The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) provides these answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs) to enhance market participants’ understanding of permissible and impermissible uses of social media as part of their municipal securities business or municipal advisory activities under MSRB Rule G-21, on advertising by brokers, dealers or municipal securities dealers (collectively, “dealers”), and under MSRB Rule G-40, on advertising by municipal advisors (Rule G-21, together with Rule G-40, the “advertising rules”). These FAQs can assist dealers and municipal advisors (collectively, “regulated entities”) with their compliance with the MSRB’s advertising rules.

In developing these FAQs, the MSRB has been mindful of the potential burden on a regulated entity if there were to be unnecessary inconsistencies between any adopted MSRB social media guidance and similar guidance issued by other regulators that may be applicable to other aspects of the regulated entity’s business. To that end, and to the extent practicable, the MSRB has endeavored to align these FAQs with the social media guidance published by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (FINRA).[1]

The FAQs discuss compliance with MSRB rules; regulated entities are reminded that they also may be subject to the rules of other financial regulators, including state regulators. Further, a regulated entity’s use of social media to conduct municipal securities or municipal advisory activities is optional, and the responsibilities that follow from that social media usage are not new here. In particular, a regulated entity should consider its ability to comply with the existing recordkeeping requirements under the federal securities laws and incorporated into MSRB rules when determining whether to use social media to conduct municipal securities or municipal advisory activities and whether to permit its associated persons to use social media to conduct municipal securities or municipal advisory activities.

Background

Rule G-21 and Rule G-40, effective as of the date of these FAQs, set forth general provisions, address professional advertisements by the relevant regulated entity and require principal approval, in writing, for advertisements by regulated entities before their first use.

These FAQs were initially developed in 2019 as a result of requests for guidance regarding the use of social media by a regulated entity under MSRB Rules G-21 and G-40 and were updated thereafter. These FAQs provide the requested guidance.

Consistent with MSRB Rule D-11, references in the FAQs to a dealer, municipal advisor or regulated entity generally include the associated persons of such dealer, municipal advisor or regulated entity.[2]

Use of Social Media

1.     Is social media use by a regulated entity relating to its municipal securities business or municipal advisory activities considered advertising under the MSRB’s advertising rules?

Yes, depending on the facts and circumstances. With limited exceptions, any material that relates to (i) the products or services of the dealer, (ii) the services of the municipal advisor, or (iii) the engagement of a municipal advisory client by the municipal advisor, may constitute an advertisement under the MSRB’s advertising rules, if it is:

• published or used in any electronic or other public media; or
• written or electronic promotional literature distributed or made generally available to either customers or municipal entities, obligated persons, municipal advisory clients or the public.

To the extent that the use of social media, including blogs, microblogs and social and professional networks, by a regulated entity is deemed advertising based on its content and distribution, that advertising would be subject to all applicable provisions of Rules G- 21 and G-40. Those provisions include content standards and a requirement that an advertisement be pre-approved by a principal before its first use.

Further, dealers and municipal advisors should bear in mind that “posts” or “chats” on social media, including those deemed advertising, are subject to all other applicable MSRB rules.

Those rules include:

• MSRB Rule G-17, on conduct of municipal securities and municipal advisory activities;
• MSRB Rule G-27, on supervision;
• MSRB Rule G-44, on supervisory and compliance obligations of municipal advisors;
• MSRB Rule G-8, on books and records to be made by brokers, dealers, municipal securities dealers, and municipal advisors; and
• MSRB Rule G-9, on retention of records.    

2.     Can an associated person’s personal social media use be deemed “advertising” that is subject to the MSRB’s advertising rules?

Potentially, yes. An associated person’s personal social media use would not per se be advertising that is subject to the MSRB’s advertising rules. Whether an associated person’s personal social media use is advertising depends on whether the content of the social media relates to (i) the products or services of the dealer, (ii) the services of the municipal advisor, or (iii) the engagement of a municipal advisory client by the municipal advisor, as relevant.

• For example, an associated person of a regulated entity “posts” the following on his personal social media that is viewable by the public rather than a selected audience:

Let’s help our children! ABC Youth Group is having a car wash to raise funds for a new basketball court on May 18th at 3:00 pm at XYZ address. Get your car washed and help out.

The content in the “post” in the above example does not relate to (i) the products or services of the dealer, (ii) the services of the municipal advisor, or (iii) the engagement of a municipal advisory client by the municipal advisor. Even though the “post” is publicly available, the “post” would not be advertising that is subject to the MSRB’s advertising rules.

Similarly, an associated person may hyperlink from his or her personal social media to content on his or her dealer’s or municipal advisor’s social media. The “hyperlinking” by the associated person to the regulated entity’s social media would not constitute an advertisement if that hyperlinked content does not relate to the matters referenced in the preceding paragraph.[3]

• For example, a “post” from associated person FGH’s personal social media contains a hyperlink to an article on municipal advisor ABC’s website about an animal shelter rebuilding after recent flooding. The “post” is viewable by the public.

The “post” would not be advertising that is subject to the MSRB’s advertising rules. The “post,” although it contains a hyperlink to a regulated entity’s website, links to content that does not relate to the municipal advisory services of the municipal advisor or the engagement of a municipal advisory client by a municipal advisor.

By contrast, to the extent that an associated person of a dealer or municipal advisor engages in advertising, as defined by Rules G-21 and G-40, on his or her personal social media, that advertising would be subject to the requirements of the MSRB’s advertising rules.

• For example, an associated person of ABC municipal advisor posts the following on his or her personal social networking page that is viewable by the general public:

I’m happy to be part of the team! ABC municipal advisor was rated the best in XYZ state for airport financings during 2017 according to DEF rating service. ABC municipal advisor has great experience in airport financings, and can help you with your next project.

The “post” would be an advertisement, as defined in Rule G-40(a)(i). The content of the electronically distributed “post” (i) promotes the expertise and experience of ABC municipal advisor and solicits inquiries about its services and (ii) is generally available to municipal entities, obligated persons, municipal advisory clients or the public. As such, even though the advertisement was “posted” on the associated person’s personal social networking page, the “post” would be subject to the requirements of Rule G-40 as well as all other applicable MSRB rules. See question 1.

3.    Do the MSRB’s advertising rules apply to hyperlinked content on an independent third-party website from a regulated entity’s website?

The MSRB’s advertising rules would apply to hyperlinked content on an independent third-party’s website from a regulated entity’s website in those instances where the regulated entity either:

• involved itself in the preparation of content on that third-party website— this is known as entanglement;[4]; or
• implicitly or explicitly approved or endorsed the content on that third-party website —this is known as adoption.[5]

Accordingly, if a regulated entity either becomes entangled with or adopts the hyperlinked content, the regulated entity has obligations under MSRB’s advertising rules for that content.

