with such dealer; or (iii) any political action committee controlled by the dealer or any municipal finance professional. The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board ("MSRB") has received inquiries regarding the effect of a ban on municipal securities business with an issuer arising from a contribution made after a dealer has entered into a long-term contract to serve as the primary distributor of the issuer's municipal fund securities.

In an interpretive notice published in 1997 (the "1997 Interpretation"), the MSRB stated that a dealer subject to a prohibition on municipal securities business with an issuer is allowed to continue to execute certain issue-specific contractual obligations in effect prior to the date of the contribution that caused the prohibition.[1] For example, dealers that had already executed a contract with the issuer to serve as underwriter or financial advisor for a new issue of debt securities prior to the contribution could continue in these capacities.

The 1997 Interpretation also addressed certain types of on-going, non-issue-specific municipal securities business that a dealer may have contracted with an issuer to perform prior to the making of a contribution that causes a prohibition on municipal securities business with the issuer. For example, the MSRB noted that a dealer may act as remarketing agent for an outstanding issue of municipal securities or may continue to underwrite a specific commercial paper program so long as the contract for such services was in effect prior to the contribution. The MSRB stated that these activities are not considered new municipal securities business and may be performed by dealers that are banned from municipal securities business with an issuer. The MSRB further stated, however, that provisions in existing contracts that allow for changes in the services provided by the dealer or compensation paid by the issuer would be viewed by the MSRB as new municipal securities business and, therefore, rule G-37 would preclude a dealer subject to a ban on municipal securities business from performing such additional functions or receiving additional compensation. The MSRB cited two examples of these types of provisions. The first involved a contract to serve as remarketing agent for a variable rate issue that might permit a fixed rate conversion, with a concomitant increase in the per bond compensation. The second example involved an agreement to underwrite a commercial paper program that might include terms for increasing the size of the program, with no increase in per bond fees but an increase in overall compensation resulting from the larger outstanding balance of commercial paper. In both cases, the MSRB viewed the exercise of these provisions as new municipal securities business that would be banned under the rule.

In the 1997 Interpretation, the MSRB recognized that there is great variety in the terms of agreements regarding municipal securities business and that its guidance in the 1997 Interpretation may not adequately deal with all such agreements. The MSRB sought input on other situations where contracts obligate dealers to perform various types of activities after the date of a contribution that triggers a ban on municipal securities business and stated that additional interpretations might be issued based upon such input.

The MSRB understands that dealers typically are selected by issuers to serve as primary distributors of municipal fund securities on terms that differ significantly from those of a dealer selected to underwrite an issue of debt securities. Issuers generally enter into long-term agreements (in many cases with terms of ten years or longer) with the primary distributor of municipal fund securities for services that include the sale in a continuous primary offering of one or more categories or classes of the securities issued within the framework of a single program of investments.[2] In addition, an issuer may often engage a particular dealer to serve as the primary distributor of its municipal fund securities as part of a team of professionals that includes the dealer's affiliated investment management firm, which is charged with managing the investment of the underlying portfolios.

The MSRB believes that the guidance provided in the 1997 Interpretation, although appropriate for the circumstances discussed therein, may not be adequate to address the unique features of municipal fund securities programs. For example, so long as a program realizes net in-flows of investor cash, the size of an offering of municipal fund securities will necessarily increase over time. Under most compensation arrangements in the market, any net in-flow of cash generally would result in an increase in total compensation, causing any new sales of municipal fund securities that exceed redemptions to be considered new municipal securities business under the 1997 Interpretation. Also, the addition by the issuer of a new category of investments (e.g., a new portfolio in an aged-based Section 529 college savings plan created for children born in the most recent year) could be considered a new offering from which such dealer might be banned, even where such new category may have been clearly contemplated at the outset of the dealer's engagement. Further, the MSRB understands that the repercussions to an issuer of municipal fund securities or investors in such securities of a sudden change in the primary distributor (and possible concurrent change in the investment manager) resulting from a ban on municipal securities business arising during the term of an existing arrangement often will be significantly greater than in the case of an underwriting or other primary market activity relating to the typical debt offering. Issuers could be faced with redesigning existing programs and investors may need to establish new relationships with different dealers in order to maintain their investments.

As a result, the MSRB believes that further interpretive guidance is necessary in this area. The MSRB is of the view that, where a dealer has become subject to a ban on municipal securities business with an issuer of municipal fund securities with which it is currently serving as primary distributor, any continued sales of existing categories of municipal fund securities for such issuer during the duration of the ban would not be considered new municipal securities business if the basis for determining compensation does not change during that period, even if total compensation increases as a result of net in-flows of cash. Further, the MSRB believes that any changes in the services to be provided by the dealer to the issuer throughout the duration of the ban that are contemplated under the pre-existing contractual arrangement (e.g., the addition of new categories of securities within the framework of the existing program) would not be considered new municipal securities business so long as such changes do not result in: (1) an increase in total compensation received by the dealer for services performed for the duration of the ban (whether paid during the ban or as a deferred payment after the ban); or (2) in an extension of the term of the dealer in its current role.

Day counting: day counts on notes. As I indicated in my letter of October 4, your September 27 letter regarding the inclusion on a customer confirmation of information with respect to the day count method used on a transaction was referred to the Board for its consideration at the December meeting. In your letter you noted that Board rule G-33 on calculations requires that

[c]omputations under the requirements of [the] rule shall be made on the basis of a thirty-day month and a three-hundred-sixty-day year, or, in the case of computations on securities paying interest solely at redemption, on the day count basis selected by the issuer of the securities.

