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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule G-17


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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule G-17

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notice 2011-03 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Notice 2011-02 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Notice 2011-01 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Interpretive Guidance - Interpretive Letters
Publication date:
Concessions and Discounts
Rule Number:

Rule G-11

Concessions and discounts. This is in response to your October 13, 1986 letter asking if the Board's rules prohibit a dealer from granting a price concession on a new issue security to a customer. The Board's rules do not address the granting of concessions or price discounts to customers on new issue offerings; however, the terms of the applicable syndicate agreement may address this issue. MSRB interpretation of October 22, 1986.

Interpretive Guidance - Interpretive Notices
Publication date:
Deliveries of Called Securities-Definition of "Publication Date"
Rule Number:

Rule G-12, Rule G-15

Rules G-12(e)(x) and G-15(c)(viii) on deliveries of called securities provide that a certificate for which a notice of partial call has been published does not constitute good delivery unless it was identified as called at the time of trade. The rules also provide that, if a notice of call affecting an entire issue has been published on or prior to the trade date, called securities do not constitute good delivery unless identified as such at the time of trade.[1] Thus, a dealer, in some instances, must determine the date that a notice of call is published (the "publication date") to determine whether delivery of a called certificate constitutes good delivery for a particular transaction. The Board has adopted the following interpretation of rules G-12(e)(x) and G-15(e)(viii) to assist the industry in determining the publication date of a notice of a call. The Board understands this interpretation to be consistent with the procedure currently being used by certain depositories in allocating the results of partial calls.

In general, the publication date of a notice of call is the date of the edition of the publication in which the issuer, the issuer's agent or the trustee publishes the notice. To qualify as a notice of call under the rules, a notice must contain the date of the early redemption, and, for partial calls, must contain information that specifically identifies the certificates being called. If a notice of call is published on more than one date, the earliest date of publication constitutes the publication date for purposes of the rules.

If a notice of call for a registered security is not published, but is sent to registered owners, the publication date is the date shown on the notice. If no date is shown on the notice, the issuer, the trustee or the appropriate agent of the issuer should be contacted to determine the date of the notice of call.

If a notice of call of a registered security is published and also is sent directly to registered owners, the publication date is the earlier of the actual publication date or the date shown on the notice sent to registered owners. For bearer securities, the first date of publication always constitutes the publication date, even if another date is shown on the notice.


[1] An inter-dealer delivery that does not meet these requirements may be rejected or reclaimed under rule G-12(g).

Interpretive Guidance - Interpretive Notices
Publication date:
Records of Certificate Numbers of Securities Cleared by Clearing Agents
Rule Number:

Rule G-8, Rule G-9

Rule G-8(a)(i) requires that dealers maintain records of original entry that include certificate numbers of all securities received or delivered. The Board has received inquiries whether a dealer must maintain in its records of original entry the certificate numbers of securities that are received or delivered by a clearing agent on behalf of the dealer or whether it is permissible for the clearing agent to maintain records of the certificate numbers for the dealer.

The Board has concluded that, for transactions in which physical securities are cleared by a clearing agent, records of the certificate numbers of the securities required by rule G-8(a)(i) may be maintained by the agent on behalf of the dealer if the dealer obtains an agreement in writing from the agent in which the following conditions are specified: (i) a complete and current record of certificate numbers of physical securities cleared by the agent will be maintained on behalf of the dealer by the agent; (ii) the agent will preserve such record, and will provide such record to the dealer promptly upon request, in a manner allowing the dealer to comply with Board rule G-9 on maintenance and preservation of records. The Board emphasizes that a dealer allowing a clearing agent to maintain records of certificate numbers on its behalf continues to be responsible for the accurate maintenance and preservation of such records in conformance with the Board’s recordkeeping rules.

Interpretive Guidance - Interpretive Notices
Publication date:
Regulation of Taxable Municipal Securities

Because of recent federal tax law changes which place additional restrictions on the issuance of tax-exempt municipal securities, issuers of municipal securities are issuing, or considering issuing, debt securities that are subject to federal taxation. As a result, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board has received numerous inquiries concerning the application of its rules to dealers effecting transactions in taxable municipal securities. The Board wishes to emphasize that its rules apply to transactions effected by brokers, dealers, and municipal securities dealers in all municipal securities. Thus, transactions in taxable municipal securities are subject to the Board's rules, including rules regarding uniform and fair practice, automated clearance and settlement, the payment of the underwriting assessment fee, and the professional qualifications of registered representatives and principals.

