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.

Purchase of new issue from issuer. This is in response to your letter in which you ask whether Board rule G-17, on fair dealing, or any other rule, regulation or federal law, requires an underwriter to purchase a bond issue from a municipal securities issuer at a “fair price.”

Rule G-17 states that, in the conduct of its municipal securities business, each broker, dealer and municipal securities dealer shall deal fairly with all persons and shall not engage in any deceptive, dishonest, or unfair practice. Thus, the rule requires dealers to deal fairly with issuers in connection with the underwriting of their municipal securities.  Whether or not an underwriter has dealt fairly with an issuer is dependent upon the facts and circumstances of an underwriting and cannot be addressed simply by virtue of the price of the issue. For example, in a competitive underwriting where an issuer reserves the right to reject all bids, a dealer submits a bid at a net interest cost it believes will enable it to successfully market the issue to investors. One could not view a dealer as having violated rule G-17 just because it did not submit a bid that the issuer considers fair. On the other hand, when a dealer is negotiating the underwriting of municipal securities, a dealer has an obligation to negotiate in good faith with the issuer. If the dealer represents to the issuer that it is providing the best market price available on this issue, and this is not the case, the dealer may violate rule G-17. Also, if the dealer knows the issuer is unsophisticated or otherwise depending on the dealer as its sole source of market information, the dealer’s duty under rule G-17 is to ensure that the issuer is treated fairly, specifically in light of the relationship of reliance that exists between the issuer and the underwriter. MSRB interpretation of December 1, 1997.

MSRB TRANSACTION REPORTING PROGRAM

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

October 1997

Most of these questions and answers were included in an MSRB mailing sent to each broker, dealer and municipal securities dealer on March 31, 1997. Questions numbered 60 and higher have been added since that mailing.

These questions and answers touch upon the following topics:

GENERAL QUESTIONS

CUSTOMER TRANSACTION REPORTING

• Preparing for Customer Transaction Reporting
• Completing the Customer Transaction Reporting Form
• Price and Yield
• Settlement Date
• Agency and Principal Transactions
• Control Numbers
• Records Amending and Cancelling Trades
• Submission of Files
• File Forwarding by NSCC
• Transaction Reporting to MSRB Using MSRB's Dial-Up Facility
• Testing Customer Transaction Reporting with the MSRB
• Record and File Format Questions
• Other Questions

 

INTER-DEALER TRANSACTION REPORTING

• Accrued Interest
• Executing Broker Symbol
• Time of Trade
• Problems in Inter-Dealer Transaction Reporting

 

QUESTIONS ADDED AFTER MARCH 1997

• Yield
• Commission
• File Format

 

GENERAL QUESTIONS

1. Q: What is the purpose of the requirement in MSRB rule G-14 to report each municipal securities transaction to the MSRB?

A: One purpose of the requirement is to make transaction information (e.g., prices and volumes) available to market participants. This is generally known as the "transparency" function of the MSRB Transaction Reporting Program. It is being accomplished at this time through a daily report that shows information such as the high, low and average prices of municipal securities that were traded four or more times on the previous day. A second, equally important, function of the program is market surveillance. Each transaction reported is entered into a database that essentially is an audit trail of transactions. This database is available only to the SEC, the NASD and other regulators charged with surveillance of the market. Transparency and surveillance functions have long been in existence in other major U.S. securities markets. The MSRB is responsible to bring these functions to full implementation in the municipal securities market.

2. Q: Have the requirements of G-14 been approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission?

A: Yes. The Commission approved the transaction reporting requirements described here on November 29, 1996 (Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 37998; see also MSRB Reports, Vol. 17, No. 1 [January 1997] at 3-8).

3. Q: When does compliance with these functions have to take place?

A: Inter-dealer transaction reporting began on January 23, 1995, with an amendment to rule G-14. (See MSRB Reports, Vol. 14, No. 5 [December 1994] at 3-6.) Each dealer should now be well aware of the specific requirements of reporting inter-dealer transactions. A number of notices have appeared in MSRB Reports indicating areas where attention is specifically needed to improve reporting. (See, e.g., MSRB Reports, Vol. 16, No. 2 [June 1996] at 9-12.) Customer transaction reporting begins with mandatory testing in July 1997 and full program operations are planned for early 1998.