You indicated that your bank has recently experienced problems with transactions in municipal notes ("securities paying interest solely at redemption") on which the issuer has selected a day count basis other than the traditional "30/360" basis, with the problems resulting from one party to the transaction using an incorrect day count method. You suggested that this type of problem could be partially alleviated by requiring that a municipal securities dealer selling a security on which an unusual day count method is used specify the day count method on the confirmation of the transaction.

The Board shares your concern that a failure to identify the day count method used on a particular security may subsequently cause problems in completing a transaction. Therefore, the Board believes that the parties to a transaction should exchange information at the time of trade concerning any unusual day count method used on the securities involved in the transaction. Since the party selling the securities is more likely to be aware of the unusual day count, it would be desirable that sellers take steps to ensure that they advise the contra-parties on transactions of the method to be used.

The Board does not, however, believe that it would be appropriate to require that this information be stated on the confirmation. The Board reached this determination based on its perception that the space available on the confirmation for the details of the securities description is quite limited and its belief that information regarding the day count method may not be sufficiently material to warrant its inclusion in the securities description. MSRB interpretation of December 9, 1982.

Securities description: securities backed by letters of credit. I am writing in connection with our previous telephone conversation of last June regarding the confirmation of a transaction in a municipal issue secured by an irrevocable letter of credit issued by a bank. In our conversation you noted that both rules G-12 and G-15 require confirmations to contain a:

description of the securities including at a minimum..., if necessary for a materially complete description of the securities, the name of any company or other person in addition to the issuer obligated, directly or indirectly, with respect to debt service...

You inquired whether the name of the bank issuing a letter of credit securing principal and interest payments on an issue, or securing payments under the exercise of a put option or tender option feature, need be stated on the confirmation.

At that time I indicated to you that the identity of the bank issuing the letter of credit would have to be disclosed on the confirmation if the letter of credit could be drawn upon to cover scheduled interest and principal payments when due, since the bank would be "obligated ... with respect to debt service." I am writing to advise that the committee of the Board which reviewed a memorandum of our conversation has concluded that a bank issuing a letter of credit which secures a put option or tender option feature on an issue is similarly "obligated ... with respect to debt service" on such issue. The identity of the bank issuing the letter of credit securing the put option must therefore also be indicated on the confirmation. MSRB interpretation of December 2, 1982.

Securities description: revenue securities. I am writing in response to your letter of September 30, 1982 regarding the confirmation description of revenue securities. In your letter you note that the designation "revenue" is often not included in the title of the security, and you raise several questions concerning the method of deriving a proper confirmation description of revenue securities.

As you know, rule G-15(a)(v)[*] requires that customer confirmations set forth a description of the securities [involved in the transaction] including at a minimum the name of the issuer, interest rate, maturity date and if the securities are ... revenue bonds, an indication to such effect, including in the case of revenue bonds the type of revenue, if necessary for a materially complete description of the securities...[1] [emphasis added]

The rule requires, therefore, that revenue securities be designated as such, regardless of whether or not such designation appears in the formal title of the security. The dealer preparing the confirmation is responsible for ensuring that the designation is included in the securities description. In circumstances in which standard sources of descriptive information (e.g., official statements, rating agency and service bureau publications, and the like) do not include such a designation in the security title, therefore, the dealer must augment this title to include the requisite information.

In your letter you inquire as to who is responsible for providing this type of descriptive information to the facilities manager of the CUSIP system. Although the Board does not currently have any requirements concerning this matter, proposed rule G-34 will, when approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission, require that the managing underwriter of a new issue of municipal securities apply for the assignment of CUSIP numbers of such new issue if no other person (i.e., the issuer or a person acting on behalf of the issuer) has already applied for number assignment. In connection with such application, if one is necessary, the managing underwriter is required, under the proposed rule, to provide certain information about the new issue, including a designation of the "type of issue (e.g., general obligation, limited tax, or revenue)" and an indication of the "type of revenue, if the issue is a revenue issue."

In your letter you also ask for "the official definition of a 'revenue' issue." There is no "official definition" of what constitutes a revenue issue. Various publications include a definition of the term (e.g., the PSA's Fundamentals of Municipal Bonds, the State of Florida's Glossary of Municipal Securities Terms, etc.) and I would urge you to consult these for further information. MSRB interpretation of December 1, 1982.

[1] Rule G-12(c)(v)(E) sets forth the same requirement with respect to inter-dealer confirmations.

[*] [Currently codified at rules G-15(a)(i)(B) and G-15(a)(i)(C)]

Confirmation: Mailing of WAII, "all or none" confirmation. I understand that certain ... firms ... have raised questions concerning the application of a recent Board interpretive letter to certain types of municipal securities underwritings. I am writing to advise that these questions were recently reviewed by the Board which has authorized my sending you the following response.

The letter in question, reprinted in the Commerce Clearing House Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board Manual at ¶ 3556.55 [*], discusses the timing of the mailing of initial "when, as and if issued" confirmations on "pre-sale" orders to which new issue municipal securities have been allocated. Among other matters, the letter states that such confirmations may not be sent out prior to the date of award of the new issue, in the case of an issue purchased at competitive bid, or the date of execution of a bond purchase agreement on the new issue, in the case of a negotiated issue. [Certain] ... firms have questioned whether this interpretation ... is intended to apply to "all or none" underwritings, in which confirmations have been, at times, sent out prior to the execution of a formal purchase agreement.

