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.

Supervision of data processing functions.  I am writing in response to your letter of November 7, 1988 and our subsequent telephone conversation by which you requested an interpretation of the Board’s qualification requirements for municipal securities principals. You asked whether an individual, who is presently qualified as a representative, additionally must be qualified as a municipal securities principal because he has oversight and supervisory responsibility for the firm’s data processing department.

Board rule G-3(a)(i)[*] defines a municipal securities principal as a person directly engaged in the management, direction or supervision of one or more enumerated representative activities. Consequently, whether or not this individual must be qualified as a municipal securities principal depends on whether he is supervising such activities, i.e., whether the data processing department employees are functioning as municipal securities representatives.

You state that the data processing department assists this individual by performing the calculations necessary in the structuring of municipal bond issues and underwritings. Moreover, you note that the employees in the data processing department do not communicate with customers, including issuers, in carrying out their duties and that the above financial advisory and underwriting activities are otherwise supervised by a qualified municipal securities principal.

Based upon the facts set forth above, we are of the view that the individual described supervises only  clerical or ministerial functions, and he is therefore not a municipal securities principal within the meaning of Board rule G-3. MSRB interpretation of December 9, 1988.

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

In December 1984, the Board published a notice providing guidance to dealers in determining whether certain transactions are inter-dealer or customer transactions for purposes of Board rules. Since the publication of this notice, the Board has continued to receive reports that inter-dealer transactions sometimes are erroneously submitted to automated confirmation/affirmation systems for customer transactions. This practice reduces the efficiencies of automated clearance since these transactions fail to compare in the initial comparison cycle. The Board is re-publishing the notice to remind dealers of the need to submit inter-dealer and customer transactions to the correct automated clearance systems.

The Board recently has been advised that some members of the municipal securities industry are experiencing difficulties in determining the proper classification of a contra-party as a dealer or customer for purposes of automated comparison and confirmation. In particular, questions have arisen about the status of banks purchasing for their trust departments and dealers buying securities to be deposited in accumulation accounts for unit investment trusts. Because a misclassification of a contra-party can cause significant difficulty to persons seeking to comply with the automated clearance requirements of rules G-12, and G-15, the Board believes that guidance concerning the appropriate classification of contra-parties in certain transactions would be helpful to the municipal securities industry.

Background

Rule G-12(f)(i) requires dealers to submit an inter-dealer transaction for automated comparison if the transaction is eligible for automated comparison .... Rule G-15(d)(ii) requires dealers to use an automated confirmation/affirmation service for delivery versus payment or receipt versus payment (DVP/RVP) customer transactions if the [transactions are eligible for automated confirmation and acknowledgement].

The systems available for the automated comparison of inter-dealer transactions and automated confirmation/affirmation of customer transactions are separate and distinct. As a result, misclassification of a contra-party may frustrate efficient use of the systems. For example, a selling dealer in an inter-dealer transaction may misclassify the contra-party as a customer, and submit the trade for confirmation/affirmation through the automated system for customer transactions while the purchaser (correctly considering itself to be a dealer) seeks to compare the transaction through the inter-dealer comparison system. Since, the automated systems for inter-dealer and customer transactions are entirely separate, the transaction will not be successfully compared or acknowledged through either automated system.

Transactions Effected by Banks

The Board has received certain questions about the proper classification of contra-parties in the context of transactions effected by banks. A bank may be the purchaser or seller of municipal securities either as a dealer or as a customer. For example, a dealer may sell municipal securities to a bank's trust department for various trust accounts. Such purchases by a bank in a fiduciary capacity would not constitute "municipal securities dealer activities" under the Board's rules[1] and are properly classified and confirmed as customer transactions. A second type of transaction by a bank is the purchase or sale of securities for the dealer trading account of a dealer bank. The bank in this instance clearly is acting in its capacity as a municipal securities dealer and the transaction should be compared as an inter-dealer transaction.

A dealer effecting a transaction with a dealer bank may not know whether the bank is acting in its capacity as a dealer or as a customer. The Board is of the view that, in such a case, the dealer should ascertain the appropriate classification of the bank at the time of trade to ensure that the transaction can be compared or confirmed appropriately. The Board anticipates that dealer banks will assist in this process by informing contra-parties whether the bank is acting as a dealer or customer in transactions in which the bank's role may be unclear to the contra-party.