• For example, on its website, ABC dealer states that XYZ municipal entity has a great article about the financing for its new school (ABC dealer was the underwriter for that financing), and ABC dealer provides a hyperlink to that article.

In this case, ABC dealer, by stating it was a great article, would have adopted the article on XYZ’s website, and the content of that article would be subject to Rule G-21. Further, depending on the facts and circumstances, ABC may have adopted the article by linking to its specific content even without stating that the article was a great article. See question 4. A regulated entity should consider whether the context of the hyperlink and the content of the hyperlinked information together create a reasonable inference that the regulated entity has approved or endorsed the hyperlinked information.[6]

Similarly, a regulated entity may become entangled with hyperlinked content.

• For example, CDE municipal advisor assists XYZ issuer with the preparation of a press release about a financing to build a new school. The press release discusses how the financing method will save taxpayer dollars, but does not mention CDE municipal advisor. CDE municipal advisor then posts a hyperlink on its website to the press release on XYZ issuer’s website.

In this case, CDE municipal advisor, because it helped prepare the press release, would have become entangled with the press release, and the hyperlinked content would be an advertisement subject to Rule G-40.

See Question 7 for discussion regarding third-party posts.

4.    What factors are relevant for a regulated entity to consider as it determines whether it has adopted the hyperlinked content on an independent third-party’s website?

While non-exclusive, some factors to consider are:[7]

• Does the context suggest that the regulated entity has approved or endorsed the hyperlinked content? The regulated entity may want to consider its disclosure about the hyperlink and what a reader may imply by the location and presentation of the hyperlink. For example:

  • Does the regulated entity state that it approves or endorses the prominently-featured hyperlinked content (in which case, the regulated entity would have adopted the hyperlinked content), or does the regulated entity have a portion of its website that links to recent general news articles and provides hyperlinks to the websites of various newspapers or magazines (depending on the facts and circumstances, in most cases, the regulated entity would not have adopted such content)?[8]

  • Does the hyperlinked content indicate a degree of selective choice by the regulated entity, such as a hyperlink to a specific news article that is laudatory of the regulated entity, as compared to a hyperlink to the website of the newspaper?[9]

  • Does the regulated entity provide an explanation about the source of a hyperlinked article and why the regulated entity is hyperlinking to it in order to avoid the inference that the regulated entity is adopting the hyperlinked content?[10]

  Although a regulated entity’s hyperlink to specific independent third-party content may indicate adoption of that content, if the hyperlinked content itself is not an advertisement, the regulated entity’s hyperlink to that content would not be an advertisement under Rules G-21 and G-40.

  • For example, ABC dealer includes a hyperlink on its website to an article regarding the importance of saving for college on an independent third- party’s website. The article does not identify any particular 529 savings plan, any dealer, or any municipal security.

  In this case, ABC dealer hyperlinks to an article that is purely educational. Because the hyperlinked content does not address ABC dealer or a municipal security offered through ABC dealer, the hyperlinked content would not be an advertisement, and ABC dealer’s hyperlink to that content would not be an advertisement that is subject to Rule G-21.

• Does the hyperlink create customer or municipal advisory client confusion? The regulated entity may want to consider whether a customer or municipal advisory client would be confused and not fully appreciate that the hyperlink is to third-party content. Does the regulated entity provide disclosure to explain that the hyperlink is to third-party content?[11]

• Is the hyperlink to content that is not controlled by the regulated entity and is the hyperlink ongoing? When a regulated entity links to content that is hosted by an independent third-party that is not controlled or influenced by the regulated entity, that content may not be advertising subject to the MSRB’s advertising rules if the hyperlink is “ongoing.”

  An “ongoing” link is one which: (i) is continuously available to visitors to the regulated entity’s website; (ii) visitors to the regulated entity’s site have access to even though the independent third-party site may or may not contain favorable material about the regulated entity; and (iii) visitors to the regulated entity’s website have access to even though the independent third-party’s website may be revised.[12] A regulated entity may not have adopted the content on the independent third-party’s website if the link is “ongoing.”

However, where a regulated entity has become entangled with the hyperlinked content on a third-party website (to the extent that hyperlinked content otherwise meets the definition of an advertisement), that hyperlinked content would be an advertisement under Rules G-21 and G-40 and the regulated entity must consider all applicable provisions of the MSRB’s advertising rules, including with respect to the hyperlinked content.[13] Therefore, a regulated entity should not include hyperlinked content on its website if there are any red flags that indicate that the hyperlinked content contains false or misleading material.[14]

5.    May a regulated entity use a disclaimer alone to disclaim potential MSRB rule violations for hyperlinked content on an independent third-party website?

No, the MSRB generally would not view a disclaimer alone as sufficient to insulate a regulated entity from potential MSRB rule violations related to hyperlinked content on an independent third-party website that the regulated entity knows or has reason to know is materially false or misleading. A regulated entity that hyperlinks to content that the regulated entity knows or has reason to know is materially false or misleading may violate Rules G-17, G-21 and/or G-40.[15]

6.    Do the MSRB’s advertising rules apply to linked content within independent third- party content to which a regulated entity hyperlinked?

No, Rules G-21 and G-40, in general, would not apply to linked content within content to which the regulated entity linked (“secondary links”). However, to avoid triggering the application of Rules G-21 and G-40:

• The regulated entity must not have adopted or become entangled with the content in the secondary link – See question 3;
• The regulated entity must have no influence or control over the content in the secondary links – See question 4;
• The original linked content must not be a mere vehicle for the secondary links or not rely completely on the information available in the secondary links; and

• The regulated entity must not know or have reason to know that the information contained in the secondary links contains any untrue statement of material fact or is otherwise false or misleading.[16] A regulated entity should not include a link on its website if there are any red flags that indicate that the hyperlinked website contains false or misleading content.[17]

Third-Party Posts

7.    Do Rules G-21 and G-40 apply to posts by a customer, municipal entity client or another third-party (collectively, “third-party posts”) on a regulated entity’s or its associated person’s social networking page?

In general, no. Rules G-21 and G-40 generally would not apply to posts by a third-party on a regulated entity’s or its associated person’s social networking page. The post would not be considered material that is published, distributed or made available by the dealer or municipal advisor.

Notwithstanding, Rules G-21 and G-40 may apply to such third-party posts under certain circumstances. For example, Rules G-21 and G-40 would apply to such posts if the dealer or municipal advisor becomes entangled with or adopts the content of such posts. See also question 3.

