Select regulatory documents by category:

Regulatory Document Type

Interpretive Guidance -
Publication date:
Time of Trade Disclosures in Inter-Dealer Transactions
Rule Number:

Rule G-47

For inter-dealer transactions, there is no specific requirement for brokers, dealers or municipal securities dealers (individually and collectively, “dealers”) to disclose all material facts to another dealer at time of trade. A selling dealer is not generally charged with the responsibility to ensure that the purchasing dealer knows all relevant features of the municipal securities being offered for sale. The selling dealer may rely, at least to a reasonable extent, on the fact that the purchasing dealer is also a professional and will satisfy their need for information prior to entering into a contract for the municipal securities.
 
The items of information that professionals in an inter-dealer transaction must exchange at or prior to the time of trade are governed by principles of contract law and essentially are those items necessary adequately to describe the municipal security that is the subject of the contract. As a general matter, these items of information do not encompass all material facts, but should be sufficient to distinguish the municipal security from other similar issues. The Board has interpreted Rule G-17 to require dealers to treat other dealers fairly and to hold them to the prevailing ethical standards of the industry. The rule also prohibits dealers from knowingly misdescribing municipal securities to another dealer. As a result, it is possible that non-disclosure of an unusual feature might constitute an unfair practice and thus become a violation of Rule G-17 even in an inter-dealer transaction.
 
For example, with respect to bonds that prepay principal, non-disclosure of the fact that a bond prepays principal could be a violation of Rule G-17. This would be especially true if the information about the prepayment feature is not accessible to the market and is intentionally withheld by the selling dealer. Whether or not non-disclosure constitutes an unfair practice in a specific case would depend upon the individual facts of the case. However, to avoid trade disputes and settlement delays in inter-dealer transactions, it generally is in dealers’ interest to reach specific agreement on the existence of any prepayment feature and the amount of unpaid principal that will be delivered.

 
Notice 2025-04 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Notice 2025-03 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Notice 2025-02 - Request for Comment
Publication date: | Comment due:
Notice 2025-01 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Interpretive Guidance - Interpretive Notices
Publication date:
Confirmation Disclosure of Miscellaneous Transaction Charges
Rule Number:

Rule G-15

In recent months, several dealers have requested guidance from the Board on the appropriate confirmation treatment of miscellaneous charges added to customer transactions. These inquiries typically relate to small amounts which some dealers add to the combined extended principal and accrued interest of a transaction, prior to arriving at the final monies.[1] In some cases, the charges are levied for specific services provided as part of the transaction (e.g., special delivery arrangements, delivery of physical securities, delivery vs. payment settlement). In other cases, dealers may charge a flat fee characterized simply as a "transaction fee." These miscellaneous fees differ from the commissions charged on agency transactions in that they are flat amounts and are not computed from the par value of the transaction.

Rule G-15(a)(iii)(J)[*] requires each customer confirmation to include, in addition to the specific items noted in G-15(a), "such other information as may be necessary to ensure that the parties agree to the details of the transaction." Accordingly, the nature and amount of miscellaneous charges must be noted on the confirmation.[2]

Questions have arisen whether miscellaneous transaction fees also should be reflected in the yield required to be disclosed on the confirmation under rule G-15(a)(i)(l).[3] The Board does not believe that it is appropriate for these fees to be incorporated in the stated yield. Because such fees are small, they generally will not significantly affect a customer's return on investment. To the extent that the minor miscellaneous fees charged in today's market may be relevant to the customer's investment decision, the Board believes that a clear disclosure of the nature and amount of the fee on the confirmation will provide customers with sufficient information. If the practice of charging that the fees routinely begin to represent significant factors in customers' return on investment, the Board may reconsider this interpretation in favor of placing the charges in the stated yield.


[1] In purchases from customers, such transaction charges may be subtracted from the monies owed the customer.

[2] The Board also has considered questions relating to periodic charges, such as monthly charges for safekeeping. A dealer assessing periodic charges to customer accounts, of course, must reach agreement with the customer on the nature and extent of the charges and the services that will be provided in return. However, since periodic charges do not relate to a specific transaction and may change over time, a dealer's policy on periodic charges is not required on the confirmation as a "detail of the transaction."

[3] [Currently codified at rule G-15(a)(i)(A)(8)] Commissions charged on agency transactions must be included in the yield calculation. See [Rule G-15 Interpretive Letter - Agency transactions: yield disclosures] MSRB interpretation of July 13, 1984, MSRB Manual 3571,33 at 4528. This has led dealers to ask whether miscellaneous transaction charges should be handled in a similar manner. As noted above, the Board does not believe that miscellaneous charges should be handled in the same manner as commissions.

[*] [Currently codified at rule G-15(a)(i)(A)(8)]

Print