As the Board understands it, an "all or none" underwriting of a new issue of municipal securities is an underwriting in which the municipal securities dealer agrees to accept liability for the issue at a given price only under a stated contingency, usually that the entire issue is sold within a stated period. The dealer typically "presettles" with the purchasers of the securities, with the customers receiving confirmations and paying for the securities while the underwriting is taking place. Pursuant to SEC rule 15c2-4 all customer funds must be held in a special escrow account for the issue until such time as the contingency is met (e.g., the entire issue is sold) and the funds are released to the issuer; if the contingency is not met, the funds are returned to the purchasers and the securities are not issued. [1]

The Board is of the view that an initial "when, as and if issued" confirmation of a transaction in a security which is the subject of an "all or none" underwriting may be sent out prior to the time a formal bond purchase agreement is executed. This would be permissible, however, only if two conditions are met: (1) that such confirmations clearly indicate the contingent nature of the transaction, through a statement that the securities are the subject of an "all or none" underwriting or otherwise; and (2) that the dealer has established, or has arranged to have established, the escrow account for the issue as required pursuant to rule 15c2-4. MSRB interpretation of October 7, 1982.

[1] I note also that SEC rule 10b-9 sets forth certain conditions which must be met before a dealer is permitted to represent an underwriting as an "all or none" underwriting.

[*] [See Rule G-12 Interpretive Letter - Confirmation: mailing of WAII confirmation, MSRB interpretation of April 30, 1982.]

Municipal securities principal: numerical requirements. This is in response to your letter of September 28, 1982 concerning the numerical requirements for municipal securities principals in Board rule G-3 . . . Rule G-3(b)(i)(B)[*] requires that

every municipal securities broker or municipal securities dealer having fewer than eleven persons associated with it in whatever capacity on a full-time or full-time equivalent basis who are engaged in the performance of its municipal securities activities, or, in the case of a bank dealer, in the performance of its municipal securities dealer activities, shall have at least one municipal securities principal.

You inquired as to the meaning of "full-time equivalent basis" in the reference language. This phrase is intended to require the inclusion of individuals who should be considered as full-time employees, but because of some distinctive employment arrangement do not fit the norm of a full-time employee. For example, a municipal securities representative who usually works out of his home which is in a remote location might not fit the firm's norm for "full-time employment" but should nevertheless be counted for purposes of the rule as an associated person.

You also inquired as to whether a bank dealer is required to have only one municipal securities principal even if it has fifteen full-time persons working in the municipal securities business. The provisions of the rule apply equally to securities firms and to bank dealers. Therefore, a bank dealer with eleven or more associated persons "engaged in the performance of its municipal securities dealer activities" is required to have at least two municipal securities principals.

[*] [Currently codified at rule G-3(b)(iii)(B)]

Recordkeeping by introducing brokers. Your letter of September 16, 1982, has been referred to me for response. In your letter you indicate that your firm functions as an "introducing broker", and, in such capacity, effects an occasional transaction in municipal securities. You inquire as to the recordkeeping requirements applying to a firm acting in this capacity, and you also inquire as to the possibility of an exemption from the Board's rules, in view of the extremely limited nature of your municipal securities business.

As you recognize, the provision Board rule G-8 on recordkeeping with particular relevance to introducing brokers is section (d), which provides as follows:

A municipal securities broker or municipal securities dealer which, as an introducing municipal securities broker or municipal securities dealer, clears all transactions with and for customers on a fully disclosed basis with a clearing broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer, and which promptly transmits all customer funds and securities to the clearing broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer which carries all of the accounts of such customers, shall not be required to make and keep such books and records prescribed in this rule as are customarily made and kept by a clearing broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer and which are so made and kept; and such clearing broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer shall be responsible for the accurate maintenance and preservation of such books and records. (emphasis supplied)

As you can see, this provision states that the introducing broker need not make and keep those records which are "customarily made and kept by" the clearing dealer, as long as the clearing dealer does, in fact, make and keep those records. The introducing broker is still required, however, to make and keep those records which are not "customarily made and kept by" the clearing firm.

The majority of the specific records you name in your letter fall into the latter category of records which are not customarily made and kept by the clearing firm and therefore remain the responsibility of the introducing broker. Your firm would, therefore, be required to make the records of customer account information required under rule G-8(a)(xi), with all of the itemized details of information recorded on such records. Your firm would also be required to maintain the records of agency and principal transactions ("order tickets") required under rules G-8(a)(vi) and (vii) respectively. In both cases, however, if, for some reason, the clearing firm does make and keep these records, your firm would not be required to make and keep duplicates.

In the case of the requirement to keep confirmation copies, it is my understanding that the clearing firm generally maintains such records. If the clearing firm to which you introduce transactions follows this practice and maintain copies of the confirmations of such transactions, you would not be required to maintain the same record.

In adopting each of these recordkeeping requirements the Board concluded that the information required to be recorded was the minimum basic data necessary to ensure proper handling and recordation of the transaction and customer protection. I note also that these requirements parallel in most respects those of Commission rule 17a-3, to which you are already subject by virtue of your registration as a broker/dealer.

With respect to your inquiry regarding an exemption from the Board's requirements, I must advise that the Board does not have the authority to grant such exemptions. The Securities and Exchange Commission does have the authority to grant such an exemption in unusual circumstances. Any letter regarding such an exemption should be directed to the Commission's Division of Market Regulation. MSRB interpretation of September 21, 1982.

Callable securities: disclosure. I am writing in response to your letter of August 17, 1982, concerning the requirements of Board rules G-12(c)(v)(E) and G-15(a)(v)[*] concerning securities descriptions set forth on confirmations. In your letter you note that certain descriptive details are required to be disclosed on the confirmation only "if necessary for a materially complete description of the securities," and you inquire whether information as to a security's callability is one of these details.