• Entanglement. A regulated entity becomes entangled with a post by a third-party on the regulated entity’s social networking page if the regulated entity has involved itself with the preparation of the third-party content.[18] For example, a regulated entity or its associated person may become entangled with a third-party post if the regulated entity or its associated person pays for or solicits a third-party to post certain comments on the regulated entity’s social networking page.

• Adoption. A regulated entity adopts the content of the third-party post if the regulated entity explicitly or implicitly approves or endorses the content.[19] A regulated entity or its associated person may adopt a third- party post if it “likes,” “shares,” or otherwise indicates approval or endorsement of the content.

See question 3 above for a discussion of hyperlinked content on an independent third- party website; see question 4 above for a discussion of the non-exclusive factors to consider when determining whether a regulated entity or its associated person has adopted third-party content.

8.    May a municipal advisory client post positive comments about its experience with the municipal advisor on the municipal advisor’s social media page without such post being a testimonial under Rule G-40?

As with question 7 above, if a municipal advisory client posts positive comments on a municipal advisor’s social media page and the municipal advisor does not become entangled with or adopt that content, the municipal advisor could allow such content on its social media page. This would be true even if the municipal advisory client’s comments were to include a testimonial.

If the municipal advisor paid for or solicited a municipal advisory client to post positive comments about its experience with the municipal advisor on the municipal advisor’s social media page, that post would be deemed to be an advertisement by the municipal advisor that contains a testimonial within Rule G-40.

Specifically, by paying for or soliciting positive comments from a third-party, the municipal advisor would become entangled with those comments, and the posting of those third-party comments on the municipal advisor’s social media page would be deemed to be an advertisement by the municipal advisor that contains a testimonial. Accordingly, the municipal advisor would need to ensure that the advertisement meets the requirements of Rule G-40 and that the requisite disclosures under Rule G-40(a)(iv)(G)(2)(b) are clearly and prominently posted to the social media page in close proximity to the testimonial.

If the municipal advisor did not pay, directly or indirectly, for the testimonial, but liked, shared or commented on a post from a third-party, the municipal advisor would have adopted those comments and the posting of those third-party comments on the municipal advisor's social media page would be deemed an advertisement by the municipal advisor that contains a testimonial. Accordingly, the municipal advisor would need to ensure that the advertisement meets the requirements of Rule G-40 and that the requisite disclosures under Rule G-40(a)(iv)(G)(2)(b) are clearly and prominently posted to the social media page in close proximity to the testimonial.

Recordkeeping

9.    Must regulated entities retain records of “posts,” “chats,” text messages or messages sent through messaging applications related to the regulated entity’s business conducted through social media?

Yes, the MSRB’s recordkeeping and record retention requirements apply to all written, including electronic, communications sent or received as well as records of advertisements under the MSRB’s advertising rules.

Specifically, for dealers, Rule G-9(b)(viii)(C) requires that “all written and electronic communications received and sent, including inter-office memoranda, relating to the conduct of the activities of such municipal securities broker or municipal securities dealer with respect to municipal securities” be retained. Similarly, Rule G-9(h)(i) requires that a municipal advisor retain records, which include, among other things, originals or copies of all written and electronic communications received and sent, including inter-office memoranda, relating to municipal advisory activities.[20] Neither the technology used for the communication nor the distinction between a communication made through a device issued by the regulated entity or its associated person’s personal device is determinative for this analysis. See questions 10 and 11 regarding supervision.

Supervision[21]

10.    Should a regulated entity consider establishing policies and procedures as part of its supervisory system to address the use of social media by the regulated entity and its associated persons?

Yes, given that recordkeeping requirements apply to electronic communications, a regulated entity should establish policies and procedures to address the use by the regulated entity and its associated persons of social media.[22] As a baseline, those policies and procedures would reflect the regulated entity’s permitted and/or prohibited practices. Such permitted practices may include restrictions on the use of certain technologies or the prohibition of the use of social media to engage in municipal securities business or municipal advisory activities. Further, the supervisory system for a regulated entity that permits the use of social media would address all applicable MSRB rules, including, but not limited to:

• The MSRB’s advertising rules;
• Rule G-17;
• Rule G-8; and
• Rule G-9.

See question 1.

11.    What are some factors that a regulated entity should consider as it develops policies and procedures about the use of social media?

As with any policy and procedure, a regulated entity’s social media policies and procedures would be tailored to reflect, among other things, its size, organizational structure and the nature and scope of its municipal securities or municipal advisory activities. Social media policies and procedures are not expected to be “one size fits all.”

Among the factors that a regulated entity should consider as it develops social media policies and procedures are:

Usage Restrictions. While some regulated entities may prohibit an associated person from engaging in municipal securities business or municipal advisory activities through social media, other regulated entities may permit the use of social media for such purposes. A regulated entity that permits the use of social media by its associated persons, in whole or in part, should consider providing associated persons with a clear and concise list of permitted social media for the conduct of municipal securities business or municipal advisory activities. That list also may include any restrictions to the use of particular social media (for example, a regulated entity may permit certain messaging applications to be used only for internal communications among the regulated entity and its associated persons). If applicable, a regulated entity should consider making the list of permitted social media widely available and easily accessible to its associated persons.[23]

Further, recognizing the need to have policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to ensure compliance with MSRB rules as well as with other applicable securities laws and regulations, and in light of the pace of technology innovations, a regulated entity that permits the use of social media should consider periodically reviewing its list of permitted social media. As part of that review, the regulated entity should determine whether any updates to the list of permitted social media would be warranted.[24]

Along with the list of permitted social media, the regulated entity should consider addressing the consequences of non-compliance with its social media policies and procedures.[25]

Training and Education. The regulated entity’s social media policies and procedures may address the training that the regulated entity will provide related to those policies and procedures. For example, will the training include an initial training as well as training that is required on a periodic basis? In addition, a regulated entity’s training on social media may address various topics likely to occur such as an explanation of the differences between business and personal social media use and how the lines between business and personal social media usage could be blurred. For example, an associated person could receive a request on his or her personal social media relating to municipal securities business or municipal advisory activities. A regulated entity may want to consider how the associated person should respond to such a request.

Recordkeeping and Record Retention. As noted in question 1, it is possible that social media posts relating to the regulated entity’s municipal securities business or municipal advisory activities would be subject to the MSRB’s recordkeeping and record retention rules. A regulated entity should consider its recordkeeping and record retention obligations as it designs its social media compliance policies and procedures.[26]

Monitoring. As a regulated entity develops its social media policies and procedures, the regulated entity should consider how it will monitor for compliance with those policies and procedures. For example, a regulated entity may determine to more frequently monitor various social media activities based on the potential risks that the regulated entity has determined may be associated with those activities. See question 12 below for a discussion of various factors that the regulated entity may want to consider as it develops its policies and procedures. As a reminder, a regulated entity’s supervisory procedures concerning social media should address not only the MSRB’s advertising rules, but all applicable MSRB rules and other applicable federal securities laws and regulations.

