(First published July 12, 2017)

Effective May 14, 2018, amendments to MSRB Rule G-15 require dealers to disclose additional information on retail customer confirmations for a specified class of principal transactions, including the dealer’s mark-up or mark-down as determined from the prevailing market price (PMP) of the security. Dealers generally also are required to disclose on retail customer confirmations the time of execution and a security-specific URL to the MSRB’s Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA®) website.[1] Related amendments to Rule G-30, on prices and commissions, provide guidance on determining the PMP for the purpose of calculating a dealer’s mark-up or mark-down and for other Rule G-30 determinations.

Also, effective May 14, 2018, amendments to Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) Rule 2232 create similar confirmation disclosure requirements for other areas of the fixed income markets. Among other things, the FINRA amendments require dealers to determine their disclosed mark-ups and mark-downs from the PMP of the security that is traded, in accordance with existing guidance under FINRA Rule 2121.

Below are answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs) about the confirmation disclosure requirements under Rule G-15 and related PMP guidance under Rule G-30, Supplementary Material .06 (also referred to as the “waterfall” guidance or analysis). While these FAQs address MSRB rules only, FINRA has also issued guidance for the FINRA rules applicable to agency and corporate bonds. The MSRB and FINRA worked together to produce this guidance. While each has published its own version to refer to MSRB and FINRA rules and materials, respectively, the versions are materially the same and reflect the organizations’ coordinated approach to enhanced confirmation disclosure for debt securities. To the extent the MSRB and FINRA offer different guidance based on differences between the markets for corporate, agency and municipal securities, those differences are discussed in the context of the relevant question and answer.

During the implementation period, the MSRB will continue to work with dealers on questions related to the confirmation disclosure requirements and PMP guidance. Dealers are encouraged to contact the MSRB to suggest additional topics or questions for inclusion in the FAQs. Accordingly, the MSRB may add to, update or revise this guidance. The most recent date for the content of an answer will be clearly marked.

For ease of reference, unless otherwise noted, the term “mark-up” refers both to mark-ups applied to sales to customers and mark-downs applied to purchases from customers, and the term “contemporaneous cost” refers both to contemporaneous cost in the context of sales to customers and contemporaneous proceeds in the context of purchases from customers.

Section 1:  When Mark-Up Disclosure Is Required

1.1 When does Rule G-15 require mark-up disclosure?

A dealer is required to disclose on a customer confirmation the mark-up on a transaction in municipal securities with a non-institutional customer if the dealer also executes one or more offsetting principal transaction(s) on the same trading day as the customer transaction in an aggregate trading size that meets or exceeds the size of the customer trade. A non-institutional customer is a customer with an account that is not an institutional account, as defined in MSRB Rule G-8(a)(xi).

As noted during the MSRB’s confirmation disclosure rulemaking process, any intentional delay of a customer execution to avoid triggering the mark-up disclosure requirements may violate Rule G-18, on best execution, and Rule G-17, on conduct of municipal securities and municipal advisory activities.

SR-MSRB-2016-12 Proposed Rule Change to MSRB Rules G-15 and G-30, at 7 (September 1, 2016); MSRB Response to Comments on SR-MSRB-2016-12, at 3-4 (November 14, 2016)

(July 12, 2017)

1.2  Is mark-up disclosure required only where the sizes of same-day customer and principal trades offset each other?

Yes. Mark-up disclosure is required only where a customer trade offsets a same-day principal trade in whole or in part. For example, if a dealer purchased 100 bonds at 9:30 a.m., and then, as principal, satisfied three non-institutional customer buy orders for 50 bonds each in the same security on the same trading day without making any other purchases of the bonds that day, mark-up disclosure would be required only on two of the three customer purchases, since one of the trades would need to be satisfied out of the dealer’s prior inventory rather than offset by the dealer’s same-day principal transaction.

SR-MSRB-2016-12 Proposed Rule Change to MSRB Rules G-15 and G-30, at 4; 7-8 (September 1, 2016); MSRB Response to Comments on SR-MSRB-2016-12, at 3-4 (November 14, 2016); Amendment No. 1 to SR-MSRB-2016-12, at 4 (November 14, 2016)

(July 12, 2017)

1.2.1  Are position moves between separate desks within a firm considered “transactions” for purposes of determining whether a dealer has offsetting transactions that trigger a mark-up disclosure requirement?

No. Mark-up disclosure is triggered under Rule G-15 when a customer trade is offset by one or more “transactions.”  For purposes of the rule, the MSRB considers a “transaction” to entail a change of beneficial ownership between parties. Accordingly, if a retail desk within a dealer acquires bonds through a position move from another desk within the same firm and then sells those bonds to a non-institutional customer, the dealer is required to provide the customer with mark-up disclosure only if the dealer bought the bonds in one or more offsetting transactions on the same trading day as the sale to the customer (subject to the exceptions discussed in Question 1.7).

(March 19, 2018)

1.3  When are trades executed by a dealer’s affiliate relevant for determining whether the mark-up disclosure requirements are triggered?

If a dealer’s offsetting principal trade is executed with a dealer affiliate and did not occur at arm’s length, the dealer is required to “look through” to the time and terms of the affiliate’s trade with a third party to determine whether mark-up disclosure is triggered under Rule G-15. On the other hand, if the dealer’s transaction with its affiliate is an arms-length transaction, the dealer would treat that transaction as any other offsetting transaction (i.e., the dealer would not “look through” to the time and terms of the arms-length transaction).

SR-MSRB-2016-12 Proposed Rule Change to MSRB Rules G-15 and G-30, at 9­‑10; 23; 26 (September 1, 2016)

(July 12, 2017)

1.4  What is considered an “arms-length transaction” when considering whether a dealer must “look through” to the time and terms of an affiliate’s trade?

The term “arms-length transaction” is defined in Rule G-15(a)(vi)(I) to mean a transaction that was conducted through a competitive process in which non-affiliate firms could also participate, and where the affiliate relationship did not influence the price paid or proceeds received by the dealer. The MSRB has noted that as a general matter, it expects the competitive process used in an arms-length transaction to be one in which non-affiliates have frequently participated. In other words, the MSRB would not view a process, like a request for pricing protocol or posting of bids and offers, as competitive if non-affiliates responded to requests or otherwise participated in only isolated or limited circumstances.

Factors that may be relevant to a dealer’s determination that a transaction with an affiliate was conducted at arm’s length include, but are not limited to: counterparty anonymity during the competitive process to the time of execution; the presence of other competitive bids or offers, in addition to the affiliate's, in the competitive process; contemporaneous market activity in the same or a similar security (or securities) which is used to evaluate the relative competitiveness of bids or offers received during a competitive process; and a lack of preferential arrangements between the affiliates concerning, or based on, the handling of orders between them. The MSRB notes that no one of these factors is necessarily determinative on its own.

SR-MSRB-2016-12 Proposed Rule Change to MSRB Rules G-15 and G-30, at 9 (September 1, 2016)

(July 12, 2017)

(Updated March 19, 2018)

1.5  If a dealer has an exclusive agreement with a non-affiliated dealer under which it always purchases its securities from, or always sells its securities to, that non-affiliate, would the “look through” requirements apply when the dealer transacts with the non-affiliate?

No. The “look through” applies only to certain transactions between affiliated dealers. Under Rule G-15, a “look through” is required when the dealer’s offsetting transaction is with an affiliate and is not an “arms-length transaction.” A transaction with a non-affiliate would not meet these conditions, so a “look through” would not be required. The MSRB notes that dealers should continue to evaluate the terms and circumstances of any such arrangements in light of other MSRB rules and guidance, including best execution. In evaluating these terms and circumstances, dealers should consider whether they diminish the reliability and utility of mark-up disclosure to investors.

