Select regulatory documents by category:
Notice 2017-11 - Request for Comment
Publication date: | Comment due:
Information for:

Bank Dealers, Issuers, Municipal Advisors

Rule Number:

Rule G-34

1.  Acacia Financial Group, Inc.: Letter from Noreen P. White, Co-President, and Kim M. Whelan, Co-President, dated June 29, 2017

2.  American Bankers Association: Letter from Cristeena G. Naser, Vice President and Senior Counsel, Center for Securities, Trust and Investment, dated June 30, 2017

3.  Bloomberg L.P.: Letter from Peter Warms, Senior Manager of Fixed Income, Entity, Regulatory Content and Symbology

4.  Bond Dealers of America: Letter from Mike Nicholas, Chief Executive Officer, dated June 29, 2017

5.  Center for Municipal Finance: Letter from Marc D. Joffe, President, dated June 28, 2017

6.  Eastern Bank: Letter 

7.  Fieldman Rolapp & Associates: Letter from Adam S. Bauer, Chief Executive Officer and President, dated June 30, 2017

8.  Government Capital Securities Corp: Email from Ted Christensen dated June 1, 2017

9.  Government Finance Officers Association: Letter from Emily Brock, Director, Federal Liaison Center, dated June 30, 2017

10.  National Association of Municipal Advisors: Letter from Susan Gaffney, Executive Director, dated June 30, 2017

11.  New Jersey State League of Municipalities: Letter from Michael F. Cerra, Assistant Executive Director, dated June 27, 2017

12.  PFM: Letter from Leo Karwejna, Chief Compliance Officer, Cheryl Maddox, General Counsel, and Catherine Humphrey-Bennett, Municipal Advisory Compliance Officer, dated July 3, 2017

13.  Piper Jaffray & Co.: Letter from Frank Fairman, Managing Director, Head of Public Finance Services, and Rebecca Lawrence, Managing Director, Associate General Counsel, Public Finance and Fixed Income, dated June 29, 2017

14.  Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association: Letter from Leslie M. Norwood, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, dated June 30, 2017

15.  Southern Municipal Advisors, Inc.: Letter from Michael C. Cawley, Senior Consultant, dated June 29, 2017

16.  Township of East Brunswick: Email from L. Mason Neely dated June 2, 2017

Notice 2017-10 - Approval Notice
Publication date:
Notice 2017-09 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Interpretive Guidance - Interpretive Notices
Publication date:
Excerpt from Notice of Application of MSRB Rules to Solicitor Municipal Advisors

The MSRB amended Rule G-17, regarding fair dealing, to require that, in the conduct of their municipal advisory activities, municipal advisors, including solicitor municipal advisors, and their associated persons must deal fairly with all persons and not engage in any deceptive, dishonest, or unfair practice. (Previously, the rule applied only to dealers and their associated persons.) Rule G-17 became applicable to all municipal advisors, including solicitor municipal advisors, and their associated persons, on December 22, 2010.

Rule G-17 contains an anti-fraud prohibition similar to the standard set forth in Rule 10b-5 adopted by the SEC under the Exchange Act. Thus, all municipal advisors must refrain from engaging in certain conduct and must not misrepresent or omit the facts, risks, or other material information about municipal advisory activities undertaken. However, Rule G-17 does not merely prohibit deceptive conduct on the part of a municipal advisor. The rule also establishes a general duty of a municipal advisor to deal fairly with all persons, even in the absence of fraud.

Rule G-17 imposes a duty of fair dealing on solicitor municipal advisors when they are soliciting business from municipal entities and obligated persons on behalf of third parties. Again, municipal advisors are reminded that the term “municipal entity” also includes certain entities that do not issue municipal securities. Thus, in addition to owing the specific obligations discussed below to issuers of municipal securities, solicitor municipal advisors also owe such obligations to, for example, state and local government sponsored public pension plans and local government investment pools.

The duty of fair dealing includes, but is not limited to, a duty to disclose to the municipal entity or obligated person being solicited material facts about the solicitation, such as the name of the solicitor’s client; the type of business being solicited; the amount and source of all of the solicitor’s compensation; payments (including in-kind) made by the solicitor to another solicitor municipal advisor (including an affiliate, but not an employee) to facilitate the solicitation regardless of characterization; and any relationships of the solicitor with any employees or board members of the municipal entity or obligated person being solicited or any other persons affiliated with the municipal entity or obligated person or its officials who may have influence over the selection of the solicitor’s client.