12.    What factors may be important in determining the effectiveness of policies and procedures concerning social media?

As noted in question 10, MSRB Rules G-27 and G-44 generally require that a regulated entity establish, implement and maintain a supervisory system that is reasonably designed to achieve compliance with MSRB rules as well as with other applicable federal securities laws and regulations. To help test whether that goal is being met with regard to its social media compliance policies and procedures, a regulated entity may want to consider the following non-exclusive factors:

• Content standards. A regulated entity should consider whether there are certain risks associated with content created by the regulated entity for its social media and whether that content may create regulatory issues. For example, non-solicitor municipal advisors owe a fiduciary duty to their municipal entity clients. Is the social media content consistent with that duty (e.g., such as content that contains information on specific municipal advisory activity or a recommendation regarding that activity)? Further, if the social media content contains a testimonial, does that content include the requisite disclosures set forth in the MSRB’s advertising rules?
• Monitoring of third-party sites. To the extent that the regulated entity permits the use of social networking sites, a regulated entity should consider how it will monitor for compliance with the regulated entity’s social media policies and procedures on those sites.
• Criteria for approving participation in social networking sites. A regulated entity should consider whether to develop standards relating to social networking participation. For example, at a minimum, a regulated entity must ensure compliance with record retention requirements. As the regulated entity develops its criteria for approving the use of certain sites, the regulated entity also should address whether it has a process in place for revoking approval to participate in a particular social networking site should certain circumstances change.
• Personal social networking sites. A regulated entity should address whether the regulated entity or its associated persons may engage in municipal securities business or municipal advisory activities on personal social networking sites.
• Enterprise-wide sites. A regulated entity that is a part of a larger financial services organization should consider whether it needs to develop usage guidelines reasonably designed to prevent the larger financial services organization in organizational-wide advertisements from violating the MSRB’s advertising rules.

[1] See, e.g., National Examination Risk Alert, Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (Jan. 4, 2012) (“2012 Risk Alert”); Exchange Act Release No. 58288 (Aug. 1, 2008); FINRA Regulatory Notice 17-18 (Apr. 2017); and FINRA Regulatory Notice 19-31 (Sep. 2019). These materials are identified for reference and such reference is not intended to suggest that regulated entities that are not subject to the guidance issued by the SEC or FINRA are responsible for compliance with that guidance. In addition, the MSRB does not intend for the guidance provided by these FAQs to modify or otherwise affect the guidance contained in any of the referenced materials published by the SEC or FINRA.

[2] Rule D-11 provides that:

Unless the context otherwise requires or a rule of the Board otherwise specifically provides, the terms “broker,” “dealer,” “municipal securities broker,” “municipal securities dealer,” “bank dealer,” and “municipal advisor” shall refer to and include their respective associated persons. Unless otherwise specified, persons whose functions are solely clerical or ministerial shall not be considered associated persons for purposes of the Board’s rules.

[3] For example, such hyperlinked content may include information about a charity event sponsored by the dealer or municipal advisor, a human interest article, an employment opportunity, or employer information covered by state and federal fair employment laws. See, e.g., FINRA Regulatory Notice 17-18 (Apr. 2017) at 4.

[4] See, e.g., Exchange Act Release No. 58288 (Aug. 1, 2008) at 32, 73 FR 45862 (Aug. 7. 2008) at 45870 (the “2008 release”); Exchange Act Release No. 42728 (Apr. 28, 2000), 65 FR 25843 (May 4, 2000) at 25848 (the “2000 release”).

[5] Id.

[6] 2008 release at 34.

[7] See 2008 release at 33; 2000 release at 25849.

[8] See 2008 release at 34; 2000 release at 25849.

[9] See 2008 release at 35.

[10] Id.

[11] See 2008 release at 36; 2000 release at 25849.

[12] See FINRA Regulatory Notice 17-18 (Apr. 2017) at 5.

[13] See MSRB Notice 2018-14 (Jun. 27, 2018).

[14] See FINRA Regulatory Notice 11-39 (Aug. 2011) at 3.

[15] See 2008 Release at 36-37; 2000 Release at 25849.

[16] See FINRA Regulatory Notice 17-18 at Q:4; see Q:5.

[17] See FINRA Regulatory Notice 11-39 (Aug. 2011) at 3.

[18] See 2008 release at 32; 2000 release at 25848-49; FINRA Regulatory Notice 10-06 (Jan. 2010) at 7-8. The MSRB’s definition of the entanglement and adoption theories is consistent with the definition of those theories set forth by the SEC and FINRA in those materials.

[19] Id.

[20] Rule G-8(h)(i) requires municipal advisors to make and keep current all books and records described in Rule 15Ba1-8(a) under the Exchange Act. Particularly, Rule 15Ba1- 8(a)(1) requires that municipal advisors make and keep true, accurate, and current “originals or copies of all written communications received, and originals or copies of all written communications sent, by such municipal advisor (including inter-office memoranda and communications) relating to municipal advisory activities, regardless of the format of such communications.”

[21] While many regulated entities may find the guidance in these FAQs useful when establishing their supervisory systems, each regulated entity should develop a supervisory system that is tailored to its own business model, recognizing that some considerations may not apply in the same manner for every firm and others may not apply at all.

[22] In part, Rules G-27(b) and Rule G-44(a) require that a regulated entity establish a supervisory system to supervise the municipal securities and municipal advisory activities of the regulated entity and its associated persons. In general, a supervisory system includes:

1. compliance policies and procedures that describe the practices that associated persons must adhere to in order to meet the standards of conduct established by the regulated entity consistent with applicable securities laws and regulations, including MSRB rules; and
2. written supervisory procedures that describe the practices that the supervisory personnel follow in order to reasonably ensure that associated persons meet the standards of conduct and the regulated entity can evidence a supervisory system.

[23] See, e.g., 2012 Risk Alert at 3; FINRA Regulatory Notice 07-59 (Dec. 2007) at 7.

[24] See, e.g., 2012 Risk Alert at 4.

[25] See FINRA Regulatory Notice 07-59 (Dec.2007) at 7; see also National Exam Program Risk Alert, Observations from Investment Adviser Examinations Relating to Electronic Messaging, Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (modified Dec. 14, 2018) available at https://www.sec.gov/ocie/announcement/ocie-risk-alert-electronic-messaging (“2018 Risk Alert”) at 4.

[26] See FINRA Regulatory Notice 07-59 (Dec. 2007) at 6-7; 2018 Risk Alert at 3-4.