Rules G-12(c)(v)(E) and G-15(a)(v)[*] require confirmations to set forth a

description of the securities, including at a minimum the name of the issuer, interest rate, maturity date, and if the securities are limited tax, subject to redemption prior to maturity (callable) or revenue bonds, an indication to such effect, including in the case of revenue bonds the type of revenue, if necessary for a materially complete description of the securities, and in the case of any securities, if necessary for a materially complete description of the securities, the name of any company or other person in addition to the issuer obligated, directly or indirectly, with respect to debt service or, if there is more than one such obligor, the statement 'multiple obligators' may be shown." (emphasis added)

As you can see, the phrase "if necessary for a materially complete description of the securities" modifies only the requirements for disclosure of "the type of revenue," or ... disclosure of "the name of any company or other person obligated ... with respect to debt service...," and does not modify the requirements for disclosure of the other listed information. Both rules, therefore, deem information as to the "name of the issuer, interest rate, maturity date and if the securities are limited tax, subject to redemption prior to maturity (callable) or revenue bonds" to be necessarily material and subject to disclosure on the confirmation. In the specific case which you cite, that of a security with an "in-part" sinking fund call feature, the confirmation of a transaction in such security would be required to identify the security as "callable." MSRB interpretation of August 23, 1982.

[*] [Currently codified at rules G-15(a)(i)(B) and G-15(a)(i)(C)]

Advertisements of securities not owned. This is in response to your letter of May 5, 1982 concerning a dealer bank’s advertising practices. Your letter states that the dealer bank has recently published newspaper advertisements which list specific municipal securities as "Current Offerings," and that your review of the dealer’s inventory positions has disclosed that "on the date the advertisement was published the dealer held no position in four of the issues advertised and a nominal position in the fifth advertised issue." Your letter reports that the dealer stated that it was his intention to obtain the advertised issues from other dealers when customer orders were received. Your first question is whether "it is misleading and thus in violation of rule G-21, to advertise securities which the dealer does not own..."

The Board has recently considered this advertising practice and concluded that it would not violate Board rules provided that: (1) the advertisement indicates that the securities are advertised "subject to availability;" (2) the dealer placing the advertisement is not aware that the bonds are no longer available in the market; and (3) the dealer would attempt to acquire the bonds advertised if contacted by a potential customer.

Your letter also expresses concern that this type of advertising might be seriously misleading to customers since the advertisement must be prepared and the printer’s proof copy approved five days in advance of the date of publication. You note that "significant changes in the market can occur over a five, or even three-day period" and that, if such market changes had occurred between submission and publication of the advertisement, the customer could be seriously misled. The Board is aware that delays occur between the time an advertisement is composed and approved for publication by a municipal securities dealer and the time it is actually published. The Board believes that inclusion in the advertisement of a statement indicating that the securities are advertised subject to change in price provides adequate notice to a potential customer that the prices and yields quoted in the advertisement may not represent market yields and prices at the time the customer contacts the dealer. MSRB interpretation of July 1, 1982.

Original issue discount, zero coupon securities: disclosure of, pricing to call feature. I am writing in response to your inquiry in our recent telephone conversation regarding the application of Board rules to the recent original issue discount on "zero coupon" new issues of municipal securities. In particular, you indicated that these types of securities are often subject to somewhat unusual call provisions, and you inquired as to the application to these types of securities of Board rules concerning the disclosure of call provisions and the use of such call provisions in dollar price and yield computations.

Subsequent to our conversation, I obtained several examples of these call provisions, which were provided to the Board in connection with your inquiry. In the first of these examples, involving an original issue discount security, the call provision commences ten years after issuance, with the redemption price initially set at 90 and increasing by 2 points every three years, reaching a redemption price of 100 twenty-five years after issuance. In the second example, involving a "zero coupon" security, the call provision commences ten years after issuance; the redemption price is based on the compound accreted value of the security (plus a stated redemption premium for the first five years of the call provision), with certain of the securities initially redeemable at an approximate dollar price of 18.

As you know, the call provisions on "zero coupon" and original issue discount securities are one of the special characteristics of such securities, but are not, by any means, the sole special characteristic. The Board is of the view that municipal securities brokers and dealers selling such securities are obliged, under Board rule G-17 as well as under the anti-fraud rules under the Securities Exchange Act, to disclose to customers all material information regarding such special characteristics. As the Board stated in its April 27, 1982 "Notice Concerning 'Zero Coupon' and 'Stepped Coupon' Securities,"

persons selling such securities to the public have an obligation to adequately disclose the special characteristics of such securities so as to comply with the Board's fair practice rules.

Therefore, in selling an original issue discount or "zero coupon" security to a customer, a dealer would be obliged to disclose, among other matters, any material information with respect to the call provisions of such securities.

I note also that Rule G-15 requires customer confirmations of transactions in callable securities to indicate that the securities are "callable," and to contain a legend stating, in part, that information concerning the call provisions of such securities will be made available upon the customer's request. Customer confirmations of transactions in callable original issue discount or "zero coupon" securities would have to contain such a legend, in addition to the designation "callable," and the details of the call provisions of such securities would have to be provided to the customer in writing upon the customer's request.

The requirement under rules G-12 and G-15 for the computation of dollar price and (under rule G-15) yield to a call or option feature would apply to a transaction in an original issue discount or "zero coupon" security. Therefore, if the dollar price to the call on a transaction in such securities is lower than the price to maturity, such dollar price should be used. In the case of customer confirmations, if the yield to call on a transaction in such securities is lower, such yield must be shown. As you noted in our conversation, in view of the redemption price structure of the call provisions on such securities, the price or yield to call on a particular transaction might be lower than the price or yield to maturity, even though the transaction is effected at a price below par. Since heretofore the industry has been accustomed to call provisions at prices at or above par, industry members may wish to pay particular attention to the processing of transactions in original issue discount or "zero coupon" securities with these unusual types of call provisions, to ensure that the dollar price or yield of such transactions is not inadvertently overstated due to a failure to check the price or yield to call. MSRB interpretation of June 30, 1982.

