Regulatory





SIFMA Statement from GFOA Conference.

Minneapolis, MN, May 20, 2014 – SIFMA today issued the following statement from Kenneth E. Bentsen, Jr., SIFMA president and CEO, after his luncheon remarks at the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) Annual Meeting taking place May 18-21, 2014 in Minneapolis:

“SIFMA is committed to promoting efficient municipal markets that facilitate capital formation, investor opportunity and economic growth. The municipal bond markets fuel local economies through infrastructure investment and job creation – in fact, state and local governments have already accessed over $88 billion in capital this year. It is vital to the prosperity of U.S. communities that this public-private partnership remain strong and not be constricted by unnecessary regulatory reform. Specifically, SIFMA is concerned that in more than one occasion, regulators have taken actions that work to the detriment of the municipal bond markets and state and local government issuers.

“For instance, in the case of the recently approved municipal advisor rule, the SEC incorrectly interpreted legislative history to create new burdens for both underwriters and issuers, as opposed to establishing a much needed, industry supported, regulatory framework for otherwise unregulated financial advisors. We are also concerned that the SEC’s Municipal Continuing Disclosure Cooperation Initiative (MCDC Initiative) creates a prisoner’s dilemma by trying to incentivize underwriters to report on their clients under the threat of penalty by the SEC. Instead, the SEC should be focusing on helping issuers comply with their obligations in an efficient manner and ensure investors have the information they need going forward. In the tax arena, we are closely monitoring the threat to end the tax-exemption for municipal bond interest, which would lead to higher capital costs and decreased municipal investment.

“SIFMA is dedicated to working with regulators and market participants to help craft well thought out rules and business practices that strike the appropriate balance between investor protection, safety and soundness and market efficiency. We are also working to stay ahead of future threats including systemic cyber attacks or other emergency scenarios that could impact the municipal markets and the industry’s broad ability to fulfill its role of intermediating capital and credit between investors and end users. We remain steadfast in our goal of promoting efficient, resilient municipal markets that can facilitate economic growth across the country.”

Release Date: May 20, 2014
Contact: Liz Pierce, 212.313.1173, lpierce@sifma.org




Day Pitney: Disclose Bank Loans to Standard & Poor's or Risk Rating Withdrawal.

This month, Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services (“S&P”) sent letters to all issuers of the bonds it rates advising the issuers to provide all relevant documentation related to any private debt, including bank loan financing, that the issuer enters into.

What Type of Debt Does S&P Want Disclosed?

What Documentation Is S&P Looking For?

When Does S&P Want the Information?

No later than promptly following the closing of the transaction, though preferably before closing.

What Is the Consequence of Not Disclosing?

Risk suspension or withdrawal of your S&P rating.

While S&P is requiring direct disclosure of the referenced debt to it, bondholders and their representatives have also encouraged issuers to voluntarily post information about such bank loans and private debt on the Electronic Municipal Market Access (“EMMA”) website, which is maintained by the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (“MSRB”). In 2012, the MSRB published a notice in which it encouraged, but did not mandate, issuers to post such information in order to provide timely access to investors and other market participants to allow them to make informed investment decisions. The MSRB encouraged the filing of either a PDF of the appropriate loan documents or a summary of the transaction, including the name of the lender, payment dates, maturity and amortization, prepayment provisions, purpose, security, tax status, guarantees, events of default, and remedies, among other information.

Any issuer considering voluntary disclosure on EMMA or with questions on when and what to send to S&P may wish to consult with counsel prior to any disclosure. The attorneys in Day Pitney’s Municipal Finance Group routinely counsel clients on such matters. Please feel free to contact any of the attorneys listed to the right of this alert if you would like to discuss this alert or your disclosure obligations.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Last Updated: May 22 2014
Article by Namita Tripathi Shah
Day Pitney LLP

 




GFOA, SIFMA to Push for MA Rule Tweak.

MINNEAPOLIS – The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association will help large issuers of municipal bonds pressure the Securities and Exchange Commission for a sophisticated issuer exemption from its municipal advisor rule, and will also request another delay in the rule’s effective date if more guidance is not available soon.

SIFMA’s Leslie Norwood and Michael Decker, co-heads of municipal securities at the group, told members of the Government Finance Officers Association’s debt committee during GFOA’s annual conference here Saturday that SEC muni chief John Cross is unable to make substantive changes to the MA rule through additional guidance, but that the commissioners could grant the so-called “sophisticated issuer” exemption. Many large, frequent issuers have said they would support such a change, which would exempt investment bankers and other professionals from having to register as MAs when giving advice to issuers who do not feel they need the rule’s protection.

The MA rule, a part of the Dodd-Frank Act, aims to shield municipalities from receiving bad financial advice by regulating anyone who gives a state or local government advice on issuing muni bonds or investing muni bond proceeds. By law, MAs owe their muni clients a fiduciary duty to put the issuer’s interests ahead of their own and the SEC has made clear that dealers who become MAs will not be able to underwrite a transaction for which they provide advice.

Dealers who wish to offer advice to issuer officials must now rely on an exemption from the rule. Exemptions exist for firms engaged to underwrite a specific bond transaction, firms responding to a competitive request for proposals, and firms giving advice to an issuer who retains and says it will rely on its own municipal advisor. Ben Watkins, who chairs the GFOA debt committee and also serves as Florida’s bond finance director, has supported the idea of also offering an exemption to firms who give advice to issuers with the expertise to parse the good ideas from the bad.

The debt committee floated the idea to Cross at its winter meeting in Washington, which Decker also attended. One committee member here Saturday said she had gotten the impression that Cross was dismissive of the idea of a sophisticated issuer exemption, but Decker said Cross seemed “amenable to it” and simply could not do it unilaterally through the muni office. Watkins said the GFOA meets with SEC commissioners “from time to time,” and that now is probably a good time to have a sit down.

Norwood said SIFMA would support the GFOA’s efforts.

“We support anything that makes the rule more workable,” she said.

Cross told those at the GFOA meeting that more guidance on the MA rule will be released Monday. The rule’s effective date was moved back to July from January after a previous round of written SEC guidance did not come out until very near that first scheduled effective date.

BY 

MAY 19, 2014 7:03am ET

 




SEC Issues More Muni Advisor FAQs.

The SEC Office of Municipal Securities today issued an updated set of Frequently Asked Questions concerning municipal advisors. The updated FAQs are available here. The updated FAQs include questions concerning obligated persons, investment strategies and proceeds of municipal securities (including pension obligation bonds), the engineering exclusion, the bank exemption and the attorney exclusion. The original FAQs, which were issued on January 10, 2014, are included in the document released today. The date of each FAQ is at the end of the answer.




SIFMA Leader Blasts SEC's MA Rule and MCDC Initiative.

MINNEAPOLIS — The leader of a dealer group criticized recent Securities and Exchange Commission efforts to further regulate the muni market, telling issuer officials on Tuesday that a new rule and initiative could undermine productive relationships between municipalities and underwriters.

Kenneth Bentsen, chief executive officer of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, made the remarks in a speech at the Government Finance Officers Association’s annual meeting here. His comments were a full-throated critique of the SEC’s municipal advisor registration rule and its Municipalities Continuing Disclosure Cooperation initiative, both of which he warned are misguided efforts that will penalize issuers.

SIFMA has long held that the MA rule, which becomes effective July 1, was included in the Dodd-Frank Act to bring previously unregulated non-dealer financial advisors under the supervision of regulators. Not all market participants agree with SIFMA’s interpretation of what lawmakers intended to achieve, but Bentsen told GFOA members that the rule completely misses the mark and will actually impose new costs on issuers through one of its provisions. The MA rule restricts potential underwriters from giving bond advice to municipalities with a few exceptions, such as when the issuer has retained and certified that it will rely on the advice of its own MA. The rule does not require issuers to have an MA, but GFOA best practices recommend it.

“In short, the SEC turned the statute on its head, contrary to intent, and created a new regulatory regime for underwriters, restricting their ability to advise state and local government issuers, while indirectly imposing an unfunded mandate on governments by prescribing the hiring of a financial advisor as one way to garner advice and information from underwriters,” Bentsen told GFOA members. “So whereas Congress intended to regulate otherwise unregulated financial advisors, the SEC chose to create a redundant and inefficient new regulatory regime for underwriters, and restrict access to information for state and local government issuers, unless they hire a financial advisor. That makes no sense.”

GFOA members questioned SEC muni chief John Cross earlier in the week about the possibility of an exemption for underwriters dealing with “sophisticated issuers,” but Cross said such a change to the rule would require action by the SEC’s commissioners.

Bentsen, a former Texas Congressman who sat on the House Financial Services Committee and its predecessor committee from 1995 to 2003, also skewered the MCDC program, a controversial SEC initiative that offers reduced penalties to issuers and underwriters that voluntarily report any instances in which they offered bonds without disclosing material information or otherwise failing to meet their continuing disclosure agreements. GFOA debt committee members worried that the MCDC could expose unsophisticated issuers to huge risks if they are turned in by their own underwriters. The initiative expires Sept. 10.

“The SEC’s motives under this initiative are misplaced,” Bentsen said. “They are trying to penalize state and local governments, through their underwriters, for past transgressions during a time when the continuing disclosure system was chronically broken.”

“Rather than engage in a retroactive game of gotcha,” he continued, “the MCDC should represent an opportunity for the SEC, state and local governments, and their underwriters to work together towards a workable solution that benefits the investor.”

Bentsen said SIFMA does not oppose all rules and appreciates the value of well-written regulations to promoting a fair and efficient market.

He also warned issuers to heed the most recent threats to the tax-exempt status of muni bonds. Dustin McDonald, director of GFOA’s federal liaison center, told issuer officials earlier this week that tax reform plans from both House Republicans and Senate Democrats attack the tax exemption, increasing the chance that the idea of capping the exemption will continue to linger even if neither plan is ever implemented. Bentsen said SIFMA, GFOA, and other market groups are prepared to continue resisting a move in that direction.

“While it is unlikely that Congress will take up the matter this year, we should not expect the issue to go away,” he said. “It is a threat we take seriously, especially if it were applied retroactively to outstanding bonds.”

The GFOA conference wraps up Wednesday, which features a panel on the MCDC that will include Peter Chan from the SEC’s Chicago regional office.

BY 

MAY 20, 2014 3:17pm ET

 




SIFMA: SEC Should Reject MA Fee; MSRB Should Overhaul Fees.

WASHINGTON — A dealer group is urging the Securities and Exchange Commission to suspend and reject the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board’s proposal to charge each municipal advisor professional $300 per year, warning it is unfair to dealer firms that have already paid for rules the MSRB is developing for MAs.

The group also wants the MSRB to overhaul its entire fee system so that fees are based on gross revenues from four sources: dealer underwriting, dealer sales and trading, MA advice on debt issuance, and MA advice on muni financial products.

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association made the pleas in a 10-page letter sent to the SEC on Wednesday that was signed by its managing director and associate general counsel David Cohen.

The letter also criticizes the MSRB for failing to provide more information or seek industry feedback on the proposed fee for MA professionals, which became effective immediately when announced on April 17. The SEC is currently collecting comments on the fee, with a May 22 deadline, and could revoke it.

The MSRB already charges MA firms a one-time initial fee of $100 upon registration and a $500 annual fee. Those fees have been in effect since 2010 when MAs had to begin registering with the MSRB. The MA professional fees, which are effective, technically won’t start to be collected until July 1, when the SEC’s final MA rule becomes effective with a phased-in compliance period.

“What SIFMA is asking for is an equitable allocation of MSRB’s expenses across all regulated parties,” Cohen said in a brief interview. “Dealers are currently funding about 90% of the MSRB’s budget.”

The board’s expenses totaled nearly $27.78 million in 2013 according to its annual report, SIFMA said.

SIFMA is frustrated that dealers have already paid for all of the MSRB’s rules, including those on registration, recordkeeping, professional qualifications and political contributions that the board must now develop or revise to cover MAs as well as dealers.

As a result, the proposed fee would amount to “a double tax on dealers,” Cohen said, an irony since dealers wanted non-dealer MAs to become subject to MSRB rules to level the playing field.

Cohen told the SEC that most SIFMA dealers that have no intention of pursuing municipal advisory business are still considering registering public finance investment bankers as MAs “‘as belt and suspenders’ protection in the event of an MA ‘foot fault.’ They should not be made to shoulder the cost of additional MA regulation and rulemaking.”

Broker-dealers already pay: a one-time fee of $100 upon registration; annual fees of $500; an assessment of $.03 per $1,000 of the par value paid by underwriters on most primary offerings; a fee of $.01 per $1,000 of the total par value of interdealer muni sales they report; a fee of $.01 per $1,000 of the total par value of the sales to customers that they report; a technology fee of $1.00 per transaction for each interdealer muni sale reported; and a technology fee of $1.00 per transaction for customer sales reported.

Cohen said the MSRB’s “current hodgepodge of fees and assessments … has evolved over decades and is not necessarily fair, reasonable or equitable.”

“The MSRB should consider abandoning its existing system of assessments in favor of a single tax on dealers and advisors that is based on an equalizing factor such as the gross revenue derived from municipal-related business regulated by the MSRB,” he said in the letter.

SIFMA also criticized the MSRB for filing the MA professional fee as immediately effective.

“SIFMA believes all MSRB fee changes, including the [MA professional fee], could benefit from reasonable prior notice of proposed changes, solicitation of feedback from market participants on implementation / effectiveness of fee changes, and a more fulsome discussion of the rationale for a fee change,” he told the SEC. “SIFMA thinks [the MA professional fee], in particular, lacks a sufficient discussion of the rationale for the fee changes or methodology of deriving the fee structure or the amount of the fee.”

The proposed MA professional fee “deviates from existing MSRB fees, which are primarily based upon market activity of regulated entities,” Cohen said.

BY 

MAY 21, 2014 2:20pm ET

 




BDA Opposes, NAIPFA Supports MA Fees.

WASHINGTON — Another broker-dealer group is asking the Securities and Exchange Commission to suspend the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board’s proposal to charge each municipal advisor professional $300 per year, but non-dealer MAs are giving the MSRB’s fee structure their support.

Bond Dealers of America president and chief executive officer Mike Nicholas told the SEC in a letter that the MSRB’s new Rule A-11, which was effective immediately upon its filing last month, is unduly burdensome to dealer firms and will disproportionately affect middle-market firms.

Under the rule, beginning with the July 1 effective date of the SEC’s final MA rule and following it’s phased-in compliance dates, each municipal advisor registered with the SEC will be required to pay an annual fee of $300 for each FORM MA-I that they fill out.

“The BDA believes the application of this fee is unduly burdensome to broker-dealer firms since the fee will be imposed not only on the newly-regulated municipal advisor firms, but will also apply to broker-dealers that employ municipal advisors and who are already funding over 90% of the cost of supporting the MSRB,” Nicholas wrote.

The MSRB already charges MA firms a one-time initial fee of $100 upon registration and a $500 annual fee. Those fees have been in effect since 2010 when MAs had to begin registering with the MSRB. The MA professional fees technically won’t start to be collected until July 1, when the SEC’s final MA rule becomes effective with a phased-in compliance period.

The MSRB should provide a calculation of how much money it expects to collect through this requirement, Nicholas wrote, so that a direct comparison can be made between the MSRB’s expenses from the new regulations and the revenues it stands to receive.

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association made similar comments in an earlier letter to the SEC, but Nicholas said the rule would be even harder on BDA members.

“We believe that the additional burden of this fee will disproportionately fall on middle-market broker-dealers, where advisory activities are more likely to represent a larger proportion of the firm and whose clients often are not the big issuers, but rather smaller, less frequent issuers, who will need the additional time and attention paid to them,” his letter states.

The National Association of Independent Public Finance Advisors, which represents non-dealer MAs, however, submitted a letter supporting the rule.

“In general, we believe the fees established by the notice are appropriate,” wrote NAIPFA president Jeanine Rodgers Caruso. “Although there exists the potential that these additional fees may further the financial burdens placed on municipal advisor firms, we believe that the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board has established a fee structure that at this time appears to be reasonable in light of its rulemaking efforts vis-à-vis municipal advisors.”

Nathan Howard, a lawyer who serves as counsel to NAIPFA, said that it would be impractical to impose transaction-based fees on MAs because their roles in a financing can very widely depending on the terms of their engagement.

NAIPFA’s letter requests, however, that future changes in the MA fee structure be put out for comment rather than submitted to the SEC for immediate effectiveness. The SEC has been collecting comments on the fee even though the rule is already effective, and could change or revoke it.

BY 

MAY 22, 2014 2:36pm ET

 




BDA Submits Comment Letter to SEC on MSRB Proposed Rule Change on Assessments for Municipal Advisor Professionals.

The BDA filed a comment letter with the SEC asking for them to summarily suspend the MSRB’s proposed rule change consisting of new rule A-11, on $300 assessments for municipal advisor professionals.

Specifically, the BDA asked the SEC to suspend the implementation of the new rule because the assessment is unduly burdensome for broker-dealers and would affect middle-market dealers disproportionately. Additionally, we asked that the MSRB perform a calculation as to how much money they anticipate collecting from the $300 assessment for municipal advisor professionals so that the MSRB can make a direct correlation between the money it collects and the money it spends on the costs and expenses of operating this wholly new municipal advisor regime. We believe that since MSRB will be using the additional monies from these assessments to create the municipal advisor regulatory regime, it should outline just how expensive this regulatory activity will be so that it correlates with the monies it collects from municipal advisors and would not take from the underwriter assessment fees it already collects from broker-dealer firms.

You can find the final letter here.

05-22-2014

 

 




BDA Submits Comment Letter on MSRB Draft Amendments to Rule G-3.

Today, the BDA submitted a comment letter addressing MSRB Draft Rule G-3 on professional qualification requirements for municipal advisors.

Specifically, the letter addresses the following:

You can find the final comment letter here.




NFMA Advance Seminar on Municipal High Yield Steering Committee.

The NFMA Advanced Seminar Co-Chairs, Dan Berger and Chris Mauro, are forming their steering committee to plan the Fall 2014 Advanced Seminar on Municipal High Yield. The event will be held in Chicago, Illinois at The InterContinental Chicago Magnificent Mile from Thursday, October 23 through Friday, October 24, 2014.

Steering committee responsibilities include participating on regular conference calls (two or three times per month), reviewing panel ideas, and seeking qualified moderators and panelists. Each steering committee member will be responsible for organizing one panel. Participation on the steering committee neither guarantees nor requires participation as a speaker or moderator.

Interested parties should contact Dan Berger at daniel.berger@thomsonreuters.com or Chris Mauro at chris.mauro@rbccm.com by Friday, May 30th. Please also include information on the sectors you cover or any relevant expertise relating to Municipal High Yield. Dan and Chris also invite all members to submit ideas for panel topics and/or speakers.




NABL Committee Seeks Board Candidates.

At the recent May meeting, the NABL Board of Directors selected the following members to participate on the 2014 Nominating Committee to select the nominees for the 2014-2015 Executive Committee and Board of Directors: Scott Lilienthal, Chair, Allen Robertson, Vice Chair, Antonio Martini, Carol McCoog, Deanna Gregory, Stefano Taverna, and Stephen Weyl.

 

 

NABL members are encouraged to submit nominees for Board positions to Linda Wyman, NABL COO, no later than Monday, June 16, 2014. Submissions should include a description of the nominee’s qualifications and past and current NABL committee and project participation. The Committee will consider all qualified nominations from the membership. The list of the current Board of Directors can be found here.

 

 

The candidates selected by the Nominating Committee for the 2014-2015 Executive Committee and Board of Directors will be sent to the membership by August 15, 2014, thirty days prior to the Annual Membership Meeting, in accordance with the NABL By-Laws. (Additional nominations from the floor are accepted only if provided in writing to the Chief Operating Officer and the President, not less than 14 days prior to the Annual Meeting.) The election will take place on Wednesday, September 17 during the 39th Bond Attorneys’ Workshop at the Fairmont Chicago.




Asset Managers Might Have to Register as MAs.

WASHINGTON — Asset managers may have to register as municipal advisors to protect themselves from violating the Securities and Exchange Commission’s MA rule, which restricts non-MAs from giving advice about muni bond proceeds and escrows as well as other financial products commonly used by states and localities.

At issue is the status of asset management companies that are not registered investment advisors under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. Registered investment advisers are exempt from the MA rule, which otherwise requires any individuals or firms providing advice to state or local governments about the issuance of muni bonds, the investment of muni proceeds, swaps, or muni escrows to register as MAs.

With the July 1 effective date of the MA rule fast approaching, asset managers said they might have to play it safe and register rather than risk violating the rule and facing possible SEC or Financial Industry Regulatory Authority enforcement action because the funds they oversee may contain bond proceeds.

The managers are finding that, because funds become commingled, neither they nor the issuers whose funds they manage are sure whether the funds include bond proceeds or not.

“We’re still grappling with the notion,” said Matthew Nevins, managing director and associate general counsel for SIFMA’s asset management group. Asset managers not registered as investment advisors or as swap advisors with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission had believed they would not be captured by the rule because their primary business is not to handle muni fund proceeds or securities-based swaps, he said.

Asset managers are also concerned about the issue of pooled investment vehicles, which can include muni bond proceeds. Nevins said asset companies are having difficulty determining if these pools contain bond proceeds and therefore are requiring their manager to register as an MA.

“Very difficult to prove,” Nevins said of determining whether a given fund contains muni bond proceeds. “Very cumbersome for our managers.”

SIFMA sent a letter to the SEC earlier this year asking that it either grandfather all existing investment vehicles and grant them an exemption, or allow a “good faith effort” to suffice in determining if they include municipal bond proceeds or not. SIFMA is hopeful that additional guidance on the rule, which the SEC has said it aims to release prior to July 1, will clear the matter up. If not, Nevins said, asset management companies may have to just register as MAs.

“If things stay the way they are, I think the answer is yes,” Nevins said when asked if asset managers will be forced to submit MA registration paperwork. “Their default is going to be just to register,” agreed Leslie Norwood, SIFMA managing director, associate general counsel, and co-head of municipal securities.

Victor Siclari, assistant general counsel and managing director at BNY Mellon said his bank established a separate division as a registered MA because there was no alternative. The exemptions available under the MA rule are not sufficient protection for firms placed in this position, Siclari said.

The rule would allow an asset management firm to give advice about muni proceeds if the issuer had retained and certified that it would rely on its own MA, but Siclari said that exemption probably would not be available often enough.

Some market participants have questioned why asset managers placed in this position do not either route such business through a registered investment advisor arm of their businesses, or register as investment advisors themselves. But RIAs typically operate under a totally different fee and organizational structure that could not just be changed to solve the problem, Nevins said. “There is no escape valve here,” he said.

Nevins added that asset managers are already highly-regulated by the states they operate in and are often already bound by a strict federal fiduciary duty to put their clients’ interests ahead of their own, as an MA is required to do. This duty is imposed on RIAs by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act if they handle retirement or pension funds.

Asset managers have asked municipalities to certify whether certain funds includes muni proceeds, but New York City finance director Alan Anders said issuers would probably not be comfortable with that idea. Issuers have often been spooked by legal communications from bankers in the past. “Many of them are going to be confused, and resist it until it’s explained to them pretty clearly,” Anders said. A lot of issuers don’t even know where their bond proceeds are, sources said.

BY KYLE GLAZIER

MAY 15, 2014 3:50pm ET




SEC Approves Fair Pricing Rule Consolidation.

WASHINGTON — The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board got the go-ahead from the Securities and Exchange Commission to consolidate muni dealers’ existing fair-pricing obligations into a single rule.

Effective July 7, all pricing-related obligations will be contained in revised MSRB Rule G-30 on prices and remuneration, the MSRB said Monday. The revised rule will replace but not alter the meaning of parts of Rules G-18 on execution of transactions and G-30 on prices and commissions, and incorporate existing guidance regarding fair pricing currently included in interpretive guidance to MSRB Rules G-17 on fair dealing and G-30. The consolidation is part of the MSRB’s effort to streamline interpretive guidance, especially on G-17, which has ballooned to many pages over the years.

“The MSRB continues to focus on opportunities to further improve our Rule Book to better highlight key principles and support regulatory efficiency and compliance,” said MSRB executive director Lynnette Kelly. “Consolidating all fair-pricing rules and interpretations into a single rule is an important step forward in this effort.”

The consolidated rule will continue to require dealers to use a “fair and reasonable” standard for the pricing of muni securities. The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association had previously asked the SEC not to approve a new pricing rule until dealers received more guidance on how pricing requirements are related to the board’s proposal to adopt a best execution standard requiring dealers to use “reasonable diligence” to achieve for their customers a price that is as favorable as possible under prevailing market conditions. The MSRB announced last week it would seek SEC approval on that rule proposal as well.

BY KYLE GLAZIER

MAY 12, 2014 3:42pm ET




FINRA's Stance on MA Oversight, Exams.

WASHINGTON — The Financial Industry Regulatory Agency’s director of fixed income recently tried to dispel some myths about the agency’s oversight of municipal advisors and detailed its plans for examinations.

Cindy Friedlander told those attending or listening to a Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association seminar on the muni advisor regulatory scheme on Friday that, contrary to what some people think, FINRA has no plans to begin enforcement of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s final MA registration rule before July 1, when it becomes effective. FINRA cannot enforce a rule until it takes effect, she said.

“We will be talking to firms about whether they should register under the temporary rule and the final rule,” she said. MAs were supposed to begin registering with the SEC and Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board in 2010 under an SEC temporary rule. But the temporary rule was significantly amended before being approved as a final rule in September.

Friedlander also said that FINRA has no plans to give firms a grace period on enforcement. Muni market participants were already given a six-month delay with the July 1 effective date of the SEC’s final rule, she said.

Friedlander said it is not true that FINRA will enforce compliance with the rule for firms that are not FINRA members. FINRA does not have jurisdiction over non-member firms, she said.

Beginning July 1, Friedlander said, FINRA plans to look at whether firms are complying with four requirements for MAs: registration under SEC and MSRB rules; recordkeeping under the SEC’s final rule; the fiduciary duty imposed by the Dodd-Frank Act; and the fair-dealing obligations under the MSRB’s Rule G-17.

Friedlander said she is concerned about some underwriters that have long-term close relationships with issuer clients. They need to realize that some of their traditional activities will now qualify them as MAs.

She said the SEC has already been conducting some exams and that the regulators have monthly meetings about what they are findings “so that we can proceed together in lockstep.”

“The goal is not ‘gotcha,'” she said, but rather to check activities and get information about what should be included in risk-based exams.

Friedlander said she thinks MA rules “will be a challenge” for small firms.

Larry Sandor, the MSRB’s deputy general counsel, said firms have been required since Dec. 31, 2010 to be registered as MAs and that they also have been required to comply with fiduciary duty and fair-dealing obligations as well as the federal anti-fraud securities laws, and statutes in some states.

The MSRB has a new consolidated Rule A-12 on registration and all MAs must re-register under that rule by Aug. 10.

The board has proposed changes to its Rule G-3 on classifications that would classify MAs as registered representatives who provide services and MA principals who are supervisors. MAs would have to take a general exam and there would be no grandfathering of current financial advisors, Sandor said. If an MA representative fails the MSRB exam, he or she would be able to retake it within 30 days, and if they fail that, they could retake it again in 30 days, he said.

The MSRB is still deciding about developing an exam for principals, Sandor said. The MSRB plans to send out surveys to muni market participants seeking information about what should be included on the exam for MA representatives, he said, adding he hopes there will be 100% response to the survey.

The MSRB has requested comments on its proposed qualifications rule changes, setting a May 16 deadline.

BY LYNN HUME

MAY 13, 2014 12:37pm ET




SEC: State of the Municipal Markets.

Securities and Exchange Commission State of the Municipal Markets
 
Read the Report.



GFOA Alert: The MA Rule and Issuers.

Rule’s Implications When Hiring Municipal Advisors and Underwriters

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has given final approval to a rule which takes effect July 1, 2014, defining the term “municipal advisor” (MA), and has produced supplementary Frequently Asked Questions about the rule. The SEC Municipal Advisor Rule specifies activities which will be covered by the Dodd-Frank Act’s imposed fiduciary duty of a municipal advisor to its government client, may result in the need for underwriters to receive new written representations from issuers, and may limit the manner in which underwriters and other professionals interact with issuers. While the Rule does not regulate issuers directly, there are numerous indirect implications. The practical effect of the MA Rule on issuers is to limit the ability of underwriters to provide advice to issuers. However, a few exemptions to the Rule may apply, thus allowing underwriters to provide advice to issuers as described below. This alert seeks to assist governments in understanding key aspects of the Rule and how it will likely require modifications to how issuers interact with underwriters.

