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.

The Board has become aware that some municipal issuers recently have issued securities that are structured as collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs). Like the CMOs issued by non-municipal issuers, these securities represent interest in pools of mortgages and are partitioned into several classes (or tranches), which are serialized as to priority for redemption and payment of principal.

Since these "municipal CMOs" are being issued directly by political subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities of state or local governments, it appears that they may be "municipal securities," as that term is defined under section 3(a)(29) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.[1] Although the interest paid on these instruments may be subject to federal taxation, the Board reminds dealers that transactions in municipal securities are subject to Board rules whether those securities are taxable or tax-exempt. Accordingly, dealers executing transactions in municipal CMOs should ensure that they are in compliance with all applicable Board rules. For example, dealers should ensure that all Board requirements regarding professional qualifications and recordkeeping are observed.[2]

Because the interest and principal payment features of municipal CMOs are very different from those of traditional municipal bonds, dealers should take care to ensure that all Board rules designed for the protection of customers are observed. This includes ensuring that: (i) all material facts about each transaction are disclosed to the customer, in compliance with rule G-17; (ii) each transaction recommended to a customer is suitable for the customer, in compliance with rule G-19; and (iii) the price of each customer transaction is fair and reasonable, in compliance with rule G-30. With respect to the material facts that should be disclosed to customers, dealers should ensure that customers are adequately informed of the likelihood of "prepayment" of principal on the securities and the likelihood of the securities being redeemed substantially prior to the stated maturity date. If the amount of principal that will be delivered to the customer differs from the "face" amount to be delivered, the customer also should be informed of this fact, along with the amount of the principal that will be delivered.

The Board also has reviewed the requirements of rule G-15(a)(i)(l)[*] with respect to confirmation disclosure of "yield to maturity" or "yield to call" on customer confirmations in these securities. Because CMOs typically pay principal to holders prior to maturity and because the actual duration of the securities often varies significantly from the stated maturity, the Board has interpreted rule G-15(a) not to require a statement of yield for transactions in municipal CMOs. A dealer that decides to voluntarily include a statement of "yield" on a confirmation for these securities must also disclose on the confirmation the method by which yield was computed. This will help to avoid the possibility of the customer misunderstanding the yield figure if he should use it to compare the merits of alternative investments.

The Board will be monitoring municipal CMOs and will adopt specific rules for the instruments in the future if this appears to be necessary.

[1] Of course, whether any instrument is a municipal security is a matter to be determined by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

[2] In addition, as noted above, the interest paid on these instruments may be subject to federal taxation. If the securities are identified by the issuer or sold by the underwriter as subject to federal taxation, rules G-12(c) and G-15(a) require confirmations to contain a designation to that effect.

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