(July 12, 2017)

1.6  Does the mark-up disclosure requirement in Rule G-15 apply to transactions that involve a dealer and a registered investment adviser?

No. To trigger the mark-up disclosure requirement in Rule G-15, a dealer must execute a trade with a non-institutional customer. Under the rule, registered investment advisers are institutional customers; accordingly, mark-up disclosure is not required when dealers transact with registered investment advisers. This is the case even where the registered investment adviser with whom the dealer transacted later allocates all or a portion of the securities to a retail account or where the transaction is executed directly for a retail account if the investment adviser has discretion over the transaction. The MSRB notes that this answer is specific to the mark-up disclosure requirement in Rule G-15; it is not intended to alter any other obligations.

(July 12, 2017)

1.7  Are there any exceptions to the mark-up disclosure trigger requirements?

Yes. There are three exceptions. First, disclosure is not required for transactions in municipal fund securities. Second, mark-up disclosure is not necessarily triggered by principal trades that a dealer executes on a trading desk that is functionally separate from a trading desk that executes customer trades, provided the dealer maintains policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that the functionally separate trading desk had no knowledge of the customer trades. For example, the exception allows an institutional desk within a dealer to service an institutional customer without necessarily triggering the disclosure requirement for an unrelated trade performed by a separate retail desk within the dealer. Third, disclosure is not required for transactions that are list offering price transactions, as defined in paragraph (d)(vii)(A) of Rule G-14 RTRS Procedures.

SR-MSRB-2016-12 Proposed Rule Change to MSRB Rules G-15 and G-30, at 10 (September 1, 2016)

(July 12, 2017)

1.8  May dealers voluntarily provide mark-up disclosure on additional transactions that do not trigger mandatory disclosure?

Yes. In disclosing this information on a voluntary basis, dealers should be mindful of any applicable MSRB rules. For example, while mark-up disclosure is voluntary for trades that are not triggered by the relevant provisions of Rule G-15, the process for determining the PMP according to Rule G-30 applies in all cases. In addition, to avoid customer confusion, voluntary disclosure should also follow the same format and labeling requirements applicable to mandatory disclosure.

SR-MSRB-2016-12 Proposed Rule Change to MSRB Rules G-15 and G-30, at 13 n. 27 (September 1, 2016)

(July 12, 2017)

1.9  In arrangements involving clearing dealers and introducing or correspondent dealers, who is responsible for mark-up disclosure?

The introducing or correspondent dealer bears the ultimate responsibility for compliance with the disclosure requirements under Rule G-15. Although an introducing or correspondent dealer may use the assistance of a clearing dealer, as it may use other third-party service providers subject to due diligence and oversight, the introducing or correspondent dealer remains ultimately responsible for compliance.

(July 12, 2017)

Section 2:  Content and Format of Mark-Up Disclosure

2.1  What information must be included when dealers provide mark-up disclosure on a confirmation?

When mark-up disclosure is provided on a customer confirmation, Rule G-15 requires firms to express the disclosed mark-up as both a total dollar amount and a percentage amount of PMP. The mark-up should be calculated and disclosed as the total amount per transaction; disclosure of the per bond dollar amount of mark-up (e.g., $9.45 per bond) would not satisfy the requirement to disclose the total dollar amount of the transaction mark-up.

SR-MSRB-2016-12 Proposed Rule Change to MSRB Rules G-15 and G-30, at 12 (September 1, 2016)

(July 12, 2017)

2.2  Where is mark-up disclosure required to be located on a confirmation?

For printed confirmations, Rule G-15(a)(i)(E) requires the mark-up disclosure to be located on the front of the customer confirmation. For electronic confirmations, the disclosure should appear in a naturally visible place. Because the rule requires mark-up disclosure to be on the confirmation itself, the inclusion of a link on the customer confirmation that a customer could click to obtain his or her mark-up disclosure would not satisfy the requirements of Rule G-15.

(July 12, 2017)

2.3  May dealers use explanatory language to provide context for mark-up disclosure?

Yes. Dealers may include accompanying language to explain mark-up related concepts, or a dealer’s particular methodology for calculating mark-ups according to MSRB guidance (or to note the availability of information about the methodology upon request), provided such statements are accurate and not misleading. However, dealers may not label mark-ups as “estimated” or “approximate” figures, or use other such labels. These types of qualifiers risk diminishing the utility of the disclosure and of the dealer’s own determination of the security’s PMP and mark-up charged, and otherwise risk diminishing the value to retail investors of the disclosure.

MSRB Response to Comments on SR-MSRB-2016-12, at 11-12 (November 14, 2016)

(July 12, 2017)

2.4  If a dealer encounters a situation where a mark-up is negative (i.e., the dealer sold to the customer at a price lower than the PMP), may it choose to disclose a mark-up of zero instead?

The MSRB believes that negative mark-ups will be very infrequent; however, if such a case arises, a dealer may not disclose a mark-up of zero where the mark-up is not, in fact, zero. Dealers should disclose the mark-up that they calculate based on their determination of PMP consistent with Rule G-30. As an alternative to disclosing a negative mark-up, dealers are permitted to disclose “N/A” in the mark-up/mark-down field if the confirmation also includes a brief explanation of the “N/A” disclosure and the reason it has been provided. Dealers also have the flexibility to provide an explanation for trades with disclosed negative or zero mark-ups as well, consistent with Question 2.3 above.

(July 12, 2017)

2.5  How many decimal places should dealers use when disclosing the mark-up as a percentage amount?

Dealers should disclose the percentage amount rounded to at least two decimal places (e.g., hundredths of a percent). For example, if a dealer charged a $120 mark-up on a 10-bond transaction where the PMP was 99, the mark-up percentage should be disclosed to at least the hundredth of a percentage point, as 1.21% (as opposed to 1.2% or 1%). However, if a dealer charged a $100 mark-up on a 10-bond transaction where the PMP was 100, the mark-up percentage could be disclosed as 1.00% or 1%.

(March 19, 2018)

Section 3:  Determining Prevailing Market Price

3.1  How should dealers determine PMP to calculate mark-ups?

Dealers must calculate mark-ups from a municipal security’s PMP, consistent with Rule G-30 and the supplementary material thereunder, particularly Supplementary Material .06 (sometimes referred to as the “waterfall” guidance or analysis). Under the applicable standard of “reasonable diligence” (discussed below), dealers may rely on reasonable policies and procedures to facilitate PMP determination, provided the policies and procedures are consistent with Rule G-30 and are consistently applied.

SR-MSRB-2016-12 Proposed Rule Change to MSRB Rules G-15 and G-30, at 12 (September 1, 2016)

(July 12, 2017)

3.2  Does the PMP guidance in Rule G-30, Supplementary Material .06 apply for mark-up (and mark-down) disclosure purposes under Rule G-15 and for fair pricing purposes under Rule G-30?

Yes. Dealers should read the guidance in Supplementary Material .06 together with Rule G-30 and all the other supplementary material thereto. For example, while Supplementary Material .06 provides guidance in determining the PMP, Supplementary Material .01(a) explains that dealers must exercise “reasonable diligence” in establishing the market value of a security, and Supplementary Material .01(d) states that dealer compensation on a principal transaction with a customer is determined from the PMP of the security, as described in Supplementary Material .06. Read as a whole, Rule G-30 requires dealers to use reasonable diligence to determine the PMP of a municipal security in accordance with Supplementary Material .06.[2] This standard applies for mark-up disclosure purposes under Rule G-15 and for fair pricing purposes under Rule G-30.