4. Q: How does a dealer report municipal securities transactions to the MSRB?

A: The answer to the question differs depending upon whether the transaction is with another dealer ("inter-dealer transaction") or with an entity that is not a dealer ("customer transaction"). Inter-dealer transactions are reported by submitting the required transaction information, in proper form, to the automated comparison system for municipal securities. Dealers achieve both the automated comparison function and the transaction reporting function by submitting a single file to the comparison system. For customer transactions, dealers must produce a computer-readable file specifically for the MSRB and transmit that file to the MSRB each night.

CUSTOMER TRANSACTION REPORTING

Preparing for Customer Transaction Reporting

5. Q: What should dealers be doing now to prepare for customer transaction reporting?

A: After becoming familiar with the G-14 requirements, dealers should either be making changes to their computer systems necessary to produce and transmit customer transaction files, or making arrangements with clearing brokers or service bureaus who will do this on their behalf. Although the mandatory testing period does not begin until summer 1997, preparations should be made now.

6. Q: Is there anything else that a dealer can do now to prepare?

A: Each dealer should complete and return a Customer Transaction Reporting Form.

Completing the Customer Transaction Reporting Form

7. Q: In completing the information form for customer transaction reporting, whom should I identify as the "primary contact with the MSRB for purposes of customer transaction reporting"? Should I name our Municipal Securities Department Director or our Compliance Officer?

A: The primary contact should be the individual who will be ultimately responsible for ensuring that MSRB mailings and other communications (e.g., phone calls) on this subject will reach the appropriate persons in the firm. The primary contact will be the MSRB's initial contact regarding tests of customer transaction reporting.

8. Q: Who should be identified as the "point-of-contact regarding technical matters"?

A: The MSRB will contact this person on computer-related matters such as the firm's telecommunications and methods for transmitting files, how many characters each field should have in the record of a trade, what headers must be included in the files, etc.

9. Q: How do the above topics differ from the person designated for questions about the "correctness of trade details"?

A: A question about trade details might arise, for example, if MSRB calculates a yield that differs substantially from the dealer-reported yield for the same trade. MSRB staff may ask the dealer what it used to derive yield from dollar price to account for the difference. In general, the contact for "correctness of trade details" will be the person called if the question is about the substantive information being provided about a transaction.

10. Q: In response to the question on page one of the form, my firm does not effect municipal securities transactions, does not intend to do so and does not intend to submit transactions to the MSRB for other dealers. I will check the appropriate box and return the form. What should I do if my firm's plans later change?

A: Since all transactions in municipal securities will have to be reported to the MSRB, if a firm decides to begin effecting transactions or to submit transaction data, it should immediately contact the MSRB to obtain and complete this form.

11. Q: What is the "dial-up transmission facility" referred to in the form?

A: Most dealers will send customer trade data to the MSRB through National Securities Clearing Corporation (NSCC), but some low-volume transmissions may be done by dialing the MSRB's computer directly using a personal computer and telephone modem. By checking the appropriate box on the form, you may request more information about the dial-up facility from the MSRB. In response, the MSRB will mail information before testing begins that describes how the dial-up facility can be installed and used to report customer trades. (More detailed questions and answers about the dial-up facility are found below.)

12. Q: Where can I find a description of the data elements that must be included in transaction records?

A: The MSRB document entitled "File and Record Specifications for Reporting Customer Transactions" defines the data elements and provides format specifications for transaction records and files.

Price and Yield

13. Q: Both price and yield are required to be included for transactions on which the settlement date is known. Why is that?

A: One of the most difficult problems in collecting and disseminating accurate information on municipal securities transactions is that there are approximately 1.3 million different municipal securities. Typographical errors in trade input, for example, are always possible, and since there is generally not a stream of transaction data coming in on a specific issue, it is difficult for the system collecting the information to mechanically check reported information to ensure that it is not a likely input error. This is particularly important when it is recognized that the price information collected will be disseminated and reviewed by market participants on the next day and may be used as part of trading or investment decisions. Requiring both yield and price, along with the CUSIP number of the issue being reported, will allow the MSRB to mechanically perform mathematical checks that will help to ensure that the information being reported makes sense, given the coupon, maturity date and call features of the security. Other means of checking data accuracy also will be employed. For example, the CUSIP check digit is required to guard against typographical errors in the entry of CUSIP numbers. (More questions and answers about error correction are found below.)

