Applicability of Trade Reporting for Certain Allocations to Customer Accounts By Dually-Registered Broker-Dealers/Investment Advisers¹

[Th]e MSRB acknowledges that in certain circumstances a customer allocation may be subject to trade reporting under Rule G-14. However, the MSRB observes that in the case of a purchase of a block order by a dually registered dealer/investment adviser (“BD/IA firm”) of municipal securities that are then allocated internally to advisory accounts at the same price as the block order (i.e., without transaction-based compensation, such as with a non-transaction-based wrap or similar advisory fee), the MSRB historically has only required that the original block order be reported and not the subsequent related allocations to customers in advisory accounts where, with respect to any such allocation, the BD/IA firm is acting as an investment adviser to such account directing an internal delivery of a portion of such block of municipal securities acquired by the BD/IA firm to the advisory account.²  This treatment would continue based on the core principle that, as a price transparency system, RTRS seeks to disseminate publicly only such pricing information that is indicative of market prices and not price information that may not reliably reflect such market prices. The MSRB believes that publishing price information for smaller customer allocations that were priced based on the larger block price of the original block trade is not only unlikely to be indicative of market prices, but could also be misleading.³

¹Excerpt from Letter to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, from Ernesto A. Lanza, Chief Regulatory and Policy Officer, MSRB, dated September 5, 2025, at 5–6, available at https://www.msrb.org/sites/default/files/2025-09/SR-MSRB-2025-01-MSRB-Response-to-Comments_0.pdf (internal citations renumbered). See also Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) Release No. 103987 (Sept. 16, 2025), File No. SR-MSRB-2025-01, 90 FR 45274, 45277 nn.58–60 and accompanying text (Sept. 19, 2025).

²See, e.g., Exchange Act Release No. 74564 (Mar. 23, 2015), 80 FR 16466, 16466 n.4 (Mar. 27, 2025), File No. SR-MSRB-2015-02 (“RTRS serves as an audit trail for municipal securities trading, with the exception of certain internal movements of securities within dealers that currently are not required to be reported”). See also MSRB Notice 2008-19, MSRB Seeks Comment on the Reporting of Proprietary Desk Transactions under Rule G-14, on Reports of Sales or Purchase (Apr. 11, 2008) (the “Prop Desk RFC”) (“Currently, internal movements of securities within a dealer organization are not considered to be reportable under Rule G-14.”). In the Prop Desk RFC, the MSRB proposed potentially requiring reporting to RTRS internal movements between a dealer’s proprietary desk and another part of the same dealer firm. The MSRB determined not to establish such a requirement with respect to such internal movements and continued to adhere to its position that internal movements are not reportable to RTRS. Of course, while the allocation is not reportable, the BD/IA firm would be subject to the full panoply of investment adviser duties, including a fiduciary duty to its customer, when it acts in this capacity as an investment adviser with respect to the customer’s advisory account.

³See, e.g., MSRB Notice 2003-20, Notice on Reporting and Comparison of Certain Transactions Effected by Investment Advisors: Rules G-12(f) and G-14 (May 23, 2003) (discussing the appropriateness of reporting only the price of the single block order trade with a third-party investment adviser rather than individual smaller transfers and allocations directed by such adviser that would be reportable at the same price as the block trade).

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)]