Authorization of sales contests. Your letter of May 27, 1982 has been referred to me for response. In your letter you request an interpretation regarding the applicability of Board rule G-20 concerning gifts and gratuities to sales contests offered by an underwriter to participating members of a syndicate. Your letter asks specifically whether such sales contests are considered compensation for services as described in paragraph (c) of rule G-20, and, if they are, whether the requirements of rule G-20 imposed on agreements for the compensation of services must be met by the underwriter sponsoring the sales contest.

The Board believes that sales contests which provide gifts or payments to employees of municipal securities brokers and municipal securities dealers other than the broker or dealer sponsoring the contest constitute compensation for services as described in rule G-20(c). Consequently, the requirements of that rule must be met: that is, the sponsoring dealer must obtain

prior to the time of employment or before the services are rendered a written agreement between the municipal securities broker or municipal securities dealer subject to this rule and the person who is to perform such services; ... such agreement [to] include the nature of the proposed services, the amount of the proposed compensation, and the written consent of such person's employer.

In the context of sales contests, agreements of the kind referred to in the rule are required between the municipal securities broker or municipal securities dealer sponsoring the contest and all contestants employed by other municipal securities brokers and municipal securities dealers.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have further questions concerning this matter. MSRB interpretation of June 25, 1982.

Municipal securities principal. This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of June 10, 1981. In your letter you indicate that the dealer department of [the bank] has recently been inspected by examiners from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and that, during the course of such inspection, the examiners indicated that they believed certain persons should be qualified as municipal securities principals. You indicate your disagreement with the examiners' conclusions, and request an opinion from the Board concerning the need to qualify these personnel.

The two cases you describe are as follows:

(1) Mr. "X", as head of the Operations Division of the bank's Financial Markets Group, is in charge of the operational support services for the bank's securities activities, including the Tax-Exempt Operations Department. The Tax-Exempt Operations Department is under the immediate supervision of yourself. For purposes of bank organizational structure you report to Mr. "X"; however, you also report to the head of the Tax-Exempt Securities Division in connection with "supporting the Tax-Exempt business operation." You are qualified as a municipal securities principal, as is the head of the Tax-Exempt Securities Division; Mr. "X", however, is not. The national bank examiners have expressed the view that he should be.

(2) Two "senior traders" in the Municipal Dealer Department act under the supervision of the department head with regard to the trading and positioning of municipal securities. In connection with these activities they "direct more junior traders" in their municipal securities activities. These persons are not qualified as municipal securities principals; the national bank examiners contend that they should be.

As a general matter we would hesitate to disagree with the opinion expressed by an on-site examiner in a matter of this sort. The examiner is, of course, in direct contact with the matter in question, and has access to the full details of the situation, rather than an abstraction or summary of the particulars. Accordingly, we are unable to express a view that the examiner's conclusions are incorrect in the circumstances you describe.

With respect to the specific situations presented in your letter, it is certainly not impossible to establish a reporting and supervisory structure such that a person who is in charge of the division which includes the operational aspects of a bank's municipal securities dealer department need not be qualified as a municipal securities principal. As is indicated in a Board interpretive notice concerning qualifications matters, qualification as a municipal securities principal is required of a person who supervises a bank dealer's processing and clearance activities with respect to municipal securities only to the extent that such person has policy-making authority over such activities. If such person does not have policy-making authority, or if such person's authority extends to the establishment of general guidelines or an overall framework for activities, with the specific function of making policy within that framework reserved for other persons, then such person would not be deemed to be a municipal securities principal.

Further, it is a not uncommon arrangement to have the policy-making authority with respect to the municipal dealer operations activities of a bank allocated between the immediate supervisor of the municipal operations function and a principal in the dealer department itself. In these circumstances the operation supervisor reports to the principal in connection with the municipal dealer activities, and also reports to other, non-qualified persons in connection with bank organizational requirements.

Therefore, the arrangement which you describe would not necessarily require that Mr. "X" be qualified as a municipal securities principal. Whether he should, in fact, be qualified as a municipal securities principal depends, of course, on the extent to which he does exercise policy-making authority over the municipal dealer operations functions; this is a determination that, we suggest, is most appropriately made by yourselves and the national bank examiners.

In the second situation you describe it appears to us clear that the "senior traders" are functioning as municipal securities principals and should be qualified as such. As you may know, the Board's rule defines the term "municipal securities principal" to include persons "who [are] directly engaged in the . . . direction or supervision of . . . underwriting, trading or sales of municipal securities. . ." Your description of the activities of these "senior traders" indicates that they "direct" other persons in trading activities. This certainly supports the conclusion that they are functioning as municipal securities principals. MSRB interpretation of June 24, 1981.

Persons engaged in financial advisory activities. I am writing to confirm our telephone conversation of this afternoon concerning the registration and qualification requirements applicable to persons in your firm's public finance department. In our conversation you inquired whether persons who function as financial advisors to municipal issuers, providing advice to such issuers regarding the structure, timing and terms of new issues of municipal securities to be sold by such issuers, are required to be qualified. As I indicated, such persons are required to be registered and qualified as municipal securities representatives. Furthermore, persons who supervise representatives performing such financial advisory services are required to be registered and qualified as municipal securities principals.

For your information, the provision of financial advisory services to municipal issuers is defined to be a municipal securities representative function in Board rule G-3(a)(iii)(B)[*]. The requirement that persons performing such function be qualified is set forth generally in rules G-2 and G-3, and the specific qualification requirements applicable to such persons are stated in rules G-3(e)[†] and (i)[‡]. MSRB interpretation of June 10, 1982.