Additionally, if a solicitor municipal advisor is engaged by its client to present information about a product or service offered by the third-party client to the municipal entity or obligated person, the solicitor municipal advisor must disclose all material risks and characteristics of the product or service. The solicitor municipal advisor must also advise the municipal entity or obligated person of any incentives received by the solicitor (that are not already disclosed as part of the solicitor municipal advisor’s compensation from its client) to recommend the product or service, as well as any other conflicts of interest regarding the product or service, and must not make material misstatements or omissions when discussing the product or service.

Under the Exchange Act, municipal advisors and their associated persons are deemed to owe a fiduciary duty to their municipal entity clients.[*] Similarly, Rule G-42 (which applies only to non-solicitor municipal advisors) follows the Exchange Act in deeming municipal advisors to owe a fiduciary duty, for purposes of Rule G-42, to such municipal entity clients. However, because a solicitor municipal advisor’s clients are not the municipal entities that they solicit, but rather the third parties that retain or engage the solicitor municipal advisor to solicit such municipal entities, solicitor municipal advisors do not owe a fiduciary duty under the Exchange Act or MSRB rules to their clients (or the municipal entity) in connection with such activity. Nonetheless, as noted above, solicitor municipal advisors are subject to the fair dealing standards under Rule G-17 (including with respect to their clients and the entities that they solicit).


[*] See Order Adopting SEC Final Rule [Release No. 34-70462 (September 20, 2013), 78 FR 67467 (November 12, 2013) (File No. S7-45-10)], at n. 100 (noting that the fiduciary duty of a municipal advisor, as set forth in Section 15B(c)(1) of the Exchange Act, extends only to its municipal entity clients).

Notice 2017-08 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Compliance Resource
Publication date:
Information for:

General Public, Issuers, Municipal Advisors

Rule Number:

Rule G-42

Notice 2017-07 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Notice 2017-06 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Notice 2017-05 - Request for Comment
Publication date: | Comment due:
Information for:

Bank Dealers, Dealers, Municipal Advisors

Rule Number:

Rule G-34

1.  Acacia Financial Group, Inc.: Letter from Noreen P. White, Co-President, and Kim M. Whelan, Co-President, dated March 31, 2017

2.  American Bankers Association: Letter from Cristeena G. Naser, Vice President and Senior Counsel, Center for Securities, Trust and Investment, dated March 24, 2017

3.  Bloomberg, L.P.: Letter from Peter Warms, Senior Manager of Fixed Income, Entity, Regulatory Content and Symbology 

4.  Bond Dealers of America: Letter from Mike Nicholas, Chief Executive Officer, dated March 31, 2017

5.  CUSIP Global Services: Letter from Scott J. Preiss, Managing Director, Global Head, dated March 30, 2017

6.  Dixworks LLC: E-mail from Dennis Dix, Jr., Principal, dated March 29, 2017

7.  First River Advisory LLC: E-mail from Shelley Aronson dated March 22, 2017

8.  George K. Baum & Company: Letter from Guy E. Yandel, EVP and Co-Manager Public Finance, Dana L. Bjornson, EVP, CFO and Chief Compliance Officer, and Andrew F. Sears, EVP and General Counsel, dated March 31, 2017

9.  Government Finance Officers Association: Letter from Emily Brock, Director, Federal Liaison Center, dated March 31, 2017

10.  National Association of Health and Educational Facilities Finance Authorities: Letter from Donna Murr, President, and Martin Walke, Advocacy Committee Chair, dated March 31, 2017

11.  National Association of Municipal Advisors: Letter from Susan Gaffney, Executive Director, dated March 31, 2017

12.  National Federation of Municipal Analysts; Letter from Julie Egan, Chair, and Lisa Washburn, Industry Practices and Procedures Chair, dated March 31, 2017

13.  Opus Bank: E-mail from Dmitry Semenov, Senior Managing Director, Public Finance, dated March 15, 2017

14.  PFM: Letter from Cheryl Maddox, General Counsel, and Leo Karwejna, Chief Compliance Officer, dated March 31, 2017

15.  Phoenix Advisors, LLC: Letter from David B. Thompson, CEO, dated March 21, 2017

16.  Piper Jaffray & Co.: Letter from Frank Fairman, Managing Director, Head of Public Finance Services, and Rebecca Lawrence, Managing Director, Associate General Counsel, Public Finance and Fixed Income, dated March 31, 2017

