Select regulatory documents by category:
Bank Dealers, Dealers
Bank Dealers, Dealers, Municipal Advisors
Bank Dealers, Municipal Advisors
1. Bond Dealers of America: Letter from Mike Nicholas, CEO, dated November 10, 2016
2. Center for Municipal Finance: Letter from Marc D. Joffe dated November 6, 2016
3. City of New York: Letter from Prescott D. Ulrey, General Counsel, New York City Office of Management and Budget, and Al Rodriguez, Chief, Municipal Finance Division, New York City Law Department, dated November 11, 2016
4. City of New York, Office of the Comptroller: Letter from Tim Martin, Assistant Comptroller for Public Finance, dated November 11, 2016
5. Darcy Versions I and II: E-mail from G. Letti dated October 12, 2016
6. Financial Services Institute: Letter from Robin Traxler, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs and Associate General Counsel, dated November 11, 2016
7. Government Finance Officers Association: Letter from Emily Swenson Brock, Director, Federal Liaison Center, dated November 10, 2016
8. Kevin M. Bronner: Letter dated November 11, 2016
9. Michael Paganini: E-mail dated October 12, 2016
10. National Association of Municipal Advisors: Letter from Susan Gaffney, Executive Director, dated November 14, 2016
11. National Association of State Treasurers: Letter from Hon. James McIntire, President, dated November 16, 2016
12. National Federation of Municipal Analysts: Letter from Lisa Washburn, Chair, dated November 10, 2016
13. Richard Li: E-mail (1) and E-mail (2) dated October 13, 2016
14. San Francisco International Airport: Letter from Kevin Kone, Managing Director, Finance, dated November 10, 2016
15. Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association: Letter from Michael Decker, Managing Director, dated November 11, 2016
16. Sunlight Foundation: Letter from Noel Isama, Policy Associate, dated November 10, 2016
17. Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC: Letter from Robert J. McCarthy, Director of Regulatory Policy, dated November 11, 2016
Bank Dealers, Municipal Advisors
1. Breena LLC: E-mail from G. Letti dated September 30, 2016
2. Castle Advisory Company LLC: E-mail from Garth Schulz dated September 30, 2016
3. Columbia Capital Management, LLC: Letter from Jeff White, Principal, dated November 11, 2016
4. Financial Services Institute: Letter from David T. Bellaire, Executive Vice President and General Counsel, dated November 14, 2016
5. Lamont Financial Services Corporation: Letter from Robert A. Lamb, President, dated October 21, 2016
6. Lawrence Goldberg: E-mail dated September 30, 2016
7. National Association of Municipal Advisors: Letter from Susan Gaffney, Executive Director, dated November 14, 2016
8. PFM Group: Letter from Leo Karwejna, Managing Director and Chief Compliance Officer, dated November 14, 2016
9. Public Resources Advisory Group: Letter from Marianne F. Edmonds, Senior Managing Director, dated November 14, 2016
10. Roberts Consulting, LLC: E-mail from Jonathan Roberts dated October 14, 2016
11. Third Party Marketers Association: Letter from Donna DiMaria, Chairman of the Board of Directors, dated November 17, 2016
Bank Dealers, Dealers
1. Bond Dealers of America: Letter from Mike Nicholas, Chief Executive Officer, dated October 18, 2016
2. Darcy Versions I and II: E-mail from G. Letti dated September 27, 2016
3. Financial Services Institute: Letter from David T. Bellaire, Executive Vice President & General Counsel, dated October 11, 2016
4. James J. Angel: Letter dated October 22, 2016
5. National Association of Bond Lawyers: Letter from Clifford M. Gerber, President, dated December 23, 2016
6. Romano Brothers & Co.: Letter from Eric Bederman, Chief Operating and Compliance Officer, dated October 18, 2016
7. Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association: Letter from Leslie M. Norwood, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, dated October 18, 2016
Bank Dealers, Dealers, Municipal Advisors
Bank Dealers, Dealers
Bank Dealers, Dealers, Municipal Fund Securities
Questions and Answers Notice Concerning Real-Time Reporting of Municipal Securities Transactions
Q: Dealers are required to include time of trade (along with trade date) on all transaction reports. What is “time of trade?”
A: Transaction reporting procedures define “time of trade” as the time at which a contract is formed for a sale or purchase of municipal securities at a set quantity and set price.[1] For transaction reporting purposes, this is considered to be the same as the time that a trade is “executed.” The time that the trade is executed is not necessarily the time that the trade information is entered into the dealer’s processing system. For example, if a trade is executed on a trading desk but not entered for processing until later, the time of execution (not the time of entering the record into the processing system) is required to be reported as the “time of trade.” Similarly, when a dealer executes a transaction outside of the RTRS Business Day,[2] the time the trade was executed (rather than the time that the trade report is made) is the “time of trade” required to be reported.