Regulating Municipal Advisors

The MA Rule, which regulates municipal advisors, places a fiduciary duty on those professionals that advise governments when they sell bonds. GFOA recommends that unless a government has sufficient internal expertise that it use a municipal advisor when considering and developing a bond transaction. Municipal advisors must also now be registered with the SEC and Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB). Issuers can check the MSRB’s Municipal Advisor registration page to ensure their professionals are registered.

The MA Rule and Underwriters

The role of the underwriter is to sell bonds for the issuer. They do not have a fiduciary duty to the issuer. However, many investment banking firms have previously provided other services to their clients, including financing recommendations and advice on bond sales. The MA Rule states that only professionals with a fiduciary duty to the state or local government may provide advice, unless an exemption is in place. While investment bankers may continue to respond to RFPs, talk in general terms with issuers about general market information, and pitch products within certain limits, specific advice from investment bankers is prohibited unless certain exemptions apply. Below is a discussion of the exemptions along with model language that issuers may wish to use themselves, or may be sent to them from underwriters or other professionals.

The MA Rule and Investment of Bond Proceeds

Due to the SEC’s Municipal Advisor Rule and forthcoming MSRB rules, investment bankers may be considered municipal advisors if they provide advice on investments of bond proceeds to governments. Additionally, currently proposed MSRB rules may restrict the ability of municipal advisors to sell the products that they “recommended” as investments to their government clients. Investment bankers will be deemed to have made a “recommendation” when they advise their government clients to buy a particular security. Additionally, the underwriter may not provide advice related to the investment of bond proceeds unless; (1) the government issuer has in place a municipal advisor or an investment adviser, or (2) the underwriter is responding to the government’s request for proposal process regarding how to invest the bond proceeds. The SEC is expected to issue new MA Rule guidance to clarify whether or not broker recommendations on the investment of bond proceeds will be considered advice, and the MSRB is likely to further discuss this issue in their rulemaking. This document will be updated with this clarifying information.

Key Items Issuers Need to Know About the MA Rule

The Independent Municipal Advisor Exemption

An issuer may obtain advice from an underwriter when the issuer has retained an independent registered municipal advisor. The independent registered municipal advisor must not have been associated with the underwriter within the past two years. The issuer must represent in writing to the underwriter that it has retained and will rely on a municipal advisor for advice. The underwriter must have a reasonable basis for relying on the issuer’s representation. The municipal advisor may be hired for a specific deal for which the underwriter may be providing advice, or if a government hires a municipal advisor on a retainer basis, an underwriter may approach the issuer on any type of financing, as long as the issuer states in writing that it will rely on advice of its municipal advisor. Upon request, the issuer may send the representation to the underwriter directly, or post it on its web site. The GFOA recommends posting this language on the government’s website for efficient distribution and access by underwriters. It is important to note that the issuer remains in control of the scope of work it wishes to receive from its municipal advisor. GFOA discourages an underwriter from speaking with or sending materials directly to the issuer’s municipal advisor unless specifically authorized by the issuer . Additionally, for those entities that use multiple municipal advisors, suggested language is noted below for those circumstances.

Independent Municipal Advisor Exemption Language

[State or local government] has retained an independent registered municipal advisor. [State or local government] is represented by and will rely on its municipal advisor [Include name of firm here] [If desired, include name of advisor at the firm here] to provide advice on proposals from financial services firms concerning the issuance of municipal securities and municipal financial products (including investments of bond proceeds and escrow investments (if applicable) ). This certificate may be relied upon until (insert date). Proposals may be addressed to [State or local government] at ______________. If the proposal received will be seriously considered by [State of local government] the entity will share the document with its municipal advisor. Please note that aside from regulatorily mandated correspondence between an underwriter and municipal advisor, the underwriter should not speak directly with or send documents directly to the municipal advisor unless specifically directed to by the issuer.

Draft language for 2nd sentence to be used by larger entities – The [State or local government] uses several municipal advisors in its debt management program. To know which firm is being used for a particular credit, please contact the issuer at _______________, [or see below for the appropriate listing].

[If posted on the issuer’s website, add the following language at the beginning: By publicly posting the following written disclosure, [State or local government] intends that market participants receive and use it for purposes of the independent registered municipal advisor exemption to the SEC Municipal Advisor Rule.]

Issuer Uses RFP/RFQ Process/RFP Exemption

Underwriters responding to an RFP may include recommendations without violating the MA Rule. For this exemption to apply, the RFP may not be outstanding for more than six months and the issuer must widely distribute the RFP to at least three reasonably competitive firms or post it on their web site. The GFOA recommends that the RFP be posted on a government’s web site to ensure wide distribution. If an issuer uses a pool of underwriters from which it chooses underwriters for a particular transaction, the issuer may have to issue a mini-RFP to receive advice from members of its underwriting pool. Issuers may be asked to provide – or may provide on their own – a disclaimer that they their RFP process is in line with the MA Rule, as noted here:

Issuer Uses RFP/RFQ Process/RFP Exemption Language

[State or local government] is aware of the “Municipal Advisor Rule” of the Securities and Exchange Commission (effective July 1, 2014) and the RFP/RFQ exemption from the definition of “municipal advisor” for a person providing “advice”. In response to an RFP/RFQ, [State or local government] hereby notifies [all] [certain designated] investment banking firms that it wishes them to provide advice and recommendations on [insert description of particular objectives concerning the issuance of municipal securities and/or municipal financial products (as such terms are defined in the Municipal Advisor Rule)]. [State or local government] intends for such advice and recommendations to qualify for the RFP/RFQ exemption. The advice and recommendations may be made orally or in writing. [State or local government] reserves the right to accept or reject any proposals submitted to it and to conduct a formal procurement process, in each case if deemed by [State or local government] to be in its best interests and to comply with applicable laws or procurement policies. This RFP/RFQ is open from _________ to [insert date no later than six months after the first date or, in the case of mini RFPs, a date that is no later than 3 months after the first date]. [State or local government] understands that by responding to this RFP/RFQ, respondents are not municipal advisors to [State or local government]. [If not posting publicly, add the following language: This RFP/RFQ is being sent to [a least three investment banking firms] [the entire pool of firms].
Underwriter is Selected for a Transaction/Letter of Intent

Upon selection of an underwriter for a specific transaction (GFOA recommends selecting underwriters through a competitive RFP process), the GFOA recommends issuing a “letter of intent”, which will allow the underwriter to more freely discuss the transaction as its being developed. Model language for this exemption is suggested as followed:

Underwriter is Selected for a Transaction/Letter of Intent Language

[State or local government] is aware of the “Municipal Advisor Rule” of the Securities and Exchange Commission (effective July 1, 2014) and the underwriter exclusion from the definition of “municipal advisor” for a firm serving as an underwriter for a particular issuance of municipal securities.

[State or local government] hereby designates [Underwriter] as an underwriter for [brief description of the Bonds] (the “Bonds”) that [State or local government/Conduit Issuer/Obligated Person] currently anticipates issuing. [State or local government] expects that [Underwriter] will provide advice to [State or local government] on the structure, timing, terms, and other matters concerning the Bonds.

It is [State or local government’s] intent that [Underwriter] serve as an underwriter for the Bonds, subject to satisfying applicable procurement laws or policies, formal approval by [governing body/issuer], finalizing the structure of the Bonds and executing a bond purchase agreement. While [State or local government] presently engages [Underwriter] as the underwriter for the Bonds, this engagement letter is preliminary, nonbinding and may be terminated at any time by [State or local government] without penalty or liability for any costs incurred by the underwriter, or [Underwriter]. Furthermore, this engagement letter does not restrict [State or local government] from entering into the proposed municipal securities transaction with any other underwriters or selecting an underwriting syndicate that does not include [Underwriter].

________________________
[Underwriter]

________________________
[[State or local government] duly authorized official responsible for public finance]

Resources

Wednesday, May 14, 2014




SEC Approves Amendments to FINRA Rule 5110.

The SEC approved amendments to FINRA Rule 5110 (Corporate Financing Rule—Underwriting Terms and Arrangements) to expand the circumstances in which termination fees and rights of first refusal are permissible; exempt from the filing requirements certain collective investment vehicles that are not registered as investment companies; and make clarifying, nonsubstantive changes regarding documents filed through FINRA’s electronic filing system. The amendments become effective May 15, 2014.

Effective Date: May 15, 2014

Questions concerning this Notice should be directed to:

View Full Notice  



UBS Faces $5 Million Class Action Claim on Puerto Rico Bond Funds.

A class action claim filed this week in federal court sheds new light on the possible conflicts of interest surrounding UBS’ sale of Puerto Rico municipal bond funds.

The complaint, filed on Monday in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of seven investors in Puerto Rico, is asking for damages “in excess of $5 million” on the grounds that UBS AG‘s wealth management group violated its fiduciary duty in selling funds with proprietary products and high commissions.

UBS marketed the tax-free investments as secure “fixed income” securities that would preserve investors’ principal, when in fact the funds were highly volatile and contained a large portion of bonds that UBS had underwritten, according to the complaint.

“For defendants, however, the funds were cash cows, which defendants milked for hundreds of millions of dollars in fees and commissions,” the complaint said.

UBS said the complaint is “wholly without merit,” according to a statement provided by spokesman Gregg Rosenberg.

“We intend to defend ourselves vigorously against [the allegations],” the firm said.

The complaint is not the first class action claim made with regard to the bond funds. As of April, Finra had received more than 200 arbitration claims on similar grounds.

But this class action is one of the first to make claims about breach of fiduciary duty and present numbers around the fees UBS collected.

“The fee issue in the class actions, and for that matter in arbitrations, will be an extremely important issue,” said Andrew Stoltmann, an attorney who is representing claimants in Finra arbitrations regarding the funds. “The onion is getting peeled in terms of what UBS did and how much they were paid.”

The plaintiffs say that under Puerto Rico’s securities laws, UBS was acting under a fiduciary standard of care, which would have made the conflicts of interest illegal.

UBS was the lead or co-lead underwriter in 19 municipal financings from 2008 to mid-2013 and collected more than $200 million in underwriting fees, the lawsuit said.

The firm also collected fees from its asset management unit for managing the closed-end bond funds and “generated tens of millions of dollars in advisory and transactional fees by causing the funds to purchase the Puerto Rico bonds they had underwritten,” according to the claim.

UBS made around $50 million in fees per year for managing the UBS closed-end funds, the complaint alleges.

Clients then paid a 4.75% commission when investing in the bond funds, which was much higher than if UBS had sold individual securities or bonds directly to consumers, according to the complaint.

The complaint also states that UBS advisers in Puerto Rico encouraged clients to borrow against their brokerage accounts and then re-invest the money into the funds. The firm made approximately $500 million in loans to Puerto Rico customers, plaintiffs said.

Investors had been pouring money in as Puerto Rico bond funds had demonstrated strong performance prior to 2013. The Tax Free Puerto Rico Bond Fund II Inc. generated a market return of 9.95% in 2012, according to an annual report from UBS.

“For more than 20 years, investors in UBS’ Puerto Rico and closed end funds received excellent returns that frequently exceeded the returns available through investments in other bonds or bond funds,” Mr. Rosenberg said. “In addition, because they are exempt from Puerto Rico and US estate and gift taxes and may have provided tax-exempt or tax-advantaged income, Puerto Rico municipal bonds and closed end funds provided additional benefits to investors.”

But a number of the funds tanked in 2013 as interest rates began to increase, the City of Detroit filed for bankruptcy and critics began to question Puerto Rico’s ability to deliver on its budgetary reform measures.

The Tax Free Puerto Rico Bond Fund II lost 49.75% for 2013 based on the market value of the shares of the fund.

The losses were amplified by the fact that many of the funds were over concentrated, highly leveraged and therefore unsuitable for retirees, the complaint said.

UBS said, however, that the funds’ holdings had to consist of at least 67% Puerto Rico assets in order to achieve the tax benefits, and that the concentration was disclosed in the prospectuses.

UBS’ head of wealth management and investment solutions, Robert Mulholland, had characterized the situation as a “perfect storm” during a September 2013 trip to San Juan, the complaint said.

The complaint also names Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, and a subsidiary, Popular Securities, which had around 50 financial advisers in Puerto Rico and jointly managed some of the Puerto Rico municipal bond funds, according to the complaint.

A spokesperson for Banco Popular was unable to be reached by press time.

By Mason Braswell

May 7, 2014 @ 2:29 pm (Updated 4:54 pm) EST




MSRB Pay-to-Play Proposal for Advisors.

In the next step of the MSRB’s regulatory framework for municipal advisors, it plans to request comment on extending the MSRB’s pay-to-play rule for dealers to include municipal advisors. MSRB Rule G-37 has played a central role in curbing the use of political contributions to secure municipal securities business for two decades. At its April meeting, the MSRB Board agreed that extending these provisions to municipal advisors would help prevent quid pro quo political corruption, and the appearance of it, in public contracting for both dealers and municipal advisors.

In other municipal advisor news, the MSRB is revising its draft Rule G-42 on core standards of conduct for municipal advisors. The revisions seek to clarify and respond to concerns raised by commenters on the rule, including those regarding the treatment of principal transactions. The MSRB will continue to consider the comments received on draft Rule G-42 and will announce next steps soon.




MSRB: New Fairness and Pricing Efforts.

The MSRB is moving forward with establishing the first-ever “best-execution” standard for transactions in the municipal market. At its April 2014 meeting, the MSRB Board of Directors agreed to seek approval from the Securities and Exchange Commission on a rule to require dealers to use “reasonable diligence” when handling and executing municipal securities trades for retail investors. The rule aims to improve pricing for retail investors by ensuring dealers have appropriate procedures in place to achieve a price that is as favorable as possible under prevailing market conditions. The rulemaking process is ongoing. Read the draft best execution rule from February 2014.

The MSRB also is advancing three initiatives to enhance price transparency for municipal securities investors on its Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA®) website. The MSRB plans to:




MSRB to Consolidate Fair-Pricing Rules for Municipal Securities Dealers.

Alexandria, VA – The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) has received approval from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to consolidate municipal securities dealers’ existing fair-pricing obligations into a single rule, facilitating dealer compliance with a fundamental investor protection regulation. This action is part of a larger, multi-year initiative that the MSRB has underway to review and streamline its Rule Book.

“The MSRB continues to focus on opportunities to further improve our Rule Book to better highlight key principles and support regulatory efficiency and compliance,” said MSRB Executive Director Lynnette Kelly. “Consolidating all fair-pricing rules and interpretations into a single rule is an important step forward in this effort.”

Fair-pricing requirements for dealers with respect to customer transactions currently are contained in three separate MSRB rules, Rule G-30 on prices and commissions, Rule G-18 on execution of transactions, and Rule G-17 on fair dealing, and in various interpretive guidance under Rules G-30 and G-17.

The new, single fair-pricing rule, which requires dealers that transact municipal securities with or on behalf of customers to use a “fair and reasonable” standard for the pricing of the security and for any related commission or service charge, does not make any substantive change to existing dealer pricing obligations. Effective July 7, 2014, all pricing-related obligations will be contained in revised MSRB Rule G-30.

Date: May 12, 2014

Contact: Jennifer A. Galloway, Chief Communications Officer
(703) 797-6600
jgalloway@msrb.org




MSRB Provides Guidance to Municipal Advisors on Changes to its Registration Process.

 Alexandria, VA – The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) published guidance to assist municipal advisors with understanding changes to the MSRB’s registration process taking effect today. The guidance seeks to clarify that these changes are separate and apart from the Securities and Exchange Commission’s transition to a permanent registration regime for municipal advisors.

MSRB Rule A-12 was amended to consolidate registration requirements into a single rule and to create a simplified electronic registration form. Firms that are currently registered with the MSRB under the previous requirements must verify, update and complete their registration information in the new form by August 10, 2014. The MSRB’s guidance responds to frequently asked questions about the MSRB’s new registration process, which may be useful for both municipal advisors and municipal securities dealers.

The MSRB is also hosting an educational webinar to assist current registrants with submitting the new registration form.Learn more and register to attend the webinar.

Date: May 12, 2014

Contact: Jennifer A. Galloway, Chief Communications Officer
(703) 797-6600
jgalloway@msrb.org




Bond Ratings: Two Sides to Transparency.

ORLANDO — Increased transparency in the bond rating agencies has been a positive for both investors and issuers, even though it can potentially create a false sense of analysis being an exact science, experts told fellow municipal analysts on Thursday.

They made their comments during a panel discussion on the evolution of bond ratings here at the National Federation of Municipal Analysts’ annual conference. The Dodd-Frank Act required a number of changes to the industry, among them a requirement that agencies disclose their rating methodologies.

Jeffrey Previdi, managing director of U.S. public finance at Standard & Poor’s, said the evolving business has created positive developments for the market such as an increase in competition among those weighing in on credit quality. Whether the market agrees with a rating or not, he added, the rationale behind it will always be clear.

“The investor will be hard-pressed to say ‘I don’t understand how they arrived at that triple-A,'” Previdi said.

Standard and Poor’s has launched both web and Ipad applications allowing users to simulate their own local government credit scenarios. The tool is available to anyone who registers for a free account with the agency, and provides a blank slate into which users can input information about a local government of their choice.

But Eric Friedland, a portfolio manager and head of municipal research at Schroder’s Investment Management said the extreme transparency and scorecards that require only that numbers be punched in create the false sense that anyone can play analyst.

“It seems quantitative on the surface,” Friedland said, but credit analysis has to go beyond the numbers to include qualitative evaluation as well. “I think that creates a lot of confusion,” he said.

Rachel Barkley, a credit analyst with Morningstar Inc., said that while it isn’t up to the rating agencies to be “policemen” who push issuers into responsible behavior, they can play a positive role by setting forth benchmark criteria that municipalities will want to adhere to in order to earn better ratings. Barkley said the quality of ratings should not be judged by how bonds perform in the marketplace, pointing to strong demand for Puerto Rico’s junk-rated to GOs.

“Sometimes the market is just irrational,” she said.

Friedland said there would be little need for investment professionals if bond prices always matched ratings.

“A lot of us wouldn’t have jobs,” he said.

The NFMA conference concluded Friday, and will convene again next May in Las Vegas.

BY NAOMI JAGODA

MAY 9, 2014 11:07am ET




California Ruling Exempts Personal Devices From Open Records Laws - Will It Stand?

A California appeals court ruled last month that emails and other forms of electronic communication about public business are not subject to the state’s Public Records Act if they’re conducted on a private computer or device. But the decision’s impact on government transparency policies may cause aftershocks well beyond the Golden State’s borders.

The 6th District Court of Appeal in San Jose’s March 27 opinion gives elected officials and government employees a free pass to conduct public business in secret on their own devices. And with other states grappling with data retention and transparency issues, the decision could serve as a model to pull back on open government efforts over the last several years.

Peter Scheer, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition, a nonprofit group that advocates for free speech and open government, explained that public records laws are built on a presumption that when writing or communicating about government business, that speech is public record. There are exemptions that address policy considerations that justify confidentiality at times, but it’s generally accepted that government communications can be requested by the average citizen.

“This goes way beyond that,” Scheer said, referring to the 6th District’s decision. “This simply creates a whole new parallel channel of communication which is totally untouched and unregulated and is outside of the freedom of information system and rules we have.”

The 6th District Court of Appeal’s ruling overturned a lower court decision that would have enabled a citizen to obtain messages sent on private devices through private accounts of the San Jose mayor and city council members. The California Supreme Court may take up the case, but if it doesn’t, the 6th District’s decision would stand, creating a precedent for similar situations in the future.

Emily Shaw, national policy manager for the Sunlight Foundation, a nonprofit organization that favors government transparency, agreed with Scheer and felt the court’s decision was troublesome. She added that in every state’s public records law, private devices are either subject to records requests, or the states haven’t yet ruled on the issue. The California ruling puts the state in an entirely separate category, which could lead to big problems down the road.

“If California leads the way in saying that using private hardware means that the public no longer has access to those records, then it will be a very serious reduction in the amount of substantive information that people can access through the state’s public records law,” Shaw said. “Not necessarily because it’s not happening already and we just have difficulty in capturing it, but it would … create a big loophole.”

Chuck Thompson, general counsel and executive director of the International Municipal Lawyers Association, said the situation in California was hard to judge because all states have slightly different open records laws. But he said the appeals court decision “does seem to conflict” with the laws other states have on the books.

TECHNOLOGY OUTPACING THE LAW

Many state public records laws were written based on written communications – documents before, or at the very outset of, the digital age. For years it was generally accepted that verbal discussions occur every day in local and state government offices that aren’t entered into the public record.

But as technology has advanced and somewhat blurred the lines of communication, some have proposed that serious changes need to be considered. Thompson noted that in the past, people who requested a public document would get a copy of that document – not the fingerprints on the original document, but a copy of the original. Now, however, people ask for the metadata associated with an electronic document, which has spurred debate on whether government agencies need to archive and release that information as well.

Texting is another example of a means of communication that has polarized public records discussion. Maine Gov. Paul LePage has been scrutinized over the past few weeks for outlawing text messaging as a means to do state business.  While state employee text messages in Maine about public business are subject to the state’s Freedom of Access Act, the messages aren’t stored by state servers and almost impossible to recover.

The decision to ban texting was made after a former employee of the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention was allegedly told by supervisors to use texts to communicate because they couldn’t be obtained to fulfill public-records requests. But not everyone believes that was the right move.

One state CIO who wished to remain anonymous, told Government Technology last week that while text messaging was “writing,” it arguably had more in common with telephone calls and verbal conversations made by public officials every day that aren’t entered into the public record. For states – and local governments – that allow texting, the idea that text messages should be retained for public records requests comes with a potentially huge expense.

Thompson believes there are a number of additional issues that states need to consider that could become public record law nightmares. He pointed to cloud storage and the federal communications storage laws and how they may impact future public requests for information.

For now, however, government agencies and municipal attorneys are left waiting to see if the California Supreme Court steps in to tackle the private device question.

“I think it will take up the issue [but] it might not take up this case, because it may want to wait and see if other courts of appeal in California decide the issue differently,” Scheer said. “But I do think that the issue ultimately will be decided in the state supreme court.”

Brian Heaton  |  Senior Writer


Brian Heaton is a senior writer for Government Technology. He primarily covers technology legislation and IT policy issues. Brian started his journalism career in 1999, covering sports and fitness for two trade publications based in Long Island, N.Y. He’s also a member of the Professional Bowlers Association, and competes in regional tournaments throughout Northern California and Nevada.




CDO Disclosures Don't Preclude Citi Fraud Claim: N.Y. Appeals Court.

NEW YORK (Reuters) – A state appeals court on Thursday denied Citigroup Inc’s bid to dismiss a fraud claim in a lawsuit stemming from nearly $1 billion of collateralized debt obligations.

The Appellate Division, First Department, said that disclaimers and disclosures in marketing materials for the securities did not bar plaintiff Loreley Financing from establishing that it relied on Citi’s allegedly false and misleading misrepresentations when it bought the securities in 2006 and 2007.

“We find that these disclaimers and disclosures fall well short of tracking the particular misrepresentations and omissions alleged by plaintiffs,” Justice Dianne Renwick wrote for a unanimous panel.

Loreley, a group of special-purpose entities formed to invest in CDOs, sued Citi in 2012 for defrauding it into purchasing “fraudulent investments that are now worthless,” according to the complaint.

The suit, filed in Manhattan Supreme Court, claimed Citi used the CDOs to offload risks of toxic mortgage-backed securities and to help preferred clients short the housing market. It accused Citi of fraud, rescission, fraudulent conveyance and unjust enrichment.

In June 2012, Citi moved to dismiss the complaint.

In December 2012, Justice Jeffrey Oing granted Citi’s motion to dismiss the rescission and fraudulent conveyance claims, but denied its bid to dismiss the fraud and unjust enrichment claim.

On appeal, Citi argued that the marketing materials for the securities required purchasers to disclaim reliance on Citi’s advice or representations. The materials, Citi said, warned buyers that collateral underlying the securities was subject to risks and that Citi and its affiliates could act in numerous capacities in the deal that could conflict with buyers’ interests.

The First Department disagreed, citing its decision earlier this year in Basis Yield Alpha Fund v. Goldman Sachs Group, a CDO lawsuit which it said included “indistinguishable” allegations of fraud.

In that case, the First Department said it affirmed a lower court’s decision denying Goldman’s bid to dismiss the case based on “very strongly-worded disclaimers and disclosures.”

“Basis Yield … constitutes clear precedent that compels us to find that Citigroup’s disclaimers and disclosures do not preclude, as a matter of law, a claim of justifiable reliance on the seller’s misrepresentations or omissions,” Renwick wrote.

The First Department did dismiss the unjust enrichment claim, however.

Justices Angela Mazzarelli, John Sweeny, Helen Freedman and Judith Gische joined Renwick in the decision.

“Loreley is very pleased with the First Department’s ruling today, and we look forward to presenting our case to the trial court,” said Sheron Korpus, a partner with Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman who represented Loreley.

Susanna Buergel, a partner with Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison who represented Citi, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The case is Loreley Financing et al v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc et al, New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, No. 11886.

For Loreley: Sheron Korpus of Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman.

For Citi: Susanna Buergel of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.

May 8, 2014

 

Bernard Vaughan




SIFMA Finalizes Model Documents for Compliance with Municipal Advisor Rule; Will Host "Muni Advisor Regulation - Implementation and Registration" May 9

New York, NY, May 7, 2014 – SIFMA today announced that it has finalized its model documents and related guidance to help brokers, dealers and other financial institutions serve their clients and comply with the new regulatory requirements created by the SEC’s Municipal Advisor Rule.  The documents are available atwww.sifma.org/MAForms.

“We released the draft documents last month in an effort to help our members comply with this new rule,” said Leslie Norwood, managing director, associate general counsel and co-head of SIFMA’s municipal securities division.  “We would like to thank the industry for its review and thoughtful comments on the drafts.”

The SEC’s Municipal Advisor Rule imposes a registration regime upon municipal advisors, i.e., firms that give advice absent an exemption or exclusion to municipal entities and obligated persons, and imposes a fiduciary duty upon municipal advisors that give advice to municipal entities.  MSRB rulemaking will impose additional requirements and prohibitions on the conduct of municipal advisors.

SIFMA’s model disclosures are designed to be a starting point to aid firms with serving their clients and compliance with the SEC’s Municipal Advisor Rule; however, close attention must be paid to the specific language used, as the Rule and the SEC’s interpretive guidance is very specific as to what is required for compliance with certain exemptions or exclusions.  SIFMA encourages firms to modify these documents as necessary to reflect their own analysis of the Rule or the specifics of particular client relationships or transactions.

SIFMA also recommends that firms update their internal policies and procedures and continue to educate their personnel about this new regulatory requirement ahead of the Municipal Advisor Rule’s July 1 effective date.

SIFMA will also host a seminar and webinar titled “Muni Advisor Regulation – Implementation and Registration” on May 9, 2014 in New York City. The seminar will provide an in-depth discussion on the regulatory framework and outlook for municipal advisors and other firms potentially covered by this rule.

The program will begin with an introduction and launch of SIFMA’s Municipal Advisor Model Documents, followed by three consecutive panel discussions:  Municipal Advisor Regulation, with panelists from the SEC, FINRA and the MSRB; Municipal Advisor Registration Rule Implementation – Underwriting; and Municipal Advisor Registration Rule Implementation – Asset Management and Bond Proceeds. The seminar will conclude with a presentation from featured speaker Lanny Schwartz, Partner at Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, who will cover specific practical tips and potential issues with respect to the filing of the Form MA. Filing deadlines and differences with the Form BD will be highlighted. Issuers can register for the event for free.  Please click here to view more information on the conference: http://www.sifma.org/munireg2014/program/

Release Date: May 7, 2014
Contact: Katrina Cavalli, 212.313.1181, kcavalli@sifma.org



Call for Entries: Municipal Securities Regulation Essay Competition.

Alexandria, VA– In conjunction with the Securities and Exchange Commission Historical Society, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) is inviting submissions to a writing competition on municipal securities regulation sponsored by the Society. The winning essay will be part of the Society’s Gallery on Municipal Securities Regulation, opening in 2015.