[*] [Currently codified at rule G-3(a)(i)(B)]

[†] [Currently codified at rule G-3(a)(ii)]

[‡] [Currently codified at rule G-3(a)(iii)]

Day counting: securities dated on the 15th of a month. I am writing in response to your letter of May 26, 1982 in which you inquire as to the correct day count for calculation purposes on a security which is dated on the 15th of a month and pays interest on the first of a following month. In your letter you pose the example of a security dated on June 15, 1982 and paying interest on July 1, 1982, and you inquire whether the July 1, 1982 coupon on such security should have a value of 15 or 16 days of accrued interest.

As you know, Board rule G-33 provides the following formula for use on computations of day counts on securities calculated on a "30/360" day basis:

Number of days = (Y2 - Y1) 360 + (M2 - M1) 30 + (D2 - D1)

In this formula, the variables "Y1," "M1," and "D1" are defined as the year, month, and day, respectively, of the date on which the computation period begins (June 15, 1982, in your example), and "Y2," "M2," and "D2" as the year, month, and day of the date on which the computation period ends (July 1, 1982, in your example). In the situation you present, therefore, the number of days in the period would correctly be computed as follows:

Number of days = (1982 - 1982) 360 + (7 - 6) 30 + (1 - 15)

or

Number of days = (0) 360 + (1) 30 + (- 14)

or

Number of days = 0 + 30 + ( - 14)

or

Number of days = 16 days

If figured correctly, therefore, the coupon for such a period should have a value of 16 days of accrued interest. If the coupon is for a longer period of time, this particular portion of that longer period would still correctly be counted as 16 days (e.g., the day count on a coupon for the period June 15 to September 1 would correctly be figured as 76 days, consisting of 16 days for the period June 15 to July 1, and 30 days each for the months of July and August).

The error of computing the day count for such a period as 15 days apparently arises from an assumption that, on a security dated on the 15th of a month, accrued interest is owed only for the "second half" of that month. In reality, of course, the 15th of a month is not the first day of the "second half" of that month, but rather is the last day of the "first half" of that month (since a 30-day month consists of two 15-day half-months, the first half being from the 1st to the 15th, and the second half being from the 16th to the 30th). Again, it can clearly be seen that the correct day count for such a period is 16 days. MSRB interpretation of June 2, 1982.

Customer account information. I am writing in response to your letter of May 25, 1982 concerning the maintenance of customer account information records in connection with certain orders placed with you by a correspondent bank. In your letter you indicate that a correspondent bank periodically purchases securities from your dealer department for the accounts of specified customers. The confirmations of these transactions are sent to the correspondent bank, with a statement on each confirmation designating, by customer name, the account for which the transaction was effected. No confirmations or copies of confirmations are sent to the customers identified by the correspondent bank. You inquire whether customer account information records designating these customers as the "beneficial owners" of these accounts need be maintained by your dealer department.

As you know, rule G-8(a)(xi) requires a municipal securities dealer to record certain information about each customer for which it maintains an account. Subparagraph (G) of such paragraph requires that this record identify the

name and address of beneficial owner or owners of such account if other than the customer and transactions are to be confirmed to such owner or owners...(emphasis added)

If the transactions are not to be confirmed to the customers identified as the owners of the accounts for which the transactions are effected, then such information need not be recorded.

In the situation you cite, therefore, the names of the customers need not be recorded on the customer account information record. MSRB interpretation of June 1, 1982.

The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board has recently received inquiries concerning the application of the confirmation disclosure requirements of Board rules G-12 and G-15 to transactions in municipal securities with "zero coupons" or "stepped coupons." Certain recent new issues of municipal securities have had several maturities paying 0% interest; securities of these maturities are sold at deep discounts, with the investor's return received in the form of an accretion of this discount to par. Other issues have been sold which have "stepped coupons;" that is, all outstanding bonds pay the same interest rate each year, with the interest rate periodically rising, on a pre-established schedule, on all securities yet to be redeemed. Interested persons have inquired concerning how the description requirements of the rules apply to such securities, and whether the yield disclosure requirements of rule G-15 apply to confirmations of transactions in such securities for the accounts of customers.

Rule G-12(c)(v)(E) requires a municipal securities dealer to set forth on an inter-dealer confirmation a description of the securities which are the subject of the transaction, including the interest rate. Rule G-15(a)(i)(E)[*] imposes the same requirement with respect to customer confirmations. Further, rule G-15(a)(i)(I)(2)[†] requires that customer confirmations of transactions effected at dollar prices (except for transactions at par) state the lowest of the resulting yield to call, yield to par option, or yield to maturity.

A confirmation of a transaction in a "zero coupon" security must state that the interest rate on the security is "0%." A customer confirmation of such a transaction must state the lowest of the yield to call or yield to maturity resulting from the dollar price of the transaction.[1] The Board believes that the disclosure of the resulting yield is particularly important on such transactions, since it provides the only indication to the investor of the return he or she can expect from the investment.

A confirmation of a transaction in a "stepped coupon" security must state the interest rate currently being paid on the securities, and must identify the securities as "stepped coupon" securities. A customer confirmation of such a transaction must also state the lowest of the yield to call, yield to par option, or yield to maturity resulting from the dollar price of the transaction.[2] In view of the wide variation in the coupon interest rates that will be received over the life of a "stepped coupon" security, the Board believes that the disclosure of yield will assist customers in determining the actual return to be received on the investment.

In addition to the specific confirmation disclosure requirements of Board rules G-12 and G-15 discussed above, the Board is of the view that persons selling such securities to the public have an obligation to adequately disclose the special characteristics of such securities so as to comply with the Board's fair practice rules. For example, although the details of the increases to the interest rates on "stepped coupon" securities need not be provided on confirmations, such information is, of course, material information regarding the securities, and municipal securities dealers would be obliged to inform customers about this feature of the securities at or before the time of trade.