14. Q: What if a yield cannot not be computed for a transaction done on a dollar price basis, for example, because the trade is in a variable rate security or in a defaulted security?

A: The trade may be submitted using a dollar price only in these cases. Note, however, that if the security is not known to the MSRB system as one which is a variable rate instrument or in default, the MSRB may contact you to ensure that its information about the security is correct and so that subsequent transaction input in the security will not be questioned in the future.

See also questions 60 and 61.

Settlement Date

15. Q: What if settlement for a transaction is not known because the transaction is in a new issue and settlement date has not been set?

A: The transaction should be reported with a yield or a dollar price and without a settlement date.

16. Q: If the settlement date for the transaction is determined after a submission is made without a settlement date, should the dealer report revised trade information to the MSRB?

A: No. If the only change in the transaction information is the settlement date on a new issue, the dealer should not send an amended transaction report. Once the settlement date for the new issue becomes known to the MSRB, that settlement date will be included in the transaction data automatically.

Agency and Principal Transactions

17. Q: When reporting dollar prices on agency transactions, should the effect of commissions be included in the dollar price submitted?

A: No. There is a separate field for submitting the commission amount on agency transactions. The MSRB will include the effect of the commission in the dollar price when aggregating principal and agency transactions and reporting price information on the daily report. There should be no "commissions" on principal transactions so that the dollar price given on principal transactions should be the net transaction dollar price to the customer.

18. Q: How should commissions be reported?

A: Commission is reported in dollars per $100 par value.

See also questions 62 and 63.

Control Numbers

19. Q: The file format requires each transaction submitted by a dealer to have a unique "control number" (unique for the dealer) that is no longer than 20 characters and that may be composed of alpha and/or numeric characters. Why is this necessary?

A: The control number given by the dealer is the mechanism by which the dealer identifies a specific transaction to the Transaction Reporting System. The dealer chooses its own numbering system; however, the control number for a transaction must be unique for the dealer within a three-year period. For example, if a dealer submits two different transactions with the same control number, the system may reject the second transaction. Use of the control number is critical so that the dealer may correct information submitted in error to the system. The MSRB also will use the dealer's control number to report back information to the dealer about the transaction.

Records Amending and Cancelling Trades

20. Q: Under what circumstances would a dealer need to correct information about a transaction submitted to the system?

A: An example might be a dealer who has made an input error resulting in the wrong price or yield being submitted for a transaction. Note that it is important for these errors to be corrected as soon as possible so that the audit trail and surveillance database is correct. Note also that it is important for errors like these to be minimized since the prices reported on trade date will be used for the daily reports appearing on the next business day.

21. Q: What will the MSRB do if it discovers a probable input error that has resulted in submitted transaction information?

A: As part of the daily process of collecting transaction information from dealers, the MSRB will send to each dealer that submitted transaction information a receipt with messages identifying errors in transactions that failed to meet acceptance testing, together with a copy of all such input records.

22 Q: What should happen next?

A: If the dealer finds that the record should be amended -- for example, because of a typographical error in the price -- he or she will submit an "Amend" record as soon as possible (i.e., a record with "A" as the "Cancel/Amend Code"). The "Amend" record must include the same dealer control number as the first report of the trade and must include all of the correct information about the trade. If the dealer finds that the questioned record was correct -- as might happen if the dealer knows features about the bond that affect the price/yield calculation and that are not in the MSRB's database -- a "Verify" record should be submitted, including the original dealer control number, to indicate that it is correct.

23. Q: What happens if I try to amend a transaction with a control number that I have not previously reported?

A: If a transaction is submitted with a "Cancel/Amend Code" of "A" and there is not an existing transaction in the database with that control number, the transaction information will be rejected -- that is, returned to the dealer for correction.

24. Q: Can I amend any information about a trade that I have previously reported?

A: No. The following fields cannot be amended: dealer identity, CUSIP number, and transaction control number. If you report a trade with an error in one of these fields, you should cancel the transaction report, as described below, and then report the trade using a new control number.

25. Q: Under what circumstances would a transaction be "cancelled" in the system and how is that done?

A: There may be limited numbers of instances in which customer transactions are reported, but the transactions later must be cancelled with customers due to circumstances beyond the dealer's control (for example, a new issue is cancelled). In this case, the dealer must submit a record with the control number of the transaction and with the "Cancel/Amend Code" set to "C" for "Cancel." Doing so will allow MSRB to indicate the transaction as cancelled in the surveillance database so that the database is accurate.