SR-MSRB-2016-12 Proposed Rule Change to MSRB Rules G-15 and G-30, at 25; 28 (September 1, 2016); MSRB Response to Comments on SR-MSRB-2016-12, at 9-11 (November 14, 2016)

(July 12, 2017)

(Updated March 19, 2018)

3.2.1  Does the functionally separate trading desk exception apply for purposes of determining the PMP of a security?

No. As explained in the rule filing, this exception “would only apply to determine whether or not the [mark-up] disclosure requirement has been triggered; it does not change the dealer’s requirements relating to the calculation of its mark-up or mark-down under Rule G-30.”

SR-MSRB-2016-12 Proposed Rule Change to MSRB Rules G-15 and G-30, at n. 20 (September 1, 2016)

(March 19, 2018)

3.3  When reading the PMP guidance in Rule G-30, Supplementary Material .06, what does the language in parentheses mean?

Unless the context requires otherwise, language in parentheses that is not preceded by an “i.e.,” or “e.g.,” within sentences refers to scenarios where a dealer is charging a customer a mark-down. Thus, for example, in the phrase, “contemporaneous dealer purchases (sales) in the municipal security in question from (to) institutional accounts,” the terms “(sales)” and “(to)” apply where a dealer is charging a customer a mark-down.

(July 12, 2017)

3.4  When should dealers determine PMP and calculate the mark-up to be disclosed on a confirmation?

The MSRB recognizes that dealers may employ different processes for generating customer confirmations such that this may occur at the end of the day, or during the day for firms that use real-time, intra-day confirmation generation processes. Therefore, although the objective must always be to determine the price prevailing at the time of the customer transaction, different dealers may consistently conduct the analysis to make that determination at different times. Specifically, dealers may base their mark-up calculations for confirmation disclosure purposes on the information they have available to them (based on the exercise of reasonable diligence) at the time they systematically input relevant transaction information into the systems they use to generate confirmations.

This means that a dealer that systematically inputs the information at the time of trade may determine the PMP—and therefore, the mark-up—at the same time (even if the confirmation itself is not printed until the end of day). On the other hand, if a dealer systematically inputs such information at the end of the day, the dealer must use the information available to the dealer at that time to determine the price prevailing at the time of the customer transaction—and, therefore, the mark-up.

The timing of the determination must be applied consistently across all transactions in municipal securities (e.g., the dealer may not enter information into its systems at the time of trade and determine the PMP at the time of trade for some trades but at the end of the day for others).

SR-MSRB-2016-12 Proposed Rule Change to MSRB Rules G-15 and G-30, at 24 (September 1, 2016); MSRB Response to Comments on SR-MSRB-2016-12, at 10 (November 14, 2016)

(July 12, 2017)

3.4.1  May a dealer determine PMP between the time of trade and the end of the day? 

Yes. The MSRB recognizes that firms may employ different processes for generating customer confirmations, and dealers are not limited to determining PMP for purposes of confirmation disclosure only at the times provided as examples in Question 3.4 (i.e., the time of trade or the end of the day). While the objective must always be to determine the price prevailing at the time of the customer transaction, as noted above in Question 3.4, PMP may be determined for disclosure purposes when a firm systematically enters the information into its confirmation generation system, based on information that is reasonably available to it at that time. Accordingly, a dealer may determine PMP at various times, including at the time of the trade, at the end of the day, or at times in between, provided the dealer does so according to reasonable, consistently applied policies and procedures and does not “cherry pick” favorable data.

(March 19, 2018)

3.4.2  May a dealer determine PMP at the time of trade (or at some other time before the end of the day) and wait until later in the day to analyze which trades triggered the disclosure requirement?

Yes. A dealer may determine PMP, enter the PMP information into a confirmation generation system, and later populate the mark-up field only on confirmations of trades that trigger disclosure. The MSRB would expect in such cases that the PMP determination would not be subject to change when the dealer performs the trigger analysis later in the day, other than for a reasonable exception review process (as discussed in Question 3.8.1). In all cases, dealers must follow consistently applied policies and procedures and may not “cherry pick” favorable data. Dealers are reminded that when determining PMP, they must use the information reasonably available to them at the time of the PMP determination and that the objective is always to determine the price prevailing at the time of the customer transaction.

(March 19, 2018)

3.4.3  What is considered a confirmation generation system, for purposes of the guidance on when dealers may determine PMP for disclosure purposes?

As noted above in Question 3.4, the MSRB recognizes that dealers may employ different processes for generating customer confirmations. For purposes of this guidance, the MSRB would consider a dealer to enter information systematically into a confirmation generation system when it stores the information in a location that is part of the confirmation generation process. The MSRB expects that the stored PMP information would not be subject to change, other than for a reasonable exception review process (as discussed in Question 3.8.1). The MSRB also expects that a dealer will clearly explain in its policies and procedures its confirmation generation process, including the timing and role of each material step in the process.

(March 19, 2018)

3.5  Once dealers determine PMP and input relevant information into their confirmation generation systems, would they be required to cancel and correct a confirmation to revise a disclosed mark-up if later events might contribute to a different PMP determination?

No. The disclosure must be accurate, based on the dealer’s exercise of reasonable diligence, as of the time the dealer systematically inputs the information into its systems to generate the disclosure. Once the dealer has input the information into its confirmation generation systems, the MSRB does not expect dealers to send revised confirmations solely based on the occurrence of a subsequent transaction or event that would otherwise be relevant to PMP determination under Rule G-30. On a voluntary basis, dealers may correct a confirmation, pursuant to reasonable and consistently applied policies and procedures.

SR-MSRB-2016-12 Proposed Rule Change to MSRB Rules G-15 and G-30, at 24 (September 1, 2016)

(July 12, 2017)

3.5.1 If a dealer corrects the price to a customer or determines that, at the time the dealer systematically entered the information into its systems to generate the mark-up disclosure, the PMP was inaccurate, must the dealer send a corrected confirmation that reflects a corrected mark-up disclosure and price?

Yes. Consistent with Question 3.5, dealers are not required to cancel and correct a confirmation to revise a disclosed mark-up solely based on the occurrence of a subsequent transaction or event that would otherwise be relevant to PMP determination under Rule G-30. However, if the dealer corrects the price to the customer or determines that a PMP was inaccurate at the time it was systematically entered into the dealer’s confirmation generation system, the dealer must send a confirmation that reflects an accurate mark-up and price.

(March 19, 2018)

3.6  May dealers engage third-party vendors to perform some or all of the steps required to fulfill the mark-up disclosure requirements?

Yes. Dealers may engage third-party service providers to facilitate mark-up disclosure consistent with Rules G-15 and G-30. For example, dealers that wish to perform most of the steps of the waterfall internally may choose to use the services of a vendor at the economic models level of the waterfall. Other dealers may wish to use the services of a vendor to perform most or all of the steps of the waterfall. In either case, the dealers retain the responsibility for ensuring the PMP is determined in accordance with Rule G-30 and that the mark-up is disclosed in compliance with Rule G-15 and must exercise due diligence and oversight over their third-party relationships.

As a policy matter, the MSRB does not endorse or approve the use of any specific vendors.

MSRB Response to Comments on SR-MSRB-2016-12, at 8 (November 14, 2016)

(July 12, 2017)

3.7  May dealers use a third-party evaluated pricing service as an economic model at the final step of the waterfall?

Yes. However, before doing so, the dealer should have a reasonable basis for believing the third-party pricing service’s pricing methodologies produce evaluated prices that reflect actual prevailing market prices. A dealer would not have a reasonable basis for such a belief, for example, where a periodic review of the evaluated prices provided by the pricing service frequently (over the course of multiple trades) reveals a substantial difference between the evaluated prices and the prices at which actual transactions in the relevant securities occurred. In choosing to use evaluated prices from any pricing service, a dealer should assess, among other things, the quality of the evaluated prices provided by the service and the extent to which the service determines its evaluated prices on an intra-day basis.

