Select regulatory documents by category:
Notice 2025-09 - Approval Notice
Publication date:
Compliance Resource
Publication date:
Information for:

Dealers, Municipal Advisors

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

General Public, Investors, Issuers

Rule Number:

Rule D-15

  1. American Securities Association: Letter from Jessica R. Giroux, Chief Legal Officer, dated February 2, 2026
  2. Bond Dealers of America: Letter from Michael Decker, Senior Vice President, Research and Public Policy, dated February 2, 2026
  3. City of Richardson, TX: Letter from Aimee Ferguson [undated]
  4. Government Finance Officers Association: Letter from Emily S. Brock, Director, Federal Liaison Center, dated February 2, 2026
  5. Public Investors Advocate Bar Association: Letter from Michael Bixby, President, dated January 30, 2026
  6. Second Chair LLC: Email from Mark Conner dated November 3, 2025 and Letter from Mark Conner, Principal [undated]
  7. Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association: Letter from Leslie M. Norwood, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, Head of Municipal Securities, dated February 2, 2026
  8. Varnavides Law: Letter from Gary A. Varnavides dated February 2, 2026
Notice 2025-07 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Information for:

Bank Dealers, Dealers, Investors, Issuers, Municipal Advisors

Compliance Resource
Publication date:
Information for:

Municipal Advisors

Rule Number:

Rule G-2, Rule G-3

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

Notice 2025-05 - Approval Notice
Publication date:
Interpretive Guidance -
Publication date:
Applicability of Trade Reporting for Certain Allocations to Customer Accounts By Dually-Registered Broker-Dealers/Investment Advisers
Rule Number:

Rule G-14

Applicability of Trade Reporting for Certain Allocations to Customer Accounts By Dually-Registered Broker-Dealers/Investment Advisers1

[Th]e MSRB acknowledges that in certain circumstances a customer allocation may be subject to trade reporting under Rule G-14. However, the MSRB observes that in the case of a purchase of a block order by a dually registered dealer/investment adviser (“BD/IA firm”) of municipal securities that are then allocated internally to advisory accounts at the same price as the block order (i.e., without transaction-based compensation, such as with a non-transaction-based wrap or similar advisory fee), the MSRB historically has only required that the original block order be reported and not the subsequent related allocations to customers in advisory accounts where, with respect to any such allocation, the BD/IA firm is acting as an investment adviser to such account directing an internal delivery of a portion of such block of municipal securities acquired by the BD/IA firm to the advisory account.2  This treatment would continue based on the core principle that, as a price transparency system, RTRS seeks to disseminate publicly only such pricing information that is indicative of market prices and not price information that may not reliably reflect such market prices. The MSRB believes that publishing price information for smaller customer allocations that were priced based on the larger block price of the original block trade is not only unlikely to be indicative of market prices, but could also be misleading.3


1Excerpt from Letter to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, from Ernesto A. Lanza, Chief Regulatory and Policy Officer, MSRB, dated September 5, 2025, at 5–6, available at https://www.msrb.org/sites/default/files/2025-09/SR-MSRB-2025-01-MSRB-Response-to-Comments_0.pdf (internal citations renumbered). See also Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) Release No. 103987 (Sept. 16, 2025), File No. SR-MSRB-2025-01, 90 FR 45274, 45277 nn.58–60 and accompanying text (Sept. 19, 2025).