26. Q: For how long after initial submission is it possible for dealers to amend or cancel transactions that have been entered into the system?

A: This can be done for a period of three months after initial submission. However, for new issues for which there is no settlement date, it will be possible to submit cancellations until three months after the settlement date of the issue. Note that, while some numbers of cancellations and corrections are inevitable, it is important for dealers to minimize the need for these types of corrections by making sure that procedures are in place for reporting necessary information correctly in the initial submission.

Submission of Files

27. Q: When must a transaction be reported to the MSRB?

A: A transaction record, in the correct format, must reach the MSRB by midnight on trade date.

28. Q: How are these transaction records sent to the MSRB?

A: The records are put into a file with appropriate header information. The resulting file is sent to the MSRB.

29. Q: My firm is a clearing broker and will be submitting a file each day on behalf of many of our correspondents. Is there any special way in which the records in the file should be organized?

A: No. As long as the header information is correct and the information in each record is correct, the records within the file can be in any order. The header identifies the party submitting the file; the records may pertain to any number of executing dealers.

File Forwarding by NSCC

30. Q: My organization processes thousands of customer transactions in municipal transactions each day. How can such a large file be sent to the MSRB?

A: National Securities Clearing Corporation is providing its participants the ability to send the MSRB customer transaction file to NSCC along with other types of files that are sent to NSCC each day. NSCC will forward the MSRB customer transaction file to the MSRB.

31. Q: My firm uses another broker-dealer for clearing and processing municipal securities transactions. The clearing broker submits my inter-dealer transactions to NSCC on my behalf. Can the clearing broker submit my customer transaction reports to NSCC for forwarding on to the MSRB on my behalf?

A: Yes. The clearing broker can submit transaction reports for dealers for which it clears transactions. Note that the dealer effecting transactions is responsible for the clearing broker's performance in this regard. You should talk with your clearing broker now to ensure that it will provide this service.

32. Q: My firm uses a service bureau to submit inter-dealer transaction information to NSCC. Can the service bureau also submit customer transaction files to NSCC for forwarding to the MSRB?

A: Yes. As in the previous answer, the dealer effecting transactions is responsible to report the transactions correctly.

33. Q: Are there any special requirements for formatting the file to NSCC and getting the file to NSCC?

A: Yes. You should review NSCC's April 2, 1997 Important Notice on the interface requirements for customer transaction reporting (Notice No. A-4571 and P&S 4155). Similarly, if a clearing broker or service bureau will be sending your MSRB customer transaction files to NSCC for forwarding to the MSRB, they should ensure that the files can be sent in the correct format.

34. Q: Will customer transaction records submitted to NSCC for forwarding to the MSRB be included in the automated comparison system?

A: No. The MSRB customer transaction file sent to NSCC for forwarding to the MSRB is a totally separate file than the inter-dealer transactions and other files sent to NSCC for clearance and settlement purposes. NSCC will not process data in the MSRB customer transaction files, but will only forward the files to the MSRB. The use of NSCC for this purpose will allow dealers and service bureaus to use existing telecommunication channels set up between dealers and NSCC and between NSCC and the MSRB. Thus, it should provide efficiencies, especially for dealers that have many customer transactions each day. (An additional question on this subject is given below, under "Other Questions.")

Transaction Reporting to MSRB Using MSRB's Dial-Up Facility

35. Q: My firm submits its inter-dealer transactions to NSCC through a dial-up terminal or personal computer. Can I use this method of file transfer to transmit customer transaction files to NSCC for forwarding to the MSRB?

A: No; as noted in NSCC's Important Notice, all dial-up connections will be directly to the MSRB.

36. Q: How will this be done?

A: MSRB will offer a facility whereby dealers may send relatively small files directly to the MSRB by using a personal computer and a standard telephone modem, such as those made by Hayes, U.S. Robotics and others. The MSRB will provide telecommunications software by summer 1997 to dealers who ask for this service. Please note that this software will run only on computers using the Windows 95 or Windows NT operating systems. Also note that dealers using this method of transmitting files directly to the MSRB will still need a means to generate files from their own records that meet MSRB file and record format requirements.