Interpretive Guidance - Interpretive Notices
Publication date:
Price Calculation for Securities with an Initial Non-Interest Paying Period: Rule G-33
Rule Number:

Rule G-33

The Board has adopted a method for calculating the price of securities for which there are no scheduled interest payments for an initial period, generally for several years, after which periodic interest payments are scheduled. These securities, known by such names as "Growth and Income Securities," and "Capital Appreciation/Future Income Securities," function essentially as "zero coupon" securities for a period of time after issuance, accruing interest which is payable only upon redemption. On a certain date after issuance ("the interest commencement date"), the securities begin to accrue interest for semi-annual payment.

In March 1986, the Board published for comment a proposed method of calculating price from yield for such securities.[1] The Board received five comments on the proposed method, four expressing support for the method and one expressing no opinion. The commentators generally noted that the proposed method appeared to be accurate and could be used on bond calculators commonly available in the industry. The Board has adopted the proposed method of calculation, set forth below, as an interpretation of rule G-33 on calculations.

The general formula for calculating the price of securities with periodic interest payments is contained in rule G-33(b)(i)(B)(2). For securities with periodic payments, but with an initial non-interest paying period, this formula also is used.[2] For settlement dates occurring prior to the interest commencement date the price is computed by means of the following two-step process. First, a hypothetical price of the securities at the interest commencement date is calculated using the interest commencement date as the hypothetical settlement date,[3] the interest rate ("R" in the formula) for the securities during the interest payment period and the yield ("Y" in the formula) at which the securities are sold. This hypothetical price is computed to not less than six decimal places, and then is used as the redemption value ("RV" in the formula) in a second calculation using the G-33(b)(i)(B)(2) formula, with the interest commencement date as the redemption date, the actual settlement date for the transaction as the settlement date, and a value of zero for R, the interest rate. The resultant price, using the formula in G-33(b)(i)(B)(2), is the correct price of the securities.[4]

The price of such securities for settlement dates occurring after the interest commencement date, of course, should be calculated as for any other securities with periodic interest payments.[5]


 

[1] MSRB Reports, Vol. 6, No. 2 (March 1986) at 13.

[2] This interpretation is not meant to apply to securities which have a long first coupon period, but which otherwise are periodic interest paying securities.

[3] For settlement dates less than 6 months to the hypothetical redemption date, the formula in rule G-33(b)(ii)(B)(1) should be used in lieu of the formula in rule G-33(b)(ii)(B)(2).

[4] Rule G-12(c)(v)(I) and G-15(a)(i)(I) [currently codified at rule G-15(a)(i)(A)(5)(c)] require that securities be priced to the lowest of price to call, price-to-par option, or price to maturity. Thus, the redemption date used for this calculation method should be the date of an "in whole" refunding call if this would result in a lower dollar price than a computation to maturity.

[5] The formula in G-33(b)(i)(B)(1) should be used for calculations in which settlement date is 6 months or less to redemption date.

Interpretive Guidance - Interpretive Letters
Publication date:
Callable Securities: Pricing to Mandatory Sinking Fund Calls

Callable securities: pricing to mandatory sinking fund calls. This is in response to your February 21, 1986 letter concerning the application of rule G-15(a) regarding pricing to prerefunded bonds with mandatory sinking fund calls.

You give the following example:

Bonds, due 7/1/10, are prerefunded to 7/1/91 at 102. There are $17,605,000 of these bonds outstanding. However, there is a mandatory sinking fund which will operate to call $1,000,000 of these bonds at par every year from 7/1/86 to 7/1/91. The balance ($11,605,000) then will be redeemed 7/1/91 at 102. If this bond is priced to the 1991 prerefunded date in today's market at a 6.75 yield, the dollar price would be approximately 127.94. However, if this bond is called 7/1/86 at 100 and a customer paid the above price, his/her yield would be a minus 52 percent (-52%) on the called portion.

You state that the correct way to price the bond is to the 7/1/86 par call at a 5% level which equates to an approximate dollar price of 102.61. The subsequent yield to the 7/1/91 at 102 prerefunded date would be 12.33% if the bond survived all the mandatory calls to that date. You note that a June 8, 1978, MSRB interpretation states, "the calculation of dollar price to a premium call or par option date should be to that date at which the issuer may exercise an option to call the whole of a particular issue or, in the case of serial bonds, a particular maturity, and not to the date of a call in-part." You believe, however, that, as the rule is presently written, dealers are leaving themselves open for litigation from customers if bonds, which are trading at a premium, are not priced to the mandatory sinking fund call. You ask that the Board review this interpretation.

Your letter was referred to a Committee of the Board which has responsibility for interpreting the Board's fair practice rules. That Committee has authorized this response.

