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 2011-68 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Notice 2011-66 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Interpretive Guidance - Interpretive Notices
Publication date:
Guidance on the Prohibition on Underwriting Issues of Municipal Securities for Which a Financial Advisory Relationship Exists Under Rule G-23
Rule Number:

Rule G-23

MSRB Rule G-23 establishes certain basic requirements applicable to a broker, dealer, or municipal securities dealer (“dealer”) acting as a financial advisor with respect to the issuance of municipal securities.  MSRB Rule G-23(d) provides that a dealer that has a financial advisory relationship with respect to the issuance of municipal securities is precluded from acquiring all or any portion of such issue, directly or indirectly, from the issuer as principal, either alone or as a participant in a syndicate or other similar account formed for that purpose.  A dealer is also precluded from arranging the placement of an issue with respect to which it has a financial advisory relationship.  This notice refers to both of these activities as “underwritings” and provides interpretive guidance on when a dealer may be precluded by Rule G-23(d) from underwriting an issue of municipal securities due to having served as financial advisor with respect to that issue.  Rule G-23 is solely a conflicts rule.  Accordingly, this notice does not address whether provision of the advice permitted by Rule G-23 would cause the dealer to be considered a “municipal advisor” under the Exchange Act and the rules promulgated thereunder.

Rule G-23(b) provides, among other things, that a financial advisory relationship shall be deemed to exist for purposes of Rule G-23 when a dealer renders or enters into an agreement to provide financial advisory or consultant services to or on behalf of an issuer with respect to the issuance of municipal securities, including advice with respect to the structure, timing, terms, and other similar matters concerning such issue or issues.  Rule G-23(b) also provides, however, that a financial advisory relationship shall not be deemed to exist when, in the course of acting as an underwriter and not as a financial advisor, a dealer provides advice to an issuer, including advice with respect to the structure, timing, terms, and other similar matters concerning the issuance of municipal securities.

Although Rule G-23(c) requires a financial advisory relationship to be evidenced by a writing, a financial advisory relationship will be deemed to exist whenever a dealer renders the types of advice provided for in Rule G-23(b), regardless of the existence of a written agreement.  However, a dealer that clearly identifies itself in writing as an underwriter and not as a financial advisor from the earliest stages of its relationship with the issuer with respect to that issue (e.g., in a response to a request for proposals or in promotional materials provided to an issuer) will be considered to be “acting as an underwriter” under Rule G-23(b) with respect to that issue.  The writing must make clear that the primary role of an underwriter is to purchase, or arrange for the placement of, securities in an arm’s-length commercial transaction between the issuer and the underwriter and that the underwriter has financial and other interests that differ from those of the issuer.  The dealer must not engage in a course of conduct that is inconsistent with an arm’s-length relationship with the issuer in connection with such issue of municipal securities or the dealer will be deemed to be a financial advisor with respect to that issue and precluded from underwriting that issue by Rule G-23(d).  Thus, a dealer providing advice to an issuer with respect to the issuance of municipal securities (including the structure, timing, and terms of the issue and other similar matters, when integrally related to the issue being underwritten) will not be viewed as a financial advisor for purposes of Rule G-23, if such advice is rendered in its capacity as underwriter for such issue.  In addition to engaging in underwriting activities, it shall not be a violation of Rule G-23(d) for a dealer that states that it is acting as an underwriter with respect to the issuance of municipal securities to provide advice with respect to the investment of the proceeds of the issue, municipal derivatives integrally related to the issue, or other similar matters concerning the issue.

Notice 2011-65 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Notice 2011-63 - Request for Comment
Publication date: | Comment due:

1.  Alternative Regulatory Solutions, L.L.C.: Letter from Kimberly McManus, President, dated December 13, 2011

2.  Bond Dealers of America: Letter from Michael Nicholas, CEO, dated December 13, 2011

3.  Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association: Letter from David L. Cohen, Managing Director, Associate General Counsel, dated December 13, 2011

4.  TMC Bonds L.L.C.: Letter from John S. Craft, Director of Sales and Marketing, dated December 13, 2011

Print