Background

In the municipal securities markets, dealers[1] typically communicate with investors one-on-one, in person, or by telephone. These dealer/customer communications are made to provide the investor with information concerning the municipal securities the dealer wants to sell and to allow the dealer to find out about the customer’s investment objectives. Over the last few years there has been a dramatic increase in the use of the Internet for communication between dealers and their customers. Dealers are looking to the Internet as a mechanism for offering customers new and improved services and for enhancing the efficiency of delivering traditional services to customers. For example, dealers have developed online search tools that computerize the process by which customers can obtain and compare information on the availability of municipal securities of a specific type that are offered for sale by a particular dealer.[2] Technological advancements have provided many benefits to investors and the brokerage industry. These technological innovations, however, also have presented new regulatory challenges, including those arising from the application of the suitability rule to online activities. In consideration of this, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (“MSRB”) is issuing this notice to provide dealers with guidance concerning their obligations under MSRB Rule G-19, relating to suitability of recommendations,[3] in the electronic environment.[4]

Rule G-19 prohibits a dealer from recommending transactions in municipal securities to a customer unless the dealer makes certain determinations with respect to the suitability of the transactions.[5] Specifically, the dealer must have reasonable grounds for believing that the recommendation is suitable based upon information available from the issuer of the security or otherwise and the facts disclosed by the customer or otherwise known about such customer.

As the rule states, a dealer's suitability obligation only applies to securities that the dealer recommends to a customer.[6] A dealer or associated person who simply effects a trade initiated by a customer without a related recommendation from the dealer or associated person is not required to perform a suitability analysis. However, under MSRB Rules, even when a dealer does not recommend a municipal security transaction to a customer but simply effects or executes the transaction, the dealer is obligated to fulfill certain other important fair practice obligations. For example, under Rule G-17, when effecting a municipal security transaction for a customer, a dealer is required to disclose all material facts about a municipal security that are known by the dealer and those that are reasonably accessible.[7] In addition, Rule G-18 requires that each dealer, when executing a municipal securities transaction for or on behalf of a customer as agent, make a reasonable effort to obtain a price for the customer that is fair and reasonable in relation to prevailing market conditions. Similarly, under Rule G-30, if a dealer engages in principal transactions with a customer, the dealer is responsible for ensuring that it is charging a fair and reasonable price. The MSRB wishes to emphasize the importance of these fair practice obligations even when a dealer effects a non-recommended transaction online.[8]

Applicability of the Suitability Rule to Electronic Communications—General Principles  

There has been much debate about the application of the suitability rule to online activities.[9]  Industry commentators and regulators have debated two questions: first, whether the current suitability rule should even apply to online activities, and second, if so, what types of online communications constitute recommendations for purposes of the rule. The NASD published NASD Notice to Members 01-23, Online Suitability-Suitability Rule and Online Communication (the “NASD Online Suitability Notice”) (April 2001) to provide guidance to its members in April 2001.[10] In answer to the first question, the MSRB, like the NASD, believes that the suitability rule applies to all recommendations made by dealers to customers—including those made via electronic means—to purchase, sell, or exchange a security. Electronic communications from dealers to their customers clearly can constitute recommendations. The suitability rule, therefore, remains fully applicable to online activities in those cases where the dealer recommends securities to its customers. 

With regard to the second question, the MSRB does not seek to identify in this notice all of the types of electronic communications that may constitute recommendations. As the MSRB has often emphasized, "[w]hether a particular transaction is in fact recommended depends on an analysis of all the relevant facts and circumstances."[11] That is, the test for determining whether any communication (electronic or traditional) constitutes a recommendation remains a "facts and circumstances" inquiry to be conducted on a case-by-case basis. 

The MSRB also recognizes that many forms of electronic communications defy easy characterization. The MSRB believes this is especially true in the online municipal securities market, which is in a relatively early stage of development. Nevertheless, the MSRB offers as guidance the following general principles for dealers to use in determining whether a particular communication could be deemed a recommendation.[12] The "facts and circumstances" determination of whether a communication is a recommendation requires an analysis of the content, context, and presentation of the particular communication or set of communications. The determination of whether a recommendation has been made, moreover, is an objective rather than a subjective inquiry. An important factor in this regard is whether—given its content, context, and manner of presentation—a particular communication from a dealer to a customer reasonably would be viewed as a "call to action," or suggestion that the customer engage in a securities transaction. Dealers should bear in mind that an analysis of the content, context, and manner of presentation of a communication requires examination of the underlying substantive information transmitted to the customer and consideration of any other facts and circumstances, such as any accompanying explanatory message from the dealer.[13] Another principle that dealers should keep in mind is that, in general, the more individually tailored the communication is to a specific customer or a targeted group of customers about a security or group of securities, the greater the likelihood is that the communication may be viewed as a recommendation.

Scope of the Term Recommendation

As noted earlier, the MSRB agrees with and has in this guidance adopted the general principles enunciated in the NASD Online Suitability Notice as well as the NASD guidelines for evaluating suitability obligations discussed below. While the MSRB believes that the additional examples of communications that do not constitute recommendations provided by the NASD in its Online Suitability Notice are useful instruction for dealers who develop equity trading web sites, as the examples are based upon communications that exist with great regularity in the Nasdaq market, the MSRB believes that the examples have limited application to the types of information and electronic trading systems that are present in the municipal securities market. 

For example, the NASD’s third example of a communication that is not a recommendation describes a system that permits customer-directed searches of a “wide-universe” of securities and references all exchange-listed or Nasdaq securities, or externally recognized indexes.[14] The NASD example therefore applies to dealer web sites that effectively allow customers to request lists of securities that meet broad objective criteria from a list of all the securities available on an exchange or Nasdaq. These are examples of groups of securities in which the dealer does not exercise any discretion as to which securities are contained within the group of securities shown to customers. This example makes sense in the equity market where there are centralized exchanges and where electronic trading platforms routinely utilize databases that provide customer access to all of the approximately 7,300 listed securities on Nasdaq, the NYSE and Amex. However, no dealer in the municipal securities market has the ability to offer all of the approximately 1.3 million outstanding municipal securities for sale or purchase. The municipal securities market is a fragmented dealer market. Municipal securities do not trade through a centralized exchange and only a small number of securities (approximately 10,000) trade at all on any given day. Therefore, there is no comparable central exchange that could serve as a reference point for a database that is used in connection with municipal securities research engines. The databases used by dealer systems typically are limited to the municipal securities that a dealer, or a consortium of dealers, holds in inventory. In these types of systems the customer’s ability to search for desirable securities that meet the broad, objective criteria chosen by the customer (e.g., all insured investment grade general obligation bonds offered by a particular state) is limited. The concept of a wide universe of securities, which is central to all of the NASD’s examples, is thus difficult to define and has extremely limited, or no, application in the municipal securities market. 