Transactions by Dealer Purchasing Municipal Securities for UIT Accumulation Accounts

The Board has also received several inquiries concerning the appropriate classification of a dealer who purchases municipal securities to be deposited into an accumulation account for ultimate transfer to a unit investment trust (UIT). The dealer buying securities for a UIT accumulation account may purchase and hold the securities over a period of several days before depositing them with the trustee of the UIT in exchange for all of the units of the trust; during this time the dealer is exposed to potential market risk on these securities positions. The subsequent deposit of the securities with the trustee of the UIT in exchange for the units of the trust may be viewed as a separate, customer transaction between the dealer buying the accumulation account and the trust. The original purchase of the securities by the dealer for the account then must be considered an inter-dealer transaction since the dealer is purchasing for its own account ultimately to execute a customer transaction. The Board notes that the SEC has taken this approach in applying its net capital and customer protection rules to such transactions.

The Board is of the view that, for purposes of its automated comparison requirements, transactions involving dealers purchasing for UIT accumulation accounts should be considered inter-dealer transactions. The Board also notes the distinction between this situation, in which a dealer purchases for ultimate transfer to a trust or fund, and situations where purchases or sales of municipal securities are made directly by the fund, as is the case with purchases or sales by some open-end mutual funds. These latter transactions should be considered as customer transactions and confirmed accordingly.

Other Inter-Dealer Transactions

In addition to questions on the status of a dealer bank and dealers purchasing for accumulation accounts, the Board has received information that a few large firms are sometimes subtracting trades with regional securities dealers into the customer confirmation system. The Board is aware that these firms may classify transactions with regional dealers or bank dealers as "customer" transactions for purposes of internal accounting and compensation systems. The Board reminds industry members that transactions with other municipal securities dealers will always be inter-dealer transactions and should be compared in the inter-dealer automated comparison system without regard to how the transactions are classified internally within a dealer's accounting systems. The Board believes it is incumbent upon those firms who misclassify transactions in this fashion to promptly make the necessary alterations to their internal systems to ensure that this practice of misclassifying transactions is corrected.

[1] Section 3(a)(30) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 defines a bank to be a municipal securities dealers if it "is engaged in the business of buying and selling municipal securities for its own account other than in a fiduciary capacity." For purposes of the Board's rule G-1, defining a separately identifiable department or division of a bank dealer, the purchase and sale of municipal securities by a trust department would not be considered to be "municipal securities dealer activities."

NOTE: Revised to reflect subsequent amendments.

Advertisements showing current yield. This is in response to your letter concerning the application of rule G-21, on advertising, to advertisements that include information on current yield of municipal securities. [1] You have asked for the Board’s views whether including current yield information in advertisements for municipal securities, alone or with other yield information, would be materially misleading. You also ask if a dealer may advertise current yield if other yield information is included but is in smaller print. The Board has considered this issue and authorized this reply.

Rule G-21 prohibits a dealer from publishing an advertisement concerning a municipal security that the dealer knows or has reason to know is materially false or misleading. The Board has stated that an advertisement showing a percentage rate of return must specify whether it is the coupon rate or the yield. The Board noted that, if a yield is presented, the advertisement must indicate the basis on which the yield is calculated.[2]

The Board frequently has stated that the yield to call or yield to maturity is the most important factor in determining the fairness and reasonableness of the price of any given transaction in municipal securities. Such yields typically are used as a basis for dealers and customers to evaluate an investment in municipal securities. The disclosure of yield to call or yield to maturity is the longstanding practice of the municipal securities industry and this practice is reflected in rule G-15(a) which requires dealers to disclose yield to call or yield to maturity on customer confirmations.[3] A customer who purchases a municipal security relying only on the current yield information disclosed in an advertisement would be confused upon receipt of the confirmation when the yield to call or yield to maturity of the security is different. Moreover, a customer would not be able to compare municipal securities advertised at a current yield with those advertised at a yield to call or yield to maturity.[4]

The Board has determined that the use of current yield information in municipal securities advertisements without other yield information would be materially misleading under rule G-21. Thus, dealers may not show only current yield in municipal securities advertisements.

The Board also has determined that, while showing only current yield information in advertisements is materially misleading, if advertisements also include, at a minimum, the lowest of yield to call or yield to maturity, current yield may be used if all the information is clearly presented as discussed below. The Board notes that including yield to call or yield to maturity in municipal securities advertisements would give customers a more realistic view of the yield they can expect to receive on the investment and would enable them to compare the security advertised with other municipal securities. In addition, the yield to call or yield to maturity information would be consistent with the yield information disclosed on customer confirmations. If the yield to call is used, the call date and price also should be noted.

The Board is concerned that, even if dealers comply with this interpretation of rule G-21 and include current yield and other yield information in municipal securities advertisements, such advertisements still could be misleading due to the size of type used and the placement of the information. For example, it would not be appropriate for the type size of the current yield to be larger than other yield information. Thus, whether a particular advertisement is materially misleading requires the appropriate regulatory body, for example, an NASD District Business Conduct Committee, to consider a number of objective and subjective factors. The Board urges the regulatory authorities to continue to review advertisements on a case-by-case basis to make a determination whether any such advertisements, in fact, are misleading. MSRB interpretation of April 22, 1988.