Testing Customer Transaction Reporting with the MSRB

37. Q: What is the purpose of the mandatory testing?

A: The purpose of testing is to ensure each dealer that its own system can produce files containing the required information in the proper format, that it is able to correct erroneous input, and so forth. Testing is mandatory so that all dealers will be ready before the reporting requirement becomes effective in January 1998.

38. Q: What is the date for dealers to test their customer transaction reporting capabilities with the MSRB?

A: Mandatory testing will begin in July 1997. The MSRB plans to schedule the first tests with the dealers that have the greatest volume of customer trades and with service bureaus, followed by the lower-volume dealers. The MSRB will publicize the testing schedule before testing begins.

39. Q: What will happen during the test?

A: First, the MSRB will contact the designated primary contact person listed on your organization's MSRB Transaction Reporting form. Information will be obtained on how the organization will be submitting data, a fax number for the dealer to receive receipt/error logs from the MSRB, and technical details. Dates will be chosen to run your test. The contact person will arrange to send test files to the MSRB, using either NSCC or the MSRB dial-up facility, to establish that the telecommunications link is working, and that the trade records meet the format specifications.

40. Q: How long will the test last?

A: Each test cycle should take approximately five days. However, it may take more than one test cycle for a dealer to validate its methodology for creating files in the proper formats and for handling trade data corrections.

41. Q: Will there be special formats and test procedures for submission through NSCC?

A: Yes. As part of testing the communications, dealers and service bureaus will go through NSCC's usual procedures for setting up transmission of a new data stream or "SysID" - verifying that the file header meets Datatrak specifications, etc. Details are provided in the NSCC Important Notice previously mentioned (Notice No. A-4571 and P&S 4155).

Record and File Format Questions

42. Q: What is the format for the computer-readable file that must be sent to the MSRB each day to comply with the customer transaction reporting requirement?

A: For files sent directly to the MSRB via the MSRB dial-up facility, the physical formats for transaction records, and for the file header record that must precede them, are specified in the MSRB document entitled "File and Record Specifications for Reporting Customer Transactions." Files sent to NSCC will need to be in the format specified by NSCC. See NSCC's April 1997 Important Notice.

See also questions 64 through 66.

Other Questions

43. Q: Is the customer's identity included anywhere in the information reported?

A: No. The customer's identity is never submitted in reports of customer transactions. Each record must correctly indicate whether the transaction was a sale to a customer or a purchase from a customer, whether it is a principal or agency transaction, and certain other information.

44. Q: Are institutional and retail customer transactions reported in the same way?

A: Yes.

45. Q: How should the "Buy/Sell" code be reported?

A: If the dealer has sold securities to the customer, report this as "S" (sell). If the dealer has purchased securities from the customer, report this as "B" (buy).

46. Q: May I include my inter-dealer trades in the customer trade file I send to the MSRB?

A: No. All files submitted as part of a dealer's customer transaction file must report only customer transactions -- no inter-dealer transactions may be included.

INTER-DEALER TRANSACTION REPORTING

47. Q: How are inter-dealer transactions reported to the MSRB?

A: By submitting the transactions on trade date, to the automated comparison system, in the format and manner required by that system to obtain a comparison on the night of trade date. NSCC provides this information to the MSRB to accomplish transaction reporting for those trades. (Please note that these requirements are currently in effect under MSRB rule G-14.)

48. Q: What items are required by rule G-14, in addition to the items necessary to obtain an automated comparison of an inter-dealer trade on the night of trade date?

A: Specific items that are mandatory, in addition, to the information required for automated comparison, are: (i) accrued interest, on any transaction in which the settlement date is known; (ii) executing broker identity; and (iii) time of trade.

Accrued Interest

49. Q: Why does the MSRB need accrued interest in inter-dealer transaction reports?

A: For most transactions reported through the automated comparison system, dealers report a final money figure in lieu of a dollar price or yield. The MSRB derives a dollar price for these transactions by subtracting the reported accrued interest and dividing the result by the par amount traded. Therefore, if accrued interest is not reported correctly, the resulting dollar price may not be accurate.