2See, e.g., Exchange Act Release No. 74564 (Mar. 23, 2015), 80 FR 16466, 16466 n.4 (Mar. 27, 2025), File No. SR-MSRB-2015-02 (“RTRS serves as an audit trail for municipal securities trading, with the exception of certain internal movements of securities within dealers that currently are not required to be reported”). See also MSRB Notice 2008-19, MSRB Seeks Comment on the Reporting of Proprietary Desk Transactions under Rule G-14, on Reports of Sales or Purchase (Apr. 11, 2008) (the “Prop Desk RFC”) (“Currently, internal movements of securities within a dealer organization are not considered to be reportable under Rule G-14.”). In the Prop Desk RFC, the MSRB proposed potentially requiring reporting to RTRS internal movements between a dealer’s proprietary desk and another part of the same dealer firm. The MSRB determined not to establish such a requirement with respect to such internal movements and continued to adhere to its position that internal movements are not reportable to RTRS. Of course, while the allocation is not reportable, the BD/IA firm would be subject to the full panoply of investment adviser duties, including a fiduciary duty to its customer, when it acts in this capacity as an investment adviser with respect to the customer’s advisory account.

3See, e.g., MSRB Notice 2003-20, Notice on Reporting and Comparison of Certain Transactions Effected by Investment Advisors: Rules G-12(f) and G-14 (May 23, 2003) (discussing the appropriateness of reporting only the price of the single block order trade with a third-party investment adviser rather than individual smaller transfers and allocations directed by such adviser that would be reportable at the same price as the block trade).

 

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

Rule G-17, 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 2004-42 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Notice 2004-43 - Request for Comment
Publication date: | Comment due:
Interpretive Guidance - Interpretive Notices
Publication date:
"List Offering Price" and Three-Hour Exception for Real-time Transaction Reporting: Rule G-14

The MSRB has received questions concerning the meaning of "list offering price" in Rule G-14 Real-Time Transaction Reporting Procedures.  As used in this context, the term means the publicly announced "initial offering price" at which a new issue of municipal securities is to be offered to the public. 

Real-time transaction reporting requires dealers to report most transactions within fifteen minutes of the time of trade execution.[1]  Transactions effected at the "list offering price" by syndicate or selling group members[2] on the first day of trading in a new issue are eligible for an exception found in Rule G-14 RTRS Procedures section (a)(ii)(A).  Such transactions instead are required to be reported by the end of the day.  Note that syndicate and selling group members are not required to wait to report such transactions at the end of the day and may choose to report prior to the end of the day. 

The exception from fifteen-minute transaction reporting for list-price syndicate trades is based on operational difficulties that otherwise might be presented for dealers when large numbers of transactions at the initial offering price must be reported by a dealer at one time.  The MSRB viewed these operational considerations as sufficiently important to allow trades to be reported at the end of the day given that the price of such trades (the "list offering price") is public.  Note that transactions by syndicate or selling group members at prices other than the "list offering price" on the first day of trading in a new issue are required to be reported within fifteen minutes of the time of trade execution.  For example, transactions between the syndicate manager and syndicate members ("takedown" transactions) that are at prices other than the "list offering price" must be reported within fifteen minutes of the time of execution.  Similarly, transactions done at offering prices that have not been publicly announced, e.g. "not reoffered" prices, also must be reported within fifteen minutes of the time of execution since these prices are not public.

Questions also have been asked about the availability of the three-hour trade reporting exception found in Rule G-14 RTRS Procedures section (a)(ii)(C).  When a dealer effects a trade in an issue it has not traded in the past year and does not have CUSIP numbers and indicative data for the issue in its securities master file used to process trades for confirmations, clearance and settlement, it is allowed three hours to report.[3]  This exception is designed to allow a dealer time to set-up a security it has not traded and is available for transactions on the first day of trading in a new issue.  Note this exception is not available for syndicate and selling group members.


[1]  Rule changes to MSRB Rules G-14, on transaction reporting, and G-12(f), on automated comparison of inter-dealer transactions, that will require dealers to report transactions in real-time become effective January 31, 2005.  See MSRB Notice 2004-36 (November 17, 2004) on www.msrb.org.

[2]  References to "syndicate and selling group members" in this context are meant to include managers of syndicates as well as sole underwriters or placement agents in non-syndicated offerings.

[3]  The three-hour exception sunsets one year after real-time transaction reporting is implemented.

Notice 2004-39 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Notice 2004-38 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Print