The writing competition is open to all visitors to the Society’s virtual museum and archive at www.sechistorical.org. The writing award will recognize an essay on any area of municipal securities regulation and will become part of the MSRB’s gallery, opening December 1, 2015. The MSRB will celebrate its 40th anniversary in 2015.

The award recipient will receive a $5,000 prize. The submission deadline for essays is December 31, 2014. View complete entry guidelines.

The SEC Historical Society shares, preserves and advances knowledge of the history of financial regulation. The Society is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, independent of and separate from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.




5 Big Compliance Lessons from Recent SEC Cases.

With seemingly daily news about the Securities and Exchange Commission cracking down on advisory firms for wrongdoing, here’s a list of five top issues and lessons learned from recent regulatory actions.




MSRB Holds Quarterly Meeting.

Alexandria, VA – The Board of Directors of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) held its quarterly meeting April 30 – May 2, 2014, where it advanced several initiatives to improve the structure, efficiency and transparency of the municipal securities market. The Board also continued to develop a regulatory framework for municipal advisors, agreeing to propose extending its landmark pay-to-play rule to municipal advisors, among other actions.

Best Execution
The Board agreed to seek approval from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to implement a “best-execution” standard for transactions in the municipal market. The rule would establish for the first time an explicit obligation for dealers to use “reasonable diligence” when handling and executing municipal security trades for retail investors to achieve a price that is as favorable as possible under prevailing market conditions.

“Building on the MSRB’s existing fair-pricing rules, the best-ex rule would add an additional layer of protection for retail investors while remaining flexible for dealers operating in a unique marketplace,” said MSRB Board Chair Daniel Heimowitz.

Municipal Advisor Regulation
The Board continued its development of a regulatory framework for municipal advisors by agreeing to develop draft amendments to its pay-to-play rule for dealers to also include municipal advisors.

“For two decades, MSRB Rule G-37 has played a central role in curbing the use of, and the appearance of the use of, political contributions to secure municipal securities business,” Heimowitz said. “Extending these provisions to municipal advisors will help prevent quid pro quo political corruption, or the appearance of such corruption, in public contracting for both dealers and municipal advisors.”

To date, the MSRB has sought comment on draft rules for municipal advisors to establish core duties and standards of conduct, supervisory and compliance obligations, and baseline professional qualification requirements. The Board reviewed comments received on the first of these proposals, draft MSRB Rule G-42, on the duties of non-solicitor municipal advisors. The Board began revising the draft rule to clarify and respond to concerns raised by commenters, including concerns about the treatment of principal transactions. It will continue to consider the comments received and will announce next steps soon.

Price Transparency
The Board also advanced three initiatives to enhance price transparency for municipal securities investors. The first is the introduction of a “price discovery tool” on the MSRB’s Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA®) website that will soon allow investors to easily find and compare prices of municipal securities with similar characteristics. A new graphical view of historical pricing will make data on EMMA even more useful and enable investors to clearly see prices at which any municipal security and other securities with similar characteristics were bought and sold over a specified period of time. The EMMA website, at emma.msrb.org, is the official source of municipal market disclosures and data, including trade prices for virtually all municipal securities.

“EMMA’s innovative price discovery tool will break new ground in terms of transparency for investors in the municipal market,” Heimowitz said. “This improved display of transaction prices has the potential of becoming a significant new tool for empowering investors to make more informed investment decisions.”

Second, the Board authorized MSRB staff to develop a concept release on the presentation of market information to aid investors in assessing markups or markdowns on their transactions. The MSRB supports a holistic review of the data available on the EMMA website and the ways that such data may enhance post-trade price transparency for investors and other market participants. The concept release will not contain a specific rule proposal, but will seek broad industry and public input in this area, including ways to address the topic of markup disclosure. Given many of the existing enhancements in post-trade price transparency on EMMA,  fresh commenter input on markups and markdowns, including those on so-called “riskless principal” transactions or “matched trades,” may guide future rulemaking.

Third, the Board agreed to take the next steps toward expanding the pricing-related data available on EMMA as part of its central transparency platform initiative. The MSRB will develop a proposed framework for enhancing its Real-time Transaction Reporting System (RTRS) to collect additional post-trade information for public display on EMMA as well as a potential framework for a phased approach for the collection and dissemination of relevant pre-trade data. The MSRB will engage in outreach with market participants in advance of seeking formal comment, beginning this summer, on these two frameworks on separate tracks, consisting of a request for comment on proposed RTRS changes, followed by a concept release on a potential first phase of an incremental approach for collecting and disseminating relevant selected pre-trade data.

Dealer Continuing Education
At its meeting, the Board also agreed to file with the SEC a modified proposal to require that dealers provide annual training on municipal securities to registered persons regularly engaged in municipal securities activities as part of the MSRB’s firm element continuing education requirements. Although not specifying a minimum amount of training time, as originally proposed, the Board believes that the unique nature of the municipal securities market and its regulatory environment necessitate annual municipal securities training to persons regularly engaged in this business. This requirement will help ensure that firms consider the particular training needs of personnel responsible for understanding municipal securities products and complying with MSRB rules. The MSRB makes available a number of free educational resources about its rules on its website, including webinars about proposed and final rules.

Other Business
Finally, the Board met with SEC Commissioner Michael S. Piwowar, whose extensive background in economic analysis and municipal market structure lends an important perspective to the oversight of the municipal securities market. The Board and Commissioner Piwowar discussed the shared priorities of the MSRB and the SEC related to market structure issues and economic analysis of rulemaking.

Date: May 6, 2014

Contact: Jennifer A. Galloway, Chief Communications Officer
(703) 797-6600
jgalloway@msrb.org




Bond Firm’s Gifts to California School Officials Draw Scrutiny.

California’s political watchdog is investigating whether school officials failed to report gifts from municipal bond underwriter Stone & Youngberg, now a unit of Stifel Financial Corp.

The California Fair Political Practices Commission is looking into whether officials at districts that did business with Stone & Youngberg neglected to report meals and other gifts on mandatory disclosure forms, commission spokesman Jay Wierenga said by telephone.

Stone & Youngberg, based in San Francisco, was the state’s fourth-biggest muni underwriter when Stifel bought it in 2011. In the five years preceding the acquisition, Stone & Youngberg managed $14.7 billion in bond sales in California, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Since October 2011, Stifel has overseen $7.9 billion of issuance in the state, the data show.

“It’s not necessarily Stone & Youngberg as the focus of our investigation,” Wierenga said yesterday by telephone from Sacramento. “The focus is on unreported gifts. A lot of companies give gifts. Those have to be reported.”

Stephen Heaney, a Stifel managing director in Los Angeles, didn’t respond to telephone calls and e-mail messages seeking comment. Linda Olszewski, a company spokeswoman in St. Louis, didn’t respond to e-mail after regular business hours.

Stone & Youngberg managed sales in two San Diego County school districts that pushed the largest debt payments decades into the future through capital-appreciation bonds. The Santee Unified School District sold $3.5 million in 2011 with no payment due until 2026 and $40.3 million payable in 2051. The Poway Unified School District deferred to 2033 all payments on $105 million in bonds issued in 2011, with interest totaling $1 billion.

‘Abusive’ Practice

State Treasurer Bill Lockyer criticized the practice as “abusive” and led a push in the legislature to cap interest costs at four times the principal.

Under California law, local elected officials must disclose gifts worth an aggregate of $50 or more. Gifts from a single source may not total more than $440 in a year. The state also prohibits elected officials from voting on matters from which they may personally profit.

Wierenga declined to provide details on the state’s investigation such as the school districts or officials under scrutiny.

By James Nash April 21, 2014

To contact the reporter on this story: James Nash in Los Angeles at jnash24@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Stephen Merelman at smerelman@bloomberg.net Pete Young, Mike Millard




Bracewell & Giuliani: SEC Municipalities Continuing Disclosure Cooperation Initiative Targets Issuers and Underwriters with a “Prisoner’s Dilemma”

On March 10, 2014, the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced  the Municipalities Continuing Disclosure Cooperation Initiative (MCDC) – an offer for municipal issuers and their underwriters to turn themselves (and others) in now for certain potential violations of the securities laws in exchange for lighter punishments, in contrast to harsh penalties threatened for those caught after the September 9, 2014 deadline. The offer extends only to potential violations of the antifraud rules made in an Official Statement regarding the issuer’s past compliance with continuing disclosure agreements and not to other violations of the antifraud provisions. The scope of transactions potentially covered by the MCDC is extensive and the terms provided in SEC materials raise many questions. The chief of the Enforcement Division’s Municipal Securities and Public Pensions Unit, LeeAnn Gaunt, and her deputy Mark Zehner provided additional insight into MCDC in response to questioning during recent panels chaired by Paul Maco, one of the authors of this Alert. That insight is incorporated into this Alert.

Read the full Alert HERE.

 




BDA Submits Comment Letter on MSRB Draft Rule G-44.

BDA submits comment letter to the MSRB on Draft Rule G-44, on Supervisory and Compliance Obligations of Municipal Advisors.

Specifically, our letter addressed the following:

  • We asked that the MSRB supply minimum standards for municipal advisors of all sizes;
  • We asked that the MSRB make clear within the language of Draft Rule G-44 that the firm itself remain ultimately responsible for any decisions made or affected by the CCO, whether this position is outsourced or not;
  • We believe it is critical for municipal advisors to self-certify that they are meeting the same professional qualification standards as those already established by those affiliated with broker-dealer firms; and
  • We asked that the MSRB consider delaying the implementation of Draft Rule G-44, and any and all other municipal advisor rules, until at least six months after all the rules that will comprise the MSRB’s entire regulatory framework have been finalized and approved by the SEC.

You can find our final comment letter here.




Non-Dealer MAs: Supervision Rule Could Hurt Market.

WASHINGTON — Non-dealer municipal advisors are warning the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board’s proposed rule on MA supervisory requirements could be costly to the market without greatly benefiting the issuers it is designed to protect.

The National Association of Independent Public Finance Advisors issued the warning in comments about the MSRB’s proposed Rule G-44, Supervisory and Compliance Obligations of Municipal Advisors, on Monday.

While dealer groups said they approve of the MSRB’s approach, NAIPFA president Jeanine Rodgers Caruso told the board in a letter that the problem this rule seeks to solve may not be big enough to justify the regulatory costs that MAs will have to pass along to issuers.

Proposed Rule G-44 would require MAs to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written supervisory procedures designed to ensure compliance with the federal securities laws and rules. It would mark the first time non-dealer MAs have been subject to supervisory requirements under MSRB rules,

To the best of our knowledge, since the enactment of the Dodd-Frank [Act] and the imposition of a federal fiduciary standard on municipal advisors, no enforcement actions have been brought against a municipal advisor for breach of fiduciary duty,” Rodgers Caruso wrote. “Therefore, due to the lack of objective evidence indicating that firms have engaged in widespread violations of their fiduciary duties, NAIPFA does not believe that a need exists for the MSRB to articulate supervisory/compliance obligations at this time. In this regard, the costs, time and effort that will be required to be expended by municipal advisors will likely outweigh any incremental benefits that may be realized by municipal entities and obligated persons.”

NAIPFA’s letter said that many smaller MAs would likely merge or fade out of existence facing the regulatory burden of having to maintain compliance records for a minimum of five years and having to designate a chief compliance officer. Those that choose to stay in business will probably have to pass the costs along to issuers, raising borrowing costs for municipalities, the letter argues. The group, however, complimented several aspects of the MSRB’s approach, such as accommodating single-member MA firms by allowing those practices to outsource the chief compliance officer job.

David Cohen, managing director and associate general counsel at the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, said dealer-affiliated MAs have already been complying with similar requirements under the MSRB’s dealer supervisory rule, G-27. Cohen said in an interview that the proposal is “the right approach,” and is a step toward creating a level playing field between historically regulated dealer-MA’s and unregulated non-dealer MAs despite being less stringent than G-27. Cohen’s letter to the board asks that MAs be given a minimum of six months to comply with any final G-44.

Bond Dealers of America president and chief executive officer Mike Nicholas urged the MSRB to set baseline supervisory standards that all MAs must meet, rather than allowing small advisory firms to tailor their compliance programs in ways that might make them less stringent. The rule proposal allows small MA firms to take their size into account when designing their compliance programs.

“Small or one-man shops should not be permitted the opportunity, purposefully or otherwise, to diminish their obligation toward meeting the demands of the rule and this regulatory regime should in fact be comparable to the regulatory regimes for other entities and persons in the financial services industry,” Nicholas wrote. “We believe firms of all sizes and business models should be held to the same standard of service and should be required to meet the requirements of the law.”

The Investment Company Institute said it supports proposed Rule G-44 because it is consistent with existing obligations for broker-dealers. ICI’s comment letter requests 12-months before compliance kicks in following the adoption of the final rule.

The MSRB is also developing rules on MA conduct, fees, qualification examinations, and political contributions. The Securities and Exchange Commission must approve any proposal before it could become a rule.

BY KYLE GLAZIER

APR 28, 2014 2:15pm ET




MSRB to Discuss Trade, Best Execution, MA Rules at Meeting.

WASHINGTON — The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board next week will discuss plans to rebuild its real-time reporting system and the possibility of developing a rule to limit the political contributions of municipal advisors, as well as the comments it has received on its proposed rules on best execution and MA conduct.

The MSRB released topics for its meeting in Alexandria, Va. next Wednesday through Friday, including efforts to turn the RTRS into a true central transparency platform.

The board announced in October that price transparency would be a major objective for the new fiscal year, and that it hoped to strengthen its EMMA website by adding more post-trade pricing data. In January the board asked market participants to comment on the possibility of tweaking the current RTRS, including the possibility of no longer giving dealers extra time to report certain trades.

The board will discuss comments on its proposed Rules G-42 on the duties of municipal advisors who do not solicit muni business and G-18 on best execution. Rule G-42 touched off some intense debate among market participants when the MSRB proposed it in January, It would codify the language of the Dodd-Frank Act and the Securities and Exchange Commission’s registration rule for MAs, which impose a fiduciary duty on them to put their client’s interest first before their own. The draft rule says MAs owe both a duty of loyalty and a duty of care to their issuer clients.

It would prohibit an MA and its affiliates from engaging in any other transaction in a principal capacity with a client, which dealers warned could be “unworkable” for banks with associated muni advisory businesses. The bank would have to choose between providing banking services or MA services to a client under the proposal, banking and dealer group leaders told the MSRB.

The idea of a best execution rule, which would require broker-dealers to “use reasonable diligence” to obtain “the most favorable terms available under prevailing market conditions” for their customers, initially faced very heavy skepticism from dealer groups who warned that an attempt to impose a “trade-by-trade” corporate-style mandate wouldn’t work in the more opaque and less liquid muni market.

More recently, dealers have softened their views on the proposal but requested more guidance on how a best-ex rule would interact with fair-pricing requirements. Non-dealer financial advisors said the board’s fair-dealing rule would need to be amended, because of the proposed G-18 best execution rule, to reflect a dealer’s new obligation to sell securities at prices most favorable to investors — something issuers would need to know if the proposed best-ex rule applies to new offerings as well as secondary market transactions.

Other topics of discussion will include a possible rule governing restrictions on political contributions by registered MAs, and dealer continuing education requirements.

BY KYLE GLAZIER

APR 23, 2014 2:22pm ET




Small Issuers Uninformed About MA Rules; Dealers Picking up Slack.

WASHINGTON — Many smaller issuers remain uninformed about what the impending municipal advisor regulatory regime will mean for them, with broker-dealers picking up the slack and providing them with information, according to market participants.

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s MA registration rule takes full effect July 1. The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board is also in the process of creating rules for MAs, including those on standards for conduct, professional qualifications, supervision and fees. The rules are required by the Dodd-Frank Act, which mandated that MAs register with the SEC, become subject to federal regulatory oversight, and be bound by a fiduciary duty to put their issuer clients’ best interests first.

Issuers are not regulated by the SEC’s or MSRB’s rules, but the regulations will affect how they interact with the dealers who have largely driven conversations about the registration rule.

“Although the municipal advisor rule directly applies to those firms that meet the regulatory definition of advisor, the rule has significant implications for issuers as well, and all market participants should make an effort to stay abreast of regulatory changes,” said Leslie Norwood, managing director, associate general counsel, and co-head of municipal securities at the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association. SIFMA recently released model documents designed to allow underwriters to make sales pitches to issuers by utilizing any of three major exemptions that would allow a potential underwriter to provide them with advice without being considered an MA. The three are: becoming engaged as an underwriter; responding to an issuer’s request for proposals, or confirming that the issuer has its own MA not associated with the underwriter.

“SIFMA and our members have been working with issuers to understand the breadth of the rule,” Norwood said.

Ben Watkins, Florida’s bond finance director and head of the debt committee at the Government Finance Officers Association, said the level of knowledge about the rule among some issuers is very low.

“There’s a huge contingent in the market that doesn’t have a clue,” he said.

Watkins strongly disagrees with the way the SEC wrote the rule, and said it could have been a much more streamlined piece of regulation. Watkins said SEC muni chief John Cross, head of the SEC’s Office of Municipal Securities, is “hamstrung” in terms of what he’s able to do in terms of making the rule simpler for market participants, and that the SEC’s “frequently asked questions” guidance earlier this year was only marginally helpful.

“They’re not actively engaged in educating,” Watkins said of the SEC. “In terms of outreach, there basically hasn’t been any.”

Cross said the mission of educating issuers is an important one that his office is not neglecting.

“It is very important to increase the awareness of municipalities about how the final municipal advisor registration rules will affect their interactions with regulated municipal advisors,” he said. “A core purpose of this regime is to enhance protections to municipalities through a fiduciary duty on municipal advisors to look out for the best interests of their municipal entity clients. I will speaking to the [Government Finance Officers Association’s] upcoming annual conference in May about this topic and also looking for other opportunities to provide outreach to municipalities about these important new final municipal advisor rules.”

Laura Lockwood-McCall, director of the debt management division in the Oregon State Treasury said that the MSRB’s chief education officer Ritta McLaughlin recently spoke to a conference of Oregon issuers about the rule, but that many small issuers still lack knowledge and will likely learn more about the new regime from dealers.

“I think that this new requirement will impact a lot of smaller issuers, particularly school districts in our state, in that they may not currently have a financial advisor on contract,” Lockwood-McCall said. “I’m not sure they will realize there’s a problem with the new rule, however, as they are infrequent issuers to begin with. The underwriting community will in some ways be the educator, as I can envision them asking issuers if they have an [financial advisor], and then pointing out that they need to have one on board in order for them to work with the district on a transaction.”

Mark Kim, chief financial officer at the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, said he and other issuers got hit with a flurry of communications from investment bankers earlier this year. Because the SEC has made clear that a firm cannot be an MA on, and underwrite the bonds for, the same transaction, Kim said, dealers have been very eager to be the ones letting issuers know about the available exemptions and how to utilize them.

“The banks certainly gave their own interested spin on the MA regs,” Kim said.

DC Water retains its own MA, which it pays hourly whenever the authority wants it to look over a proposal from a dealer firm, Kim said. He said he receives pitches from would-be underwriters on a nearly daily basis, but often chooses not to forward those on to the MA because some he considers bad ideas and would prefer not to spend DC Water funds to further scrutinize them. Kim said he likes being able to be his own idea gatekeeper and likes being able to receive ideas from dealer firms without restriction thanks to the exemption available from the independent MA. Although the bankers and advisor firms have definitely been the leading sources of information for issuers in Kim’s view, the MSRB has also attempted some interaction and the SEC has made staff available at some issuer community events.

“I think the MSRB is trying very hard to get out in front of this,” Kim said. “I think the SEC has been trying to be accommodative.”

Glen Pederson, director of finance for Benson, Minn., said his MA began filling him in a few years ago but that he doubts most cities with only a few thousand in population are as well-informed.

“I happen to live in a smaller city and the experience there was much different,” he said. “They actually use or used a firm that would help them issue the bonds and then would also consider purchasing them. This was happening as recently as last year. I encouraged them to seek a different firm to act strictly as a financial advisor and they are in the process of taking proposals. So my take would be the cities of my size, 3,500 and up, are probably aware. But those smaller units are probably at the mercy of the [dealer] firm they are working with.”

Other issuers are also still working on evaluating what the rule will mean for them. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials is aware of the regulation, said its deputy director of management and program finance Joung Lee, and is taking stock of its potential effects.

The MSRB will likely take the educational lead among regulators, some sources said. Since Dodd-Frank, the self-regulator is tasked with protecting issuers and has a majority-public board.

“The MSRB views education as a central component of a comprehensive regulatory framework for municipal advisors,” said MSRB executive director Lynnette Kelly. “We are reaching out not only to the municipal advisory community, but also to issuers that engage the services of municipal advisors. As part of our expanded outreach campaign to state and local governments, the MSRB is speaking to issuer audiences around the country about the regulatory framework for municipal advisors. The MSRB also conducts free public webinars to educate all interested stakeholders about our draft rules to establish standards of conduct and professional qualifications for municipal advisors.”

BY KYLE GLAZIER

APR 21, 2014 1:47pm ET



Orrick: Update on Municipalities Continuing Disclosure Cooperation Initiative.

On March 10, 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announced that issuers and underwriters of municipal securities may voluntarily report materially inaccurate statements made in offering documents regarding prior continuing disclosure compliance through a program called the Municipalities Continuing Disclosure Cooperation Initiative (the “MCDC Initiative”).

Orrick and BLX Group have issued a client alert with key information.

Posted on 

by  and 




MSRB Proposes Professional Qualification Requirements for Municipal Advisors.

Alexandria, VA – The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) today requested public comment on a proposal to establish qualification requirements for municipal advisor professionals. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act charged the MSRB with developing professional standards for municipal advisors to enhance protections for state and local governments.

“The creation of a professional qualifications program for municipal advisors is a key step toward safeguarding the interests of state and local governments that engage the services of municipal advisors,” said MSRB Executive Director Lynnette Kelly. “Individuals entrusted with providing financial advice to state and local governments will be required to demonstrate both an understanding of the business and regulatory requirements.”

The MSRB’s proposal would amend its existing rule on qualification requirements for personnel of municipal securities dealers to incorporate requirements for municipal advisor professionals. The draft amendments to MSRB Rule G-3 add registration classifications for municipal advisors to distinguish between those who engage in municipal advisory activities—municipal advisor representatives—and those who engage in their management, direction or supervision—municipal advisor principals.

Under the draft amendments to Rule G-3, municipal advisor representatives would be required to take and pass a professional qualification test to demonstrate a minimum level of competency before providing or continuing to provide financial advisory services to state and local governments. The MSRB is proposing a one-year grace period for all individuals currently engaged in municipal advisory activities to take and pass the test.

“Given the significant changes that accompany a new regulatory regime, the MSRB believes it is important for all municipal advisor representatives, regardless of their years of experience or other certifications, to take the exam,” Kelly said.

Next steps in the development of the test include a survey of municipal advisors on their core activities to further inform the MSRB on the areas to be tested and the preparation of a study outline, which will be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The MSRB anticipates implementing a pilot exam in 2015.

The MSRB earlier this year requested comment on a proposal to establish core standards of conduct for municipal advisors and supervisory and compliance obligations. Future MSRB rule proposals for municipal advisors will include measures to address the potential for pay-to-play activities by municipal advisors; limitations on gifts and gratuities to employees of municipal securities issuers and other market participants; and duties of municipal advisors acting as solicitors. The MSRB also plans to implement a per-professional fee of $300 for municipal advisors to begin to fairly distribute assessments across all regulated entities.

While the majority of the draft amendments to MSRB Rule G-3 are targeted toward municipal advisors, the MSRB also proposes to eliminate the practice of apprenticeship, which required municipal securities representatives to shadow an experienced professional for 90 days before conducting business with the public. This change aligns with trends in other regulatory regimes toward allowing firms to identify appropriate training and supervision for new employees.

Comments on the draft amendments should be submitted to the MSRB no later than May 16, 2014. The MSRB is hosting an educational webinar on the main aspects of the municipal advisor professional qualification requirements on April 3, 2014 at 3:00 p.m. ET. Register for the webinar.




MSRB to Implement New MSRB Rule A-11 Establishing Fees for Municipal Advisor Professionals.

The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) today filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) a new rule to implement an annual fee of $300 per municipal advisor professional.Under the new MSRB Rule A-11, registered municipal advisors will be assessed this per-professional fee to help defray the costs and expenses of operating and administering the MSRB, particularly the increased costs associated with the regulation of municipal advisors.While the new rule is effective immediately, the first fees do not become due until the second half of 2014 in parallel with the SEC’s phased-in compliance period for the permanent registration of municipal advisors.

View the rule filing or read the regulatory notice.




SIFMA Supports Shorter Settlement Cycle for U.S. Equities.

The U.S. securities industry says that it supports a move to reduce systemic risk and enhance efficiency by shortening the settlement cycle to T+2 from T+3.

The U.S. industry trade association, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), announced today that it supports shortening the settlement cycle for U.S. equities, corporate bonds and municipal bonds to T+2 (trade date plus two days) from the current T+3 cycle. SIFMA says that it will work with the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC), which is advocating a reduced cycle, to determine the best timing for reducing the settlement cycle.

“SIFMA is committed to helping the financial industry identify new ways to improve market practices, enhance risk management, and promote efficiency. Shortening the settlement cycle could lead to important reductions in operational risk, more efficient allocation of industry capital, and streamline the clearing and settlement process,” said Kenneth Bentsen, Jr., SIFMA’s president and CEO.

While there are many potential benefits to be had, SIFMA also notes that shortening the cycle is a fundamental change that must be implemented with “great care to avoid any operational disruptions that could negatively impact investors.” It recommends that the industry, DTCC and regulators continue to work together to ensure a smooth transition to T+2.

“We are delighted that SIFMA has decided to endorse a move to T+2,” said Michael Bodson, DTCC’s president and CEO. “Our own analysis, based on comprehensive discussions with the industry and robust cost-benefit studies, indicate that a shortening of the settlement cycle for U.S. equities, municipal and corporate bonds and unit investment trusts will drive down industry risk exposures and lead to greater efficiency. We look forward to working with the industry on this initiative.”




WSJ: Treasury Turns Its Gaze to Municipal-Bond Market.

WASHINGTON—U.S. policy makers, concerned about strained public finances in places like Detroit and Puerto Rico, are moving to keep closer tabs on the ability of states and cities to raise money in the $3.7 trillion municipal-bond market.

The Treasury Department is forming a new unit to broadly monitor the market, with a focus on troubled borrowers, according to a Treasury official. The unit, which will be headed by a veteran public-finance banker at J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., also will track state and local pensions as well as the financing of bridges, roads and other infrastructure projects. Public-pension funding levels have been a problem area for many states and municipalities.

By boosting the department’s monitoring of municipal finance, the Treasury hopes in part to better understand the ramifications of municipal-market stresses, the official said. The unit wouldn’t have authority to write and enforce rules for the market like the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Efforts to boost oversight of the municipal-bond market have taken on new urgency in the wake of financial problems in places like Puerto Rico, which is beset by challenges including 15% unemployment and roughly $70 billion of outstanding debt.

Puerto Rico’s troubles could reverberate well beyond its borders because roughly three-quarters of municipal-bond mutual funds own some debt issued by the commonwealth. It is among the biggest issuers in the municipal-bond market due to its tax benefits and often higher yields. The Federal Reserve’s interest-rate-setting committee, meeting in January, said the commonwealth’s financing situation “needed to be watched carefully,” according to minutes of the meeting.

The SEC, which is the municipal-bond market’s primary regulator, also has ramped up its scrutiny of the sector and is conducting a review of past disclosures by financially stressed states and municipalities to determine if they may have misled investors about their financial condition, according to SEC officials.

The Treasury’s effort to gain greater insight into the municipal-bond market will be led by Kent Hiteshew, who will join the department in mid-May. Mr. Hiteshew has overseen J.P. Morgan’s relationship with its housing-sector clients and municipal borrowers in the Northeast region. A J.P. Morgan spokeswoman declined to comment on Mr. Hiteshew’s behalf.

“This office will centralize a lot of the work that is already happening across the building,” said Matthew Rutherford, the Treasury’s assistant secretary for financial markets. “It can look at various issues that arise in the municipal marketplace and make sure we understand what’s driving them.”