Given the distinct features of the municipal securities market and the existing online trading systems, the MSRB believes it would be impractical to attempt to define the features of an electronic trading system that would have to be present for the system transactions to not be considered the result of a dealer recommendation. The online trading systems for municipal securities that are in place today limit customer choices to the inventory that the dealer or dealer consortium hold, and therefore, the dealer will always have a significant degree of discretion over the securities offered to the customer. A system that allows this degree of dealer discretion is a dramatic departure from the types of no recommendation examples provided by the NASD guidance, and thus, these communications must be carefully analyzed to determine whether or not a recommendation has been made.  

 The MSRB, however, does believe that the examples of communications that are recommendations provided in the NASD Online Suitability Notice are communications that take place in the municipal securities market. Therefore, the MSRB has adopted these examples and generally would view the following communications as falling within the definition of recommendation:

• A dealer sends a customer-specific electronic communication (e.g., an e-mail or pop-up screen) to a targeted customer or targeted group of customers encouraging the particular customer(s) to purchase a municipal security.[15]
• A dealer sends its customers an e-mail stating that customers should be invested in municipal securities from a particular state or municipal securities backed by a particular sector (such as higher education) and urges customers to purchase one or more stocks from a list with "buy" recommendations.
• A dealer provides a portfolio analysis tool that allows a customer to indicate an investment goal and input personalized information such as age, financial condition, and risk tolerance. The dealer in this instance then sends (or displays to) the customer a list of specific municipal securities the customer could buy or sell to meet the investment goal the customer has indicated.[16]
• A dealer uses data-mining technology (the electronic collection of information on Web Site users) to analyze a customer's financial or online activity—whether or not known by the customer—and then, based on those observations, sends (or "pushes") specific investment suggestions that the customer purchase or sell a municipal security.

Dealers should keep in mind that these examples are meant only to provide guidance and are not an exhaustive list of communications that the MSRB does consider to be recommendations. As stated earlier, many other types of electronic communications are not easily characterized. In addition, changes to the factual predicates upon which these examples are based (or the existence of additional factors) could alter the determination of whether similar communications may or may not be viewed as recommendations. Dealers, therefore, should analyze all relevant facts and circumstances, bearing in mind the general principles noted earlier and discussed below, to determine whether a communication is a recommendation, and they should take the necessary steps to fulfill their suitability obligations. Furthermore, these examples are based on technological services that are currently used in the marketplace. They are not intended to direct or limit the future development of delivery methods or products and services provided online.  

Guidelines for Evaluating Suitability Obligations 

Dealers should consider, at a minimum, the following guidelines when evaluating their suitability obligations with respect to municipal securities transactions.[17] None of these guidelines is determinative of whether a recommendation exists. However, each should be considered in evaluating all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the communication and transaction.

• A dealer cannot avoid or discharge its suitability obligation through a disclaimer where the particular communication reasonably would be viewed as a recommendation given its content, context, and presentation.[18] The MSRB, however, encourages dealers to include on their web sites (and in other means of communication with their customers) clear explanations of the use and limitations of tools offered on those sites.[19]   
• Dealers should analyze any communication about a security that reasonably could be viewed as a "call to action" and that they direct, or appear to direct, to a particular individual or targeted group of individuals—as opposed to statements that are generally made available to all customers or the public at large—to determine whether a recommendation is being made.[20]
• Dealers should scrutinize any communication to a customer that suggests the purchase, sale, or exchange of a municipal security—as opposed to simply providing objective data about a security—to determine whether a recommendation is being made.[21] 
• A dealer's transmission of unrequested information will not necessarily constitute a recommendation. However, when a dealer decides to send a particular customer unrequested information about a security that is not of a generalized or administrative nature (e.g., notification of an official communication), the dealer should carefully review the circumstances under which the information is being provided, the manner in which the information is delivered to the customer, the content of the communication, and the original source of the information. The dealer should perform this review regardless of whether the decision to send the information is made by a representative employed by the dealer or by a computer software program used by the dealer.
• Dealers should be aware that the degree to which the communication reasonably would influence an investor to trade a particular municipal security or group of municipal securities—either through the context or manner of presentation or the language used in the communication—may be considered in determining whether a recommendation is being made to the customer.

The MSRB emphasizes that the factors listed above are guidelines that may assist dealers in complying with the suitability rule. Again, the presence or absence of any of these factors does not by itself control whether a recommendation has been made or whether the dealer has complied with the suitability rule. Such determinations can be made only on a case-by-case basis taking into account all of the relevant facts and circumstances.

Conclusion

The foregoing discussion highlights some suggested principles and guidelines to assist in determining when electronic communications constitute recommendations, thereby triggering application of the MSRB's suitability rule. The MSRB acknowledges the numerous benefits that may be realized by dealers and their customers as a result of the Internet and online brokerage services. The MSRB emphasizes that it neither takes a position on, nor seeks to influence, any dealer's or customer's choice of a particular business model in this electronic environment. At the same time, however, the MSRB urges dealers both to consider carefully whether suitability requirements are adequately being addressed when implementing new services and to remember that customers' best interests must continue to be of paramount importance in any setting, traditional or online.

As new technologies and/or services evolve, the MSRB will continue to work with regulators, members of the industry and the public on these and other important issues that arise in the online trading environment.

[1] The term “dealer” is used in this notice as shorthand for “broker,” “dealer” or “municipal securities dealer,” as those terms are defined in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The use of the term in this notice does not imply that the entity is necessarily taking a principal position in a municipal security.

[2] The Bond Market Association’s (“TBMA”) 2001 Review of Electronic Transaction Systems found that at the end of 2001, there were at least 23 systems based in the United States that allow dealers or institutional investors to buy or sell municipal securities electronically compared to just 3 such systems in 1997. While dealers are also developing electronic trading platforms that allow retail customers to buy or sell municipal securities online, the development of online retail trading systems for municipal securities lags far behind that for equities.

[3] Rule G-19 provides in pertinent part:

(c) Suitability of Recommendations. In recommending to a customer any municipal security transaction, a [dealer] shall have reasonable grounds:

(i) based upon information available from the issuer of the security or otherwise, and

(ii) based upon the facts disclosed by such customer or otherwise known about such customer for believing that the recommendation is suitable.

[4] Although the focus of this notice is on the application of the suitability rule to electronic communications, much of the discussion is also relevant to more traditional communications, such as discussions made in person, over the telephone, or through postal mail.