To be clear, dealers are not required to use such pricing services at this stage of the waterfall analysis. Rather, third-party evaluated pricing services are only one type of economic model. Other types of economic models may include internally developed models such as a discounted cash flow model or a reasonable and consistent methodology to be used in connection with an applicable index or benchmark. Dealers are reminded that when using an internally developed model, the dealer must be able to provide information that the dealer used on the day of the transaction to develop the pricing information (i.e., the data that was input and the data that the model generated and the dealer used to arrive at the PMP).

MSRB Response to Comments on SR-MSRB-2016-12, at 8 (November 14, 2016)

(July 12, 2017)

(Updated March 19, 2018)

3.8  May dealers use or rely on automated systems to determine PMP?

Yes. While dealers are not required to automate the PMP determination and mark-up disclosure, they may choose to do so, provided they (and/or their vendors) do so consistent with Rule G-30 and Rule G-15, and all other applicable rules. The MSRB has provided guidance in several areas during the rulemaking process to facilitate automation for firms that choose to employ it. First, as noted above in Question 3.4, dealers are permitted on certain conditions to determine PMP on an intra-day basis (e.g., at the time of trade), allowing dealers that generate confirmations intra-day to continue to do so. Second, as noted in Question 3.1 and discussed throughout this guidance, the MSRB has acknowledged that dealers may develop policies and procedures that rely on reasonable, objective criteria to apply the PMP guidance in Supplementary Material .06 at a systematic level. Consistent with the reasonable policies and procedures approach, the MSRB further recognized during the rulemaking process that reasonable policies and procedures could result in different firms making different PMP determinations for the same security. (The MSRB would expect, however, that the consistent application of policies and procedures within a dealer would result in different traders or desks arriving at PMP determinations that are substantially the same under comparable facts and circumstances.)

MSRB Response to Comments on SR-MSRB-2016-12, at 7-8 (November 14, 2016)

(July 12, 2017)

3.8.1 May dealers adopt a reasonable exception review process to evaluate PMP determinations?

Yes. As a general matter, the MSRB expects that dealers will employ supervisory review processes that consider, among other things, the reliability of their (or their vendors’) PMP determinations. To review reliability, a dealer might review PMP determinations that result in mark-ups that exceed pre-determined thresholds, and it also might compare PMP determinations with some other measure of market value to ascertain whether the PMP determinations fall outside pre-established ranges.

In cases where a dealer reviews PMP determinations before the associated trade confirmations are sent, dealers may correct PMP determinations to promote more accurate mark-up calculations, provided they do so according to reasonable and consistently applied policies and procedures. As a general matter, however, the MSRB expects that it will be rare for a dealer to correct the PMP of a security based on exception reporting, and documentation in such situations will be paramount. To prevent “cherry picking,” the dealer’s policies and procedures should be specific in describing the PMP review process and the conditions under which the dealer may show that a PMP was erroneous (e.g., the PMP determination was based on an isolated transaction, or a PMP determined through the use of an economic model did not reflect recent news about the security). If a dealer determines that a PMP is erroneous, it must correct it consistent with Rule G-30, and it must do so using the information reasonably available to it at the time it makes the correction.

There may also be cases where a dealer’s exception review process results in corrected customer trade prices. For example, a dealer may review a trade where the mark-up exceeded a pre-determined threshold and the PMP was determined correctly. Dealers may refer to Question 3.5.1 in these cases.

(March 19, 2018)

3.9  May dealers develop objective criteria to automatically determine whether a trade is “contemporaneous” for purposes of establishing a presumptive PMP at the first step of the waterfall analysis?

Yes. Dealers may establish an objective set of criteria to determine whether a trade is contemporaneous, provided the objective criteria are established based on the exercise of reasonable diligence. For example, dealers could define an objective period of time as a default proxy for determining whether the trade is contemporaneous. Dealers could also define criteria to consider other relevant factors, such as whether intervening trades by other firms occurred at prices sufficiently different than the dealer’s trade to suggest that the dealer’s trade no longer reasonably reflects the current market price for the security, or whether changes in interest rates or the credit quality of the security, or news reports were significant enough to reasonably change the PMP of the security.

Given the different trading characteristics of different municipal securities, and relevant court and SEC case law applicable to debt securities in general, it likely would not be reasonable for a dealer’s policies and procedures to determine categorically that all transactions that occur outside of a specified time frame are not “contemporaneous.” Accordingly, dealers should include in their policies and procedures an opportunity to review and override the automatic application of default proxies (e.g., by reconsidering the application for transactions identified through reasonable exception reporting and specifying designated time intervals (or market events) after which such proxies will be reviewed).

(July 12, 2017)

3.10  Since Rule G-15 adopts a same-day trigger standard for mark-up disclosure, would it be reasonable to assume a same-day standard for determining whether trades are contemporaneous for purposes of determining PMP under Rule G-30?

The MSRB notes that the determination of whether mark-up disclosure is required under Rule G-15 is distinct from the determination of whether a transaction is contemporaneous under the waterfall analysis. The PMP guidance under Rule G-30 provides that a dealer’s cost is considered contemporaneous if the transaction occurs close enough in time to the subject transaction that it would reasonably be expected to reflect the current market price for the municipal security. While same-day transactions may often be contemporaneous according to this meaning, the MSRB has not set forth a specific time-period that is categorically contemporaneous. As noted above in Question 3.9, the MSRB would expect that dealers developing objective criteria for this purpose would base the determination of such criteria on the exercise of reasonable diligence.

(July 12, 2017)

3.11  How should dealers determine their contemporaneous cost if they have multiple contemporaneous purchases?

Dealers may rely on reasonable and consistently applied policies and procedures that employ methodologies to establish PMP where they have multiple contemporaneous principal trades. For example, a dealer could employ consistently an average weighted price or a last price methodology. Such methodologies could further account for the type of principal trade, giving greater weight to principal trades with other dealers than to principal trades with customers.

MSRB Response to Comments on SR-MSRB-2016-12, at 12-13 (November 14, 2016)

(July 12, 2017)

3.12  What is the next step in the analysis, when determining contemporaneous cost or proceeds, if a dealer has no contemporaneous transactions with another dealer?

Where the dealer has no contemporaneous cost or proceeds, as applicable, from an inter-dealer transaction, the dealer must then consider whether it has contemporaneous cost or proceeds, as applicable, from a customer transaction. Note that, because the dealer’s contemporaneous cost or proceeds from a customer transaction will also include the mark-up or mark-down charged in that transaction, the dealer should adjust its contemporaneous cost or proceeds from that customer transaction to account for the mark-up or mark-down included in the price. In these instances, the difference between the dealer’s “adjusted contemporaneous cost or proceeds” (the dealer’s contemporaneous cost or proceeds in the customer transaction, adjusted by the mark-up or mark-down) and the price to its customer is equal to the mark-up (or mark-down) to be disclosed on customer confirmations under Rule G-15. The MSRB has noted that this approach allows the dealer to avoid “double counting” in the mark-up and mark-down it discloses to each customer. For example, if a dealer buys 100 bonds from Customer A at a price of 98 and immediately sells 100 of the same bonds to Customer B at a price of 100, the dealer may apportion the mark-up and mark-down paid by each customer. Assuming for illustration that the dealer determines the PMP in accordance with the waterfall guidance to be 99, then the dealer would disclose to Customer A a total dollar amount mark-down of $1,000, also expressed as 1.01% of PMP, and it would disclose to Customer B a total dollar amount mark-up of $1,000, also expressed as 1.01% of PMP.[3]

SR-MSRB-2016-12 Proposed Rule Change to MSRB Rules G-15 and G-30, at 21 (September 1, 2016)

(July 12, 2017)

(Updated March 19, 2018)