[1] The Board notes that, upon the effectiveness of Board rule G-33, such yield must be computed on a basis that presumes semi-annual compounding.

[2] In the case of both "zero coupon" and "stepped coupon" securities, if the transaction is effected in a yield basis, the confirmation must show the yield price and the resulting dollar price, computed to the lowest of price to premium call, price to par option, or price to maturity.

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

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

Records of original entry; accessibility of records. As I indicated to you in my previous letter of February 1, 1982, your inquiry of January 21, 1982 was referred to the committee of the Board charged with responsibility for interpreting the requirements of Board rules G-8 and G-9 on books and records. That committee has authorized my sending you this response.

In your letter you indicate that during the course of an examination of your bank's municipal securities dealer department by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency certain criticisms were made by the examiners regarding the recordkeeping system used by your bank. In particular, the examiners noted that the "record of original entry" maintained by the bank did not contain seven specified items of information,[1] and expressed the view that customer account records more than one year old were not "maintained and preserved in an easily accessible place" within the meaning of rule G-9. You disagree with the examiner's interpretation of "easily accessible." Further, while conceding that the specified items of information are not contained on the record, you indicate that this information is readily available upon specific inquiry to the bank's system data base, and express the view that this should be sufficient for purposes of compliance with Board rule G-8. You request the Board's views on these subjects.

As a general matter we would hesitate to disagree with the opinion expressed by an on-site examiner concerning the auditability of records maintained by a municipal securities dealer. The examiner is, of course, in direct contact with the matter in question, and has access to the full details of the situation, rather than an abstraction or summary of the particulars. Accordingly, we are unable to express a view that the examiner's criticisms are incorrect in the specific circumstances you describe.

With respect to the particular questions which you raise, we note that rule G-8 does require that all of the specified information appear on the record or system of records designated as the dealer's "record of original entry." It is not sufficient that the dealer has the capability of researching specific items, or constructing a record upon request from information maintained in other formats. The record of original entry is intended to provide a journal of all of the basic details of a dealer's activity on a given day. A record that can only be put together on request, or that is missing basic details of information, is not sufficient for this purpose.

We note also that, in reviewing the attachments to your letter, it appears that the absence of several of the specified items of information would be easy to rectify--institution of controls to prevent duplication of customer and security abbreviations would appear to resolve the problems with these details, and a system of grouping transaction input could be devised so that trades for different trade dates are not shown on the same blotter. Similarly, bond or note numbers could be designated on transaction tickets maintained as an augmentation of the computerized records; the attachments indicate that you already maintain such tickets as part of an existing unit system.

With respect to the question of accessibility, we note that this is generally construed by the examining authorities to mean accessibility within 24 or 48 hours. If a system could be devised whereby requests from the dealer department for aged customer account records could be given priority and processed on an expedited basis, this might rectify the problem you describe. MSRB interpretation of April 27, 1982.

[1] Dollar price or yield, trade date, name of contra party (due to use of abbreviations), security identification (due to use of abbreviations), designation of account for which transaction was effected, bond or note numbers, and designation if securities were registered.

Financial advisory relationship: mortgage-related services. This is in response to your letter of March 26, 1982 requesting an opinion regarding whether Board rule G-23 concerning the activities of financial advisors applies to certain activities of [name deleted] (the "Company").

Your letter states that the Company, a mortgage banker and wholly-owned subsidiary of [name deleted] (the "Bank"), identifies "proposed real estate development projects which it believes are economically feasible" and attempts to "arrange for the financing of such projects ..." You note that a common means of financing such projects involves the issuance and sale of tax-exempt obligations, with the proceeds of the sale being made available by the issuing entity to a mortgage approved by the Federal Housing Administration ("FHA"), which in turn provides financing secured by the FHA mortgage. You indicate that the services the Company performs in such instances include "... making the initial determination as to whether the contemplated project meets FHA criteria, negotiating with the developer regarding financing terms and conditions relating to the mortgage, contacting the issuer regarding its interest in issuing the bonds for the project, and, in certain cases where the issuer is not familiar or experienced in the area, assisting the issuer in understanding the rules and regulations of the FHA or the Development of Housing and Urban Development ..." You add that "the Company may also act as servicer of the construction loans which entails processing FHA insurance request forms, disbursing funds for completed work, etc." You state that "the Company does not provide financial advice to issuers regarding the structuring of the bond issues, or receive any fees, directly or indirectly, from issuers." You emphasize that any advice regarding the structuring of the actual bond issues is provided by the issuers’ "staffs, financial advisors, bond counsel, or the underwriters of the issues." Your specific question concerns whether rule G-23 applies where the Company acts as mortgage banker and the Bank underwrites the bonds.

As you know, rule G-23(b) states that "... a financial advisory relationship shall be deemed to exist when a broker, dealer, or municipal securities dealer renders or enters into an agreement to render financial advisory or consultant services to or on behalf of an issuer with respect to a new issue or issues of municipal securities, including advice with respect to the structure, timing, terms and other similar matters concerning such issue or issues for a fee or other compensation ..." Based upon the representations contained in your letter, it would appear that the Company does not render financial advisory services to issuers with respect to new issues of municipal securities. Since the activities which you state the Company performs in the ordinary course of its mortgage banking business do not constitute financial advisory activities for the purposes of rule G-23, the rule would not apply to those financings where the Bank serves as underwriter and the Company performs its mortgage banking functions, as described. MSRB interpretation of April 12, 1982.