The municipal-bond market long has been seen by many mom-and-pop investors as a reliable source of tax-exempt income and as a vehicle for retirement savings. But that view has been rattled in recent years by episodes including the largest-ever municipal bankruptcy filing last July by Detroit and Puerto Rico’s problems.

Last month, Puerto Rico sold $3.5 billion in new bonds to help pay down existing debt, a move that bought officials time to eliminate persistent budget deficits and jump-start the economy. The bonds have fallen in price in recent days amid reports that the island hired consultants that specialize in restructuring, though island officials haven’t said they are working on a debt-restructuring plan. Credit-rating firms downgraded Puerto Rico to junk status this year.The commonwealth has said it plans to honor its obligations.

While the U.S. government has had talks with island officials about how Puerto Rico can improve its financial condition, Treasury officials have said they aren’t contemplating a federal bailout. The Treasury official said the department doesn’t have the authority to grant federal financial assistance.

Federal officials have sought to boost their oversight of the municipal-bond market in the wake of the financial crisis, when a contraction in state and local income-tax receipts squeezed municipalities andthreatened the ability of some governments to fulfill their financial obligations.

The SEC, which sets disclosure rules for state and local governments that issue bonds, is pushing for additional authority from Congress to crack down on municipalities that don’t keep the public apprised of their financial health.

By

ANDREW ACKERMAN
April 16, 2014 6:39 p.m. ET

—Mike Cherney contributed to this article.

Write to Andrew Ackerman at andrew.ackerman@wsj.com




WSJ: Finra Scrutinizes Banks' Role in Bond Market.

Regulators have stepped up their scrutiny of the booming bond markets, launching an inquiry into Wall Street banks’ trading profits and expanding a probe into how new offerings are doled out to investors, according to officials.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, a Wall Street self-regulator, is taking a broad look at the trading profits of banks and other middlemen in some bond transactions. Finra is crunching through reams of trading data, looking for instances in which the middlemen have earned unusually large profits on bond deals, officials said. The inquiry could lead to a regulatory instruction to the banks to reduce the spreads between buying and selling prices they charge on certain trades, or even to enforcement action.”There might be enforcement action with respect to the outliers,” Richard Ketchum, Finra’s chairman and chief executive, said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal. “We’re certainly looking.”Finra also is investigating how banks apportion hot bond offerings among investors, Mr. Ketchum said, alongside a previously reported Securities and Exchange Commission probe.

The Federal Reserve also has been asking large money-management firms about inefficiencies in the bond markets, said people familiar with the matter, which hasn’t previously been reported. Among other things, the inquiry focuses on investors’ troubles buying and selling bonds when credit markets tumbled in May of last year after the Fed signaled intentions to wind down its bond buying. A spokeswoman for the Fed declined to comment.

The spotlight on bond markets comes as regulators have launched several inquiries into potential inequities in the stock and commodities markets, where access to trading information can give certain investors advantages. Some market participants suspect dealers sometimes favor certain clients over others. Bond investors have complained for decades that their markets have been slow to adopt new technologies and that pricing and trading information should be more openly distributed.

The U.S. bond markets total about $40 trillion, twice the size of the approximately $19 trillion U.S. stock market. They provide ways for companies, the U.S. government and homeowners to obtain credit. Last year, companies borrowed a record $1.47 trillion in the U.S. corporate-bond market, including Verizon Communications Inc., VZ -0.44% which raised $49 billion in the biggest corporate-bond deal ever. Thus far, this year’s new issuance is running apace, according to Dealogic.

The SEC has sought information on new bond sales from a number of big banks, including Goldman Sachs Group Inc., GS -1.97% Citigroup Inc., C -1.28% Deutsche Bank AG DB -1.41% and Morgan StanleyMS -3.11% people familiar with the matter said. The Wall Street Journal reported in February that the SEC’s inquiries of banksincluded Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. The banks haven’t been accused of wrongdoing in relation to bond deals.

The SEC and Finra are together looking at whether banks are favoring the biggest money managers and giving them unfair influence over the pricing of new corporate bonds, which would disadvantage smaller investors.

“There aren’t allocation rules in the U.S. at the present time,” Mr. Ketchum said. “But there are issues about quid pro quos and other questions that can be raised.”

One particular aspect of new bond issues the regulator is looking at, he said, is “flipping opportunities,” or the chance for big investors to quickly sell newly acquired bonds—at a significant profit—to investors shut out of the deal initially.

Traders at investment firms sometimes call it a “kiss,” said one large money manager, referencing the term often used to describe a range of favors investors can get from bankers working on selling and trading new bonds.

When a bond issue comes to market, bankers often give the largest portions of the deals to their biggest customers, who also may frequently trade with the bank or use its other services, said several investors and people familiar with dealer trading desks.

Bond deals, like stocks sold in initial public offerings, often rise in value just after they are issued. About 87% of the bonds issued in 2013 rose in price within five days of the initial sale, said Peter Tchir, a strategist at Brean Capital LLC, a registered broker-dealer.

In trading after Verizon’s record $49 billion bond sale last September, investors made about $3 billion on three portions of the deal within the first week, according to an analysis by Mr. Tchir.

The Verizon deal is one of the offerings the SEC has asked banks about, the Journal previously reported

A Verizon spokesman didn’t respond to requests for comment.

In its new inquiry into bond trading, Finra is scrutinizing the profits banks and other dealers make, known as markups and markdowns—the difference between selling and buying prices. Dealers typically keep a small profit on each trade facilitated. But bond prices aren’t always publicly quoted, so it is difficult to know what competitors may be paying for the same bonds.

The regulator is zooming in on what Mr. Ketchum called “matched trades,” where dealers are matching a seller with buyers, often very quickly. It estimates these now make up 60% to 70% of trades in corporate and municipal bonds.

Securities dealers are trying to reap profits from selling and trading debt as other aspects of their businesses have become more challenged. Interest rates remain at some of the lowest levels in history, and trading desks have been crimped by postcrisis regulation that limits assets they can hold and trade for their own books.

Regulators don’t set a fixed limit on what markups banks can charge, instead judging what is excessive based on industry best practice.

Mr. Ketchum said that, for these matched trades, where the risk is “relatively limited,” markups of more than 1.5% to 2% would be “questionable.”

Christopher Sullivan, chief investment officer at the United Nations Federal Credit Union, which oversees about $2.25 billion in assets, said that even worse than getting a smaller-than-wanted chunk of a new bond deal is then being offered the bonds from a trader right after the deal is priced “at some unjustifiably higher price.”

By

JEAN EAGLESHAM,

KATY BURNE and

JUSTIN BAER

April 10, 2014 7:13 p.m. ET

—Kirsten Grind contributed to this article.

Write to Jean Eaglesham at jean.eaglesham@wsj.com, Katy Burne atkaty.burne@wsj.com and Justin Baer at justin.baer@wsj.com




Citi Analysis Shows Bank Regulators That Most Munis Are Liquid.

WASHINGTON — Citi bankers are urging bank regulators to treat most municipal securities as high quality liquid assets in a banking rule proposed to ensure banks are equipped to handle severe financial and economic stress.

They made their plea in a three-page letter accompanied by 15 pages of analysis showing why most munis should be considered as eligible as HQLA. The letter, signed by Ward Marsh, Citi’s managing director for municipal securities, was sent to bank regulators on Wednesday. It follows several other dozen letters sent state and local officials and firms that have all warned the failure to categorize most munis as HQLA will hurt the muni market and governments.

Alan Anders, the director for finance in New York City’s Office of Management and Budget, warned the regulators in a recent letter that the proposed rule “is overly restrictive” and would cause banks to make fewer investments in munis, decreasing demand and liquidity for munis, while increasing borrowing costs.

It would also reduce the amount of bank capacity available to fund credit and liquidity support for muni variable-rate bond programs, Anders said.

Marsh echoed Anders’ concerns in a brief interview and said also that categorizing munis as illiquid could actually cause them to be less liquid. But Citi’s letter did not contain concerns and focused instead on why munis should be considered eligible as HQLA.

The controversy over the rulemaking comes at a time when banks have been playing a growing role in the municipal market. Banks held $416.4 billion of munis last year, almost double from 2009. Banks have been the marginal buyers of munis over the past year as tax-exempt mutual funds have had record outflows.

The rule, proposed by the Federal Reserve Board and other bank regulators in October, could be finalized as soon as early summer and would take effect in January. It would create a standardized minimum liquidity requirement for large and systemically important banks and other financial institutions. These institutions would be required to maintain a minimum liquidity coverage ratio, defined as the ratio of HQLA to total net cash outflows over a 30-day period of stress.

Assets would qualify as HQLA if they could be easily and immediately convertible to cash with little or no loss of value during a period of liquidity stress. The rule proposes three classes of HQLA: Level 1, which would include sovereign securities, including U.S. government securities and U.S. government-guaranteed securities; Level 2A, securities issued by U.S. government sponsored enterprises and certain sovereign entities; and Level 2B, investment grade corporate debt with certain characteristics and equities in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index.

The regulators said they did not include munis in any of these categories because “these assets are not liquid and readily marketable in the U.S. and thus do not exhibit liquidity characteristics necessary to be included in HQLA under this proposed rule.”

They did not give specific reasons for these views. Citi bankers met with officials at the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. in recent weeks so they could understand the basis of their concerns.

Citi’s letter analysis addresses each concern and urges the regulators to treat investment-grade munis as eligible for Level 2A HQLA, on a par with GSE securities. Banks would have to take a 15% haircut, meaning they could only take 85% of their muni holdings into account in determining their liquidity coverage ratio. Industrial development bonds issued for nonprofit or other corporate obligors should be eligible for Level 2B HQLA, on a par with investment-grade corporates, which would have a 50% haircut.

To address concerns about concentration of assets, Citi recommended the rule limit to 25% the inclusion of eligible muni assets in a bank’s total amount of HQLA.

Historically munis have been treated similarly to GSE securities in federal regulation and legislation, Citi said. Munis and GSE securities were given the same credit-risk weights under previous international Basel Accords on capital. They also have the same liquidity values at the Federal Reserve discount window.

From the standpoint of a liquidity coverage ratio, investment-grade munis would provide a greater diversification benefit than either GSE securities or nonfinancial corporate bonds, Citi said.

Munis, especially those that are investment-grade, generally have higher credit quality and lower historic default rates than corporate bonds, the bank said. “Despite the recent increase in media attention on U.S. public sector credit issues, cumulative realized credit losses on all municipal debt over the past 100 years has amounted to less than 1%,” Citi told the regulators.

Citi also said muni defaults are less correlated with recessions than defaults of corporate bonds. In fact, the bank argued that when times get tough and munis become cheaper, the muni market becomes more liquid and deeper, with crossover buyers from the taxable market and more retail investors coming into the market.

To address concerns about the decline in muni trading during the financial crisis, Citi said it was auction rate securities and variable rate demand notes, neither of which is expected to be eligible as HQLA. The ARS market collapsed and there was, among other things, a lack of reasonably priced credit support for VRDNs.

“Rather than a precipitous drop-off in fixed-rate activity, we see that volumes have ebbed and flowed only marginally, with the highest trading volumes having occurred in 2008 and 2013,” Citi said in its analysis.

The bank said there is a lot of price transparency in the muni market, particularly for investment-grade munis. The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board’s EMMA makes pricing and other trade data available for free on a near real-time basis. In addition, three major non-bank pricing services price munis for clients, the bank said.

To address concerns that the muni market did not have a large repo or repurchase agreement market, which most liquid markets have, Citi said investment-grade munis have “deep, diverse and stable secured funding availability away from the taxable repo market” and that it, alone, has roughly $8 billion of collateralized deposits from the public sector entities, almost 75% of which is secured with muni assets.

BY LYNN HUME

APR 10, 2014 5:11pm ET




Citi Analyst: Two Options to Save Tender Option Bonds.

WASHINGTON — Tender option bond market participants have two options available to keep those programs viable under the Volcker Rule, though neither is without risk or likely to please everybody with an interest in TOBs.

Vikram Rai, Citigroup vice president of fixed income research, has written a report detailing the two possibilities which could allow TOBs to exist within the limits of the recently-completed final Volcker Rule. The $70-$80 billion market has a problem because the rule did not exempt TOBs from its requirements, though the rest of the municipal market generally received an exemption. TOB programs have traditionally provided a supply of short-term tax-exempt bonds to money market funds, and have generally accounted for approximately 25%-30% of the assets of muni MMFs, according to Fitch Ratings.

In a typical TOB program, the sponsor will deposit a fixed-rate bond or note into a trust, which will issue two new certificates — a floating rate certificate sold to a MMF and a residual certificate which may be sold to a mutual or closed-end fund or held by a bank. The floating rate certificate will have a tender option, through a liquidity facility that is typically issued by the program’s sponsor or an affiliate, that shortens the maturity of the bond or note so it becomes eligible to be purchased by a tax-exempt money market fund.

This sponsor has normally been a banking entity or an affiliate of a bank, but the Volcker rule prevents banks and their affiliates from sponsoring a TOB program, owning a residual certificate issued by a TOB trust, or providing credit enhancement, liquidity, or remarketing services to these programs.

Rai’s research report, published by Citi on March 27, lays out the two approaches he has found that could potentially allow the TOB structure to live on once full compliance with the Volcker Rule becomes mandatory in July 2015.

The first approach would involve restructuring TOB programs as “joint ventures,” a type of entity exempted from Volcker. Joint ventures exist between banks or their affiliates and unaffiliated parties, and are exempt from the rule as long as they have no more than 10 unaffiliated co-venturers and only engage in activities permitted of banking entities. They also cannot be in the business of investing in securities for resale or hold themselves out as conducting such business.

The banking entity would be the sponsor in this scenario, while a co-venturing money fund would hold the floating note and a mutual fund would hold the residual note. This would allow the TOB structure to be redefined to comply with Volcker, “in theory,” Rai wrote. This structure has the advantage of preserving the TOB structure for banks, but would not allow for the practice of splitting either the residual or the holding note into as many smaller internal funds as is sometimes the case for larger fund complexes, Rai wrote.

“By the definition of a [joint venture] under the Volcker Rule, each of the internal funds would be categorized as a co-venturer (which is capped at 10),” the report explains.

The report adds that there is also a risk that “regulators might view this as a re-definition of an existing structure to skirt the rules.”

The other option would be to swap the bank sponsor out for a non-banking entity such as a mutual fund or a dealer. This option would not carry the same regulatory risk as the first alternative but would not work for banks. Rai wrote that given the importance of TOBs to both banks and muni investors, it is likely that an alternative will allow businesses to go on “as usual, even if it is with lower profit margins.”

Fitch said in February that it expects “a gradual unwinding or restructuring of tender option bond programs over the next few months,” because banks’ ability to provide liquidity for them will soon be at an end if a solution for TOBs is not available. Like Rai, Fitch said it expects market participants to look for an answer because of the crucial liquidity short-term paper provides to the muni market.

David Cohen, managing director and associate general counsel at the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, said his group is continuing to explore the options its members will have under the Volcker Rule.

“SIFMA has a working group that is working diligently through this issue and hopes to come to a successful resolution in the near future,” he said.

BY KYLE GLAZIER

APR 9, 2014 3:02pm ET




SIFMA Releases Model MA Documents.

WASHINGTON — The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association has released model documents designed to help its members comply with the municipal advisor registration rule, which takes effect on July 1.

The seven draft documents, unveiled Friday, cover various types of communications between broker-dealers and issuers and aim to help prospective underwriters of muni bonds avoid having to register under the Securities and Exchange Commission rule.

The rule, approved in September, requires a firm to register as an MA if it provides advice to state or local governments or conduit borrowers. The SEC has said firms will not be able to underwrite the bonds of issuers for whom they have become municipal advisors, so broker-dealer firms are going to need to use one of three exemptions from the rule created by the SEC.

“Our firms want to know that if they are looking to take advantage of those exemptions and exclusions, that they have the language right,” said Leslie Norwood, managing director, associate general counsel, and co-head of municipal securities at SIFMA. “We just tried to get a base level of the documents we thought were most important.”

The model documents include: an issuer’s certification that an investment account does not include the proceeds of municipal securities, underwriter engagement letters for both generic firms and remarketing agents; a form advising issuers that they can receive advice from an underwriter by soliciting it through a legitimate a request for proposals, and an underwriter’s letter advising an issuer that its information is of a purely informational nature and not is intended as “advice.” to the issuer. All of these documents aim to allow the flow of information between prospective underwriters and issuers, which some had worried would be severely limited by the MA rule.

Two documents deal with the independent registered municipal advisor exemption, commonly called the “IRMA” exemption. That provision of the SEC’s regulatory regime allows an issuer to receive advice from underwriters and other market participants as long as they retain and certify that they will rely on the advice of the IRMA. The IRMA exemption is expected to be among the most broadly used of those available, since many larger and more frequent issuers have municipal advisors.

The first such model document takes the form of an issuer certification that it has an IRMA. If this is posted to the issuer’s publicly-accessible website, SIFMA suggests it include language showing the issuer “intends that market participants receive and use it for purposes of the independent registered municipal advisor exemption to the SEC municipal advisor rule.”

The second document is a confirmation letter from an underwriter firm to the issuer stating that the exemption applies and the firm assumes no advisory responsibilities.

“Thank you for your representation concerning your independent registered municipal advisor,” that model document reads. “By obtaining such representation from you, [the firm] is not a municipal advisor and is not subject to the fiduciary duty established in Section 15B(c)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.”

SIFMA also released a collection of talking points for investment bankers speaking to issuers. That document includes an explanation and description of the exemptions available that will allow underwriters to provide advice to issuers, as well as some answers to common questions. Some issuer officials questioned whether they might be able to “opt out” of the registration regime, which is required by the Dodd Frank Act. SEC officials have been quick to dispel that notion in public appearances, and the SIFMA talking points do so as well.

“There is no way for issuers to simply ‘opt out’ of the rules outside the narrowly tailored exemptions,” one talking point states.

Norwood said additional documents may become available going forward, but emphasized that the newly-released documents are not final and are meant to generate feedback and provide a starting point for firms who will soon rely on similar documents to conduct their businesses within the limits of the rule.

“We encourage firms to modify these documents to suit their needs,” Norwood said. She added that comment is welcome not only from SIFMA members and other broker-dealers, but from all market participants.

“We’re looking for comment from all industry members,” she said.

The SEC has said it is going to release additional technical guidance on its registration rule before the effective date. The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board is also in the process of creating rules governing MAs. The self-regulator has already proposed rules governing MA conduct as well as professional qualification and supervisory requirements.

SIFMA is soliciting industry comment on these draft documents.  Please forward any comments, questions or concerns to Leslie Norwood at lnorwood@sifma.org.

BY KYLE GLAZIER

APR 4, 2014 3:37pm ET




Bartolotta Takes Over as Chair of SIFMA's Muni Division.

WASHINGTON — FirstSouthwest vice chairman Michael Bartolotta has taken over the chairmanship of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association’s municipal securities division.

Bartolotta, who was a vice chair of the division, replaced Stratford Shields as chairman. Shields is moving from Morgan Stanley to RBC Capital Markets to be head of its Midwestern banking business.  He is currently on a 90-day “garden leave” from Morgan Stanley and is not expected to start his new position until June.

Bartolotta, a former chairman of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, is co-manager of FirstSouthwest’s public finance group in Houston and is also responsible for the firm’s information technology infrastructure. He has been at that firm for 18 years, but has more than 25 years of experience in the public finance industry. He is also a member of SIFMA’s municipal executive steering committee.

David Stephens, a managing director at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, will continue as the municipal securities division’s vice chair and John Rolander, a managing director at Fifth Third Capital Markets, will remain the division’s treasurer, SIFMA said in a release.

BY LYNN HUME

MAR 28, 2014 12:27pm ET




WSJ: For Munis, SEC Offers Carrot, Threatens Stick.

Officials with the Securities and Exchange Commission’s municipal-enforcement unit are urging local governments and the banks that help them sell bonds to self-report certain violations related to disclosure, indicating that harsher penalties could be sought if the violations are discovered later.

Earlier this month, the SEC launched a program to encourage municipalities and banks to come forward with violations regarding continuing disclosure agreements. The move comes after the SEC brought charges against a school district last year for falsely saying in bond-offering documents that it had complied with previous disclosure obligations.

“Think of it as an opportunity to clear your slate, before we come at issuers and underwriters very hard,” Peter Chan, an assistant director with the muni enforcement unit in the SEC’s Chicago office, said on Friday.

“We’re going to go after the issuers,” Mr. Chan said. “We’re going to find out who was responsible.”

Mr. Chan spoke at a National Association of Bond Lawyers conference in Boston. The enforcement unit’s chief, LeeAnn Gaunt, said at the conference on Thursday that the SEC had separately been reviewing the past disclosures of financially stressed municipalities, to help ensure investors were not misled about financial conditions.

The comments come as the SEC turns a more critical eye toward the municipal-bond market, which had been viewed as a relatively safe spot for mom-and-pop investors but has seen large bankruptcies in Detroit and Jefferson County, Ala., in recent years.

Under the self-reporting program, called the Municipalities Continuing Disclosure Cooperation Initative, cities that come forward must establish policies and procedures regarding their disclosure obligations, but would not have to pay a monetary penalty. Underwriters that come forward would be subject to a financial penalty, but it would be capped at $500,000.

“We hear complaints from the financial sector and so forth about lack of predictability,” Mr. Chan said. Under the program, “you’re getting predictability,” and Mr. Chan noted it’s unusual that market participants “have a situation where you know exactly the type of settlement terms you’re going to get.”

Lawyers at the conference, who work with cities and banks to help sell debt, questioned whether the program was necessary, noting that disclosure practices have improved in recent years. Jack McWilliams, a former attorney fellow at the SEC’s Office of Municipal Securities, which is separate from the enforcement unit, said the municipal-bond market isn’t perfect but that there should be other ways to improve it.

“I find the initiative offensive, I find it bullying,” said Mr. McWilliams, who now works at Lewis Longman & Walker PA. “The idea that you have to prostrate yourself…there must be a better way to make the market better.”

But Mr. Chan noted that although the bond lawyers at Friday’s conference may be providing good advice to their clients, they are “not the whole universe.” Indeed, the U.S. Census Bureau says there are about 90,000 local governments in the U.S.

“There are bad actors,” Mr. Chan said. If there weren’t bad actors, “we wouldn’t even be speaking here today.”




Bonds and the BFF Problem.

A new rule tries to keep muni market players from getting too friendly.

The Beatles let us know that we all “get by with a little help from our friends.” Those nine words from the Awesome Foursome capture the essence of the American municipal bond market. Some new developments, however, could redefine how friends help state and local governments get by in the muni market.

Like all markets, the municipal bond market is about buyers and sellers. The sellers are cities, counties, schools and other public entities that need to borrow money to build roads, bridges, hospitals and other major projects. The buyers are wealthy individuals, property-casualty insurance companies, mutual funds and others who like muni bonds for their secure, tax-free income. In concept, this market is simple and predictable.

Except that it’s not. There are about a million bonds in the market. These bonds are sold by tens of thousands of governments and are backed by hundreds of different revenue streams. There is no central exchange where a buyer can go to find just the right bond. Different states apply different tax rules to the interest investors earn for holding muni bonds. For these and many other reasons, buyers and sellers work hard to find each other and even harder to agree on fair prices.

Fortunately, there are intermediaries—friends, if you will—who can help. Underwriters and financial advisers tell issuers how to design bonds that will appeal to just the right type of investors.

Investors rely on broker-dealers, brokers-brokers and other market makers to deliver the bonds they want. Issuers and investors alike depend on third-party data providers for crucial insights on market prices and dynamics.

That’s why some recent regulatory changes have set the stage for a major shake-up. The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB), which oversees advisers and bond dealers, is now implementing rules that redefine the roles and duties of municipal financial advisers. Perhaps the biggest effect is that a bank or other institution that offers an issuer advice leading up to a bond sale cannot buy those bonds once they’re sold. This rule is designed to prevent cozy friendships from morphing into the sort of corruption we saw in places like Jefferson County, Ala. That makes sense. At the same time, small issuers who access the markets infrequently depend heavily on advisers and other friends to make sense of this complicated market. This rule might limit their access to the market expertise they need just to get by.

Meanwhile, both the MSRB and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) are considering new rules to promote “pre-trade transparency.” These changes apply to brokers-brokers, alternative trading systems and other intermediaries who help investors buy and sell bonds that have been out for a while (in what is known as the “secondary market”). The systems these intermediaries have developed are a bit like Craigslist for the muni market. Sellers post bonds they’d like to sell and interested buyers respond. Sometimes trades happen, but usually they don’t. Either way, the information these systems collect can tell us a lot about a bond’s “fair” or “actual” market price.

The SEC and MSRB are considering ways to use that information to improve the market’s transparency and efficiency—a worthy objective. Investors who use these systems, however, are wondering why they should have to share such valuable information with anyone other than their closest trading friends.

With these actions, the regulators are sending a clear message. If you sell bonds, your real friends are those who work only for you. If you buy bonds, get ready to share friends-only information with the rest of the market. These changes are designed to focus accountability on buyers and sellers, and to keep friends, both well intentioned and otherwise, at arm’s length.




Scores of Puerto Rico Trades Sub-$100,000 Voided by Dealers.

Scores of trades in bonds Puerto Rico issued this month have been canceled by dealers, including some that were under the $100,000 minimum transaction level stipulated in deal documents, data compiled by Bloomberg show.

The self-governing U.S. territory sold $3.5 billion of debt March 11, in the biggest-ever high-yield offering for the $3.7 trillion municipal market. The issue gave the island, which was cut to junk last month, cash to pay bills through June 2015, as officials try to revive a shrinking economy. Hedge funds bought the majority of the bonds at issue.

Dealers report voided transactions to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, said Ernesto Lanza, deputy executive director at the Alexandria, Virginia-based self-regulatory organization. The group removes such trades from its Electronic Municipal Market Access website, though regulatory authorities have access to the trading history, he said in an interview.

“If a dealer says ‘I need to correct some data or change data,’ they are making a correction that needs to go out to the marketplace,” Lanza said. “Our system allows for modifications, amends and cancellations to make corrections to previous reports.”

Finra’s Exam

The canceled Puerto Rico trades included 99 below the minimum purchase threshold of $100,000, and some were nullified as late as this week, Bloomberg data show. Some that exceeded $100,000 were also scrapped, while some below the $100,000 floor remain.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority said March 21 that it was examining trading in Puerto Rico’s new bonds. While offering documents stipulated a $100,000 floor for purchases, scores of transactions below that amount were still completed, according to Bloomberg data.

George Smaragdis, a Finra spokesman, said in an e-mail that the regulator had no comment on the canceled transactions.

Puerto Rico sale documents state that “the bonds shall be issued in the minimum denomination of $100,000 and any integral multiple of $5,000 in excess thereof,” unless one of the three largest rating companies raises the commonwealth to investment grade.

Institutional Intent

The $100,000 threshold also applies to trading after issuance, said two people with knowledge of the sale who requested anonymity without authorization to speak publicly.

“These are intended for institutional purchasers, or at least for people that can afford the risk by making it a minimum denomination of $100,000,” Martha Haines, who led the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Municipal Securities office from 2001 to 2011, said in an interview last week.

Haines teaches municipal finance at the Maurer School of Law at Indiana University in Bloomington.

The Puerto Rico bonds are tax-free nationwide and mature in July 2035. They priced to yield about 8.73 percent, or 93 cents on the dollar. The securities traded today with an average yield of about 8.66 percent, or about 5.23 percentage points above benchmark municipal bonds.

The Bond Buyer reported the cancellations earlier yesterday.

Carol Danko, a spokeswoman in Washington at the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association didn’t have an immediate comment on the canceled trades.

By Brian Chappatta  Mar 26, 2014 7:39 AM PT

To contact the reporter on this story: Brian Chappatta in New York atbchappatta1@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Stephen Merelman at smerelman@bloomberg.netMark Tannenbaum




WSJ: SEC Reviewing Municipalities' Disclosures.

Review Is Targeting Defaulted, Distressed Municipalities

BOSTON—The municipal-bond enforcement unit at the Securities and Exchange Commission is reviewing the past disclosures of defaulted and distressed municipalities to see if financial conditions were properly disclosed, the unit’s top official said on Thursday.