3.12.1  May dealers adopt a reasonable default proxy or process to apportion the mark-up and mark-down on contemporaneous customer buy and sell transactions, as contemplated in Question 3.12? 
Yes. As explained in Question 3.12, the purpose of adjusting a dealer’s contemporaneous cost or proceeds in the case of contemporaneous customer buy and sell transactions is to arrive at a more accurate indication of the PMP of the securities, for example, by avoiding “double counting” in the mark-up and mark-down disclosed. Consistent with this goal, as an alternative to the process described in Question 3.12, dealers may adopt a reasonable default proxy or process to apportion the amount of the total mark-up and mark-down charged on contemporaneous customer transactions. Such proxy or process should be based upon and not inconsistent with a reasonable review of the typical mark-ups and mark-downs actually charged in the dealer’s municipal securities transactions. For example, assume that, based upon a review of the actual mark-ups and mark-downs charged on a dealer’s municipal securities transactions, a dealer determines that its mark-ups on municipal securities transactions are typically larger than its mark-downs by a quantifiable amount. The dealer may use such information to develop a consistently applied apportionment methodology—for example, by consistently apportioning x% of the total mark-up and mark-down to the customer buy transaction and y% of the total mark-up and mark-down to the sale transaction. If such a default proxy or process is adopted, a dealer should be mindful to review its continued appropriateness over time in a manner that is consistent with the dealer’s ongoing supervisory and compliance obligations.

(June 10, 2020)

3.13  May dealers adjust their contemporaneous cost to reflect what they believe to be a more accurate PMP, or their role taking risk to provide liquidity?

Dealers may adjust their contemporaneous cost only in one case: where a dealer’s offsetting trades that trigger disclosure under Rule G-15 are both customer transactions (discussed above at Question 3.12). Other adjustments to reflect the size or side of market for a dealer’s contemporaneous cost are not permitted.

(July 12, 2017)

3.14  May dealers apportion their expected aggregate monthly fees—for example to access an alternative trading system (ATS) or other trading platform—to individual contemporaneous transactions to be included in their contemporaneous costs?

No. For any given mark-up on a transaction, Supplementary Material .06 requires dealers to look first to their contemporaneous cost as incurred. The MSRB does not believe it would be consistent with Rule G-30 for dealers to consider an estimated apportionment of a future charge to be part of the specific cost they incurred in a contemporaneous transaction.

(July 12, 2017)

3.15  In determining contemporaneous cost, may dealers include transaction fees—for example to access an ATS or other trading platform—that were included in the price they paid?

Yes, provided the transaction fee is reflected in the price of the contemporaneous trade that is reported to EMMA, consistent with MSRB rules and guidance on pricing, trade reporting and fees. The MSRB will monitor and adjust this guidance as needed if it determines that pricing practices change in a way that diminishes the utility and reliability of mark-up disclosure.

(July 12, 2017)

3.16  May a dealer treat its own contemporaneous transaction as “isolated” and therefore disregard it when determining PMP?

No. Under Supplementary Material .06, isolated transactions or isolated quotations generally will have little or no weight or relevance in establishing PMP. The guidance also specifically provides that, in the municipal market, an “off-market” transaction may qualify as an isolated transaction. Through cross-references, Supplementary Material .06 makes clear that a dealer may deem a transaction or quotation at the hierarchy of pricing factors or similar-securities level of the waterfall to be isolated. However, the concept of “isolated” transactions or quotations does not apply to a dealer’s contemporaneous cost, which presumptively determines PMP.

SR-MSRB-2016-12 Proposed Rule Change to MSRB Rules G-15 and G-30, at 19; 21 (September 1, 2016)

(July 12, 2017)

3.17  Supplementary Material .06 notes that changes in interest rates may allow a dealer to overcome the presumption that its own contemporaneous cost is the best measure of PMP. Does this refer only to formal policy interest rate changes, or does it also contemplate market changes in interest rates?

It refers to any change in interest rates, whether the change is caused by formal policy decisions or market events. However, Supplementary Material .06 notes that a dealer may overcome the presumption that its contemporaneous cost is the best measure of PMP based on a change in interest rates only in instances where they have changed after the dealer’s transaction to a degree that such change would reasonably cause a change in municipal securities pricing.

(July 12, 2017)

3.18  Supplementary Material .06 notes that changes in the credit quality of the municipal security may allow a dealer to overcome the presumption that its own contemporaneous cost is the best measure of PMP. Does this refer only to formal credit rating changes, or does it also contemplate market changes in implied or observed credit spreads such as those due to market-wide credit spread volatility or anticipated changes in the credit quality of the individual issuer?

It refers to any changes to credit quality, with respect to that particular security or the particular issuer of that security, whether the change is caused by a formal ratings announcement or market events. Thus, for example, this could include changes in the guarantee or collateral supporting repayment as well as significant recent information concerning the issuer that is not yet incorporated in credit ratings (e.g., changes to ratings outlooks). However, Supplementary Material .06 notes that a dealer may overcome the presumption that its contemporaneous cost is the best measure of PMP based on a change in credit quality only in instances where it has changed significantly after the dealer’s transaction.

(July 12, 2017)

3.18.1 When considering inter-dealer trades at the hierarchy of pricing factors level of the waterfall analysis, if the only contemporaneous inter-dealer trades in the security are executed at the same time and involve a broker’s broker or an ATS, may a dealer choose to determine PMP by reference to the inter-dealer trade price which is reasonably likely to be on the opposite side of the market from the dealer seeking to determine PMP?

Yes. Consistent with the standard of reasonable diligence, dealers may adopt a reasonable approach to consistently choosing between or referring to multiple contemporaneous inter-dealer trades. If the only contemporaneous inter-dealer trades in the security are executed at the same time and involve a broker’s broker or an ATS in the security, it may be reasonable for the dealer seeking to determine PMP to do so by reference to the trade price which is reasonably likely to be on the opposite side of the market from the dealer seeking to determine PMP.

For example, assume that Dealer XYZ is selling a municipal security to a retail customer. Also, assume that the dealer lacks contemporaneous cost and that there are only two contemporaneous inter-dealer transactions in the security, and that both of those transactions occur at the exact same time and in the exact same trade amount. Additionally, both inter-dealer transactions are identified by an ATS special condition indicator on EMMA. One transaction is executed at a price of 113.618 and the other is executed at a price of 113.868. Assume further that the difference between these two ATS transaction prices is in the customary and typical range of the fee an ATS would charge for its services. In this case, it may be reasonable for Dealer XYZ to conclude that the transaction at 113.618 reflects a sale from a dealer to an ATS taking a principal position in the security, and that the transaction at 113.868 reflects a sale from that ATS to another dealer. Under these circumstances, Dealer XYZ may reasonably determine the PMP by reference to the transaction at 113.868, because the counterparty to the ATS in that transaction was purchasing the security and thus on the opposite side of the market from the side of Dealer XYZ in its customer trade.

(March 19, 2018)

3.19 May dealers adopt a reasonable default proxy where the waterfall guidance refers to trades between dealers and institutional accounts with which any dealer regularly effects transactions in the same security, if such information cannot be ascertained through reasonable diligence?

Yes. Consistent with the Rule G-30 standard of “reasonable diligence” in establishing the PMP of a municipal security, dealers reasonably may use objective criteria as a proxy for the elements of these steps of the waterfall that they cannot reasonably ascertain, such as whether a customer transaction involves an institutional customer and whether that institutional customer regularly trades in the same security with any dealer. A reasonable approach might assume that transactions at or above a $1,000,000 par amount involve institutional customers, since that size transaction is conventionally considered to be an institutional-sized transaction. In addition, because institutional investors transacting at or above this size threshold are typically sophisticated investors, the same size proxy might be used to assume that the institutional customer regularly transacts with a dealer in the same security.