17.  Rudy Salo: E-mail dated March 31, 2017

18.  Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association: Letter from Leslie M. Norwood, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, dated March 31, 2017

19.  SMA: E-mail from Michael Cawley dated March 21, 2017

20.  State of Florida, Division of Bond Finance: Letter from J. Ben Watkins III, Director, dated April 7, 2017

Notice 2017-04 - Request for Comment
Publication date: | Comment due:
Information for:

Bank Dealers, Dealers, Municipal Advisors

Rule Number:

Rule G-21

1.  Acacia Financial Group, Inc.: Letter from Noreen P. White, Co-President, and Kim M. Whelan, Co-President, dated April 7, 2017

2.  Bond Dealers of America: Letter from Mike Nicholas, Chief Executive Officer, dated March 24, 2017

3.  Fidelity Investments: Letter from Norman L. Ashkenas, Chief Compliance Officer, Fidelity Brokerage Services, LLC, Richard J. O'Brien, Chief Compliance Officer, National Financial Services, LLC, and Jason Linde, Chief Compliance Officer, Fidelity Investments Institutional Services Company, LLC, dated March 24, 2017

4.  Financial Services Institute: Letter from David T. Bellaire, Executive Vice President and General Counsel, dated March 24, 2017

5.  Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham, Inc.: Letter from Laura D. Lewis, Principal, dated March 24, 2017

6.  National Association of Municipal Advisors: Letter from Susan Gaffney, Executive Director, dated March 24, 2017

7.  PFM: Letter from Leo Karwejna, Chief Compliance Officer, Cheryl Maddox, General Counsel, and Catherine Humphrey-Bennett, Municipal Advisory Compliance Officer, dated March 23, 2017

8.  Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association: Letter from Leslie M. Norwood, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, dated March 24, 2017

9.  Strategic Insight: Letter from Paul Curley, Director of College Savings Research, dated May 16, 2017

10.  Third Party Marketers Association: Letter from Donna DiMaria, Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chair of the 3PM Regulatory Committee, dated March 23, 2017

11.  Wells Fargo Advisors: Letter from Robert J. McCarthy, Director of Regulatory Policy, dated March 24, 2017

Notice 2017-03 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Notice 2017-02 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Information for:

Bank Dealers, Dealers, Municipal Advisors

Notice 2017-01 - Request for Comment
Publication date: | Comment due:
Information for:

Bank Dealers, Dealers

Rule Number:

Rule G-26

1.  Bond Dealers of America: Letter from Mike Nicholas, Chief Executive Officer, dated February 17, 2017

2.  Michael Paganini: E-mail dated January 6, 2017

3.  Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association: Letter from Leslie M. Norwood, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, dated February 17, 2017

 

Compliance Resource
Publication date:
Interpretive Guidance - Interpretive Notices
Publication date:
Executing Broker Symbols: Rule G-14

MSRB Rule G-14 on Transaction Reporting requires that every dealer obtain an executing broker symbol, if one has not already been assigned, from National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations (NASDAQ).  NASDAQ will assign executing broker symbols to all dealers including bank dealers.  NASDAQ Subscriber Services can be reached at 212-231-5180, option 3.  When calling NASDAQ Subscriber Services for an executing broker symbol, dealers should state that they need the symbol for use in reporting transactions in municipal securities to the MSRB.  If dealers experience difficulties in obtaining executing broker symbols, then they can send an e-mail to subscriber@NASDAQ.com.

NOTE: This notice was revised to reflect updated information.

Interpretive Guidance - Interpretive Letters
Publication date:
Review and Approval of Customer Accounts
Rule Number:

Rule G-27

Review and approval of customer accounts.  This is in response to your letter dated July 24, 1996, requesting an interpretation of rule G-27(c)(iii) on written supervisory procedures.

Rule G-27(c)(iii) requires that each municipal securities dealer adopt, maintain and enforce written supervisory procedures ensuring the "regular and frequent" review and approval by a designated principal of customer accounts introduced or carried by the dealer in which transactions in municipal securities are effected. The rule further states that such review shall be designed to ensure that such transactions are in accordance with all applicable rules and to detect and prevent irregularities and abuses.