Executing Broker Symbol

50. Q: Why does the MSRB need an "executing broker symbol"?

A: This symbol is used for the audit trail function. It identifies the dealer that actually effected the transactions (in contrast to the dealer that submitted the trade to NSCC or who cleared the trade). It is particularly important for dealer identification when one dealer clears for several other dealers. The dealer that actually effected the transaction should be the one identified with this symbol.

51. Q: What symbol should be used for executing broker identity?

A: The four-character symbol of the firm or bank assigned by the NASD, for example, ABCD.

52. Q: Is it permissible for my firm to use our NSCC clearing number (e.g., 1234) instead of this symbol? In our case, this would serve the same purpose since we only clear for ourselves.

A: No. The four-character alphabetic symbol is required, as it is the standard identifier used in the surveillance database. Note that, when the customer reporting phase of the Program becomes operational, this NASD-assigned symbol will be the primary identifier.

53. Q: My organization does not have one of these symbols. Should we just use the symbol of the dealer that we clear through?

A: No, if your organization is a broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer and it is effecting trades in municipal securities (with other dealers or with customers), it must use its own symbol.

54. Q: How does a dealer obtain an NASD-assigned symbol if it does not already have one?

A: Call NASD Subscriber Services at (800) 777-5606 and explain that you need a symbol for reporting municipal securities transactions.

55. Q: Will the NASD assign a symbol, even though my organization is a dealer bank?

A: Yes.

Time of Trade

56. Q: Why does the MSRB need the time of trade?

A: This information is also needed for audit trail purposes. It is not currently used in the transparency component of the program.

57. Q: How is time of trade submitted for inter-dealer transactions?

A: It is submitted in military format (e.g., 1400 for 2:00 p.m.) and in terms of Eastern time.

Problems in Inter-Dealer Transaction Reporting

58. Q: What kind of problems has the MSRB seen in the inter-dealer transaction information submitted under rule G-14?

A: For the daily report generated by the Program, only compared transactions can be used for generating price and volume information. It accordingly is very important for dealers to ensure that their procedures for reporting inter-dealer transactions are designed to submit correct information reliably to the automated comparison system. A significant number of the following types of transaction in the automated comparison system indicates that a dealer is having problems that require a review of its procedures and corrective action: (i) stamped advisories; (ii) "as of" submissions; (iii) "demand-as-of" submissions coming in against the dealer; (iv) compared transactions that are deleted using either the "one-sided delete" function or using the "withhold" function.

59. Q: My firm clears through a clearing broker. When my firm does trades with another firm that also uses that same clearing broker, must that transaction be reported to the MSRB by submitting the trade to the automated comparison system?

A: Yes. Note that the submission to the automated comparison system is also required in this instance by rule G-12(f) on automated comparison.

QUESTIONS ADDED AFTER MARCH 1997

Yield

60. Q: Should I report to the MSRB the transactions's yield to maturity or another yield -- yield to first call, yield to par call, etc.? My system calculates several yields for use in customer confirmations.

A: Report the yield as required by MSRB rule G-15(a) for customer confirmations. Rule G-15(a) in most cases requires the yield to be computed to the lower of call or nominal maturity date. Exception: If the transaction was effected at par, the yield (coupon rate) should be reported on the customer trade record, even though rule G-15(a) allows the yield to be omitted from the confirmation in such a case.

If reporting the yield is not possible because the transaction was done on a dollar price basis and no settlement date has been set for a "when-issued" security, leave the yield blank or enter zero.

61. Q: How should I report negative yield?

A: Enter a negative number in the "yield" field. The minus sign may precede or follow the number, as long as it is inside the defined field area.

Commission

62. Q: Should the effect of the commission be reported in the yield?

A: Yes. You should report as yield the same "net" yield that is reported on customer confirmations. Therefore, the reported yield should include the effect of any commission (see MSRB rule G-15(a)).

63. Q: Should miscellaneous fees such as transaction fees be included in the commission field or elsewhere? If the sales representative receives a portion of the firm's profit, should that portion be reported?

A: No. Neither miscellaneous fees nor sales representatives' portions should be reported.

File format

64. Q: Can I include binary data in the customer transaction file, along with ASCII data?

A: No. Binary data should not be included, even in the unused portions of the record. Including binary data will likely cause errors such as skipped records when MSRB processes the file. 
 

Q: The MSRB file header record requires a "version number." What should be put here?

A: This field identifies the version of the MSRB format specification that applies to the file. Initially, use '0010' here.