(July 12, 2017)

3.19.1 May a dealer reasonably determine that new issue trade prices executed at list offering/takedown prices are not reflective of the PMP at the time of their execution?

Yes. Because new issues may be priced days before the transactions are executed and reported to RTRS, a dealer may, but is not required to, determine that new issue trades executed at list offering or takedown prices are not reflective of the PMP at the time of their execution. These transactions generally are denoted by a list offering price/takedown indicator on EMMA and in the MSRB Transaction Subscription Service. Market participants may also determine the list offering price by viewing the security’s home page (i.e., the Security Details page) on EMMA.

(March 19, 2018)

3.20  Can an “all-to-all” platform (i.e., one that allows non-dealers to participate) qualify as an inter-dealer mechanism at the step of the waterfall that refers to bids and offers for actively traded securities?

Yes, provided that the dealer determines that the prices available on an “all-to-all” platform are generally consistent with inter-dealer prices. Dealers should include in their policies and procedures how they will periodically review a platform’s activity to make such a determination.

(July 12, 2017)

3.21  When considering bid and offer quotations from an inter-dealer mechanism, how many inter-dealer mechanisms must a dealer check before considering the next category of factors under the waterfall analysis?

The obligation to determine PMP requires a dealer to use reasonable diligence. It does not require a dealer to seek out and consider every potentially relevant data point available in the market. With respect to this factor in the waterfall analysis, a dealer must only seek out and consider enough information to reasonably determine that there is no probative information to determine PMP before proceeding to the next category of factors.

(July 12, 2017)

3.22  In considering bids and offers for actively traded securities made through an inter-dealer mechanism, how can a dealer determine that transactions generally occur at the displayed quotations on the inter-dealer mechanism?

Consistent with the Rule G-30 standard of reasonable diligence and a reasonable policies and procedures approach, a dealer could request and assess from the platform relevant statistics and relevant information reasonably sufficient to conclude that the inter-dealer mechanism meets the applicable requirements under Supplementary Material .06. A dealer could then periodically request and assess updated statistics and relevant information to confirm that the inter-dealer mechanism continues to satisfy the requirements.

(July 12, 2017)

3.23  At the similar securities stage of the waterfall analysis, how can a dealer determine on a systematic basis that an inter-dealer quotation is “validated”?

Consistent with the standard of reasonable diligence and a reasonable and consistently applied policies and procedures approach to the PMP determination, for example, a dealer could determine that a bid (offer) quotation is validated if it is quoted on an “inter-dealer mechanism” (including the all-to-all platforms that qualify, as discussed above). With respect to a dealer’s own bids or offers, dealers are reminded of their existing regulatory obligations under applicable MSRB rules regarding bona fide bids or offers and the requirement that any published quotations must be based on the dealer’s best judgment of the fair market value of the securities. See, e.g., Rule G-13 and MSRB Notice to Dealers That Use the Services of Broker’s Brokers (December 22, 2012). Dealers are also reminded that under Rule G-30, Supplementary Material .06, isolated transactions or isolated quotations (including those that are off-market) generally will have little or no weight or relevance in establishing the PMP of a security.

Due to the lack of bid (offer) quotations for many municipal securities, under the waterfall analysis, dealers in the municipal securities market may not often find information from contemporaneous bid (offer) quotations in the municipal securities market.

(July 12, 2017)

(Updated March 19, 2018)

3.24  May a dealer use the same process it uses to identify a “similar” security for best-execution purposes to identify “similar” securities for PMP purposes?

Yes. Assuming the dealer’s process for identifying “similar” securities for Rule G-18 best-execution purposes is reasonable and in compliance with Rule G-18, a dealer may rely on the same process in connection with identifying similar securities under Rule G-30, Supplementary Material .06.

Alternatively, due to the different purposes of the “similar” security analysis for best-execution purposes as compared to PMP determination purposes, dealers reasonably may adopt a more restrictive approach to identifying “similar” securities for Rule G-30 than they may for Rule G-18. While the relevant part of the best-execution analysis under Rule G-18 seeks to identify the best market to address a customer’s order or inquiry by reference to another security, the relevant part of the waterfall analysis seeks to identify the PMP of one security by reference to another security. Further, Rule G-30 Supplementary Material .06 provides that, in order to qualify as a “similar” security, at a minimum, the municipal security should be sufficiently similar that a market yield for the subject security can be fairly estimated from the yield of the “similar” security. Due to the large number and diversity of municipal securities, the MSRB is of the view that, generally, if the prices or yields of a security would require an adjustment in order to account for differences between the security and the subject security, it would be reasonable for a dealer to determine that that security is not sufficiently “similar” to the subject security for purposes of Supplementary Material .06. To be clear, dealers have the flexibility to determine that a security that requires an immaterial adjustment in order to account for differences is sufficiently “similar” for these purposes, but they are not required to do so. This approach also is consistent with the MSRB’s view that, in order for a security to qualify as sufficiently “similar,” the security must be at least highly similar to the subject security with respect to nearly all the “similar” security factors listed in Rule G-30 Supplementary Material .06(b)(ii) that are relevant to the subject security.

Whichever approach a dealer chooses to apply, the dealer must apply that approach consistently across all municipal securities.

Due to the lack of active trading in many municipal securities and the above discussion regarding the identification of “similar” securities in the municipal securities market, under the waterfall analysis, dealers in the municipal securities market may not often find information from sufficiently similar securities as compared to dealers in other fixed income markets.

Because of the unique characteristics of the municipal securities market, the MSRB response to this question may differ from the FINRA interpretation under FINRA Rule 2121.

(July 12, 2017)

3.24.1 How many “similar” securities must a dealer consider at the “similar” securities stage of the waterfall analysis?

The obligation to determine PMP requires a dealer to use reasonable diligence. It does not require a dealer to seek out and consider every potentially relevant data point available in the market. At this point in the waterfall analysis, a dealer must only seek out and consider enough information to reasonably determine that it has identified the prevailing market price of the security (or that there is no probative information to determine PMP before proceeding to the next level). A dealer’s policies and procedures should explain the process for identifying similar securities (and, if relevant, how the dealer may adjust the prices or yields of identified similar securities). Because the reasonable diligence standard is often guided by industry norms, dealers should periodically revisit their policies and procedures to ensure that their established processes continue to remain reasonable.

Due to the unique characteristics of the municipal securities market, including the large number of issuers and the bespoke nature of many municipal securities, it is unlikely that the dealer will identify a substantial number of “similar” securities for many municipal securities. For example, it would be reasonable for a dealer to determine that a comparison security is not sufficiently “similar” to the subject security for purposes of Supplementary Material .06 if the prices or yields of the comparison security would require an adjustment in order to account for differences between that security and the subject security.

(March 19, 2018)

3.25  How is the “relative weight” provision in paragraphs (a)(v) (regarding the hierarchy of pricing factors) and (a)(vi) (regarding similar securities) of Supplementary Material .06 meant to be used in operation?

This provision is meant to be used when there is more than one comparison transaction or quotation within the categories specified in the hierarchy of pricing factors and when there is more than one comparison transaction or quotation within the similar securities level of the waterfall analysis. In these cases, a dealer may consider the facts and circumstances of the comparison transactions or quotations to determine the weight or degree of influence to attribute to a particular transaction or quotation. For example, a dealer might give greater weight to more recent (timely) comparison transactions or quotations. Similarly, to the extent a dealer considers comparison transactions or quotations in which the dealer is on the same side of the market as the dealer in the subject transaction (if known from dealer customer trade reports),[4] a dealer might give relatively less weight or influence to such information in determining PMP than information from transactions or quotations in which the dealer was on the opposite side of the market from the dealer in the subject transaction.