[5] This notice focuses on customer-specific suitability under Rule G-19. Under Rule G-19, a dealer must also have a reasonable basis to believe that the recommendation could be suitable for at least some customers. See e.g., Rule G-19 Interpretation—Notice Concerning the Application of Suitability Requirements to Investment Seminars and Customer Inquiries Made in Response to a Dealer’s Advertisement, May 7, 1985, MSRB Rule Book (July 1, 2002) at 143; In re F.J. Kaufman and Company of Virginia, 50 S.E.C. 164, 168, 1989 SEC LEXIS 2376, *10 (1989) (the “reasonable basis” obligation relates only to the particular recommendation, rather than to any particular customer). The SEC, in its discussion of municipal underwriters’ responsibilities in a 1988 Release, noted that “a broker-dealer recommending securities to investors implies by its recommendation that it has an adequate basis for the recommendation.” Municipal Securities Disclosure, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 26100 (September 22, 1988) (the “1988 SEC Release”) at text accompanying note 72.

[6] Similarly, the suitability rule does not apply where a dealer merely gathers information on a particular customer, but does not make any recommendations. This is true even if the information is the type of information generally gathered to satisfy a suitability obligation. Dealers should nonetheless remember that regardless of any determination of whether the dealer is making a recommendation and subject to the suitability requirement, the dealer is required to make reasonable efforts to obtain certain customer specific information pursuant to rule G-8 (a)(xi) so that dealers can protect themselves and the integrity of the securities markets from customers who do not have the financial means to pay for transactions.

[7] See Rule G-17 Interpretation—Notice Regarding Rule G-17, on Disclosure of Material Facts, March 20, 2002, MSRB Rule Book (July 1, 2002) at 135.

[8] On April 30, 2002, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) approved a proposed rule change relating to the manner in which dealers fulfill their fair practice obligations to certain institutional customers.  Release No. 34-45849 (April 30, 2002), 67 FR 30743.  See Rule G-17 Interpretation—Notice Regarding the Application of MSRB Rules to Transactions With Sophisticated Municipal Market Professionals (“SMMPs”) (the “SMMP Notice”), MSRB Rule Book (July 1, 2002) at 136. The SMMP Notice recognizes the different capabilities of SMMPs and retail or non-sophisticated institutional customers and provides that dealers may consider the nature of the institutional customer when determining what specific actions are necessary to meet the dealer’s fair practice obligations to such customers. The SMMP Notice provides that, while it is difficult to define in advance the scope of a dealer’s fair practice obligations with respect to a particular transaction, by making a reasonable determination that an institutional customer is an SMMP, then certain of the dealer’s fair practice obligations remain applicable but are deemed fulfilled.

[9] See generally Report of Commissioner Laura S. Unger to the SEC, On-Line Brokerage: Keeping Apace of Cyberspace, at n. 64 (Nov. 1999) (“Unger Report”) (discussing various views espoused by online brokerage firms, regulators and academics on the topic of online suitability); Developments in the Law—The Law of Cyberspace, 112 Harv. L. Rev. 1574, 1582-83 (1999) (The article highlights the broader debate by academics and judges over whether "to apply conventional models of regulation to the Internet.").

[10] The guidance contained in this notice is intended to be consistent with the general statements and guidelines contained in the NASD Online Suitability Notice. 

[11] See e.g., Rule G-19 Interpretive Letter dated February 17, 1998, MSRB Rule Book (July 1, 2002) at 144.

[12] These general principles were first enunciated in the NASD Online Suitability Notice.

[13] For example, if a dealer transmitted a rating agency research report to a customer at the customer's request, that communication may not be subject to the suitability rule; whereas, if the same dealer transmitted the very same research report with an accompanying message, either oral or written, that the customer should act on the report, the suitability analysis would be different.

[14] NASD Online Suitability Notice at 3.

[15] Note that there are instances where sending a customer an electronic communication that highlights a particular municipal security (or securities) will not be viewed as a recommendation. For instance, while each case requires an analysis of the particular facts and circumstances, a dealer generally would not be viewed as making a recommendation when, pursuant to a customer's request, it sends the customer (1) electronic "alerts" (such as account activity alerts, market alerts, or rating agency changes) or (2) research announcements (e.g., sector reports) that are not tailored to the individual customer, as long as neither—given their content, context, and manner of presentation—would lead a customer reasonably to believe that the dealer is suggesting that the customer take action in response to the communication.

[16] Note, however, that a portfolio analysis tool that merely generates a suggested mix of general classes of financial assets (e.g., 60 percent equities, 20 percent bonds, and 20 percent cash equivalents), without an accompanying list of securities that the customer could purchase to achieve that allocation, would not trigger a suitability obligation. On the other hand, a series of actions which may not constitute recommendations when considered individually, may amount to a recommendation when considered in the aggregate. For example, a portfolio allocator's suggestion that a customer could alter his or her current mix of investments followed by provision of a list of municipal securities that could be purchased or sold to accomplish the alteration could be a recommendation. Again, however, the determination of whether a portfolio analysis tool's communication constitutes a recommendation will depend on the content, context, and presentation of the communication or series of communications.

[17] These guidelines were originally set forth in the NASD Online Suitability Notice.

[18] Although a dealer cannot disclaim away its suitability obligation, informing customers that generalized information provided is not based on the customer's particular financial situation or needs may help clarify that the information provided is not meant to be a recommendation to the customer. Whether the communication is in fact a recommendation would still depend on the content, context, and presentation of the communication. Accordingly, a dealer that sends a customer or group of customers information about a security might include a statement that the dealer is not providing the information based on the customers' particular financial situation or needs. Dealers may properly disclose to customers that the opinions or recommendations expressed in research do not take into account individual investors' circumstances and are not intended to represent recommendations by the dealer of particular municipal securities to particular customers. Dealers, however, should refer to previous guidelines issued by the SEC that may be relevant to these and/or related topics. For instance, the SEC has issued guidelines regarding whether and under what circumstances third-party information is attributable to an issuer, and the SEC noted that the guidance also may be relevant regarding the responsibilities of dealers. See SEC Guidance on the Use of Electronic Media, Release Nos. 34-7856, 34-42728, IC-24426, 65 Fed. Reg. 25843 at 25848-25849 (April 28, 2000).

[19] The MSRB believes that a dealer should, at a minimum, clearly explain the limitations of its search engine and the decentralized nature of the municipal securities market. The dealer should also clearly explain that securities that meet the customer’s search criteria might be available from other sources.

[20] The MSRB notes that there are circumstances where the act of sending a communication to a specific group of customers will not necessarily implicate the suitability rule. For instance, a dealer's business decision to provide only certain types of investment information (e.g., research reports) to a category of "premium" customers would not, without more, trigger application of the suitability rule. Conversely, dealers may incur suitability obligations when they send a communication to a large group of customers urging those customers to invest in a municipal security.