LeeAnn Gaunt, the chief of the municipal securities and public pensions unit in the division of enforcement, said the review has been ongoing for a little more than a year and that it has resulted in some investigations. She said her unit, created in 2010, is looking at specific issuers, but declined to say which ones or how many.

The SEC is looking for instances where there is “tension between the disclosures and the subsequent announcements,” Ms. Gaunt said at a National Association of Bond Lawyers conference in Boston.

The review comes as the SEC increases its attention on the municipal-bond market, which has been seen as a safe place for mom-and-pop investors, but has been rattled recently by major bankruptcies in Detroit and Jefferson County, Ala., and by financial troubles in Puerto Rico. Last year, the SEC assessed its first financial penalty against a municipal issuer and levied charges for the first time against a municipality for violating a previous cease-and-desist order.

The Wall Street Journal reported last year that the SEC had asked at least one investment firm for information relating to a largely private gathering in New York between some investors and officials from Puerto Rico. Ms. Gaunt declined to say whether the request was part of the continuing review.

Earlier this month, the SEC said municipalities and the underwriters that help sell their bonds could self-report violations relating to agreements that require municipalities to make certain disclosures after the bonds are sold. Last year, the SEC brought a case against a school district which had said in bond-offering documents that it had met all of its disclosure requirements, when in fact it had not.

The SEC is offering less severe penalties if issuers and underwriters self-report the violations before a September deadline, compared with what could happen if the SEC launches a separate enforcement action. For municipalities, there would be no financial penalty, and for underwriters, the financial penalty would be capped at $500,000.

Attorneys at Thursday’s conference, many of whom work with municipalities and banks that arrange their bond deals, questioned whether a municipality that is selling bonds soon would be required to disclose to investors that it may be in discussions with the SEC about past violations. Ms. Gaunt said it would be up to the lawyers to decide whether to disclose the discussions.

She said the program was designed to create some tension between debt underwriters and issuers.

“I think of it as a modified prisoner’s dilemma,” Ms. Gaunt said. “You might want to report because the other guy might report. More likely people will talk with each other and come to us jointly.”

In 2012, the SEC published a broad report on the municipal market that called for Congress to give it more authority so it can better improve disclosures from municipalities, among other suggestions.

By

MIKE CHERNEY
March 27, 2014 3:01 p.m. ET

Write to Mike Cherney at mike.cherney@wsj.com




FINRA Announces Updates of the Interpretations of Financial and Operational Rules.

Executive Summary

FINRA is updating the imbedded text of Securities Exchange Act (SEA) financial responsibility rules in the Interpretations of Financial and Operational Rules to reflect the effectiveness of amendments the SEC adopted. The updated imbedded text relates to SEA Rules 15c3-1, 15c3-3, 15c3-3a, 17a-3 and 17a-4.

Questions concerning this Notice should be directed to:

View Full Notice PDF 58 KB



SEC OKs FINRA’s New Supervisory Rules.

New consolidated rules govern supervision as well as guidance on email reviews

New FINRA Rules 3110 and 3120 replace NASD Rules 3010, 3012 and corresponding provisions of the NYSE Rules and Interpretations.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has approved the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s new consolidated rules governing supervision as well as guidance on email reviews.

Regulatory Notice 14-10 sets out FINRA’s new consolidated rules governing supervision — rules 3110, 3120, 3150 and 3170, which replace NASD Rules 3010, 3012 and 3110(i) and other corresponding NYSE rule provisions.

The new rules become effective on Dec. 1.

The newly adopted FINRA supervisory rules address required supervisory systems, written supervisory procedures, branch-office inspections, testing and other related requirements.

New FINRA Rules 3110 (Supervision) and 3120 (Supervisory Control System) replace NASD Rules 3010 (Supervision), 3012 (Supervisory Control System) and corresponding provisions of the NYSE Rules and Interpretations.

Todd Cipperman, managing principal of Cipperman Compliance Services, says new rules 3110 and 3120 are “big deals” for compliance personnel and are read through carefully “because there’s not a lot of guidance on how to build these compliance programs.”

In addition, new FINRA Rules 3150 (Holding of Customer Mail) and 3170 (Tape Recording of Registered Persons by Certain Firms) replace NASD Rules 3110(i) and 3010(b)(2) (often referred to as the “Taping Rule”), respectively.

The Regulatory Notice offers guidance on reviews of electronic communications, including customer correspondence as well as internal communications.

Cipperman notes that “FINRA acknowledges that firms may use a ‘lexicon-based’ screening tool or system for email reviews but each supervisor ‘is responsible for any deficiency in the system’s criteria that would result in the system not being reasonably designed.’”

Said another way, Cipperman opines that FINRA means that “a firm does not get a free pass just for using an exception-based email review system. If a questionable email gets through, FINRA may still bring an action. Regardless, we recommend that firms utilize an email review system for the huge volume of communications.”

By Melanie Waddell, ThinkAdvisor Washington Bureau ChiefInvestment Advisor Magazine @thinkadv_career

MARCH 24, 2014




SEC Explains Self-Reporting Muni Enforcement Program.

BOSTON – The Securities and Exchange Commission’s new program to encourage self-reporting of a specific continuing disclosure violation is facing some skepticism from bond lawyers, even as one SEC attorney said it may eventually be expanded to cover other violations.

The SEC’s Municipalities Continuing Disclosure Cooperation initiative, announced March 10, would allow issuers and underwriters to get favorable settlement terms if they voluntarily report that an official statement fails to state the issuer did not file annual disclosure and operating information at some point during the past five years.

The SEC’s Rule 15c2-12 on disclosure requires an OS to specify if the issuer failed, at any time during the last five years, to file annual financial information in accordance with its continuing disclosure agreement.

The MCDC program has been compared to the Internal Revenue Service’s Voluntary Closing Agreement Program.

Regulators attending the National Association of Bond Lawyers’ Tax and Securities Law Institute here on Thursday told bond lawyers that issuers can count on no more than a cease-and-desist order if they participate. “You can take that to the bank,” said LeeAnn Ghazil Gaunt, chief of the SEC enforcement division’s municipal securities and public pensions unit. Gaunt said issuers who come forward under the MCDC will be able to settle for charges of negligence rather than securities fraud, will not face financial penalties, and will generally not have to admit wrongdoing. “I think what we’re trying to do is offer a reset, but we’re also trying to change the landscape,” she said.

Issuers who decide not to participate could face fraud charges and could be hit with financial penalties, she said. Gaunt told NABL members, who may have to counsel clients about the advisability of participating in the program, that it could take as little as two months from start to finish and shouldn’t hold up any other debt issuances a municipality wants to undertake.

Some bond lawyers said the program seems to drive a wedge between issuers and underwriters. Civil penalties for underwriters who self-report are capped at $500,000 under the initiative.  Regulators acknowledged on Thursday that the initiative does create “tension” between issuers and the underwriters required to review the official statement for any misstatements or omissions before underwriting any bonds. SEC muni enforcement deputy chief Mark Zehner warned that an issuer self-reporting could have consequences for an underwriter if that firm does not also acknowledge such violations in the OS.

“It’s from frying pan to fire, in my view, Zehner said. If the OS is silent on the matter and there were violations in the past five years, that means the document is not really a final OS under the law and thus the underwriter violated 15c2-12, Zehner explained. He also added that an underwriter who comes forward under the program, but does not catch all the violations over the previous five years, would still be in danger of facing enforcement action for any that they missed reporting.

Some attendees expressed skepticism over the SEC’s position. One lawyer asked why the SEC would further punish an underwriter in such a case, especially if the firm were self-reporting and willing to pay the maximum fine. That lawyer said piling on more punishment to a cooperative underwriter would seem to do no good for the market. Another bond lawyer asked if the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority would jump to assess penalties for conduct brought to light under the SEC program, but FINRA associate vice president and chief counsel for enforcement James Day said that has not been determined yet.

In an earlier session at the conference, SEC muni office attorney Mary Simpkins said the program might eventually be expanded to cover other types of disclosure failures. She added that the program could start a dialogue that leads to better disclosure behavior in the muni market.

“Even if there is not a lot of self-reporting, we’re hoping even the discussion will help,” she said.

BY KYLE GLAZIER

MAR 27, 2014 3:02pm ET




SEC's Mary Jo White Directs Staff to Develop Fiduciary Options Document.

Securities and Exchange CommissionChairman Mary Jo White has told agency staff to draft a document that outlines ways the regulator can reform rules governing investment advisers and brokers.

The guidance would give the five-member commission a foundation for determining whether to advance a proposal to raise investment-advice standards for brokers.

The Dodd-Frank financial reform law allows the SEC to promulgate a rule that would require brokers to act in the best interest of their clients — a bar that investment advisers already meet. Brokers are held to a suitability standard when recommending investment products.

“In order to more fully inform the commission’s decision on this matter, I have directed the staff to evaluate all of the potential options available to the commission, including a uniform fiduciary standard for broker-dealers and investment advisers when dealing with retail customers, and other measures that may be more targeted and achievable in the shorter term,” Ms. White said in a speech at the Consumer Federation of America’s Consumer Assembly in Washington on Friday.

“I have asked the staff to make the evaluation of potential options an immediate and high priority so that the commission has the information it needs to come to a decision as to whether and, if so, how best to exercise the authority provided in Section 913 of the Dodd-Frank Act,” Ms. White continued. “I have made this a priority because it is very important and we need to move forward to a decision.”

In a meeting with reporters after her remarks, Ms. White did not indicate what deadline she gave the staff.

“They are working on it as we speak,” Ms. White said.

She would not elaborate on what actions the SEC could consider that would be more targeted than a fiduciary-duty rule.

“I want a full range of options, which will make for better decision making by the commission,” Ms. White said.

The fiduciary issue is likely to split the commission. SEC members Michael Piwowar and Dan Gallagher have recently stated reservations about proceeding with a fiduciary-duty rule.

Ms. White did not reveal her position, but she indicated in her speech that she has doubts about disparate advice standards for brokers and advisers.

“Whenever you have substantially similar services regulated differently, I believe it is necessary to consider carefully whether the regulatory distinction makes sense,” Ms. White said.

Fiduciary duty advocates in the audience were heartened by her remarks.

“The good thing about it is her re-articulation of this as a high priority for her and for the SEC, and that she is dedicating staff resources to put this forward,” said Marilyn Mohrman-Gillis, managing director of public policy and communications at the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards Inc. “That is good news for all of us who have been advocating for a very long time for the SEC to advance this rule making.”

Barbara Roper, director of investor protection at the CFA, said that it’s good for the SEC to look at a range of options for reforming investment advice rules but that it should settle on proposing a uniform fiduciary standard.

“We know disclosure doesn’t work,” Ms. Roper said in an interview on the sidelines of the conference. “We think the logical middle ground is articulated in the general approach in … Dodd-Frank.”

The fact that the SEC is driving toward some kind of conclusion is a step in the right direction, Ms. Roper said.

“Given the number of years I’ve been working on this issue, just a decision is a light at the end of the tunnel,” Ms. Roper said.

By Mark Schoeff Jr.

Mar 21, 2014 @ 9:19 am (Updated 12:47 pm) EST




FINRA Examining Puerto Rico Bond Sales; SIFMA Sends Out Notice.

WASHINGTON — The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority is examining allegations that broker-dealers violated municipal rules by trading bonds from Puerto Rico’s recent $3.5 billion general obligation deal to customers in sizes less than the required $100,000 minimum denomination.

“FINRA is aware of this situation and is examining trading activity in this Cusip,” a FINRA spokesman said, referring to the 74514LE86 identifier of the bonds.

Also on Friday, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association sent out a notice to members urging them to make sure they are complying with the minimum denomination requirement.

“We urge firms to examine the minimum denomination provisions of the official statement carefully and to take steps to ensure that all trades are in compliance with the minimum denominations established by the issuer,” SIFMA said in the notice. “For example, we urge firms to take care in cases where customers may request to split trades among accounts in ways that would result in trade sizes smaller the minimum denomination.”

The actions follow a story The Bond Buyer released Wednesday morning that said broker-dealers — in some 70 transactions executed between 9:16 a.m. on Tuesday, March 11, through 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, March 18 — sold the Puerto Rico bonds to customers in amounts below $100,000.

The OS for the bonds stipulated that they should not be sold in minimum denominations of less than $100,000 unless of one of three major rating agencies — Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s Investors Service and Fitch Ratings — upgraded the rating on them to investment-grade from speculative.

The idea behind the minimum denomination requirement was to ensure the bonds would not be sold to retail customers who might not fully appreciate the risk of holding them.

The MSRB’s Rule G-15 on uniform practice requirements prohibits broker-dealers from executing trades in sizes below the minimum denomination set by the issuer, except in very limited circumstances. The board’s guidance on Rule G-17 on fair dealing says that a dealer would violate that rule if it fails to disclose to a customer that it is buying bonds below a required minimum denomination and that this could affect the liquidity of the customer’s position.

In a new examination of the trade data on the MSRB’s EMMA system, The Bond Buyer found six more sales of less than $100,000 of Puerto Rico bonds to customers, including two of $35,000 each executed on Thursday.

Michael Decker, SIFMA managing director and co-head of munis, told The Bond Buyer in an interview he initiated on Friday that he has been talking to members about the situation.

“It is true that some firms inadvertently did execute customer trades below the minimum denomination,” he said. Some of them have cancelled those trades when alerted to the requirement, he added.

“The minimum denomination provision is really novel,” Decker said, “I’ve not heard before a minimum denomination feature that’s triggered off of the bond rating,” adding some traders “didn’t pay close enough attention” to the provision.

“It’s very important that traders and sales people read the official statement carefully, understand the minimum denomination provision and make sure that all the trades they execute are in compliance,” he said.

“Dealers have to take responsibility for this issue,” he said. “They shouldn’t depend on the trustee, the clearing utility or trading platforms to monitor any of this,” he said.

Susan Collet, senior vice president of government relations at Bond Dealers of America, said Friday, “We certainly support regulators getting to the bottom of what occurred. She said trades below the $100,000 minimum denomination represent an “operational failure” and that “Clearly, broker-dealers need to follow the rules.”

BY LYNN HUME and KYLE GLAZIER

MAR 21, 2014 2:49pm ET




SIFMA, Chamber Give Thumbs Down to Finra's Data Collection Proposal.

Two more financial industry groups have called on Finra to rethink a proposal to collect reams of brokerage account information that the organization says will help it better detect fraudulent sales practices.

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, the trade group for large broker-dealers, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed comment letters Friday and late Thursday, respectively, opposing Finra’s Comprehensive Automated Risk Data System. They join the Financial Services Institute Inc., a lobbying group for independent broker-dealers, in criticizing the idea.

The broker-dealer regulator put out a concept proposal in December. The comment deadline was Friday.

SIFMA warned that financial firms would be burdened with significant technology and compliance costs and that customers’ financial privacy would be put at risk.

“CARDS would require firms to develop new systems and/or dramatically modify existing systems to collect data elements that they do not have currently, create storage capacity to store vast amounts of new data, develop methods to standardize data format … and save the data for an unspecified period of time,” wrote Ira Hammerman, SIFMA executive vice president and general counsel. “The information that will be requested through CARDS is a road map to an individual’s financial life and virtually all investors’ information will be housed in one place.”

The Chamber said the system’s costs would outweigh its benefits.

“While efforts to streamline and standardize this data collection are laudable, the [Chamber] remains very concerned that any wholesale changes to the way in which broker-dealers provide data to Finra will come at a significant cost not only to broker-dealers but also to their customers,” wrote David Hirschmann, president and chief executive of the Chamber’s Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness.

By Mark Schoeff Jr.

Mar 21, 2014 @ 11:45 am (Updated 5:03 pm) EST




SEC Examining Hidden Prices in Bond Trading.

SEC regulators want to understand why brokers sometimes block their rivals and clients from seeing some of their prices for municipal, corporate and other bonds, according to a person with direct knowledge of the inquiry. They’re examining whether being able to turn quotes on and off allows market manipulation, and whether smaller buyers are given worse prices, the person said.

The probe underscores the growing concern that the infrastructure of the U.S. bond market hasn’t kept pace with a 23 percent expansion in the past six years, with much of the trading still conducted through telephone conversations and e-mails. The SEC separately is looking into the way the biggest banks allocate corporate-bond offerings and whether they give preferential treatment to certain clients.

“There’s a club-within-a-club sort of atmosphere people started to get very concerned about,” said Robert Smith, chief investment officer at Sage Advisory Services Ltd., which oversees about $10.5 billion. “In essence, you could start to see two different prices for the same security.”

The inquiry into alternative trading systems has focused on those that cater to individual investors as well as dealers trading among themselves, according to the person, who asked not to be identified because the examination isn’t public.

INCREASED TRADING

The probe is an attempt to get more information, rather than build a case for an enforcement action, and is being conducted by the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations wing of the SEC, according to the person familiar with the matter.

Even if alternative trading systems “don’t account for a majority of the trading, they can be a source of information, and there’s the potential for filters to be used in a manner that would distort the market,” said Kevin Goodman, national associate director of the broker-dealer examination program at the division.

U.S. investment firms predict that 30% of corporate-bond trading will occur electronically by 2015, up from 14 percent of investment-grade notes in 2012, according to an August 2013 report by Greenwich Associates and McKinsey & Co. As much as 50% of municipal trades already may occur electronically, according to a comment letter to the SEC last year from trade-system operator TMC Bonds.

PROMOTING TRANSPARENCY

“We want to understand how we can promote more transparency” and how electronic trading is “either contributing or not contributing to transparency,” said Mr. Goodman, who declined to confirm the existence of any examinations.

The SEC has contacted providers including Tradeweb Markets and TMC Bonds, seeking information about the systems they manage that allow dealers to buy and sell debt to one another and to investors, according to two people with direct knowledge of the matter who asked not to be identified because the conversations were private.

Bloomberg, the parent of Bloomberg News, competes with Tradeweb in some businesses, including bond trading with institutional investors. Bloomberg’s trading platforms aren’t geared toward individual clients.

There are reasons some electronic systems enable bond dealers to block rivals from seeing their price quotes, such as if they have found a firm consistently fails to stand by its offers or provides off-market values, said Thomas Vales, chief executive officer of TMC Bonds, who confirmed he’d discussed the issue with the SEC.

Clayton McGratty, a Tradeweb spokesman, declined to comment.

Banks have increasingly turned to electronic systems to sell bonds on behalf of their clients as a way of aggregating a greater number of bids. That’s become more appealing as it’s become more expensive for dealers to use their own money to make markets because of higher regulatory capital requirements.

“There’s a lot of interest in the market given the way it’s grown,” the SEC’s Mr. Goodman said.

NEW ISSUES

Rules issued in 2010 by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and the Dodd-Frank Act passed by Congress prompted Wall Street dealers to cut their inventories of corporate securities by 76% from the 2007 peak through last March, when the Federal Reserve changed the way it reported the data.

At the same time, the size of the U.S. bond market has swelled to $39.9 trillion from $33.6 trillion in 2008 as the Fed held borrowing costs near zero and bought trillions of dollars of Treasuries and mortgage debt, according to data from the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association.

While the amount of debt outstanding has soared, trading volumes have failed to keep pace, prompting investors to hold onto notes rather than trade more actively and risk not being able to get the securities back. The scarcity of available bonds has led to increased demand from buyers for a slice of new corporate issues.

Regulators have been seeking more information about how the biggest banks decide to distribute the new bonds. The Goldman Sachs Group Inc.’s annual filing last month added “allocations of and trading in fixed-income securities” to a list of activities at the firm that are subject to open regulatory scrutiny.

One of the SEC’s priorities this year is to evaluate “factors that may impact the quality of execution in the fixed-income market,” including market structure and the use of alternative trading systems, it said in a January statement.

“In the wake of the credit crisis, investors have obviously had a greater focus on fixed income,” said Will Rhode, director of fixed-income research at Tabb Group. “There’s a question of how retail investors access this market.”

Bloomberg News
Mar 21, 2014 @ 12:02 pm (Updated 1:32 pm) EST




Finra Says It’s Examining Trading in New Puerto Rico Bonds.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority said it’s examining trading in the $3.5 billion of general-obligations that Puerto Rico sold this month.

The self-governing U.S. territory sold the debt March 11, in the biggest-ever high-yield offering for the $3.7 trillion municipal market. The issue gave the island, which was cut to junk last month, enough cash to pay bills through June 2015, as officials try to revive a shrinking economy.Hedge funds made up the majority of buyers in the tax-exempt deal, according to David Chafey, chairman of the island’s Government Development Bank. The securities mature in July 2035 and priced to yield about 8.73 percent.Sale documents stipulate that “the bonds shall be issued in the minimum denomination of $100,000 and any integral multiple of $5,000 in excess thereof,” unless one of the three largest rating companies raise Puerto Rico to investment grade.The bonds were free to trade March 11. Since then, they changed hands in at least 75 transactions less than $100,000, data compiled by Bloomberg show. The bonds’ highest price, 100 cents on the dollar, was for a $25,000 trade at 10:47 a.m. in New York on March 12.

Activity Examined

Asked about whether Finra was looking into the smaller trades, spokesman George Smaragdis said in an e-mail that the independent monitor of the securities business was “aware of the situation and is examining trading activity” in the bonds.

Trades below the minimum amount for investors that don’t already own at least $100,000 of the debt violate the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board’s Rule G-15 subsection F, said Martha Haines, who led the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Municipal Securities office from 2001 to 2011.

“These are intended for institutional purchasers, or at least for people that can afford the risk by making it a minimum denomination of $100,000,” said Haines, who teaches municipal finance at the Maurer School of Law at Indiana University in Bloomington.The rule Haines referenced states that brokers and dealers can’t execute a trade of a municipal security that’s below the minimum denomination of the issue, according to the MSRB’s website.

Minimum Denomination

The Securities Industry and Financial Market Association, a New York-based trade group that represents banks and investors, released a notice today warning firms about trading the Puerto Rico bonds in sizes below $100,000.“We urge firms to take care in cases where customers may request to split trades among accounts in ways that would result in trade sizes smaller than the minimum denomination,” according to the notice.The bonds declined today. Their average yield was about 8.73 percent, the highest since they were free to trade. The price touched 92 cents, the cheapest yet.

The finances of the Caribbean commonwealth of 3.6 million people influence the entire municipal market because 70 percent of U.S. mutual funds that focus on local debt hold the securities, according to Morningstar Inc. The island’s bonds, like territories such as Guam, are tax-exempt nationwide.

Barbara Morgan, David Millar and Betsy Nazario, spokesmen for the Government Development Bank, which handles the island’s debt sales, didn’t immediately respond to an e-mail seeking comment.The Bond Buyer reported March 19 that smaller-denomination sales were being made in violation of the requirement.By Michelle Kaske March 21, 2014

To contact the reporter on this story: Michelle Kaske in New York at mkaske@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Stephen Merelman at smerelman@bloomberg.net Mark Tannenbaum, Alan Goldstein




NABL Submits Comments on MSRB Draft Rule G-42.

This week, the National Association of Bond Lawyers (NABL) submitted comments to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) on MSRB Notice 2014-01, related to draft MSRB Rule G-42, on standards of conduct and duties of municipal advisors when engaging in municipal advisory activities other than the undertaking of solicitations. In the comments, NABL urged that “careful consideration be given to the precise language used” in the final rule “to insure that municipal advisors are clearly informed of their duties and not unduly burdened, and that the choices available to municipal entities and obligated persons in engaging municipal advisors are not inadvertently or unduly limited.”

The comments were prepared by an ad hoc subcommittee of the NABL Securities Law and Disclosure Committee and can be seen here.




MSRB Proposes MA Qualification Exams.

WASHINGTON — The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board on Monday proposed to amend its rule on professional qualifications to cover municipal advisors and require them to take a test as soon as next year.

The board plans to survey municipal advisors to determine what the test would include.

The test requirement would be in draft amendments that the MSRB wants to include in its Rule G-3, which would distinguish between MA representatives who provide services and MA principals who supervise them.

Under the proposal, all MA representatives would be required to take and pass a professional qualification test to demonstrate a minimum level of competency before providing or continuing to provide financial advice to state and local governments. The MSRB is proposing a one-year grace period for all individuals currently engaged in municipal advisory activities to take and pass the test.

“The creation of a professional qualifications program for municipal advisors is a key step toward safeguarding the interests of state and local governments that engage the services of municipal advisors,” said MSRB executive director Lynnette Kelly. “Individuals entrusted with providing financial advice to state and local governments will be required to demonstrate both an understanding of the business and regulatory requirements.”

Kelly said the grace period is appropriate because of the major changes a brand-new regulatory regime brings. MAs are gradually coming under full MSRB regulation as the board rolls out rules based on the requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act, which imposes a fiduciary duty on advisors offering financial advice to municipal clients. The board has previously proposed rules laying out the core standards for MA conduct and supervision.

“The notice is generally consistent with our expectations,” said Nathan Howard, general counsel to the National Association of Independent Public Finance Advisors. “However, the appropriateness of the timing of the notice and the effective date of the MA testing requirements will need to be analyzed carefully, particularly in light of the fact that the MSRB has not yet finalized the municipal advisor representative exam or otherwise provided any indication as to its contents.”

The MSRB said in a statement that it will conduct a survey of MAs to learn more about their activities before developing a study outline, which the board will submit to the Securities and Exchange Commission. The MSRB expects to begin a pilot exam program in 2015.

The board also proposes to eliminate the practice of apprenticeship, which required municipal securities representatives to shadow an experienced professional for 90 days before doing business. The board proposed this change to reflect a general regulatory attitude shift, the MSRB said in a release.

The board is requesting comments on the qualifications exam proposal by May 16. The MSRB is hosting an educational webinar on professional qualification requirements on April 3.

BY KYLE GLAZIER
MAR 17, 2014 11:36am ET



Clearing Firms Fear Wall Street Regulator's Data Proposal.

(Reuters) – A proposal by Wall Street’s industry-funded watchdog to ramp up oversight of securities brokerages could expose clearing firms to more enforcement actions and lawsuits, lawyers say.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has said it wants to review, on a continuous basis, vast quantities of data from the clearing firms that brokerages hire to settle customers’ buy and sell orders.

But some clearing firms are raising concerns that the fledgling plan could ensnare them in legal hassles. As the data flows from brokerages to FINRA, the clearing firms could be held accountable for malfeasance buried in that information, they say. For example, FINRA could question why a clearing firm did not spot that a brokerage customer was laundering money.

“The clearing firm should not become another supervisor,” said Ira Hammerman, general counsel for the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, a trade group representing clearing firms as well as retail brokerages. SIFMA plans to voice its concerns in a letter this month.

Consumer investor lawyers agree that the proposed system could make clearing firms bear more responsibility for errant behavior. “For decades, clearing firms have buried their heads in the sand, saying they don’t have responsibilities for anyone,” said Andrew Stoltmann, a Chicago lawyer who represents investors. “I think that defies common sense.”

A FINRA spokesman declined to comment.

FINRA announced the plan, known as the Comprehensive Automated Risk Data System, or CARDS, in December, but recently extended the deadline for public input to March 21. The system could take years to put in place, as FINRA would have to develop a more formal proposal and get approval from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The watchdog is exploring the idea as financial regulators try to expand their presence by mining data. The SEC, for example, has recently announced efforts to crunch trading data to detect insider trading and other illegal activity.

BIG DATA

FINRA already receives some data from clearing firms for its brokerage examinations, but they provide it voluntarily and often upon request, the regulator has said. For example, examiners may ask for data about trades in a certain security.

CARDS, however, would require clearing firms to be a pipeline for an “unprecedented” combination of data, said Joan Schwartz, chief legal officer of Bank of New York Mellon Corp’s Pershing LLC unit.

Clearing firms like Pershing would have to transmit an ongoing stream of data to FINRA about everything from securities transactions and asset movements to customers’ risk tolerances and time lines. At Pershing alone, those responsibilities would apply to millions of brokerage accounts.

FINRA recently said it would not require clearing firms to submit details, such as names and Social Security numbers, that would identify specific brokerage customers.

Nor will FINRA hold clearing firms responsible for the accuracy of the data, according to its plan, but that protection is limited, said Irwin Pronin, a New York lawyer who advises clearing firms. More risks could come later if the regulator looks back and says a clearing firm turned a blind eye to brokerage misbehavior revealed in its data, Pronin said.