Consistent with the standard of reasonable diligence and a reasonable policies and procedures approach to the PMP determination, a dealer may adopt a reasonable methodology that it will consistently apply when considering the facts and circumstances of comparison transactions or quotations and assigning relative weight to such transactions or quotations. For example, a dealer might employ an average weighted price methodology (if all relevant trade sizes are publicly available) or last price methodology, provided its policies and procedures called for the reasonable and consistent use of the methodology and did not ignore potentially relevant facts and circumstances, such as side of the market.

Due to the unique characteristics of the municipal securities market, the MSRB response to this question may differ from the FINRA interpretation under FINRA Rule 2121.

(July 12, 2017)

(Updated March 19, 2018)

3.26  When dealers consider the hierarchy of pricing factors under Supplementary Material .06(a)(v), or similar securities factors under paragraph (a)(vi), may they consider the size of comparison transactions to determine their relative weight?

Yes. Paragraphs (a)(v) and (a)(vi) include a non-exhaustive list of facts and circumstances that may impact the “relative weight” of comparison transactions or quotations that may be considered at that point in the waterfall analysis. The MSRB believes it would be reasonable to consider the size of a comparison transaction when considering its relative weight.

(July 12, 2017)

3.27  What is an “applicable index” as that term is used at the “similar securities” level of Supplementary Material .06?

Supplementary Material .06 lists a number of non-exclusive factors that a dealer can look to in determining whether a security is sufficiently “similar” to the subject security. One of these factors is how comparably they trade over an applicable index or U.S. Treasury securities of a similar duration. The inclusion of the more general term “applicable index,” is intended to give dealers flexibility to consider, for example, commonly used municipal market bond indices, yield curves and benchmarks as these may be more relevant than data on Treasury securities (especially for tax-exempt bonds).

Amendment No. 1 to SR-MSRB-2016-12, at 5 (November 14, 2016)

(July 12, 2017)

3.28  Must dealers keep their PMP determination for each trade in their books and records?

The MSRB believes that dealers should keep records to demonstrate their compliance with Rule G-30, particularly where they have the evidentiary burden to demonstrate why a contemporaneous transaction was not the best measure of PMP for a given trade. The MSRB further notes that it would expect PMP documentation to be an important component of a firm’s system to supervise compliance with Rules G-15 and G-30.

SR-MSRB-2016-12 Proposed Rule Change to MSRB Rules G-15 and G-30, at 20 n. 39 (September 1, 2016); MSRB Response to Comments on SR-MSRB-2016-12, at 8 (November 14, 2016)

(July 12, 2017)

(Updated March 19, 2018)

3.29  Is there a difference between the PMP that is determined for mark-up disclosure purposes under Rule G-15 and for fair pricing purposes under Rule G-30?

As noted during the rulemaking process, the MSRB recognizes that by allowing dealers to determine PMP for mark-up disclosure purposes at the time of entry of information into systems for confirmation generation, a mark-up disclosed on a confirmation may not reflect subsequent trades that could be considered “contemporaneous” under Supplementary Material .06. However, the MSRB does not believe it is necessary to make a formal distinction between a PMP determined for disclosure purposes and a PMP determined for other regulatory purposes. Still, in connection with any post-transaction fair pricing review process, dealers should not disregard any new information relevant under Supplementary Material .06 that occurs after the mark-up determination (e.g., contemporaneous proceeds obtained after the customer transaction).

SR-MSRB-2016-12 Proposed Rule Change to MSRB Rules G-15 and G-30, at 14; 25; 28 (September 1, 2016); MSRB Response to Comments on SR-MSRB-2016-12, at 10 (November 14, 2016)

(July 12, 2017)

Section 4:  Time of Execution and Security-Specific URL Disclosures

4.1  When must dealers disclose the time of execution on a customer confirmation?

Under Rule G-15, dealers must disclose the time of execution for all transactions, including principal and agency transactions. However, for transactions in municipal fund securities and transactions for an institutional account, as defined in Rule G-8(a)(xi), in lieu of disclosing the time of execution, dealers may instead include on the confirmation a statement that the time of execution will be furnished upon written request of the customer. This time-of-execution disclosure requirement is not limited to circumstances where mark-up disclosure is triggered; therefore, it is required even where mark-up disclosure is not.

SR-MSRB-2016-12 Proposed Rule Change to MSRB Rules G-15 and G-30, at 13-14 (September 1, 2016); Amendment No. 1 to SR-MSRB-2016-12, at 4-5 (November 14, 2016)

(July 12, 2017)

4.2  How should the time of execution be disclosed?

Dealers have an obligation under Rule G-14, on reports of sales or purchases of municipal securities, to report the “time of trade” to the MSRB’s Real-Time Transaction Reporting System. In addition, dealers have an obligation under Rule G-8(a)(vii) to make and keep records of the time of execution of principal transactions in municipal securities. The time of execution for confirmation disclosure purposes is the same as the time of trade for Rule G-14 reporting purposes and the time of execution for purposes of Rule G-8(a)(vii), except that dealers should omit all seconds, without rounding to the minute, from the time-of-execution disclosure because the trade data displayed on EMMA does not include seconds.

Alternatively, if disclosure in this format is operationally challenging or burdensome for a dealer, a dealer may choose to disclose the seconds, again without rounding to the minute (e.g., a time of trade of 10:00:59 may be disclosed as 10:00:59 or 10:00). Additionally, because EMMA displays the time of trade in eastern standard time (EST), dealers may disclose on the customer confirmation the time of execution in either military time (as reported to RTRS under Rule G-14) or in traditional EST with an AM or PM indicator (e.g., a time of trade of 14:00:59 may be disclosed on a confirmation as 14:00:59, 14:00, 2:00:59 PM or 02:00 PM). The time-of-execution disclosure format used by a dealer should be consistent for all municipal securities transaction confirmations on which the disclosure is provided.

SR-MSRB-2016-12 Proposed Rule Change to MSRB Rules G-15 and G-30, at 14 n. 29 (September 1, 2016); MSRB Response to Comments on SR-MSRB-2016-12, at 6 n. 11 (November 14, 2016)

(July 12, 2017)

(Updated March 19, 2018)

4.3  When must dealers disclose a security-specific URL on a customer confirmation?

Under Rule G-15, dealers must disclose a security-specific URL, in a format specified by the MSRB as discussed below, for all non-institutional customer trades other than transactions in municipal fund securities, even where mark-up disclosure is not required. In the rare situations where there is no CUSIP assigned for a security that is subject to Rule G-15 at the time the dealer trades the security with a customer, the dealer is not required to include the security-specific URL on the customer confirmation.

SR-MSRB-2016-12 Proposed Rule Change to MSRB Rules G-15 and G-30, at 13-14; 27; 35 (September 1, 2016); Amendment No. 1 to SR-MSRB-2016-12, at 4 (November 14, 2016)

(July 12, 2017)

(Updated March 19, 2018)

4.4  What is the security-specific URL that must be disclosed?

The template for the URL that must be disclosed under Rule G-15 is:  https://emma.msrb.org/cusip/[insert CUSIP number]. [5] The URL is currently live and operational. Paper confirmations must include this URL with the security-specific CUSIP in print form; electronic confirmations must include the security-specific URL as a hyperlink to the web page.

MSRB Response to Comments on SR-MSRB-2016-12, at 6 (November 14, 2016)

FINRA has provided its own security-specific URL template in its guidance.

(July 12, 2017)

(Updated March 19, 2018)

4.5  Do dealers need to provide any other disclosure concerning the security-specific URL?

Yes. Dealers must include a brief description of the type of information that is available on the security-specific web page for the subject security, such as information about the prices of other transactions in the same security, the official statement and other disclosures for the security, ratings and other market data and educational material. To be clear, the disclosure does not need to describe with specificity all of the information available on the relevant web page. As described above, the description should be brief. Additionally, it only needs to describe enough information about the relevant web page that a reasonable investor would understand the type of information available on that page. For example, the following language would satisfy this obligation: “For more information about this security (including the official statement and trade and price history), visit [insert link]."[6]  Because this language is an example only, dealers may use other language to describe the content of the web page.