Yield disclosures: transactions at par. I am writing in response to your letter of April 2, 1982, concerning certain of the yield disclosure requirements of Board rule G-15 on customer confirmations. In your letter you note that item (C) of rule G-15(a)(viii)[*] requires that "for transactions at par, the dollar price shall be shown" on the confirmations of such transactions, and you inquire whether it is necessary to show a yield on such confirmations.

Please be advised that a confirmation of a transaction effected at par (i.e., at a dollar price of "100") need show only the dollar price "100" and need not, under the terms of the rule, show the resulting yield.

I note, however, that a transaction effected on the basis of a yield price equal to the interest rate of the security which is the subject of the transaction would be considered, for purposes of the rule, to be a "transaction effected on a yield basis," and therefore would be subject to the requirements of item (A) of rule G-15(a)(viii)[†]. The confirmation of such transaction would therefore be required to state "the yield at which [the] transaction was effected and the resulting dollar price[.]" MSRB interpretation of April 8, 1982.

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

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

The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board has recently received complaints from certain municipal securities brokers and municipal securities dealers concerning problems with the documentation provided on rejections or reclamations of deliveries on municipal securities transactions. These brokers and dealers have alleged that other organizations, when rejecting or reclaiming deliveries, have failed to provide the requisite information regarding the return of the securities, thereby making it very difficult to accomplish prompt resolution of any delivery problems. In particular, these dealers indicate, notices of rejection or reclamation have often failed to state a reason for the rejection or reclamation, or to name a person who can be contacted regarding the delivery problem.

Rule G-12(g)(iv) requires that a dealer rejecting or reclaiming a delivery of securities must provide a notice or other document with the rejected or reclaimed securities, which notice shall include the following information:

(A) the name of the party rejecting or reclaiming the securities;

(B) the name of the party to whom the securities are being rejected or reclaimed;

(C) a description of the securities;

(D) the date the securities were delivered;

(E) the date of rejection or reclamation;

(F) the par value of the securities which are being rejected or reclaimed;

(G) in the case of a reclamation, the amount of money the securities are reclaimed for;

(H) the reason for rejection or reclamation; and

(I) the name and telephone number of the person to contact concerning the rejection or reclamation.

The Uniform Reclamation Form may be used for this purpose.

The Board believes that the required information is the minimum necessary to permit prompt resolution of the problem, and does not view the requirement to provide this information as burdensome. The Board is concerned that failure to provide this information may contribute to inefficiencies in the clearance process, and strongly urges municipal securities brokers and dealers to take steps to ensure that the requirements of the rule are complied with. The Board notes that, in the case of reclaimed securities, failure to provide this information may result in, at minimum, a refusal on the part of the receiving party to honor the reclamation.

Close-out procedures: mandatory repurchase. You recently inquired concerning the use of the "mandatory repurchase" option provided under Board rule G-12(h)(i)(D) for execution of a close-out notice. In the situation you presented, a municipal securities dealer executing a notice was requiring, under the provisions of this option, a repurchase at the original contract price. Since the transaction was originally effected on the basis of a yield price, you inquired whether the repurchase should be effected at this yield price (with the dollar price computed to the settlement date of the repurchase transaction), or at the dollar price computed from this yield price at the time of the original transaction.

At the time of your telephone call I responded that, while the Board would have to consider this inquiry, the Board’s response to somewhat similar inquiries in the past suggested that the dollar price of the original contract should be used. I am writing to advise you that the Board did not adopt this position. With respect to the specific circumstances presented in your inquiry, the Board has concluded that the purchasing dealer does have the right, in the appropriate circumstances, to execute a close-out by requiring the seller to repurchase the securities at the yield price of the original contract, with the resulting dollar price computed to the settlement date of the repurchase transaction. The Board notes that, in these circumstances, the selling dealer has failed to fulfill its contractual obligations, and believes that permitting the use of the yield price of the original contract, with the resulting dollar price computed to the settlement date of the repurchase transaction, will in the majority of cases most fairly compensate the purchaser for the time value of the investment for the period from the original execution to the mandatory repurchase.[1]

The Board also is generally of the view that purchasers executing mandatory repurchase transactions may require a mandatory repurchase at the yield basis of the original transaction, with the resulting dollar price computed to the settlement date of the repurchase transaction, except in the case where both parties to the transaction agree that the original transaction was, and the repurchase transaction should be, effected on the basis of a dollar price, or where the terms of the transaction and/or the trading characteristics of the security (e.g., issues with an active sinking fund or tender program) suggest that dollar price rather than yield was the dominant consideration in the original transaction. MSRB interpretation of March 4, 1982.

[1] The Board notes, for example, that, in the case of a security purchased at a discount, the purchaser and the purchaser’s customer would realize the accretion of the discount for the period the security was owned. In the case of a security purchased at a premium, the premium would be amortized for the period the purchaser owned the security.

Underwriting assessment: application to private placements. This is in response to your request for a clarification of the application of Board rule A-13, concerning the underwriting assessment for municipal securities brokers and municipal securities dealers, to private placements of municipal securities.

Rule A-13 imposes an assessment fee on the underwriting of new issue municipal securities as an equitable means of defraying the costs and expenses of operating the Board. The assessment fee applies to new issue municipal securities which are "... purchased from an issuer by or through [a] municipal securities broker, or municipal securities dealer, whether acting as principal or agent." The Board has consistently interpreted the rule as requiring payment of the assessment fee where a municipal securities dealer acting as agent for the issuer arranges the direct placement of new issue municipal securities with institutional customers or individuals. In such cases it can be said that the securities are purchased from an issuer "through" the municipal securities dealer.

Of course, a municipal securities dealer who serves in an advisory role to an issuer on such matters as the structure or timing of a new issue, but who plays no part in arranging a private placement of the securities, would not be required to pay the assessment fee prescribed by rule A-13. MSRB interpretation of February 22, 1982.