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).

In November 1998, the MSRB published an interpretation about the use of electronic media to deliver and receive information by brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers under Board rules (the “1998 interpretation”).  Since that time, the MSRB has been granted rulemaking authority over municipal advisors, and in the exercise of that authority, the MSRB has been developing a comprehensive regulatory framework for municipal advisors.

The Board believes that the use of electronic media to deliver and receive information under Board rules also is important for municipal advisors, and extends the guidance provided in the 1998 interpretation, as relevant, to municipal advisors.  See Rule G-32 Interpretation – Notice Regarding Electronic Delivery and Receipt of Information by Brokers, Dealers and Municipal Securities Dealers (November 20, 1998).