Daniel Nathan, a Washington lawyer who advises brokerages on regulatory issues, said the plan could make clearing firms vulnerable to fines and other sanctions. The proposed system “will have the effect of dumping into FINRA’s lap a treasure trove of potential evidence” that could show what a clearing firm might have known about the brokerage firm’s activities, he said.

To be sure, FINRA requires brokerages and clearing firms to sign agreements that lay out which entities are liable for certain responsibilities. For example, retail brokerages are responsible for opening customers’ accounts and recommending securities that are in sync with their goals.

But even that may not be an ironclad defense. Pershing’s Schwartz, who is also vice chair of SIFMA’s clearing firm committee, pointed to a December enforcement case in which FINRA described a clearing firm as a “gatekeeper to the securities markets.” The term could signal a change in regulators’ expectations for these firms, Schwartz said.

“We’re generally concerned about the erosion of this concept that we’re 10 steps removed,” Schwartz said.

LITIGATION

FINRA’s proposal follows a spate of lawsuits and securities arbitration cases against clearing firms by investors.

Some cases were filed when an investor’s brokerage goes out of business, often because of a fraud. Others may involve brokerages that cannot make good on losses in a risky security. Pursuing the clearing firm may be the only way for investors to recoup money, lawyers say.

These are tough cases to win, but investors have sometimes prevailed. In 2010, creditors of Bayou Group LLC scored a $20.6 million arbitration award against a Goldman Sachs Group Inc unit that cleared the hedge fund’s trades. Bayou, which was bankrupt, turned out to be a Ponzi scheme.

The case hinged on Goldman’s ignoring data about the hedge fund’s losses, said Ross Intelisano, a New York lawyer who represented the creditors.

Goldman lost two efforts to overturn the ruling. A Goldman spokeswoman declined to comment.

In another case, a group of athletes filed a multimillion-dollar arbitration against Pershing last year, saying the clearing firm should have detected that private investments their adviser recommended in a failed casino project were fraudulent. The case is pending, and Pershing declined to comment.

At least several arbitration cases against other clearing firms were settled last year, according to a FINRA database.

BY SUZANNE BARLYN

March 18 Tue Mar 18, 2014 11:09am EDT




Municipal Time of Trade Disclosure & Suitability: A Paper Prepared by Lumesis Inc.

Prepared by BDA member firm Lumesis Inc., this paper focuses on the content and nuances of the new rules around time of trade disclosure, the amended rule regarding suitability and explores how technological innovation has and will impact compliance and business practices

Rules focused on time of trade disclosures to investors, dealers’ dealings with sophisticated municipal market professionals and suitability of dealers’ recommendations of municipal securities transactions will be effective July 5, 2014.

The executive summary is available here.
Lumesis is making this paper available to all BDA Member firms.  It can be found in the Members Resources section under Best Practices.



WSJ: Finra Examining Trading in Puerto Rico Bonds.

Move Comes Just a Week After the Island Territory’s $3.5 Billion Bond Sale.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority is examining trading in Puerto Rico’s newly sold $3.5 billion bond issue, according to a spokesman for the Wall-Street-funded self-regulatory group that oversees broker-dealers.

The move comes amid concerns that the new bonds—which carry junk ratings—are being improperly sold to individual investors. The bonds’ prospectus says the debt will be issued in minimum denominations of $100,000, unless Puerto Rico’s credit rating is upgraded, but some recent activity shows the bonds trading in amounts as low as $5,000. Smaller trade sizes are more typical of individual investors.

Finra’s inquiry also comes on the heels of similar scrutiny from the Securities and Exchange Commission over how broker-dealers allocate newly sold corporate bonds to investors. The SEC recently asked some banks for information on how they divvy up the new debt among buyers and how they traded those bonds after the sale.

“It’s not shocking that there’s a concerted focus on bonds and bond-related issues,” said George Friedman, a former senior officer at Finra who left the organization last year. Thought of by investors as being safe and secure, municipal bonds are “going to get Finra’s attention” given that Detroit filed for bankruptcy last year and the recent financial troubles in Puerto Rico.

Mr. Friedman said Finra could levy fines if broker-dealers were found to violate securities regulations. A rule from the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board states that dealers “shall not effect a customer transaction” that is “lower than the minimum denomination of the issue,” with certain exceptions.

The smaller Puerto Rico trades were reported earlier this week by The Bond Buyer.

Puerto Rico sold the debt last week to help prop up its budget, giving officials more time to jump-start the economy and deal with persistent budget deficits. Island officials had been laying groundwork for the sale for months, which was made more challenging after Puerto Rico’s outstanding debt tumbled amid investor worries about the island’s financial health.

Puerto Rico’s bonds have traded lower this week after a frenzy of trading pushed the prices as much as 7.5% higher the day after the sale. The bonds on Friday traded at 92.5 cents on the dollar, below the offering price of 93 cents, according to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board’s EMMA website.

Investors and lawyers said the typical minimum denomination for a municipal bond is $5,000, though it is not surprising that Puerto Rico, with its financial troubles, had a $100,000 minimum.

Since the minimum denomination was in the prospectus, “I don’t think bonds smaller than that should trade in the secondary market,” said Kathy Bramlage, a director at Treasury Partners, a unit of financial-advisory firm HighTower Advisors. “It does make you wonder” how the trades were completed, she said.

Making the trade size contingent on ratings is unusual, and suggests the writer of the documents intentionally meant to prevent trades to small investors, said Kenneth Potts, a portfolio manager at Samson Capital Advisors.

“It strikes me as a potential liability for dealers that traded it” in the smaller sizes, he said. “I think that an individual would have a strong case if they wanted that trade broken.”

MIKE CHERNEY and
AL YOON
Updated March 21, 2014 4:32 p.m. ET

Write to Mike Cherney at mike.cherney@wsj.com and Al Yoon at albert.yoon@wsj.com




MSRB Proposes Professional Qualification Requirements for Municipal Advisors.

Alexandria, VA – The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) today requested public comment on a proposal to establish qualification requirements for municipal advisor professionals. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act charged the MSRB with developing professional standards for municipal advisors to enhance protections for state and local governments.

“The creation of a professional qualifications program for municipal advisors is a key step toward safeguarding the interests of state and local governments that engage the services of municipal advisors,” said MSRB Executive Director Lynnette Kelly. “Individuals entrusted with providing financial advice to state and local governments will be required to demonstrate both an understanding of the business and regulatory requirements.”

The MSRB’s proposal would amend its existing rule on qualification requirements for personnel of municipal securities dealers to incorporate requirements for municipal advisor professionals. The draft amendments to MSRB Rule G-3 add registration classifications for municipal advisors to distinguish between those who engage in municipal advisory activities—municipal advisor representatives—and those who engage in their management, direction or supervision—municipal advisor principals.

Under the draft amendments to Rule G-3, municipal advisor representatives would be required to take and pass a professional qualification test to demonstrate a minimum level of competency before providing or continuing to provide financial advisory services to state and local governments. The MSRB is proposing a one-year grace period for all individuals currently engaged in municipal advisory activities to take and pass the test.

“Given the significant changes that accompany a new regulatory regime, the MSRB believes it is important for all municipal advisor representatives, regardless of their years of experience or other certifications, to take the exam,” Kelly said.

Next steps in the development of the test include a survey of municipal advisors on their core activities to further inform the MSRB on the areas to be tested and the preparation of a study outline, which will be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The MSRB anticipates implementing a pilot exam in 2015.

The MSRB earlier this year requested comment on a proposal to establish core standards of conduct for municipal advisors and supervisory and compliance obligations. Future MSRB rule proposals for municipal advisors will include measures to address the potential for pay-to-play activities by municipal advisors; limitations on gifts and gratuities to employees of municipal securities issuers and other market participants; and duties of municipal advisors acting as solicitors. The MSRB also plans to implement a per-professional fee of $300 for municipal advisors to begin to fairly distribute assessments across all regulated entities.

While the majority of the draft amendments to MSRB Rule G-3 are targeted toward municipal advisors, the MSRB also proposes to eliminate the practice of apprenticeship, which required municipal securities representatives to shadow an experienced professional for 90 days before conducting business with the public. This change aligns with trends in other regulatory regimes toward allowing firms to identify appropriate training and supervision for new employees.

Comments on the draft amendments should be submitted to the MSRB no later than May 16, 2014. The MSRB is hosting an educational webinar on the main aspects of the municipal advisor professional qualification requirements on April 3, 2014 at 3:00 p.m. ET. Register for the webinar.




Dealers Want More Best-Ex Guidance.

WASHINGTON — Dealer groups are happy that the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board has exempted sophisticated municipal market professionals from its proposed best execution rule, but would like more guidance and economic analysis going forward.

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association made these points in comments on the MSRB’s proposed Rule G-18, which would require broker-dealers to “use reasonable diligence in seeking to obtain for their customer transactions in municipal securities the most favorable terms available under prevailing market conditions.”

SIFMA said the group is largely on board with the MSRB proposal, and is hoping for guidance on how the rule interacts with the board’s proposed pricing rule, G-30.

“Before the MSRB adopts a final rule, SIFMA requests additional information and guidance from the MSRB relating to the harmonization of Rule G-18 and G-30, as well as compliance issues,” wrote SIFMA managing director and associate general counsel David Cohen.

Based on the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s Rule 5310 for equities and corporate debt, the proposed rule goes a step beyond the current Rule G-18 on execution of transactions, which requires dealers to “make a reasonable effort to obtain a price for the customer that is fair and reasonable in relation to prevailing market conditions.” If a best-execution standard was adopted, dealers would need to establish or revise compliance policies and written supervisory procedures, as well as implement additional monitoring and surveillance.

Throughout the rulemaking process, dealers have pointed to the unique nature of the muni market and stressed the need for a rule recognizing the market’s lack of a single central pricing resource.

Cohen said in a brief interview that SIFMA members would like more instruction from the MSRB on how dealers might demonstrate compliance with the rule. The draft rule lays out possible factors examiners could review to see if dealers were meeting their obligations, including what information dealers looked at to determine the market for a municipal security.

Both SIFMA and the Bond Dealers of America said they were glad to see SMMPs exempted from the best execution requirements. SMMPs are generally considered to require less protection than other investors, particularly retail investors. But SIFMA urged a more detailed analysis of the costs the regulation would impose on dealers, and BDA urged additional opportunity for comment and a deliberate pace by the MSRB.

“It is critical that the MSRB strike the appropriate balance between investor protection interests and the efficient operation of the municipal markets,” Cohen wrote. “SIFMA would be pleased to work with the MSRB to obtain reliable empirical data to assist it in quantifying such costs and benefits.”

Costs to consider could include those of developing and maintaining a comprehensive compliance and supervisory system, procedures and training programs, and more, the SIFMA letter states.

“We appreciate that the proposed rule exempts sophisticated municipal market professionals, and that the MSRB has included acknowledgements that municipal securities can be very thinly quoted,” said Bond Dealers of America senior vice president for government relations Susan Collet. “Translating an intent to honor the nature of the municipal market into a workable regime is easier said than done, however. We believe that the regulators need to work in a very measured, cautious pace when attempting to finalize these rules. A 30-day comment period seems rather brief for a rule that will require a very delicate balance, so I am hopeful there will be more than one comment opportunity and an iterative process for working with the MSRB on this rule.”

The MSRB has requested that all comments on the proposal be submitted by March 21.

BY KYLE GLAZIER

MAR 13, 2014 3:20pm ET




SIFMA to SEC: Don't Approve MSRB Fair-Pricing Rule.

WASHINGTON — The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association is urging the Securities and Exchange Commission not to approve the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board’s proposed fair-pricing rule, arguing it is too intertwined with another pending rule.

The proposed fair-pricing rule would consolidate MSRB Rules G-18 on execution of transactions and G-30 on prices and commissions, as well as incorporate existing guidance regarding fair pricing in interpretive guidance to MSRB Rules G-17 on fair dealing and G-30. The proposed changes would create a single general rule, G-30, on prices and remuneration.

The MSRB filed the proposal with the SEC earlier this year, but SIFMA managing director and associate general counsel David Cohen said in a letter to the commission and a brief interview Wednesday that it should go no further until the MSRB explains how the rule would overlap with a proposed best execution rule the board rolled out in February.

Draft Rule G-18 would require broker-dealers to “use reasonable diligence in seeking to obtain for their customer transactions in municipal securities the most favorable terms available under prevailing market conditions.” Based on the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s Rule 5310 for equities and corporate debt, the proposal was recommended in the SEC’s 2012 Report on the Municipal Securities Market and is part of an effort to protect retail muni investors from paying more than they should.

Cohen said Wednesday that the two rules must be viewed side by side and that the SEC should not allow a new G-30 to go through until market participants understand the interplay between the two.

“Best execution is about two things,” Cohen said. “It’s about an order handling process, and the resulting price for the customer. So they’re related.”

“We would like the MSRB to tell us how they believe the two rules interact,” Cohen added.

SIFMA’s comment letter also takes the MSRB to task for not being willing to consider its earlier comments in the context of this rulemaking. The letter expresses support for the MSRB’s goal of more efficient regulation, but is critical of the board for declining to consider some rule changes during the consolidation of existing guidance, calling that “a lost opportunity.”

SIFMA had sought incorporation of additional guidance on matters such as sophisticated municipal market professionals and clarification of certain terms which the MSRB did not agree were necessary, according to the SEC’s request for comment.

“SIFMA believes that improvements should be considered whenever rules are being reviewed, amended, or created,” the letter states. “This is especially true in view of the extensive process required in rulemaking. However, in response to a number of comments made by SIFMA, the MSRB dismissed them. The MSRB refused to consider the comments on the merits, and stated ‘this request goes beyond the scope of this rule making, and the MSRB can consider this request as part of any substantive changes at a later date.'”

The MSRB was unable to immediately provide a comment in response to the SIFMA letter. The board has said the new fair-pricing rule will help dealers to understand and comply with their fair pricing obligations by organizing them together in a single location.

Cohen said that there is not likely to be any impact to the market in delaying approval of a new G-30 for the time being because dealers already have those obligations under existing guidance.

The MSRB asked that public comments on the best execution proposal be submitted by March 21. The SEC could choose to grant SIFMA’s request, it could ask the MSRB to amend the fair pricing proposal, or it could decide to approve the proposal as it is.

BY KYLE GLAZIER

MAR 12, 2014 4:42pm ET




SEC Won't Rewrite Advisor Compliance Rules for Social Media.

ARLINGTON, VA. — As the SEC contemplates a framework for how advisors can incorporate online social tools into their practice, many of the established principles concerning compliance, record-keeping and anti-fraud will hold steady in the era of new media, according to a senior commission attorney.

Melissa Gainor, senior counsel at the SEC’s Investment Adviser Regulation Office, explained that the commission isn’t envisioning a complete rewrite of its rules to account for the increasing use of social media within advisory practices. In remarks during a panel discussion at the Investment Adviser Association’s compliance conference, Gainor explained that advisors will be expected to keep records about the content they post on social sites just as they do with other materials on traditional channels.

“Broadly, firms that communicate through social media must retain records of those communications covered by the record-keeping rule. It’s really the content that’s determinative rather than the form of communication used,” Gainor said.

SEC GUIDANCE

Similarly, she noted that the SEC’s advertising rule has been interpreted broadly in the past, and much of the guidance for promotional materials will carry over to the use of online tools like blogs, Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn.

“Generally it doesn’t depend on the type of technology or device used,” she said.

The SEC has produced guidance directly addressing the use of social media within the practice, but for compliance experts like Michael Sherman, a partner with the firm Dechert LLP, the area remains distressingly vague. The proliferation of social tools — and the freewheeling nature of comments on the Web — has introduced considerable uncertainty into areas like endorsements and testimonials, a confusion that the SEC could address with more detailed examples in its guidance.

“It’s as though we got flying cars but we never revised the rules of the road for highways,” Sherman said.

Incorporating social media into the practice has been the subject of considerable debate in advisor circles in recent years. Consensus has been in short supply, but advisors are increasingly coming to believe that as they pursue a younger generation of clients, it’s no longer a viable strategy for firms simply to have in place a policy “saying don’t use it,” according to John Thomas, Jr., managing director at BNY Mellon Asset Management.

“They have to have a presence,” Thomas said.

And there are a number of third-party tools such as PageFreezer, Socialware and Smarsh to help firms in regulated industries remain compliant, offering on-demand services like archiving and monitoring.

SETTING BOUNDARIES

Even with the aid of those services, compliance professionals say that they still need to set boundaries on what advisors can use within their practice. Marla Roeser, director of compliance and risk management with Convergent Wealth Advisors, suggested that it’s a simpler exercise to keep a white list of social sites advisors can use rather than try to maintain a roster of sites that are off limits at a time when new social tools and applications are sprouting like weeds.

“Instead of prohibiting certain sites, I would list the sites that they’re authorized to use,” she said. “You have to have the resources to monitor this activity. You have to be prepared for that.”

In Convergent’s case, that leaves just LinkedIn and Twitter available for use inside the practice, but even limiting usage just to those two, Roeser still has to navigate how the content that her firm’s advisors are pushing out meshes with the SEC’s rules.

Gainor acknowledged that a risk alert on social media that the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations issued left considerable gray areas, and said that the commission’s work in that area had been slowed by its push to enact regulations under the JOBS Act (which also touched on social media, but in a different context). In the meantime, in the absence of more explicit guidance, the SEC still expects RIAs to be diligent in monitoring the content they publish on social sites.

“One of the things that you need to consider when you’re developing your compliance policies and procedures is your ability to monitor,” Gainor said. “If you don’t have the ability to monitor, it begs the question as to how broad you can allow social media use.”

BY: KENNETH CORBIN
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2014



NYT: Financial Adviser Sidesteps Prison in Bond-Rigging Case.

The names read like signposts on the highway of financial hardship — Detroit; Jefferson County, Ala.; San Bernardino and Vallejo, Calif.

All have gone bankrupt in the last few years. But they also have another thing in common: They were victims of a vast bid-rigging scheme engineered by a Beverly Hills businessman, David Rubin, who tainted hundreds of municipal bond deals across the country and helped global banks cheat cities out of millions of dollars.

Despite prosecutors’ recommendation for a prison sentence of at least 19 years, however, Mr. Rubin was sentenced on Wednesday to two years of probation for his role in the scheme. About 20 former bankers from five financial institutions — JPMorgan ChaseBank of AmericaGE CapitalUBS and Wells Fargo — are also being prosecuted on suspicion of taking part in the conspiracy.

Mr. Rubin, who pleaded guilty to three counts of conspiracy and conspiracy to restrain trade in 2011, was also ordered to pay $5.65 million in penalties and restitution, adding slightly to a pot of more than $740 million that has been recovered from some of the banks he worked with. The money is to go back to the local governments that have not been made whole for their losses.

Judge Kimba M. Wood of Federal District Court in Manhattan said that despite Mr. Rubin’s crimes, sending him to prison would be “a gross injustice” because of extraordinary circumstances. His indictment coincided with his wife’s learning she has pancreatic cancer.

Judge Wood added that Mr. Rubin and his wife have seven children, including three minors whom he “has to raise while his wife suffers.”

Judge Wood also noted that Mr. Rubin had decided to cooperate with federal prosecutors and had spent time providing evidence and testimony in the trial of a former UBS banker, Peter Ghavami, who was convicted in August 2012. She took it as a sign that he was getting “back on the right path,” adding, “Mr. Rubin’s character is now strong.” After hearing the sentence, Mr. Rubin broke down in tears frequently as he told the court how ashamed he was and how sorry he was that he had put his wife through a terrible ordeal.

“I am truly sorry,” he said. “I do not want this to be my legacy, and I will spend the rest of my days working to restore myself in the eyes of my family and friends.”

Much of the sentencing hearing was spent resolving differences between the prosecutors, led by Rebecca Meiklejohn, and Mr. Rubin’s lawyers over whether the damage his actions had caused could be measured accurately. The law requires Mr. Rubin to make whole the municipalities that suffered losses, but some of them have already had recoveries from the payments made by the five banks.

To help calculate Mr. Rubin’s share of the restitution, they gave the court a list of places where bond deals were rigged, kickbacks paid or other crimes committed. The list did not try to identify every place that was harmed, only those where the government said it believed it could measure the harm accurately.

Even so, Mr. Rubin’s defense lawyers argued that many of the tainted deals were tailored to each community’s needs, so there was no market where prices were set. As a result, it was impossible to say how Mr. Rubin’s interference with the market had affected the prices, they said.

Although Mr. Rubin’s firm, CDR Financial Products, is not a household name, he worked with some of the biggest names in banking and was embroiled in public finance episodes that later became notorious. The former governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson, withdrew his name from consideration as commerce secretary in 2009 because federal agents were investigating his ties to Mr. Rubin, who had contributed $100,000 to two of Mr. Richardson’s political action committees and was subsequently hired to work on state bond deals. Mr. Richardson was not charged with any wrongdoing.

And Jefferson County, Ala., hired Mr. Rubin to monitor its extraordinarily large derivatives portfolio, which collapsed, contributing to the county’s $4 billion bankruptcy in 2011.

The criminal activity grew out of the fact that when cities and other local governments raise money by selling municipal bonds, they usually seek financial institutions to hold it for them safely, pay some interest and distribute the money to them when they need it.

Smaller municipalities find it hard to comparison-shop for such tailor-made investment contracts, so they often work with brokers who are supposed to find the best deals. Mr. Rubin was one such broker, but not a neutral one, according to the Justice Department’s antitrust division. Instead, he held sham auctions and steered business to favored financial institutions, which then kicked back money to him. As the conspiracy matured, it became popular to sell municipalities on bond deals that supposedly saved them money by using variable-rate bonds that were then hedged by derivatives called interest-rate swaps. Mr. Rubin helped financial institutions win contracts as swap counterparties and laundered illicit payments as “swap fees.”

A number of localities were left with more debt than they could easily pay, or with unexpectedly costly swap contracts that they could not get out of without paying onerous termination fees. In some places, the public works projects were failures but the local residents still had to pay back the bonds.

The cases involving the former bankers are being heard in other courts and are at various stages, with some pleading guilty, some awaiting trial, some convicted, and some of those convicted seeking new trials because of what they say are prosecutorial errors.

By MARY WILLIAMS WALSH




MSRB to Consolidate Key Fair-Dealing Obligations for Municipal Securities Dealers.

Alexandria, VA – The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) has received approval from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to consolidate extensive interpretive guidance on the fair-practice obligations of municipal securities dealers into three new rules and amendments to an existing rule. The MSRB will establish rules focused on time-of-trade disclosures to investors, dealers’ dealings with sophisticated municipal market professionals and suitability of dealers’ recommendations of municipal securities transactions.

“As part of the MSRB’s ongoing efforts to enhance regulatory efficiency, the MSRB examined the many interpretations that have been issued primarily under MSRB Rule G-17, its central fair dealing rule, and identified opportunities to better facilitate compliance,” said MSRB Executive Director Lynnette Kelly. “Creating stand-alone rules on key principles of fair dealing serves to highlight their importance and ensure that dealers understand and comply with these obligations.”

The MSRB will codify into a new MSRB Rule G-47 the existing requirement under Rule G-17 that municipal securities dealers disclose material information to customers, at or prior to the time of the municipal securities trade. The new time-of-trade disclosure rule does not substantively change the current obligations, but rather seeks to aid dealers and other market participants in understanding, complying with and enforcing these obligations.

The MSRB also will establish two new rules to consolidate guidance for municipal securities dealers who deal with experienced investors called sophisticated municipal market professionals (SMMPs). MSRB Rule D-15 defines an SMMP and Rule G‑48 provides the regulatory obligations of dealers to SMMPs, underscoring the differences in dealers’ obligations to the more sophisticated professionals in the market.

Additionally, the MSRB revised MSRB Rule G-19 on suitability to more closely align with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (FINRA) suitability provisions and consolidate existing MSRB interpretive guidance on the subject. The revised rule makes clear the specific factors that dealers must consider when recommending a transaction or investment strategy to municipal securities investors.

The new and revised rules will take effect July 5, 2014. Related interpretive guidance on these principles will be removed from the MSRB’s Rule Book, but will be archived and available for review on the MSRB’s website here.




SEC Urges Muni Issuers, Underwriters to Report Violations.

WASHINGTON — The Securities and Exchange Commission on Monday launched an effort to encourage issuers and underwriters of municipal securities to self-report certain violations of the federal securities laws rather than wait for their violations to be detected.

Under the Municipalities Continuing Disclosure Cooperation Initiative, the SEC’s Enforcement Division’s Municipal Securities and Public Pension unit will recommend favorable settlement terms for muni issuers and underwriters who voluntarily report that there were inaccurate statements in bond documents about their prior compliance with continuing disclosure obligations. Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 requires underwriters to reasonably determine that an issuer will comply with its continuing disclosure agreement before underwriting any new municipal securities. The rule also requires new offering documents to include descriptions of any continuing disclosure violations in the past five years.

“The Enforcement Division is committed to using innovative methods to uncover securities law violations and improve transparency in the municipal markets,” said Andrew J. Ceresney, director of the Enforcement Division. “We encourage eligible parties to take advantage of the favorable terms we are offering under this initiative. Those who do not self-report and instead decide to take their chances can expect to face increased sanctions for violations.”

The SEC has repeatedly indicated it is paying stricter attention to whether issuers are living up to their disclosure agreements and whether underwriters are doing their due diligence in making sure of that. Last year an SEC probe examined underwriters in California, and a July 2013 enforcement action targeted both West Clark Community Schools in Clark County, Ind. and Indianapolis-based City Securities Corp. with falsely claiming in bond documents that the issuer was meeting its secondary market disclosure obligations when it was not.

“Continuing disclosures are a critical source of information for investors in municipal securities, and offering documents should accurately disclose issuers’ prior compliance with their disclosure obligations,” said LeeAnn Ghazil Gaunt, chief of the Enforcement Division’s Municipal Securities and Public Pensions Unit. “This initiative is designed to promote improved compliance by encouraging responsible behavior by market participants who have failed to meet their obligations in the past.”

Bond Dealers of America president and chief executive officer Mike Nicholas said the SEC goal is sound but the details of the new program will have to be carefully examined.

“The BDA supports the SEC’s goal toward self-reporting of violations to the extent an obvious violation of the securities law has occurred,” Nicholas said. “We caution that there may be disproportionate administrative, reporting and other burdens on underwriters via the settlement obligation requirements and we will be examining those in more detail in the coming days.”

Ben Watkins, Florida’s bond finance director and the chair of the Government Finance Officers Association’s debt management committee, said the new program isn’t likely to provide much incentive for issuers to step forward.

“I don’t see it,” Watkins said, adding that issuers would probably end up with a cease-and-desist order whether they self-report or get caught by SEC investigators.

John McNally, a lawyer at Hawkins, Delafield & Wood LLP, said the SEC’s announcement underscores a point the commission has already made. McNally said that the investigations currently being done by underwriters of an issuer’s filing history are very comprehensive, and pointed out that the SEC issued a release in June 2010 warning underwriters that they should be diligent about looking into an issuer’s filing history. The West Clark case made issuers sit up and take notice as well, McNally said.

“The SEC has already advised issuers and underwriters of their concerns, and all parties are paying careful attention to such advice,” he said.

BY KYLE GLAZIER
MAR 10, 2014 2:28pm ET




Municipal Advisors Seek Changes, Clarifications on MSRB's MA Rule.

WASHINGTON — The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board’s proposed standards of conduct for municipal advisors would unnecessarily prevent banks from providing normal banking services as well as muni advice, the American Bankers Association is warning.

The ABA raised the concerns in one of more than 12 comment letters filed prior to Monday’s deadline to provide input on the MSRB’s proposed Rule G-42, called “Duties of Non-Solicitor Municipal Advisors.”

The proposed rule codifies the language of the Dodd-Frank Act and the Securities and Exchange Commission’s registration rule for MAs, which impose a fiduciary duty on them to put their client’s interest first before their own. The draft rule says MAs owe both a duty of loyalty and a duty of care to their municipal entity clients. It would prohibit MAs and their affiliates from engaging in any other transaction in a principal capacity with a client, which some market participants read as barring MAs from engaging in any non-fiduciary business relationship running concurrent to the municipal advisory agreement.

“Draft Rule G-42 would prohibit a municipal advisor and any of its affiliates from acting as principal in any transaction with entities or obligated persons,” wrote ABA vice president and senior counsel Cristeena Naser. “We believe that the proposed complete prohibition is far too blunt an instrument to address any concerns the MSRB may have regarding principal transactions.”