2. Q: What is “time of trade” for new issue securities?
A: For new issue securities, a transaction effected on a “when, as and if issued”[3] basis cannot be executed, confirmed and reported until the municipal security has been formally awarded by the issuer. For a negotiated issue, this “time of formal award” is defined as the time of the signing of the bond purchase agreement and for a competitive issue, it is the time of the official award by the issuer. While dealers may take orders for securities and make conditional trading commitments prior to the award, dealers cannot execute transactions, send confirmations or make a trade report prior to the time of formal award. Once a new issue of municipal securities has been formally awarded, trade executions can begin. The time of execution is then reported to the MSRB.[4]
3. Q: There is a non-transaction-based compensation special condition indicator (NTBC indicator) for customer transactions. Is the NTBC indicator to be used only on customer transactions executed in a wrap fee account?
A: No, while transactions that occur in a wrap fee account may be one example of a transaction that qualifies as a customer transaction with no transaction-based dealer compensation component, the NTBC indicator is intended to distinguish all customer transactions that do not include a transaction-based compensation component from those transactions that do include a mark-up, mark-down or commission. Dealers should carefully consider other transactions that may require this indicator, such as those in which the dealer receives a remarketing fee, or a transaction often referred to as an “accommodation” that does not include a transaction-based dealer compensation component.
4. Q: Is the NTBC indicator to be used only on customer trades executed on a principal basis?
A: No. The NTBC indicator applies to both principal and agency trades. It is important for dealers to affirmatively indicate the transactions where a principal transaction does not include a mark-up or mark-down and an agency trade does not include a commission.
5. Q: Is the NTBC indicator to be used only on retail customer accounts?
A: No. There is no exemption for transactions with Sophisticated Municipal Market Professionals (SMMPs). The NTBC indicator is determined on a transaction basis and is to be used on any customer transaction to which it applies.
6. Q: What is the purpose of identifying an inter-dealer trade executed with or using the services of an alternative trading system (ATS)?
A: The purpose of the indicator is to better ascertain the ex- tent to which ATSs are used in the municipal market and to indicate to market participants information that the services of an ATS were used in executing the inter-dealer transaction.
7. Q: If a counterparty does not use the ATS indicator, will the two dealers’ transaction submission still match on the NSCC Real-Time Trade Matching (RTTM)?
A: Yes. The ATS indicator is not a matching value for RTTM. As noted in the MSRB’s Specifications for Real-Time Reporting of Municipal Securities Transactions, a new error code (Q55A) will be noted when the seller’s and buyer’s trade reports differ with respect to the ATS special condition indicator. Incorrect submissions should be modified as necessary.
8. Q: Do transactions executed over the phone with an ATS (voice trades) require a special condition indicator?
A: As noted in MSRB Notice 2015-07, an inter-dealer trans- action executed with or using the services of an alternative trading system with Form ATS on file with the SEC is required to be reported with the ATS indicator regardless of the mode of the transaction. See the MSRB’s Specifications for Real-Time Reporting of Municipal Securities Transactions for more detail on the use of the ATS special condition indicator.
9. Q: As of July 18, 2016, dealers are no longer required to report yield on customer trade reports, but MSRB Rule G-15 still obligates a dealer to calculate yield for customer confirmations. If a dealer’s yield calculation used for customer confirmations to comply with Rule G-15 differs from the yield disseminated by the MSRB, how can the dealer determine the reason for the difference?
A: The EMMA website includes a column labeled “Calculation Date & Price (%)” that displays the date and price for which the yield was calculated, which provides transparency on the inputs used in MSRB yield calculations to explain any potential calculation differences.
[1] See MSRB Rule G-14 RTRS Procedures (d)(iii).
[2] Transactions effected during the RTRS Business Day (from 7:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Eastern time) are required to be reported in real-time. Transactions effected outside of those hours are required to be reported within 15 minutes after the start of the next RTRS Business Day.
[3] See MSRB Glossary of Municipal Securities Terms, Third Edition, August 2013.
[4] For additional discussion of time of trade on transactions in new issue securities, see “Notice Requesting Comment on Draft Amendments to Rule G-34 to Facilitate Real-Time Transaction Reporting and Explaining Time of Trade for Reporting New Issue Trades,” MSRB Notice 2004-18 (June 18, 2004) and “Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Changes to Extend the Expiration of the Three-Hour Exception and to Require Underwriter Participation with DTCC’s NIIDS System,” MSRB Notice 2007-36 (November 27, 2007) .
Bank Dealers, Dealers
Dealers
MSRB Files Amendment to Rule G-37 to Clarify its Application to Contributions before August 17, 2016
Bank Dealers, Dealers, Municipal Advisors
MSRB Files Amendment to Rule G-37 to Clarify its Application to Contributions before August 17, 2016
Dealers, Issuers, Municipal Advisors
Municipal Advisors
Municipal Advisors
Bank Dealers, Dealers