65. Q: The header record requires a "record count" field. What should be put here?

A: Put here the count of the number of transactions being reported in this file. Do not count the header record(s). Depending on the format used, the record count is the same as the number of physical transaction records or one-half the number of physical transaction records.

66. Q: If the header record of a transaction file contains errors, how will MSRB inform the submitter of this fact?

A: If the header of a file forwarded by NSCC does not identify a submitter and site known to the MSRB, then MSRB staff will ask NSCC to follow up. (MSRB will not accept any direct submissions by dial-up from unknown parties.) Otherwise, MSRB will send a receipt/error message file or fax to the submitter. The header errors will be identified in the file in the first two records following the receipt record, using the same format as for transaction detail errors.

Copyright 2000 Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board. All Rights Reserved. Terms and Conditions of Use.

Recently, dealers have raised questions regarding how the prohibition on municipal securities business in rule G-37, on political contributions and prohibitions on municipal securities business, applies to certain situations. Rule G-37 prohibits any dealer from engaging in municipal securities business with an issuer within two years after any contribution 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.[1] If a municipal finance professional makes a political contribution to an issuer official for whom he is not entitled to vote, the dealer is prohibited from engaging in municipal securities business with that issuer for two years. The Board has been asked whether the prohibition on municipal securities business extends to certain services provided under contractual agreements with an issuer that pre-date the contribution. The Board is issuing the following interpretation of the prohibition on municipal securities business pursuant to rule G-37.

"New" Municipal Securities Business

 A dealer subject to a prohibition on municipal securities business with an issuer may not enter into any new contractual obligations with that issuer for municipal securities business.[2] The Board adopted rule G-37 in an effort to sever any connection between the making of political contributions and the awarding of municipal securities business. The Board believes that the problems associated with political contributions––including the practice known as "pay-to-play"––undermine investor confidence in the municipal securities market, which confidence is crucial to the long-term health of the market, both in terms of liquidity and capital-raising ability.

Pre-Existing Issue-Specific Contractual Undertakings

The Board believes that it is consistent with the intent of rule G-37 that a dealer subject to a prohibition on municipal securities business with an issuer be allowed to continue to execute certain issue-specific contractual obligations in effect prior to the date of the contribution that caused the prohibition. For example, if a bond purchase agreement was signed prior to the date of the contribution, a dealer may continue to perform its services as an underwriter on the issue. Also, if an issue-specific agreement for financial advisory services was in effect prior to the date of the contribution, the dealer may continue in its role as financial advisor for that issue. In the same manner, a dealer may act as remarketing agent or placement agent for an issue and also may continue to underwrite a commercial paper program as long as the contract to perform these services was in effect prior to the date of the contribution. Subject to the limitations noted below, these activities are not considered new municipal securities business and thus can be performed by dealers under a prohibition on municipal securities business with the issuer.

Dealers also have asked questions regarding certain terms in contracts to provide on-going municipal securities business that allow for additional services or compensation. For example, a dealer may have an agreement to provide remarketing services for a municipal securities issue, the terms of which allow the issuer to change the "mode" of the outstanding bonds from variable to a fixed rate of interest or from Rule 2a-7 eligible to non-Rule 2a-7 eligible. [3] Generally, the per bond fee increases if the dealer sells fixed rate municipal securities or non-money market fund securities. Also, an agreement to underwrite a commercial paper program may include terms for increasing the size of the program. While the per bond fee probably does not increase if more commercial paper is underwritten, the amount of money paid to the dealer does increase. The Board views the provisions in existing contracts that allow for changes in the services provided by the dealer or compensation paid by the issuer as new municipal securities business and, therefore, rule G-37 precludes a dealer subject to a prohibition on municipal securities business from performing such additional functions or receiving additional compensation.

Non-Issue Specific Contractual Undertakings

Dealers also at times enter into long-term contracts with issuers for municipal securities business, e.g., a five-year financial advisory agreement. If a contribution is given after such a non-issue-specific contract is entered into that results in a prohibition on municipal securities business, the Board believes the dealer should not be allowed to continue with the municipal securities business, subject to an orderly transition to another entity to perform such business. This transition should be as short a period of time as possible and is intended to give the issuer the opportunity to receive the benefit of the work already provided by the dealer and to find a replacement to complete the work, as needed.