As a reminder, Rule G-15(a)(i)(E) requires all requirements to be clearly and specifically indicated on the front of the confirmation, subject to limited exceptions. Because the description of the type of information available on the security-specific web page is not listed as an exception, it must be on the front of the confirmation.

SR-MSRB-2016-12 Proposed Rule Change to MSRB Rules G-15 and G-30, at 13; 27 (September 1, 2016); MSRB Response to Comments on SR-MSRB-2016-12, at 6 n. 9 (November 14, 2016)

(July 12, 2017)

(Updated March 19, 2018)

4.6 Is disclosure of the time of execution or security-specific URL required for transactions that involve a dealer and a registered investment adviser?

No. Disclosure of the time of execution and security-specific URL is not required for transactions with an institutional customer. Under Rule G-15, a registered investment adviser is an institutional accountholder; accordingly, disclosure is not required for these transactions. This is the case even if the registered investment adviser with whom the dealer transacted later allocates all or a portion of the securities to a retail account or where the transaction is executed directly for a retail account if the investment adviser has discretion over the transaction. The MSRB notes that this answer is specific to the time-of-execution and security-specific URL disclosure requirements in Rule G-15; it is not intended to alter any other obligations.

(July 12, 2017)

[1] EMMA is a registered trademark of the MSRB.

[2] Prior to May 14, 2018, Supplementary Material .01(d) provides that dealer compensation on a principal transaction is considered to be a mark-up or mark-down that is computed from the inter-dealer market price prevailing at the time of the customer transaction. As of May 14, 2018, the reference to the prevailing “inter-dealer” price is amended to instead, as noted above, reference the “prevailing market price,” as described in Supplementary Material .06. Supplementary Material .06, which applies to customer transactions and not internal position movements, generally embodies the principle that the PMP of a security is generally the price at which dealers trade with one another. This underlying principle does not mean that dealers may avoid following the steps of the waterfall analysis in the specific order prescribed in Supplementary Material .06. However, it remains a useful principle that dealers may wish to consider in approaching certain unspecified aspects of the waterfall analysis. The MSRB’s responses to Questions 3.11, 3.12, 3.20 and 3.23, in part, are reflective of this underlying principle. Other answers, including those in response to Questions 3.9, 3.10, 3.21 and 3.25 are reflective of the MSRB’s longstanding “reasonable diligence” standard, discussed above.

[3] This example assumes that the dealer has identified that it has contemporaneous cost and proceeds at the time that it is determining the mark-up and mark-down to each customer. If this is not the case, however, because the dealer systematically inputs information into its systems for the generation of PMP at the time of trade, then there is a different result. For example, assume that the trade at 98 occurs at 10:00 AM, the trade at 100 occurs at 3:00 PM and these trades are contemporaneous. If the dealer systematically determines PMP at the time of trade, consistent with Question 3.4, at the time of the 10:00 AM trade, the dealer may simply proceed down the waterfall to determine the PMP for the security without the need to adjust that PMP. At the time of the 3:00 PM trade, however, the dealer should adjust its contemporaneous cost as described above to account for the mark-down included in the price.

[4] At the institutional transactions and quotations categories in the hierarchy of pricing factors level of the waterfall, generally, dealers consider information from only one side of the market, depending on whether the dealer is charging a mark-up or mark-down. However, pursuant to reasonable and consistently applied policies and procedures, a dealer may consider information from transactions in which the dealer is on the other side of the market when reasonable to do so. For example, this may be reasonable where the dealer has identified no comparison transactions in which the dealer is on the opposite side of the market as the dealer in the subject transaction. In this case, the dealer may reasonably adjust the transaction price by an amount to account for the price at which that transaction might have occurred had it been a transaction in which the dealer was on the opposite side of the market from the dealer in the subject transaction. Also for example, where the dealer has identified comparison transactions on both sides of the market, the dealer reasonably may perform a similar adjustment (i.e., adjust a price from a transaction in which the dealer is on the same side of the market as the dealer in the subject transaction by an amount to account for the price at which that transaction might have occurred had it been a transaction in which the dealer was on the opposite side of the market from the dealer in the subject transaction). A dealer’s ability to consider such information may be particularly important in the municipal market in which securities often trade infrequently and in which dealers may often have such limited information available to them at the time of their PMP determination.

[5] The MSRB previously announced the URL template as: http://emma.msrb.org/cusip/[insert CUSIP number]. Accordingly, confirmations for dealers that began to program their confirmations in accordance with the previously announced URL template may begin with the http format, rather than the https format. The MSRB does not expect such dealers to reprogram the URLs provided on customer confirmations as the http format will continue to function and will automatically redirect to the more secure https site.

[6] As a reminder, for dealers that currently seek to satisfy their obligation to provide a copy of the official statement to customers under Rule G-32(a)(iii) by notifying customers of the availability of the official statement through EMMA, the provision of the link described in this set of FAQs would satisfy both the relevant Rule G-15 security-specific URL obligation and the Rule G-32(a)(iii), provided that, for purposes of Rule G-32(a)(iii), the URL address also is accompanied by the additional information described. For example, if a dealer included the sample description included in this question, the addition of the language “Copies of the official statement are also available from [insert dealer name] upon request” would satisfy both the Rule G-15 security-specific URL obligation and Rule G-32(a)(iii) obligations. 

Background

In November 1998, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (the “MSRB” or “Board”) published an interpretation about the use of electronic media to deliver and receive information by brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers (collectively, “dealers”) under Board rules (the “1998 Interpretation”).[1] The 1998 Interpretation addresses how dealers may use electronic media to satisfy their delivery obligations under MSRB rules, including communications among dealers and between dealers and issuers. It states, “. . . a dealer that undertakes communications required under Board rules with other dealers and with issuers in a manner that conforms with the principles stated [in the 1998 Interpretation] relating to customer communications will have met its obligations with respect to such communications.”[2]

Discussion

The MSRB wishes to remind dealers of the 1998 Interpretation, particularly in light of the January 13, 2020 compliance date for certain amendments to MSRB Rule G-11, on primary offering practices.[3] Among other modifications, the amendments to Rule G-11 require senior syndicate managers to provide certain information to issuers regarding allocations and net designations.

The MSRB understands that dealers acting as senior syndicate managers may use external third-party electronic systems or proprietary electronic systems to manage aspects of the primary offering process, such as the tracking of orders, the automated communication of certain information to syndicate members, and other electronic data sharing features (“electronic bookrunning systems”). With respect to certain information required to be delivered to other dealers and issuers under Rule G-11, the Board believes that such information may be provided by electronic means so long as the standards established in the 1998 Interpretation with respect to electronic communications are met, including providing timely and adequate notice that such information may be accessed electronically. For example, with respect to Rule G-11(g)(ii), within two business days following the date of sale, a senior syndicate manager can inform an issuer that allocation information is available electronically (e.g., on an electronic bookrunning system that an issuer has access to) by pushing notice to the issuer (e.g., email). Additionally, consistent with the 1998 Interpretation, a dealer should provide a paper version of the allocation information should an issuer request or object to receiving the information electronically.

[1] See Exchange Act Release No. 40848 (Dec. 28, 1998), 64 FR 544 (Jan. 5, 1999) (File No. SR-MSRB-98-12); see also Notice Regarding Electronic Delivery and Receipt of Information by Brokers, Dealers and Municipal Securities Dealers (Nov. 20, 1998).

[2] Id. 

[3] See MSRB Notice 2019-15 (June 28, 2019).

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.