Rule G-15(a)(i)(I)[*] requires that on customer confirmations the yield and dollar price for the transaction be disclosed as the price (if the transaction is done on a yield basis) or yield (if the transaction is done on the basis of the dollar price) calculated to the lowest price or yield to call, to par option, or to maturity. The provision also requires, in cases in which the resulting dollar price or yield shown on the confirmation is calculated to call or par option, that this must be stated and the call or option date and price used in the calculation must be shown. The Board has determined that, for purposes of making this computation, only "in-whole" calls should be used.[1] This requirement reflects the longstanding practice of the municipal securities industry that a price calculated to an "in-part" call, such as a sinking fund call, is not adequate because, depending on the probability of the call provision being exercised and the portion of the issue subject to the call provision, the effective yield based on the price to a sinking fund date may not bear any relation to the likely return on the investment.

Rule G-15(a)(i)(I)[*] applies, however, only when the parties have not specified that the bonds are priced to a specific call date. In some circumstances, the parties to a particular transaction may agree that the transaction is effected on the basis of a yield to a particular date, e.g. put option date, and that the dollar price will be computed in this fashion. If that is the case, the yield to this agreed upon date must be included on confirmations as the yield at which the transaction was effected and the resulting dollar price computed to that date, together with a statement that it is a "yield to [date]." In an August 1979 interpretive notice on pricing of callable securities, the Board stated that, under rule G-30, a dealer pricing securities on the basis of a yield to a specified call feature should take into account the possibility that the call feature may not be exercised.[2] Accordingly, the price to be paid by the customer should reflect this possibility, and the resulting yield to maturity should bear a reasonable relationship to yields on securities of similar quality and maturity. Failure to price securities in such a manner may constitute a violation of rule G-30 since the price may not be "fair and reasonable" in the event the call feature is not exercised. The Board also noted that the fact that a customer in these circumstances may realize a yield in excess of the yield at which the transaction was effected does not relieve a municipal securities dealer of its responsibilities under rule G-30.

Accordingly, the calculation of the dollar price of a transaction in the securities in your example, unless the parties have agreed otherwise, should be made to the prerefunded date. Of course, under rule G-17 on fair dealing, dealers must explain to customers the existence of sinking fund calls at the time of trade. The sinking fund call, in addition, should be disclosed on the confirmation by an indication that the securities are "callable." The fact that the securities are prerefunded also should be noted on the confirmation. MSRB Interpretation of April 30, 1986.


[1] See [Rule G-15 Interpretation - Notice Concerning Pricing to Call], December 10, 1980 at ¶ 3571.

[2] See [Rule G-30 Interpretation - Interpretive Notice on Pricing of Callable Securities], August 10, 1979 ... at ¶ 3646.

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

Interpretive Guidance - Interpretive Notices
Publication date:
Confirmation Disclosure Requirements for Callable Municipal Securities
Rule Number:

Rule G-12, Rule G-15

Recently, the Board has received inquiries concerning the application of its inter-dealer and customer confirmation rules, rules G-12(c) and G-15(a) respectively, to municipal securities subject to call features. In particular, the Board has been made aware of instances in which dealers note one call date and price, usually the first in-whole call, on inter-dealer and customer confirmations without noting that the call information relates to the first in-whole call or that the bonds are otherwise callable.

Rules G-12(c) and G-15(a) require that confirmations set forth a

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

Thus, municipal securities subject to in-whole or in-part calls must be described as callable. Rules G-12(c) and G-15(a) also require dealers, when securities transactions are effected on a yield basis, to set forth a dollar price that has been computed to the lowest of the price to call, price to par option, or price to maturity; rule G-15 requires that confirmations of customer transactions effected on a dollar price disclose a yield in a similar manner. These rules provide that when a price or yield is calculated to a call, this must be stated, and the call date and price used in the calculation must be shown.[1] These are the only instances in which specific call features must be identified on a confirmation.

The Board understands that confusion may arise when specific call features are noted on confirmations without an adequate description of such information. The Board has determined that confirmations that include specific call information not required to be included under the Board's confirmation rules also must include a notation that other call features exist and must provide clarifying information about the noted call, e.g. "first in-whole call." These disclosures should be sufficient to ensure that purchasing dealers and customers will be alerted to the need to obtain additional information.

The Board cautions dealers to ensure that confirmations of municipal securities with call features clearly describe the securities as "callable." If this information is erroneously noted on the confirmation, purchasing dealers have the right to reclaim the securities under rule G-12(g)(iii)(C)(3).


[1] In addition, rule G-15(a)(iii)(D)[currently codified at rule G-15(a)(i)(C)(2)(a)] requires a legend to be placed on customer confirmations of transactions in callable securities which notes that "[additional] call features ... exist... [that may] affect yield; complete information will be provided upon request." [Note: Revised to reflect subsequent amendments]

Print