“Such a ban would also force banking organizations’ municipal entity customers and obligated persons to decide to choose between receiving covered municipal advice or banking products and services from their banks, because banks would not be permitted to provide both,” her letter adds.

The ABA letter points out that other regulatory regimes imposing a fiduciary standard do not have similar requirements. Naser conceded that a ban on principal transactions might work in the case of firms that provide only MA services, but would be very disruptive to advisors with banking affiliates.

“Although a complete ban on principal transactions by affiliates might be feasible in the case of stand-alone advisors, it is entirely unreasonable and impractical in the context of the structure of the banking industry. Such a prohibition would necessarily force a banking organization to assess the value of providing advisory services to municipal entities and obligated persons as compared to the value of providing all other products and services to municipal entities and obligated persons.”

Leslie Norwood, associate general counsel and co-head of the municipal securities group at the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, called the prohibition on acting as a principal in other transactions “unworkable.”

“We support the MSRB’s effort,” Norwood said. “We oppose the blanket prohibition on principal transactions.

Susan Collet, senior vice president of government relations at the Bond Dealers of America, said the MSRB proposal and its ban on principal transactions is confusing in light of recent SEC guidance, which stated that an underwriting firm acting as an MA can not switch roles to underwrite bonds on the same transaction.

“The MSRB has an important opportunity with G-42 to add clarity to the framework created under the SEC municipal advisor rule,” Collet said. “The two rules need to work together, yet the proposed G-42 language on principal transactions makes very confusing something that the SEC rule made clear: the scope of a prohibition on ‘role switching’ is limited to the specific issuance or transaction for which a municipal advisor is engaged.”

The National Association of Independent Finance Advisors expressed support for the rule and its letter, signed by NAIPFA president Jeanine Rodgers Caruso, said the ban on principal transactions is appropriate but should be further clarified in any final rule. However, rule goes too far in some areas, such as the proposal to require MAs to disclose the scope and size of any professional liability insurance they carry, NAIPFA said. That proposal would put smaller firms at a competitive disadvantage since larger firms and those affiliated with broker-dealers would certainly carry larger and more expensive policies, she said.

“NAIPFA would welcome a revised provision that states in effect that municipal advisors must truthfully disclose, upon request, information related to any professional liability insurance maintained,” Rodgers Caruso wrote.

Another point of contention for commenters was the MSRB’s request for comment on whether the rule should impose a fiduciary duty on “obligated persons” such as conduit borrowers. The law explicitly places the fiduciary duty on MAs only with respect to municipal entities, which are issuers but not conduit borrowers. The draft of G-42 proposes a lesser duty of care for clients that are not municipal entities. NAIPFA said it would be supportive of such a measure, but the ABA and SIFMA both said that the MSRB should not impose a fiduciary standard on MAs providing advice to any client other than a municipal entity.

Illinois Finance Authority vice president and president of the National Association of Health and Educational Facilities Finance Authorities Pamela Lenane said many conduit issuers retain advisors who may also provide advice to municipal entities, and that the current system is efficient and should not be interfered with by the new rule.

“The association respectfully submits that imposing a fiduciary duty (whether implicitly or explicitly) on a municipal advisor that provides advice to an obligated person is contrary to the specific legislative intent expressed in the Dodd-Frank Act and unnecessarily complicates a municipal advisor’s role in conduit financings,” NAHEFFA said in its letter. The group, which represents certain conduit issuers, said the MSRB should clarify the differences between the duty of loyalty owed to municipal entities and the duty of care owed to other clients and perhaps create a separate rule governing the conduct of MAs with “obligated persons,” meaning conduit borrowers. The MSRB could also clarify how the duties of MAs would apply to a conduit borrower in cases where the borrower retains its own MA in addition to the MA retained by the municipal entity issuing the bonds.

The American Council of Engineering Companies is also seeking clarification from the MSRB for any engineers who might find themselves ensnared by the regime. The SEC rule sought to provide an exemption for engineers providing normal engineering advice to municipalities, but some firms remain concerned that services such as feasibility studies evaluating the financial potential of a toll road or other revenue-producing asset could have to register as an MA. The group pointed out that engineers are already heavily regulated at the state level owe a high ethical duty to the public.

The MSRB must seek final approval from the SEC before any rule could take effect.

BY KYLE GLAZIER
MAR 10, 2014 4:36pm ET




New SEC Cooperative Enforcement Initiative.

The SEC today announced a new cooperation initiative out of its Enforcement Division to encourage issuers and underwriters of municipal securities to self-report certain violations of the federal securities laws rather than wait for their violations to be detected. Under the Municipalities Continuing Disclosure Cooperation (MCDC) Initiative, the Enforcement Division will recommend standardized, favorable settlement terms to municipal issuers and underwriters who self-report that they have made inaccurate statements in bond offerings about their prior compliance with continuing disclosure obligations specified in Rule 15c2-12.

To be eligible for the MCDC Initiative, an issuer or underwriter must self-report by accurately completing a questionnaire and submitting it by 12:00 a.m. EST, September 10, 2014.

A detailed description of the initiative is available here.

The questionnaire is available here.

A press release concerning the initiative is available here.




BDA Members Meet with MSRB & SEC; Discuss SEC's Municipal Advisor Rule & MSRB's Regulatory Regime for Municipal Advisors.

Yesterday, BDA members and staff met with the MSRB and the SEC’s Office of Municipal Securities to discuss ongoing concerns and further clarifications with the SEC’s Final Municipal Advisor Rule as well as the MSRB’s approach to their regulatory regime for municipal advisors.

Meeting with the MSRB

BDA members primarily discussed concerns with MSRB proposed Rule G-42 on duties of non-solicitor municipal advisors. Specifically, we discussed the following items:

Regarding ongoing work by the MSRB in developing their regulatory framework for municipal advisors, we can expect further proposals on the following:

The BDA focused primarily on four areas of concern in its discussion with John Cross and other staff from the Office of Municipal Securities. Our desire is to have further clarification on the items below which include:

The BDA will be submitting another round of requested clarifications to the the SEC and hope to see a second round of FAQs released this spring.  We will also be submitting a comment letter to the MSRB on their proposal for Rule G-42 and we encourage all of our member firms to do the same.  The comment period expires on March 10, 2014.




Piowar Wants to Improve Muni Price Transparency.

WASHINGTON — Securities and Exchange Commission member Michael Piwowar has asked the staff of the Office of Municipal Securities to give him some proposals that he can push through the SEC to improve price transparency in the municipal market.

Piwowar, a Republican who joined the commission last year, replacing Troy Paredes, suggested in a speech in January that dealers should be required to disclose markups and markdowns in riskless principal transactions, But he told The Bond Buyer in an interview that he is looking for other ideas as well.

It was Piwowar’s first post at the SEC that kindled his interest in the muni market. He was working as an economist in what was then called the Office of Economic Analysis in 2002 when he was approached by the SEC’s chief economist and offered the chance to go in a different direction.

“I came here and thought I was going to work on equity market structure issues,” Piwowar said. “That was my area of research. Literally my second day here our chief economist at the time, Larry Harris, said, ‘Do you realize we have every transaction in municipal bonds for a one year period?’ I said ‘No.’ He said, ‘Do you want to work on a research project?’ I said ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘Good, because if you had said no I would have fired you.’ So I spent basically a year learning as much as I could about the muni market.”

Harris, who is now a professor at the University of Southern California, remembers Piwowar as playing an important role in helping to shed light on the understudied bond market.

“He was a very promising young economist,” Harris said. “He was already quite accomplished when he came to the SEC.”

Harris and Piwowar’s study, eventually published in a financial research publication, was an examination of spreads and markups in the bond market. Piwowar said the goal was to figure out why investors paid additional costs in some cases, and to determine what might affect those costs.

“What we wanted to try to do was figure out was what were the effects of adding transparency to the market,” he said. “I just looked at the spreads in this market and I thought, ‘There is something wrong here.’ It must be off by a decimal place, the spreads are just too wide. Especially at retail sizes.”

Unfortunately for the researchers, data available from the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board didn’t allow them to isolate the effects of adding transparency to the market, Piwowar said. But they observed a decrease in spread size correlating to transparency in the corporate bond market. Piwowar said his work during this time demonstrated to him that while institutional muni investors could call around to different broker-dealers and find the best prices, retail investors generally could not do that and might not even be aware of where they could find data available.

Harris said Piwowar really dove into the project and learned a lot of difficult muni-specific concepts in a hurry. Harris said the study was influential in helping the SEC to decide to require real-time trade reporting, and said Piwowar deserves much credit for that work.

“Mike was instrumental in making that happen,” Harris said.

Piwowar said more can be done.

“Now I’m back, so there is an opportunity I think to continue doing some work in this area,” he said.

Piwowar moved around both before and between his stops at the SEC, staying no more than four years in any one place – nothing new for the product of a Navy family who moved from coastal city to coastal city in California, Virginia, and elsewhere before earning a B.A. in foreign service and international politics from the Pennsylvania State University, an M.B.A. from Georgetown University, and a Ph.D. in Finance also from Penn State.

The economist said he began his college career believing he would be a diplomat and perhaps ambassador to a foreign country, but jokingly recalled that he was soon disabused of the idea.

“I did an internship at the State Department,” he said. “What I learned is that if you work really hard in the foreign service, you get to be an ambassador to a country that hates us. If you want to be an ambassador to a country that likes us, you go out and you make a bunch of money and donate it to the guy that becomes president.”

He taught finance courses at Iowa State University from 1998 to 2002, prior to his first stop at the SEC. After leaving the commission, Piwowar worked as a principal at the Securities Litigation and Consulting Group, which provides assistance to law firms and others involved in complex securities litigation. During and just after the financial crisis, he served for one year at the White House as a senior economist at the President’s Council of Economic Advisers under both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. While there, Piwowar also served as a staff economist for the Financial Regulatory Reform Working Group of the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board. Most recently, he was the chief economist for Republican members of the Senate Banking Committee and worked on the Dodd-Frank Act.

Piwowar won Senate confirmation for a five-year term as commissioner in August 2013, and created a stir at his first public meeting by criticizing SEC chairman Mary Jo White for not giving him enough time to review the municipal advisor registration rule. He voted with his fellow commissioners to approve that major muni rule unanimously, but many observers commented that Piwowar’s comments were unusual. Piwowar is outspoken about the need for detailed economic analysis of market rulemaking. He is the only current commissioner who is not an attorney. When it comes to specific muni issues, Piwowar shows interest, but is not strongly opinionated.

“I don’t have a particular view on broker’s brokers,” he said when asked about them. The SEC’s 2012 Report on the Municipal Securities Market recommended broker’s brokers and alternative trading systems be required to start making some of their pricing information publicly available in order to improve price transparency. The SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations, possibly as a prelude to that, is examining the extent to which dealers using alternative trading systems and broker’s brokers are engaged in anti-competitive practices such as blocking or filtering out competitors from being able to bid on their municipal securities. Piwowar said he previously wondered if more market transparency would eliminate the need for brokers’ brokers.

“They obviously seem to be filling a role that the dealers think is useful, or else they wouldn’t use them,” Piwowar said. “Maybe there is a particular niche that they are filling.”

The commissioner said he views the pricing question as a very difficult one for the muni market. Some muni securities trade so infrequently, it is difficult to benchmark the price, he said.

He has gone public with his view that money market mutual funds need to be reformed and that investors should possibly be able to choose whether to invest in funds that have either a floating net asset value or funds that have fixed NAVs but can restrict redemptions to prevent runs during times of economic panic.

Piwowar said the time to act on some muni reforms is now, whether they are those included in the commission’s muni market report or new ideas developed up by the muni office. Aging baby boomers will be shifting their investments away from equities and towards less risky bonds, he said. Interest rates are going to rise, further complicating the landscape for investors who may not understand the effect that has on their investments.

Piwowar said if the muni office can identify three or more pieces of “low-hanging fruit” that the commission could coalesce around, there is a chance to get things done quickly.

“Here’s a real opportunity where we could work together,” he said.

BY KYLE GLAZIER

MAR 7, 2014 11:13am ET




FINRA Limits Data Collection Plan, Citing Investor Privacy.

Bowing to industry concern, regulator won’t collect account names, addresses, tax IDs

Nodding to public criticism, Finra announced it would limit the type of data that it plans to collect as part of its proposed Comprehensive Automated Risk Data System.

The program, which is designed to help the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. monitor firms by automatically collecting data on account activity, will not require firms to submit sensitive client information including the account name, address or tax identification number, according to a notice posted to the regulator’s website Tuesday.

“Finra has concluded that the CARDS proposal will not require the submission of information that would identify to Finra the individual account owner,” the notice said.

Finra would still collect trading information and other data, including building out customer profiles based on investment objectives and date of birth, according to the proposal. The goal was to identify potential trouble spots such as churning or unsuitable investments.

The original proposal, which was released for comment on Dec. 23, drew more than 40 comments from investors and people in the industry, many of whom voiced concerns over what kind of information would be collected and how it would be secured.

The Financial Services Institute Inc., which represents more than 100 independent financial services firms, lauded the change.

“While we still have concerns with data security, costs and other unintended consequences of the proposal, we applaud Finra’s response to industry concerns,” FSI president and chief executive Dale Brown said in a statement. “We will continue to work with them as this proposal is considered.”

The comment period for the proposed design of the CARDS system was previously extended to March 21.

By Mason Braswell

Mar 4, 2014 @ 2:33 pm




MSRB to Implement Streamlined Registration Process for Municipal Securities Dealers and Municipal Advisors.

Alexandria, VA – The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) has received approval from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to consolidate its multiple registration requirements and forms for municipal securities dealers and municipal advisors. The change will make it easier for regulated entities to meet the new and ongoing registration requirements.

MSRB rules require firms under its regulatory jurisdiction to register with the MSRB and provide certain identifying and contact information before engaging in municipal securities and advisory activities. The MSRB amended its rules to create a simplified electronic registration process under a single rule, MSRB Rule A-12.

“As part of the MSRB’s ongoing effort to enhance regulatory efficiency, the MSRB developed this streamlined registration process to make it easier for municipal securities dealers and municipal advisors to identify, understand and comply with MSRB registration requirements,” said MSRB Executive Director Lynnette Kelly. The new process also improves the efficiency with which the MSRB collects necessary information about regulated entities.

The MSRB’s consolidated registration rule becomes effective on May 12, 2014 for all municipal securities dealers and municipal advisors seeking to register with the MSRB. New registrants will access electronic Form A-12 through MSRB Gateway, the secure access point for all MSRB Market Transparency submission services, applications and the associated forms.

Also beginning May 12, firms that are currently registered with the MSRB under the previous requirements will have 90 days to verify, update and complete their registration information, which will be transferred to the new form automatically by the MSRB. The MSRB will provide these firms with additional information and resources to assist them in transitioning their registration information to the new form by the compliance deadline of August 10, 2014.

View the Regulatory Notice:

http://www.msrb.org/~/media/Files/Regulatory-Notices/Announcements/2014-05.ashx?n=1




MSRB Proposes Supervision Rule for Municipal Advisors.

Alexandria, VA – The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) today requested public comment on proposed supervisory and compliance obligations for municipal advisors when engaging in municipal advisory activities. Establishing a supervision rule is a key step in the MSRB’s development of a regulatory framework for municipal advisors, as directed by Congress in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

“Establishing baseline supervisory requirements for municipal advisors will help ensure that they and their personnel comply with all applicable securities laws, with an emphasis on the critical goal of preventing compliance issues in the first place,” said MSRB Executive Director Lynnette Kelly. “The regulatory framework the MSRB is developing is aimed at protecting state and local governments and other municipal entities that rely on the services of municipal advisors, and a supervision rule lays the foundation for the rest of that framework.”

The MSRB’s supervision proposal, draft Rule G-44, draws on the strengths of analogous supervision rules for other areas of the securities industry but takes into account the diversity of the municipal advisory population, including small or single-person firms. The draft rule takes a primarily principles-based approach, applying the standard that policies be reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the rules applicable to municipal advisors. The rule specifically requires that municipal advisor firms have written supervisory procedures and that they designate a chief compliance officer to be responsible for compliance functions and personnel to be responsible for supervision, but also provides detailed supplementary material to accommodate and guide the application of the rule for small and single-person firms.

The Dodd-Frank Act charged the MSRB with developing standards of conduct and qualification for municipal advisors to help safeguard the interests of state and local governments that engage the services of municipal advisors. The MSRB earlier this year requested comment on a proposal to establish core standards of conduct for municipal advisors. Future MSRB rule proposals for municipal advisors will include measures to address the potential for pay-to-play activities by municipal advisors; limitations on gifts and gratuities to employees of municipal securities issuers and other market participants; and duties of municipal advisors acting as solicitors. The MSRB also is developing a comprehensive professional qualifications program, as well as appropriate fees to be charged to municipal advisors.

The MSRB’s draft supervision rule for municipal advisors incorporates the MSRB’s preliminary economic analysis of the benefits, burdens and potential regulatory alternatives, and the MSRB requests comment on that analysis in addition to all aspects of the proposed rule.

View the Request for Comment here:

http://www.msrb.org/~/media/Files/Regulatory-Notices/RFCs/2014-04.ashx?n=1

Comments on the draft supervision rule should be submitted to the MSRB no later than April 28, 2014.

The MSRB is hosting an educational webinar on the main aspects of the proposed supervisory and compliance requirements on March 20, 2014 at 3:00 p.m. ET.

Register for the webinar:

https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/535817330




Why's the SEC's New Municipal Advisor Rule So Confusing?

What governments need to know about where they should go to seek financial advice.

When the federal government creates totally new regulations, it can generate a fair amount of confusion. That’s what’s happening with the definition for Municipal Advisors, a new category of financial advisors specifically tailored for municipalities.

The backstory to this regulation is a long one. The condensed version is that the 2008 financial crisis showed regulators that governments needed someone looking out for their interests in financial transactions with Wall Street – and only their interests.

Historically, it’s common for those orchestrating the trransaction to also dish out advice and counsel to the municipality entering into the deal. The problem with this model is that while most underwriters or brokers are fair and reasonable, there are many who are not.

Among the more famous bad examples, Jefferson County, Ala., officials were wooed in 2008 into entering into a complicated interest rate swap deal. The deal was orchestrated by a J.P Morgan Chase banker who (along with some county officials) later pleaded guilty to corruption charges related to the deal. The swap plan ultimately backfired and led Jefferson County into bankruptcy in 2011.

Regulations in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, passed as a response to the recession, establilshed that municipalities would have their own advisors who were regulated. The act left it up to the Securities and Exchange Commission to actually define what a municipal advisor is and is not.

Fast forward to today, and it’s becoming apparent that idea is easier said than done. After a long wait, the SEC this past fall issued its definition for who constitutes a municipal advisor. Essentially, a municipal advisor is a qualified financial professional (i.e., a banker or financial consultant) who counsels municipalities on financial deals like bond offerings. That person must be registered through the SEC as a municipal advisor and cannot have any other interest in the deal. The problem? Well, even with nearly 800 pages of explanation, there is still a lot of room for questions. (Originally slated for January, the SEC delayed implementation of this rule unil July.)

For one, notes federal securities lawyer Paul Maco, municipal advisors are a new class of advisors. But because governments have so often sought advice from other financial professionals, making them defacto municipal advisors, creating a new line in the sand can be confusing. “This is a new group of regulated people dropped into a regulated area with different categories among them,” says Maco, an attorney with the internatinonal firm Bracewelll & Giuliani. “So [for example], there’s naturally some overlap between investment advisors or between broker/dealers.”

The rule seeks to eliminate that overlap with this key difference: municipal advisors have an explicit fiduciary responsibility to solely their government clients. In other words, they are looking out only for the government’s interests and have no other connection to a deal. In the same way a prospective homeowner would want her own real estate agent and wouldn’t want to use the seller’s agent, municipalities now must get advice on a transaction from someone who won’t benefit financially in any way from the deal.

The concept seems to make sense but in practice it’s proving to be difficult; governments are accustomed to getting advice from those assisting them in a financial deal. Issuers that are used to calling up their banker and asking her opinion about a transaction must seek counsel elsewhere. That banker can communicate market trends, ideas and issues. But anything considered actionable is off the table. “There’s a lot of misunderstanding about what a financial advisor does or what a broker-dealer does,” says Susan Munson, founder of the Fixed Income Academy, an online school that seeks to educate buyers and sellers in the bond (fixed income) market. “How they get compensated – that’s where their allegiances are,” she said.

Munson, who was an account executive with Merrill Lynch’s Institutional Advisory Division before founding the academy, added that brokers or financial service providers may only be selling investments their company wants them to focus on. While they may still offer up unbiased advice in that realm, their view is limited.

“It boils down to, if people [have] a fiduciary duty, they have to behave in a certain away,” she said. “There’s [now] a standard of care you have to put ahead of your own – you can’t advise them of anything not in their best interests.”

There are exceptions. One applies to the Request for Proposals process – professionals who are not a government’s municipal advisor can offer up advice in a proposal response. Another exception: If a government already has an advisor in place for a transaction, and that is made clear in writing, underwriters and other professionals involved in that same transaction can also give advice. But here, there has been yet another snag – according to the rule, issuers in this situation must still “rely on” the advice from their municipal advisor.

“So people are now saying what does ‘rely on’ mean?” says Susan Gaffney, who served as the Government Finance Officers Association’s Federal Liaison Center director for more than a decade. “Does it mean always use? Mostly use? Everybody’s struggling with what does this all mean and does this change how I approach an issuer?”

The gray areas are getting much of the attention (and consternation) now from municipalities and financial professionals tasked with living in the confines of the new rule come this summer. But the goal of the rule – to create a bright line between what constitutes advice and what doesn’t and who really should be providing that to the issuer – is one that ultimately has government’s best interest at heart.

“There’s going to be near-term pain over the understanding and getting this in place,” says Matt Posner, an analyst for Municipal Market Advisors. “But it’s for long-term good. We should have responsible advisors and we should be able to educate those advisors and make them better.”

BY LIZ FARMER | FEBRUARY 25, 2014

lfarmer@governing.com @LizFarmerTweets




MSRB to Implement Fee Changes for Data Subscription Products and Services.

The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) has made fee changes to several of its data subscription products and services and made other technical amendments. The changes, which take effect April 1, 2014, relate to the MSRB’s Electronic Municipal Market Access system (EMMA®), Real-time Transaction Reporting System (RTRS) and Short-Term Obligation Rate Transparency System (SHORT System).

View the Regulatory Notice at:

http://www.msrb.org/~/media/Files/Regulatory-Notices/Announcements/2014-06.ashx?n=1




SEC Approves New Rule on 529 Plan Disclosures.

WASHINGTON — The Securities and Exchange Commission has approved a new rule that will require underwriters of 529 college savings plans to submit more in-depth financial information to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board twice a year.

New Rule G-45 on reporting of information on municipal fund securities will require primary distributors or underwriters of 529 plans to submit information including assets, contributions, distributions, fees and expenses, and performance data to the board within 60 days of June 30 and December 31 each year.

These are college savings plans are established by states under Internal Revenue Code section 529 that allow parents or other individuals to invest in state trusts to accumulate funds to pay for the expected higher education expenses of beneficiaries.

The SEC decided that the new rule passed muster, and approved it Feb. 21, with an effective date of Feb. 24, 2015. Implementation of the rule will occur with the first submission of Form G-45 due by August 30, 2015, which is 60 days after the end of the reporting period of January 1 – June 30, 2015.

The MSRB originally filed the proposed rule with the SEC in June 2013, along with proposals to amend its Rules G-8 on books and records and G-9 on preservation of records to require underwriters to maintain the information required to be reported on new Form G-45 for six years. The board said the rule would help it better oversee the characteristics and risks of the 529 plan market. The MSRB currently collects some information about 529 plans such as preliminary offering documents and continuing disclosure information, but not the information on assets, fee structure, performance data, and other aspects required under the newly-approved G-45.

The rule went through some changes by the MSRB, in response to comments that the definition of underwriter was not acceptable. The Investment Company Institute argued that a plan’s program manager, record-keeper, investment manager, custodian or state sponsor generally are not broker-dealers and would not qualify as underwriters under the rule. ICI requested that the MSRB clarify that those entities would not be considered underwriters if they provide services to the plan on behalf of it or its state sponsor. The College Savings Plan Network, an affiliate of the National Association of State Treasurers, also specifically requested in comments that a state sponsor not be treated as an underwriter.

The MSRB amended the proposal last month to clarify that state sponsors would probably not be underwriters, and that other entities would have to determine based on their own unique circumstances whether they are underwriters or not.

Dealers said they were concerned that underwriters might be required under the rule to report information they had no ability or no legal right to collect, and that some of the information might be proprietary in nature and damaging to a plan if made public.

The MSRB responded to those comments, seeking to assure underwriters that they would not be required to submit any information that was illegal for them to collect and that the MSRB would study the new disclosures internally. A new request for comment will go out if the MSRB seeks to publish such information, the board said.

View the Regulatory Notice:

http://www.msrb.org/~/media/Files/Regulatory-Notices/Announcements/2014-03.ashx?n=1

BY KYLE GLAZIER

FEB 24, 2014 2:42pm ET




Bond Dealers of America Holds Legal and Compliance Meeting in Memphis.

The Committee discussed Municipal Advisor Rule and FINRA Proposed Margining Amendments.

On Friday, February 21, 2014, the BDA held a Legal & Compliance meeting at the offices of Raymond James in Memphis, TN from 12:30 – 4:30pm.  At the meeting, member firms gathered to foster discussion as each separately drafts written supervisory procedures in order to meet the parameters of certain topical rules and proposed regulations. Specifically, the committee discussed:

The L&C meeting attendees discussed the ongoing challenges they are up against in the face of these proposed and final rules.  They agreed to craft a document for distribution among all BDA member firms so they may use it as a resource while drafting internal procedures.

Regarding the Muni Advisor Rule, L&C Committee Members:

Regarding the FINRA Proposed Margin Amendments, L&C Committee Members:

With regard to their discussion surrounding MSRB Proposed Rule G-42 and Best Execution, L&C members:

The BDA Legal & Compliance Committee will take the information learned at this meeting and produce an internal document so that all BDA firms can be on the same page with what they believe are integral components of the rule(s) and to be sure member firms are considering certain specific and high level elements as they draft internal procedures.




Bank, Trust Officers Warned Of Dodd-Frank Surprises.

Banks and trust officers could get tripped up over several pending regulatory developments as Dodd-Frank Act rule-making winds down, Phoebe Papageorgiou, senior counsel of the American Bankers Association, said today.

New requirements to register as municipal advisors, money market reform, and concerns from the Consumer Financial Protection  Bureau over senior designations might catch the banking industry by surprise, Papageorgiou said at the ABA’s Wealth Management and Trust Conference in San Diego.

Banks may have to register as municipal advisors if they advise municipal entities on the issuance of securities or “municipal financial products,” she said.

A municipal advisor is a new registration category arising from Dodd-Frank, Papageorgiou said.

Municipal entities could be local governments, school boards, as well as universities and hospitals that receive bond proceeds, she said. “Thousands of entities could be municipal entities” under the law.

Banks need to be careful managing proceeds of municipal bond offerings, Papageorgiou said, including proceeds of pension obligation bonds if a bank advises a municipal plan.

“The act of managing those proceeds could capture you” under municipal advisor rules and subject banks to additional SEC and MSRB oversight, she said.

The ABA is asking the SEC to carve out an exception for pension obligation bonds. “We say, once [the money] is in a pension plan, it’s no longer a proceed, and you no longer have to register,” Papageorgiou said.

Banks already get exemptions from the municipal advisor rules for deposit accounts, extensions of credit, or bond indenture trustee services provided to municipal entities.

Trust departments could also be impacted by the SEC’s pending money market reform, Papageorgiou said.

Bank trust departments use money market funds for pooled trust accounts and want to continue offering the funds for cash balances, Papageorgiou said. But banks may not be able to use the SEC’s proposed retail money funds in trust accounts unless they could track individual withdrawals to ensure compliance with the $1 million limit on daily redemptions. Banks anticipate that the accounting would be too complex to accomplish that oversight, she said, so may have to use government money market funds, which would have no withdrawal limits under the SEC plan.

“The question is, are there enough of those [government funds] out there,” Papageorgiou said. “We have a lot of concerns here.”