* * *

The Board recognizes that there is a great variety in the terms of agreements regarding municipal securities business and that the interpretation noted above may not adequately deal with all such agreements. Thus, the Board is seeking comment on how a prohibition on municipal securities business pursuant to rule G-37 affects contracts for municipal securities business entered into with issuers prior to the date of the contribution triggering the prohibition on business. In particular, the Board is seeking comment on other examples whereby a dealer may be contractually obligated to perform certain activities after the date of the triggering contribution. If other examples are provided, the Board would like comments on how these situations should be addressed pursuant to rule G-37.

Based upon the comments received on this notice, the Board may issue additional interpretations or amend the language of rule G-37. 

[1] The only exception to rule G-37’s absolute prohibition on municipal securities business is for certain contributions made to issuer officials by municipal finance professionals. Contributions by such persons to officials of issuers do not invoke application of the prohibition on business if (i) the municipal finance professional is entitled to vote for such official and (ii) contributions by such municipal finance professional do not exceed, in total, $250 to each official, per election.

[2] The term "municipal securities business" is defined in the rule to encompass certain activities of dealers, such as acting as negotiated underwriters (as managing underwriter or as syndicate member), financial advisors, placement agents and negotiated remarketing agents. The rule does not prohibit dealers from engaging in business awarded on a competitive bid basis.

[3] SEC Rule 2a-7 under the Investment Company Act of 1940 defines eligible securities for inclusion in money market funds

Financial advisor to conduit borrower.  This is in response to your letter concerning rule G-37, on political contributions and prohibitions on municipal securities business. You state that your firm served as financial advisor to the underlying borrower, not the governmental issuer, for a certain issue of municipal securities. You ask whether you are required to report this financial advisory activity on Form G-37/G-38.

Rule G-37(g)(vii) defines the term "municipal securities business" to include "the provision of financial advisory or consultant services to or on behalf of an issuer with respect to a primary offering of municipal securities in which the dealer was chosen to provide such services on other than a competitive bid basis." If the financial advisory services your firm provided were to the underlying borrower and not "to or on behalf of an issuer,"[1] then your firm was not engaging in "municipal securities business" and these financial advisory services are not required to be reported on Form G-37/G-38.  MSRB interpretation of January 23, 1997.
__________

[1] Rule G-37(g)(ii) defines "issuer" as the governmental issuer specified in section 3(a)(29) of the Securities Exchange Act.

Fairness opinions. This is in response to your letter concerning the retention of your firm by issuers to render a fairness opinion on the pricing associated with certain negotiated issues of general obligation municipal securities issued by [state deleted] governmental units. You ask whether the rendering of these fairness opinions on the pricing of municipal securities issues is a financial advisory activity which must be disclosed on Form G-37/G-38 as municipal securities business.

Rule G-23, on activities of financial advisors, states in paragraph (b) that a financial advisory relationship shall be deemed to exist when

a broker, dealer, or municipal securities dealer renders or enters into an agreement to render financial advisory or consultant services to or on behalf of an issuer with respect to a new issue or issues of municipal securities, including advice with respect to the structure, timing, terms and other similar matters concerning such issue or issues, for a fee or other compensation or in expectation of such compensation for the rendering of such services. [Emphasis added]

Thus, the activity your firm performs on behalf of issuers of municipal securities pursuant to an agreement (i.e. , rendering advice with respect to the terms of a new issue) establishes that a financial advisory relationship exists between your firm and these issuers.

Rule G-37, on political contributions and prohibitions on municipal securities business, requires dealers to report municipal securities business to the Board on Form G-37/G-38. The definition of "municipal securities business" contained in rule G-37(g)(viii) includes

the provision of financial advisory or consultant services to or on behalf of an issuer with respect to a primary offering of municipal securities in which the dealer was chosen to provide such services on other than a competitive bid basis.

Pursuant to the information contained in your letter, your firm should submit a Form G-37/G-38 during each quarter in which the firm reaches an agreement to provide the financial advisory services you described. If your firm has an on-going financial advisory arrangement with an issuer, your firm would need to list each new issue in which your firm acted as financial advisor during the quarter in which the new issue settled. I have enclosed for your information a copy of the Rule G-37 and Rule G-38 Handbook which includes instructions for completing and filing Form G-37/G-38. MSRB interpretation of January 10, 1997.