Select regulatory documents by category:
Compliance Resource
Publication date:
Information for:

Dealers, Municipal Advisors

Notice 2025-08 - Request for Comment
Publication date: | Comment due:
Notice 2025-07 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Information for:

Bank Dealers, Dealers, Investors, Issuers, Municipal Advisors

Notice 2025-06 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Information for:

Dealers, General Public, Investors, Issuers, Municipal Advisors

Compliance Resource
Publication date:
Information for:

Municipal Advisors

Rule Number:

Rule G-2, Rule G-3

Compliance Resource
Publication date:
Information for:

Municipal Advisors

Rule Number:

Rule G-2, Rule G-3

Notice 2025-05 - Approval Notice
Publication date:
Interpretive Guidance -
Publication date:
Time of Trade Disclosures in Inter-Dealer Transactions
Rule Number:

Rule G-47

For inter-dealer transactions, there is no specific requirement for brokers, dealers or municipal securities dealers (individually and collectively, “dealers”) to disclose all material facts to another dealer at time of trade. A selling dealer is not generally charged with the responsibility to ensure that the purchasing dealer knows all relevant features of the municipal securities being offered for sale. The selling dealer may rely, at least to a reasonable extent, on the fact that the purchasing dealer is also a professional and will satisfy their need for information prior to entering into a contract for the municipal securities.
 
The items of information that professionals in an inter-dealer transaction must exchange at or prior to the time of trade are governed by principles of contract law and essentially are those items necessary adequately to describe the municipal security that is the subject of the contract. As a general matter, these items of information do not encompass all material facts, but should be sufficient to distinguish the municipal security from other similar issues. The Board has interpreted Rule G-17 to require dealers to treat other dealers fairly and to hold them to the prevailing ethical standards of the industry. The rule also prohibits dealers from knowingly misdescribing municipal securities to another dealer. As a result, it is possible that non-disclosure of an unusual feature might constitute an unfair practice and thus become a violation of Rule G-17 even in an inter-dealer transaction.
 
For example, with respect to bonds that prepay principal, non-disclosure of the fact that a bond prepays principal could be a violation of Rule G-17. This would be especially true if the information about the prepayment feature is not accessible to the market and is intentionally withheld by the selling dealer. Whether or not non-disclosure constitutes an unfair practice in a specific case would depend upon the individual facts of the case. However, to avoid trade disputes and settlement delays in inter-dealer transactions, it generally is in dealers’ interest to reach specific agreement on the existence of any prepayment feature and the amount of unpaid principal that will be delivered.

 
Notice 2025-04 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Notice 2025-03 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Notice 2025-02 - Request for Comment
Publication date: | Comment due:
Notice 2025-01 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Notice 2003-44 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Interpretive Guidance - Interpretive Notices
Publication date:
Transaction Reporting of Multiple Transactions Between Dealers in the Same Issue: Rules G-12(f) and G-14
Rule Number:

Rule G-12, Rule G-14

The MSRB has become aware of problems in transaction reporting as a result of dealers "bunching" certain inter-dealer transactions in the comparison system.  Recently, some dealers have reported the sum of two trades as one transaction in instances when two dealers effected two trades with each other in the same issue and at the same price.  When two transactions are effected, two transactions should be reflected in each dealer's books and records and two transactions are required to be reported to the MSRB.  The time of trade for each transaction also must accurately reflect the time at which a contractual commitment was formed for each quantity of securities.  For example, if Dealer A purchases $50,000 of a municipal issue at a price of par from Dealer B at 11:00 am and then purchases an additional $50,000 at par from Dealer B at 2:00 pm, two transactions are required to be reflected on each dealers' books and records and two transactions are required to be reported to the MSRB. 

Since the same inter-dealer trade record submitted for automated comparison under Rule G-12(f) also is used to satisfy the requirements of Rule G-14, on transaction reporting, each inter-dealer transaction should be submitted for automated comparison separately in order to comply with Rule G-14's requirement to report all transactions.  Failure to do so causes erroneous information concerning transaction size and time of trade to appear in the transparency reports published by the MSRB as well as in the audit trail used by regulators and enforcement agencies.  To the extent that dealers use the records generated by the comparison system for purposes of complying with MSRB Rule G-8, on recordkeeping, it may also create erroneous information as to the size of transactions effected or time of trade execution.

Notice 2003-42 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Notice 2003-41 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Notice 2003-40 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Notice 2003-39 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Notice 2003-38 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Notice 2003-37 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Notice 2003-36 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Notice 2003-35 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Print