[21] As with the other general guidelines discussed in this notice, the presence of this factor alone does not automatically mean that a recommendation has been made. 

The MSRB understands that an issuer [of municipal fund securities] may make minor modifications to the official statement in order to correct typographical or grammatical errors, or to make such other modifications that the issuer may deem to be immaterial.  If the issuer has acknowledged in writing to the primary distributor that it does not consider such modification to be material to investors and does not believe that such modification is required to make the statements in the official statement not misleading, then the modification need not be sent by a dealer to a customer that has previously received the official statement, notwithstanding the provisions of Rule G-32(a)(i).[1]  The primary distributor must maintain the issuer’s written acknowledgement under Rule G-8(a)(xiii), relating to records concerning deliveries of official statements.  The primary distributor must send all amendments, regardless of materiality, to the MSRB under Rule G-36.

ENDNOTES

[*] [This interpretation is an excerpt from “Application of Fair Practice and Advertising Rules to Municipal Fund Securities,” May 14, 2002.  The remaining portions of the 2002 interpretation have been superseded by other interpretations and rule changes.]

[1] Rule G-32(a)(i) requires delivery of an official statement to a customer purchasing municipal fund securities by settlement of the transaction.  In the case of a repeat purchaser who has already received the official statement, dealers generally are required to deliver any amendments or supplements to the official statement in connection with subsequent purchases of the securities. [footnote has been renumbered]

Rule G-37, on political contributions and prohibitions on municipal securities business, prohibits any broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer (a "dealer") from engaging in municipal securities business with an issuer within two years after any contribution (other than certain de minimis contributions) to an official of such issuer made by: (i) the dealer; (ii) any municipal finance professional associated with such dealer; or (iii) any political action committee controlled by the dealer or any municipal finance professional. The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board ("MSRB") has received inquiries regarding the effect of a ban on municipal securities business with an issuer arising from a contribution made after a dealer has entered into a long-term contract to serve as the primary distributor of the issuer's municipal fund securities.

In an interpretive notice published in 1997 (the "1997 Interpretation"), the MSRB stated that a dealer subject to a prohibition on municipal securities business with an issuer is allowed to continue to execute certain issue-specific contractual obligations in effect prior to the date of the contribution that caused the prohibition.[1] For example, dealers that had already executed a contract with the issuer to serve as underwriter or financial advisor for a new issue of debt securities prior to the contribution could continue in these capacities.

The 1997 Interpretation also addressed certain types of on-going, non-issue-specific municipal securities business that a dealer may have contracted with an issuer to perform prior to the making of a contribution that causes a prohibition on municipal securities business with the issuer. For example, the MSRB noted that a dealer may act as remarketing agent for an outstanding issue of municipal securities or may continue to underwrite a specific commercial paper program so long as the contract for such services was in effect prior to the contribution. The MSRB stated that these activities are not considered new municipal securities business and may be performed by dealers that are banned from municipal securities business with an issuer. The MSRB further stated, however, that provisions in existing contracts that allow for changes in the services provided by the dealer or compensation paid by the issuer would be viewed by the MSRB as new municipal securities business and, therefore, rule G-37 would preclude a dealer subject to a ban on municipal securities business from performing such additional functions or receiving additional compensation. The MSRB cited two examples of these types of provisions. The first involved a contract to serve as remarketing agent for a variable rate issue that might permit a fixed rate conversion, with a concomitant increase in the per bond compensation. The second example involved an agreement to underwrite a commercial paper program that might include terms for increasing the size of the program, with no increase in per bond fees but an increase in overall compensation resulting from the larger outstanding balance of commercial paper. In both cases, the MSRB viewed the exercise of these provisions as new municipal securities business that would be banned under the rule.

In the 1997 Interpretation, the MSRB recognized that there is great variety in the terms of agreements regarding municipal securities business and that its guidance in the 1997 Interpretation may not adequately deal with all such agreements. The MSRB sought input on other situations where contracts obligate dealers to perform various types of activities after the date of a contribution that triggers a ban on municipal securities business and stated that additional interpretations might be issued based upon such input.

The MSRB understands that dealers typically are selected by issuers to serve as primary distributors of municipal fund securities on terms that differ significantly from those of a dealer selected to underwrite an issue of debt securities. Issuers generally enter into long-term agreements (in many cases with terms of ten years or longer) with the primary distributor of municipal fund securities for services that include the sale in a continuous primary offering of one or more categories or classes of the securities issued within the framework of a single program of investments.[2] In addition, an issuer may often engage a particular dealer to serve as the primary distributor of its municipal fund securities as part of a team of professionals that includes the dealer's affiliated investment management firm, which is charged with managing the investment of the underlying portfolios.

The MSRB believes that the guidance provided in the 1997 Interpretation, although appropriate for the circumstances discussed therein, may not be adequate to address the unique features of municipal fund securities programs. For example, so long as a program realizes net in-flows of investor cash, the size of an offering of municipal fund securities will necessarily increase over time. Under most compensation arrangements in the market, any net in-flow of cash generally would result in an increase in total compensation, causing any new sales of municipal fund securities that exceed redemptions to be considered new municipal securities business under the 1997 Interpretation. Also, the addition by the issuer of a new category of investments (e.g., a new portfolio in an aged-based Section 529 college savings plan created for children born in the most recent year) could be considered a new offering from which such dealer might be banned, even where such new category may have been clearly contemplated at the outset of the dealer's engagement. Further, the MSRB understands that the repercussions to an issuer of municipal fund securities or investors in such securities of a sudden change in the primary distributor (and possible concurrent change in the investment manager) resulting from a ban on municipal securities business arising during the term of an existing arrangement often will be significantly greater than in the case of an underwriting or other primary market activity relating to the typical debt offering. Issuers could be faced with redesigning existing programs and investors may need to establish new relationships with different dealers in order to maintain their investments.

As a result, the MSRB believes that further interpretive guidance is necessary in this area. The MSRB is of the view that, where a dealer has become subject to a ban on municipal securities business with an issuer of municipal fund securities with which it is currently serving as primary distributor, any continued sales of existing categories of municipal fund securities for such issuer during the duration of the ban would not be considered new municipal securities business if the basis for determining compensation does not change during that period, even if total compensation increases as a result of net in-flows of cash. Further, the MSRB believes that any changes in the services to be provided by the dealer to the issuer throughout the duration of the ban that are contemplated under the pre-existing contractual arrangement (e.g., the addition of new categories of securities within the framework of the existing program) would not be considered new municipal securities business so long as such changes do not result in: (1) an increase in total compensation received by the dealer for services performed for the duration of the ban (whether paid during the ban or as a deferred payment after the ban); or (2) in an extension of the term of the dealer in its current role.