Because circumstances vary from dealer to dealer, the Board has not specified a time period to define "regular and frequent" for purposes of rule G-27(c)(iii).  As you can see, however, the purpose of this provision is to detect and prevent irregularities and abuses that may occur in customer accounts. The Board expects dealers to establish procedures that effectively obtain this objective and that are capable of compliance. While the Board has never specifically addressed "risk-focussed" methods for determining periodic account review, the Board has stated that, in determining when an account must be reviewed, a dealer might look to the volume and frequency of trading and the nature of the securities traded. The Board noted that account review guidelines based on these factors would be appropriate if they are articulated clearly in a dealer's written supervisory procedures.[1] MSRB interpretation of August 7, 1996.


[1] Supervision Requirements, MSRB Reports, Vol. 10, No. 2 (May 1990) at 6.

Interpretive Guidance - Interpretive Notices
Publication date:
Rule G-14 Transaction Reporting Procedures-Time of Trade Reporting
Rule Number:

Rule G-14

1. Q: When is the inter-dealer time of trade reporting requirement effective?

A: The amendment to the rule G-14 transaction reporting procedures requiring the submission of time of trade execution for inter-dealer transactions became effective on July 1, 1996.

2. Q: What is the purpose of submitting the time of trade to the Board?

A: The Board's Transaction Reporting Program has two functions - public dissemination of price and volume information about frequently traded securities and the maintenance of a surveillance database to assist regulators in inspection for compliance with, and enforcement of, Board rules and securities laws. The surveillance database includes, among other things, the price and volume of each reported transaction, the trade date, the identification of the security traded, and the parties to the trade. The addition of the time of trade execution will enable the enforcement agencies to construct audit trails of inter-dealer transactions. When customer transactions are added to the system in 1998, these transaction records also will include time of trade. Time of trade will not be made public.

3. Q: How is time of trade reported?

A: Under rule G-14, inter-dealer transaction information is reported to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board using the same system used for automated comparison of inter-dealer transactions, operated by National Securities Clearing Corporation. Rule G-14 requires that the transaction information be submitted in the format specified by NSCC, and within such timeframe as required by NSCC to produce a compared trade for the transaction in the initial comparison cycle on the night of trade date. A broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer may employ an agent that is a member of NSCC or a registered clearing agency for the purpose of submitting transaction information. For example, the clearing broker generally reports transactions to the MSRB through NSCC when there is an introducing/clearing broker arrangement.

Under the new amendment to rule G-14, the transaction information submitted in accordance with the rule G-14 procedures must include the time of trade execution. NSCC has provided a space designated for this purpose in the standard format used for submitting trade data into the automated comparison system.

4. Q: Which dealer in an inter-dealer transaction reports the time of trade?

A: Under NSCC's automated comparison procedures, both sides of a transaction generally are required to submit transaction information. Therefore, time of trade will be reported by each side of the transaction in most cases. For "syndicate take-down" transactions, which are reported by only the seller, the time of trade is reported only by the seller.

5. Q: If the time of trade that I submit does not agree with the time of trade that the contra party submits, will this cause the trade not to compare?

A: No. The time of trade is not a match item in the automated comparison system.

6. Q: Why do both sides to the transaction have to submit the time of trade?

A: In some cases, even though both sides of a transaction are supposed to submit transaction information, the Board receives transaction information from only one party to a transaction. This may occur, for example, when a dealer "stamps an advisory" to create a compared trade. It therefore is necessary for each side of a transaction to report the time of trade to ensure that the surveillance data base has at least one report of the time of trade.

7. Q: Does the time of trade reporting requirement apply only to secondary market transactions?

A: No. The time of trade is required for all inter-dealer transactions including those in the primary market.

8. Q: How does a dealer determine the time of trade for transactions?

A: In general, this is the same time as the "time of execution," as currently required for recordkeeping purposes under rule G-8(a)(vi) and (vii).

9. Q: What is the time of trade for syndicate allocations on new issues?

A: First it should be noted that the "initial trade date" for an issue of municipal securities cannot precede the date of award (for competitive issues) or the date that the bond purchase agreement is signed (for negotiated issues). See rule G-34(a)(ii)(C)(2) and MSRB Interpretations of April 30, 1982, MSRB Manual and October 7, 1982, MSRB Manual. Similarly, the time of trade may not precede the time of award (for competitive issues) or the time that the bond purchase agreement is signed (for negotiated issues). In the typical case involving a competitive issue in which allocations are made after the date of award, the time of trade execution is the time that the allocation is made. If allocations have been "preassigned," prior to a competitive award, or prior to the signing of a bond purchase agreement, the time of award or signing of the bond purchase agreement should be entered as the "time of trade."

Print