[1] Current yield is a calculation of current income on a bond. It is the ratio of the annual dollar amount of interest paid on a security to the purchase price of the security, stated as a percentage. If the securities are sold at par, the current yield equals the coupon rate on the securities. Current yield, however, does not take into account the time value of money. Thus, generally, if a bond is selling at a discount, the current yield would be less than the yield to maturity and, if the bond is selling at a premium, the current yield would be greater than the yield to maturity.

[2] Frequently Asked Questions Concerning Advertising, MSRB Reports, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Apr. 1983), at 21-23.

[3] Rule G-15(a)(i)(1) [currently codified at rule G-15(a)(i)(A)(5)] requires that the yield or dollar price at which the transaction was effected be disclosed on customer confirmations, with the resulting dollar price (if the transaction is done on a yield basis) or yield (if the transaction is done on a dollar basis) calculated to the lowest of dollar price or yield to call, to par option or to maturity. In cases in which the resulting dollar price or yield shown on the confirmation is calculated to call or par option, this must be stated and the call or option date and price used in the calculation must be shown.

[4] The Board also notes that some dealers have used current yield in municipal securities advertisements in an attempt to compete with municipal securities mutual funds, which often use a “current yield” in their advertisements. However, a mutual fund “yield” is not directly comparable to a municipal securities yield because a mutual fund “yield” represents historical information, while the yield on a municipal security represents a future rate of return.

The Board has received complaints regarding published quotations, such as those appearing in The Blue List. The complaints, which have been referred to the appropriate enforcement agency, state that municipal securities offerings published by dealers often do not reflect prices and amounts of securities that currently are being offered by the quoting dealer.

Board rule G-13, on quotations, prohibits the dissemination of a quotation relating to municipal securities unless the quotation represents a bona fide bid for, or offer of, municipal securities. The term quotation is defined to mean any bid for, or offer of, municipal securities. A quotation is deemed to be bona fide if the dealer on whose behalf the quotation is made is prepared to purchase or sell the municipal securities at the price stated and in the amount specified at the time the quotation is made.

Under rule G-13, the price stated in a quotation for municipal securities must be based on the best judgment of the dealer making the quotation as to the fair market value of such securities at the time the quotation is made. The Board has stated that the price must have a reasonable relationship to the fair market value of the securities, and may take into account relevant factors such as the dealer's current inventory position, overall and in respect to a particular security, and the dealer's anticipation of the direction of the market price for the securities.

Rule G-13 also prohibits a dealer from entering a quotation on behalf of another dealer if the dealer entering the quotation has any reason to believe that the quotation does not represent a bona fide bid for, or offer of, municipal securities. In addition, participants in a joint account are prohibited from entering quotations relating to municipal securities which are the subject of the joint account, if such quotations indicate more than one market for the same securities. Rule G-13 does not prohibit giving "nominal" bids or offers or giving indications of price solely for informational purposes as long as an indication of the price given is clearly shown to be for such purposes.

A dealer that publishes a quote in a daily or other listing must stand ready to purchase or sell the securities at the stated price and amount until the securities are sold or the dealer subsequently changes its price. If either of these events occur, the dealer must withdraw or update its published quotation in the next publication. Stale or invalid quotations violate rule G-13. Rule G-13 does permit a dealer to publish a quotation for a security it does not own if the dealer is prepared to sell the security at the price stated in the quotation. If the dealer knows that the security is not available in the market or is not prepared to sell the security at the stated price, the quotation would violate rule G-13.

Advertising of securities subject to alternative minimum tax. This is in response to your letter concerning the application of rule G-21, on advertising, to advertisements for municipal securities subject to the alternative minimum tax (AMT). You state that advertisements for municipal securities usually note that the securities are "free from federal and state taxes." You ask whether an advertisement for municipal securities subject to AMT should note the applicability of AMT if such advertisements describe the securities as "tax exempt." The Board has considered the issue and authorized this reply.

Rule G-21(c) prohibits a broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer from publishing any advertisement concerning municipal securities which the broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer knows or has reason to know is materially false or misleading. The Board has stated that the use of the term "tax exempt" in advertisements for municipal securities connotes that the securities are exempt from all federal, state and local income taxes. If this is not true of the security being advertised, the Board has required that the use of the term "tax exempt" in an advertisement must be explained, e.g., by footnote[1] In regard to municipal securities subject to AMT, the Board has determined that advertisements for such securities that describe the securities as being exempt from federal income tax also must describe the securities as subject to AMT. MSRB Interpretation of February 23, 1988.

[1] Frequently asked questions concerning advertising, MSRB Reports, Vol. 3, No. 2 (April 1983), at 22.