Separately, a CFPB report on senior designations recommended that the SEC establish some standards for certifications aimed at older investors and add some enforcement capability for their misuse.

“It’s interesting that [the CFPB] put out a number of recommendations to the SEC, but not to banking agencies,” Papageorgiou said, even though people in the banking industry are using senior designations.

The CFPB has an office focused on vulnerable populations—students, retirees and military personnel, she added.

FINANCIAL ADVISOR

FEBRUARY 27, 2014 • DAN JAMIESON




Municipal-Debt Rules Proposed to Ensure Brokers Seek Best Prices: Bloomberg.

U.S. securities regulators proposed stricter rules on brokers in the $3.7 trillion municipal-debt market designed to prevent investors from being shortchanged when trading state and local government bonds.

The rules, released today by the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, would require that brokers seek to trade at the most favorable prices possible for clients in the municipal-bond market, which lacks a centralized exchange. Brokers would have to check prices on various platforms before trading.

The Alexandria, Virginia-based board, known as the MSRB, said the step may boost competition among brokerage firms and lower trading costs for investors. Similar requirements already exist in the corporate bond market.

The proposal would need to be approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The SEC said in 2012 that stricter rules could lead to fairer prices for buyers and sellers of state and local government bonds.

The municipal-bond market is dominated by individual investors seeking the tax-exempt income generated by state and local government debt. Such investors hold $1.6 trillion, or 44 percent, of outstanding municipal bonds, according to the Federal Reserve Board.

Many such securities, sold by local school boards and other infrequent borrowers, aren’t often traded, which can make it difficult for individuals to determine what the market price should be.

The existing rules in the municipal market require brokers trade with their customers at “fair and reasonable” prices, the MSRB said. The proposed regulations would require that brokers seek prices that are “as favorable as possible under prevailing market conditions” by gauging trading on electronic platforms with firms that act as middlemen for brokers, and other potential buyers, before executing trades.

The rule wouldn’t apply to certain institutional investors, such as money-management firms that are better equipped than individuals to monitor prevailing prices.

To contact the reporter on this story: William Selway in Washington at wselway@bloomberg.net




Dealer Groups Unsure About Best Ex Rule Proposal.

WASHINGTON — Dealer groups are unsure whether the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board’s proposed best execution rule is tailored enough for the municipal market, but are pleased it would exempt sophisticated professionals.

Draft Rule G-18, which the MSRB released Wednesday, would require broker-dealers to “use reasonable diligence in seeking to obtain for their customer transactions in municipal securities the most favorable terms available under prevailing market conditions.”

Based on the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s Rule 5310 for equities and corporate debt, the rule goes a step beyond the current Rule G-18 on execution of transactions, which requires dealers to “make a reasonable effort to obtain a price for the customer that is fair and reasonable in relation to prevailing market conditions.”

The proposal also seeks to alter the MSRB’s proposed Rule G-48 on sophisticated municipal market professionals to make clear that the best execution obligations would not apply to sophisticated municipal market participants, which need less protection.

“That’s something right off the bat we were happy to see,” said Bond Dealers of America senior vice president of government relations Susan Collet. BDA among others suggested an SMMP exemption be included in any best execution proposal.

Although the SEC recommended in its 2012 comprehensive report on the municipal market that the MSRB adopt a best execution rule, dealers have said attempting to impose a “trade-by-trade” pricing mandate on them would be unreasonable in a market as illiquid and opaque as the muni market. The muni space does not have a single location where all pricing information is quickly available.

Collet said BDA is not yet sure whether the MSRB’s efforts to create a rule with aspects more unique to the muni market are sufficient. The MSRB proposal notes the rule must be tailored for the muni market, so a dealer could demonstrate it met its obligations for specific munis by reviewing information to determine the current market for them or similar munis. That wording is not included in the FINRA rule.

Another muni-specific aspect of the proposed rule is its treatment of broker’s brokers. Unlike the FINRA rule, draft Rule G-18 would not require dealers to show why it was reasonable to use a broker’s broker.

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association last year floated an “execution with diligence” proposal that would have required dealers to use “reasonable diligence” to get a “fair and reasonable” price for customers. Randy Snook, SIFMA’s executive vice president of business policies and practices, thanked the MSRB for considering that proposal but said SIFMA shares BDA’s uncertainty about the rule’s suitability for the muni market.

“Developing a higher standard is in the best interest of investors and the municipal market, and is something SIFMA has been focused on for the past year,” Snook said. “SIFMA appreciates the MSRB’s consideration of our ‘execution with diligence’ proposal.  We also appreciate that the MSRB, in its proposal, noted that a failure to have actually obtained the most favorable price will not necessarily mean that the dealer failed to use reasonable diligence.  We are reviewing the MSRB’s best-execution proposal, particularly with regard to the extent it reflects the unique characteristics of the municipal securities market as FINRA 5310 is, at its core, an equity market rule.  SIFMA is committed to working with the MSRB on this issue and will provide more substantive comments after a full review with our members.”

The MSRB said it was shooting for a principles-based rule that will protect investors without imposing a strict pricing standard on dealers. The board is seeking public comments on several questions related to the rule proposal. Among these are whether the same goal could be better achieved through alternative regulatory measures, whether a best execution standard is a worthwhile goal, what effect the rule might have on the efficiency of transactions, and what additional costs the rule might impose on dealers.

If a best-execution standard was adopted, dealers would need to establish or revise compliance policies and written supervisory procedures, as well as implement additional monitoring and surveillance. Dealers who are not subject to the FINRA rule would probably be the most affected and bear the highest costs, the MSRB said in the notice on its proposal.

The MSRB asked that public comments on the proposal be submitted by March 21. The rule would have to be filed with, and approved by, the SEC before it could take effect.

BY KYLE GLAZIER

FEB 19, 2014 3:33pm ET




MSRB Receives SEC Approval to Collect Information on Municipal Fund Securities.

The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) has received approval from the Securities and Exchange Commission to adopt new MSRB Rule G-45, on reporting by 529 college savings plan underwriters of information on municipal fund securities. The SEC also approved electronic Form G-45, as well as associated amendments to MSRB Rules G-8, on books and records, and G-9, on preservation of records.

View the SEC approval order:

http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/msrb/2014/34-71598.pdf

The effective date for the rule change is February 24, 2015. Accordingly, 529 plan underwriters will be required to first submit Form G-45 by August 30, 2015, which is 60 days after the end of the reporting period of January 1 – June 30, 2015. Thereafter, reporting must be made by no later than 60 days following the end of each semi-annual reporting period ending on June 30 and December 31 of each year. Performance data, however, will be submitted annually by no later than 60 days following the end of the reporting period ending on December 31.




SEC Approves Two Rule Changes Related to FINRA Rule 8312 (FINRA BrokerCheck Disclosure).

The SEC approved two rule changes related to FINRA Rule 8312 (FINRA BrokerCheck Disclosure). First, the SEC approved amendments to permanently make publicly available in BrokerCheck information about former associated persons of a FINRA member firm who were registered on or after August 16, 1999, and who have been the subject of an investment-related civil action brought by a state or foreign financial regulatory authority that was dismissed pursuant to a settlement agreement. Second, the SEC approved amendments to include in BrokerCheck information about member firms and their associated persons of any registered national securities exchange that uses the Central Registration Depository (CRD) for registration purposes. Both rule changes will become effective on June 23, 2014.

The text of the rule amendments is set forth in Attachment A.

Questions concerning this Notice should be directed to FINRA’s Gateway Call Center at (301) 590-6500.

View the full Notice:

http://www.finra.org/web/groups/industry/@ip/@reg/@notice/documents/notices/p447595.pdf




MSRB Requests Comments on First Best-Execution Rule for Municipal Securities Transactions.

The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) today requested public comment on a proposal to establish for the first time explicit requirements for municipal securities dealers to seek the most favorable price possible when executing transactions for retail investors. If ultimately approved, the proposed “best-execution” standard would provide benefits for investors, promote competition among dealers and enhance market efficiency.

Comments on the best-execution rule proposal should be submitted to the MSRB no later than March 21, 2014.

The MSRB is hosting an educational webinar on the main aspects of the proposed rule on March 6, 2014 at 3:00 p.m. ET.

Register for the webinar:

http://www.msrb.org/~/media/Files/Regulatory-Notices/RFCs/2014-02.ashx?n=1




SIFMA Statement on the MSRB’s Proposal to Establish Best-Execution Rule for Municipal Securities Transactions

New York, NY, February 19, 2014-SIFMA today released the following statement from Randy Snook, executive vice president, business policies and practices, SIFMA, on the MSRB’s proposal to establish a best-execution rule for municipal securities transactions:

“SIFMA appreciates the proposal issued by the MSRB today.  We and our members share the MSRB’s goal of improving execution standards for dealers and promoting fair and reasonable pricing for investors.  Developing a higher standard is in the best interest of investors and the municipal market, and is something SIFMA has been focused on for the past year. SIFMA appreciates the MSRB’s consideration of our ‘execution with diligence’ proposal.  We also appreciate that the MSRB, in its proposal, noted that a failure to have actually obtained the most favorable price will not necessarily mean that the dealer failed to use reasonable diligence.  We are reviewing the MSRB’s best-execution proposal, particularly with regard to the extent it reflects the unique characteristics of the municipal securities market as FINRA 5310 is, at its core, an equity market rule.  SIFMA is committed to working with the MSRB on this issue and will provide more substantive comments after a full review with our members.”

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) brings together the shared interests of hundreds of securities firms, banks and asset managers. SIFMA’s mission is to support a strong financial industry, investor opportunity, capital formation, job creation and economic growth, while building trust and confidence in the financial markets. SIFMA, with offices in New York and Washington, D.C., is the U.S. regional member of the Global Financial Markets Association (GFMA).

Release Date: February 19, 2014

Contact: Katrina Cavalli, 212.313.1181, kcavalli@sifma.org

For more information, visit http://www.sifma.org.




Fitch Expects Unwinding, Restructuring of TOB Programs.

WASHINGTON — Fitch Ratings said Thursday that it expects a gradual unwinding or restructuring of tender option bond programs over the next few months since they were not exempted from the Volcker Rule.

The rating agency said it will continue to monitor developments in the $70-$80 billion TOB market as market participants try to find alternative structures of financings before the rule goes into effect on April 2014, and conformance is required by July, 2015.

TOB programs have historically been used to provide short-term tax-exempt munis to money market funds.

In a typical TOB program, the sponsor will deposit a fixed-rate bond or note into a trust, which will issue two new certificates — a floating rate certificate and a residual certificate.

The floating rate certificate will have a tender option, through a liquidity facility that is typically issued by the program’s sponsor or an affiliate and shortens the maturity of the bond or note so it becomes eligible to be purchased by a tax-exempt money market fund.

TOB programs account for about 25% to 30% of the assets of muni money market funds.

But under the Volcker Rule, banks and their affiliates will no longer be able to sponsor a TOB program, own a residual certificate issued by a TOB trust, or provide credit enhancement, liquidity, or remarketing services these programs.

“Fitch expects a gradual unwinding of the programs as liquidity facilities expire,” the rating agency said. “Under this scenario , there would likely be some increase in supply side pressure arising from tax-exempt money market funds tendering their floating rate certificates to liquidity banks and the liquidity banks looking to sell the previously deposited bonds or notes into the market.”

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association is talking to members about the impact of TOB programs not receiving an exemption, David Cohen, SIFMA associate general counsel said Thursday. SIFMA has formed a working group, comprised of both buy- and sell-side members, to explore ways in which municipal financings can be done in compliance with the final Volcker Rule, he said, adding, “We are in the preliminary stages and are hopeful that a compliant structure can be effected with minimal market impact.”

SIFMA had urged federal regulators to exempt TOB programs from the definition of a “covered fund” like a hedge fund, arguing that because the underlying asset in the trust is a state or local bond, a TOB should be treated as such.

BY LYNN HUME

FEB 6, 2014 6:03pm ET




Fed Rule May Curb Bank Buying After Holdings Double: Bloomberg Muni Credit.

U.S. banks poured more than $200 billion into state and local-government debt since the onset of the financial crisis six years ago, boosting their share of the $3.7 trillion market to a two-decade high.

Now, if federal regulators have their way, California Treasurer Bill Lockyer says banks next year will have more incentive to buy debt sold by Saudi Arabia or Botswana than U.S. municipalities. The result, he says: higher costs for taxpayers.

California, Georgia and New York City are among issuers pressing regulators, including the Federal Reserve, to ease a rule that may curb buying by banks. The regulation, intended to guarantee that banks have enough easy-to-sell assets during a cash crunch, wouldn’t let them use munis to satisfy the requirements, giving the companies less reason to hold the debt.

“Anything that reduces demand for our bonds could have a negative impact,” said Diana Pope, who oversees debt sales for the Georgia State Financing and Investment Commission in Atlanta. “Banks are a big part of our market and anything that limits what they can invest in affects us.”

Banks propped up demand last year as Detroit’s record bankruptcy filing and bets that interest rates were set to rise led investors to pull money from local-debt mutual funds. Munis logged their biggest annual loss since 2008, pushing benchmark 10-year yields to a two-year high of 3.15 percent in September. The yield was 2.67 percent yesterday.

Growing Share

In the first nine months of 2013, banks added $41 billion of munis, Fed data show. That left them with $404 billion as of Sept. 30, or about 11 percent of the market. It was their biggest share since 1990 and double their holdings at the end of 2007, when they accounted for about 6 percent of the total.

“The bank bid has played a very important role in the market’s performance since the credit crisis,” said Matt Posner, an analyst who tracks regulatory issues for research firm Municipal Market Advisors, based in Concord, Massachusetts. “If this rule is put in place, many of these banks would have to curb their purchases.”

The proposed rules are pending before the Federal Reserve Board, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. They are part of the broader overhaul of securities oversight ushered in by the 2010 Dodd-Frank law, intended to prevent a repeat of the credit crunch.

Changes Possible

The regulators are reviewing public comments on the proposal, which may result in changes.

Greg Hernandez, an FDIC spokesman; and Eric Kollig, a spokesman for the Fed, declined to comment. Bill Grassano, a spokesman at the OCC, said the agency “doesn’t comment on proposed rules, but keep in mind that we do consider all comments.”

Separate regulations released last year, aimed at curbing banks’ speculative bets, will also bar investments known as Tender Option Bond programs, which use borrowed money to buy debt and have spurred demand for munis. Banks have been trying to figure out how to overhaul such funds to keep them operating.

The reserve rules have yet to be decided on and would be phased in starting on Jan. 1. They mandate how much the largest banks must hold in what regulators view as high-quality, liquid assets during times of financial stress.

Not Munis

Such assets would include Treasuries, bonds of foreign governments and other securities, including some stocks and corporate bonds. Municipal obligations wouldn’t count because regulators said they didn’t consider them easy enough to sell.

That exclusion may cause banks to reduce munis in favor of securities that meet the requirements, Fitch Ratings said on Jan. 30. The New York-based company said banks that operate as dealers, the market’s middlemen, may hesitate to commit money to trading of local debt, potentially making it harder for investors to transact in the securities.

In a Dec. 27 letter to regulators, Citigroup Inc.’s Howard Marsh, head of munis for the New York-based bank, said the rule would result in unnecessary “and in many instances unbearable” increases in financing costs for public works.

Danielle Romero-Apsilos, a bank spokeswoman, declined to comment.

Upheaval Potential

Kenneth Naehu, who oversees bonds for Banyan Tree Asset Management in Los Angeles, said the rule hasn’t gotten enough attention from investors.

“This is a real thing that I don’t think the market understands yet,” he said. “There is a potential for serious upheaval.”

Michael Decker, who lobbies on municipal bond issues for the Securities Industry & Financial Markets Association, a Wall Street trade group, echoed the concern.

“I don’t think there would be an instantaneous sell-off,” he said. “But I think it would be a discouragement, and over time you’d see banks play a less significant role in the market.”

In letters to regulators, state and local officials urged reconsideration of the muni exclusion.

New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer argued in a letter that the market is broad enough to meet regulators’ requirements, and that muni prices fell less than top-rated corporate debt during the credit crisis.

Banks bought $145 million of an $896 million New York bond sale completed last month, Stringer said.

Lockyer, whose state is the largest issuer of munis, also wrote to regulators last month asking for the proposed regulation to be amended. In an interview yesterday, he said the rules may raise risk at banks.

“The rule would provide greater incentives for U.S. financial institutions to do business with foreign governments than with more creditworthy U.S. municipal issuers,” he said in his letter. Keeping it “would increase borrowing costs for municipal issuers” and heighten volatility in the market for their debt.

By William Selway  Feb 12, 2014 5:00 PM PT

To contact the reporter on this story: William Selway in Washington at wselway@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Stephen Merelman at smerelman@bloomberg.net




Former Bank of America Executive Pleads Guilty for Role in Conspiracy and Fraud Involving Investment Contracts for Municipal Bonds Proceeds.

Washington, DC—(ENEWSPF)—February 10, 2014. A former Bank of America executive pleaded guilty today for his participation in a conspiracy and scheme to defraud related to bidding for contracts for the investment of municipal bond proceeds and other municipal finance contracts, the Department of Justice announced.

Phillip D. Murphy, the former managing director of Bank of America’s municipal derivatives products desk from 1998 to 2002, pleaded guilty today before U.S. District Judge Max O. Cogburn Jr. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina to participating in a fraud conspiracy and wire fraud scheme with employees of Rubin/Chambers, Dunhill Insurance Services Inc., also known as CDR Financial Products, a broker of municipal finance contracts, and others.  Murphy also pleaded guilty to conspiring with others to make false entries in the reports and statements originating from his desk, which were sent to bank management.

Murphy was indicted by a grand jury on July 19, 2012.  According to the indictment, Murphy participated in a wire fraud scheme and separate fraud conspiracies that began as early as 1998 and continued until 2006.

“By manipulating what was intended to be a competitive bidding process, the conspirators defrauded municipalities, public entities and taxpayers across the country,” said Brent Snyder, Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Antitrust Division’s Criminal Enforcement Program.  “Today’s guilty plea reaffirms the Antitrust Division’s continued efforts to hold accountable those who corrupt and subvert the competitive process in our financial markets.”

Public entities seek to invest money from a variety of sources, primarily the proceeds of municipal bonds that they issue, to raise money for, among other things, public projects.  Public entities typically hire a broker to conduct a competitive bidding process for the award of the investment agreements and often for other municipal finance contracts.

According to the charges, Murphy conspired with CDR and others to increase the number and profitability of investment agreements and other municipal finance contracts awarded to Bank of America.  Murphy won investment agreements through CDR’s manipulation of the bidding process in obtaining losing bids from other providers, which is explicitly prohibited by U.S. Treasury regulations.  As a result of the information, various providers won investment agreements and other municipal finance contracts at artificially determined prices.  In exchange for this information, Murphy submitted intentionally losing bids for certain investment agreements and other contracts when requested, and, on occasion, agreed to pay or arranged for kickbacks to be paid to CDR and other co-conspirator brokers.

Murphy and his co-conspirators misrepresented to municipal issuers that the bidding process was competitive and in compliance with U.S. Treasury regulations.  This caused the municipal issuers to award investment agreements and other municipal finance contracts to providers that otherwise would not have been awarded the contracts if the issuers had true and accurate information regarding the bidding process.  Such conduct placed the tax-exempt status of the underlying bonds in jeopardy.

“Mr. Murphy’s actions undermined the public’s trust when he conspired to manipulate a competitive bidding process,” said Richard Weber, Chief, IRS Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI).  “IRS-CI has experienced great success in unraveling significant and complex financial frauds as we work in close collaboration with our law enforcement partners.”

“Mr. Murphy ripped off hard working American taxpayers and cash-strapped municipalities all in pursuit of his own lucre,” said George Venizelos, Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s New York Field Office.  “Let this serve as a reminder to others who are entrusted to act in the public’s best interest; your lack of candor won’t go without notice.”

Murphy pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy and one count of wire fraud.  The fraud conspiracy carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.  The wire fraud charge carries a maximum penalty of 30 years in prison and a $1 million fine.  The false bank records conspiracy carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.  The maximum fines for each of these offenses may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victims of the crime, if either of those amounts is greater than the statutory maximum fine.

Including Murphy, a total of 17 individuals have been convicted or pleaded guilty.  Additionally, one company has pleaded guilty.

The prosecution is being handled by Steven Tugander, Richard Powers, Eric Hoffmann, Patricia Jannaco and Stephanie Raney of the Antitrust Division.  Assistant U.S. Attorneys Kurt Meyers, Michael Savage and Mark Odulio of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of North Carolina have also provided valuable assistance in this matter.  The guilty plea announced today resulted from a wide-ranging investigation conducted by the Antitrust Division’s New York office, the FBI and the IRS-CI.  The division coordinated its investigation with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Today’s guilty plea is part of efforts underway by President Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force (FFETF) which was created in November 2009 to wage an aggressive, coordinated and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes.  With more than 20 federal agencies, 94 U.S. attorney’s offices and state and local partners, it’s the broadest coalition of law enforcement, investigatory and regulatory agencies ever assembled to combat fraud.  Since its formation, the task force has made great strides in facilitating increased investigation and prosecution of financial crimes; enhancing coordination and cooperation among federal, state and local authorities; addressing discrimination in the lending and financial markets and conducting outreach to the public, victims, financial institutions and other organizations.  Over the past three fiscal years, the Justice Department has filed more than 10,000 financial fraud cases against nearly 15,000 defendants including more than 2,700 mortgage fraud defendants.  For more information on the task force, visit www.stopfraud.gov .

Anyone with information concerning bid rigging and related offenses in any financial markets should contact the Antitrust Division’s New York Field Office at 212-335-8000, the FBI at 212-384-5000 or IRS-CI at 212-436-1761, or visit www.justice.gov/atr/contact/newcase.htm.

10 Feb 2014 12:30 Written by Press Release Category: Federal and International




FINRA Agrees to Dump Expungement Agreements.

Rule change would stop brokers from placing conditions on settlements stipulating that customers agree not to oppose brokers’ move to clear record

It may become harder for financial advisers and brokerage firms to expunge investor complaints from their disciplinary records.

Finra Rule 2081, which was approved by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. on Thursday, will prevent firms and brokers from placing conditions on settlements stipulating that customers agree not to oppose an expungement request, the regulator said. The rule will now go to the SEC for further review.

“While we are committed to providing an effective means for a registered person to expunge allegations that are false — which is something I strongly believe in — Finra feels that expungement of dispute information shouldn’t be bargained for through settlement negotiations or otherwise,” said Finra chairman and chief executive Richard Ketchum in a summary video posted to Finra’s website.

Finra does not disclose how often expungement is used as a condition of settlement, but the rule comes as pressure had been mounting from investor plaintiffs’ attorneys and Congress.

The concern was that it was too easy for brokers to scrub customer complaints from Finra’s Central Registration Depository, which maintains a record of such complaints and regulatory and disciplinary actions. Much of the database is publicly available through Finra’s BrokerCheck database, the regulator said.

The Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association, which represents investors in arbitration cases, published a highly publicized study last October that claimed brokers are able to obtain expungement in around nine out of 10 cases resolved by settlement or a stipulated award.

Several senators, including Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., and Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Ia., had also chimed in with letters to Finra seeking more information about the frequency of expungements granted in settlements.

But others in the industry felt that the controversy was overblown, saying that expungements were difficult to obtain.

During the five-year period from 2007 to 2012, Finra erased disputes in less than 5%, or 838 cases, of the total 17,765 customer disputes filed, the self-regulator said.

Those who seek expungement must obtain court approval validating any arbitration award granting expungement before an event can be erased.

Some attorneys who help brokers obtain expungements felt that the process could inconvenience customers and brokers who are legitimately pursuing expungement. Marc Dobin of the Dobin Law Group P.A. said that many times the agreement not to oppose expungement was tacked onto a settlement after the terms, including the monetary amount, had been negotiated.

“They’re actually going to inconvenience the customer more if the customer’s now going to be a constant player after the settlement of the case,” he said.

The proposal will be sent to the Securities and Exchange Commission, where it will be subject to public comment before a final decision on adoption will be made.

By Mason Braswell

Feb 13, 2014 @ 2:35 pm EST




FINRA Seeks to Beef up use of BrokerCheck.

Revives proposal that would require brokerages to link to regulator’s database, including disciplinary background info

Finra on Thursday advanced a revised proposal that would require brokerage firms to include a link on their websites and other online communications to BrokerCheck, the database that includes broker disciplinary records.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. would require brokerage firms to display links to BrokerCheck, “on any member firm’s website that is available to retail investors” and, in many other cases, when a firm displays a broker’s profile or contact information.

The rule proposal, which has moved to a public comment period, came as part of a trio of decisions by Finra’s 24-member Board of Governors that could reshape how investor disputes with brokers are settled and publicly reported.

Finra has been looking to pass a rule that would more widely publicize BrokerCheck for more than a year.

At issue is more than an Internet hyperlink. The proposal reignites a contentious debate between brokerage firms and Finra, the regulator whose operations they finance. Many brokers consider BrokerCheck to be a scarlet-letter repository, presenting the public with a distorted picture of their professional lives and cataloguing years of marginal details and meritless grievances by clients.

But some groups have been pushing for more information to be disclosed on BrokerCheck, and say a clear and comprehensive disciplinary history helps consumers make an informed decision when choosing an adviser. Groups such as the Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association, which represent investors in litigation against brokers, say not enough consumers know that BrokerCheck exists.

David Neuman, a lawyer who represents investors at Stoltmann Law Offices, said the revised rule is good news.

“Just putting that info in the customer’s hand will certainly be helpful, and maybe they’ll think twice if their broker has a number of complaints or other remarks on his record,” he said.

In April, facing industry pressure, Finra withdrew a proposal that would have required Finra members to include a link to the individual’s BrokerCheck page.

Some securities lawyers said the rule was too vague and costly to implement and monitor, saying that brokers could not, for instance, include a link to BrokerCheck in a Twitter post, given the platform’s space limitations.

But the rule announced on Thursday did not mention including a link to an individual’s BrokerCheck page, and it excluded “an online interactive electronic forum … such as a … Twitter feed.”

Bryan M. Ward, a partner at Sutherland Asbill & Brennan, said the rule is likely to increase compliance costs and requests for expungement, a process that erases brokers’ disciplinary history from BrokerCheck.

“There’s so many different media and so many different ways and it’s ever changing, in terms of how brokers are communicating with clients,” he said. “Twitter is not anything like what it was five years ago.”

BrokerCheck tracks basic information about brokers, as well as records from disciplinary hearings, allegations of misconduct by clients and the result of arbitration or court cases relating to their work. Unless they are expunged, the records include allegations that were settled or dismissed.

Currently, brokers are required to provide to customers annually in writing the BrokerCheck hotline number and Finra website address.

By Trevor Hunnicutt

Feb 13, 2014 @ 12:28 pm EST




SEC Plans To Act on Many Muni Report Recommendations.

WASHINGTON — The Securities and Exchange Commission plans to take action on many of the recommendations in its 2012 municipal market report as well as strengthen its oversight of municipal advisors, according to its draft strategic plan released Monday.

The 42-page document lays out the SEC’s “mission, vision, values, and strategic goals” for fiscal years 2014 through 2018. Among the topics covered is the nearly two year-old comprehensive muni market report, which was written after a lengthy examination of the market spearheaded by then-commissioner Elisse Walter. That 165-page report recommended a number of both legislative and regulatory changes that Congress and the SEC could make to strengthen transparency in the market.

Among the recommendations for the SEC and the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board were to require muni dealers to disclose to customers markups and markdowns of riskless principal transactions, and to encourage the use of alternative trading systems.

“The SEC plans to pursue many of the recommendations highlighted in the July 2012 Report on the Municipal Securities Market through a combination of SEC, MSRB, and [Financial Industry Regulatory Authority] initiatives, in an effort to enhance the market structure for all fixed income securities, including taxable and tax-exempt securities,” the draft plan states. “This effort will include initiatives aimed at promoting transparency and the development of new mechanisms to facilitate the provision of liquidity, as well as initiatives to improve the execution quality of investor orders.”

SEC commissioner Michael Piwowar said last week that he is working with the commission’s Office of Municipal Securities on the need to disclose markups and markdowns in riskless principal transactions. The MSRB is working on some other aspects of the report, such as the expansion of MSRB’s EMMA website to become a comprehensive central transparency platform and the development of a best execution rule requiring dealers to seek the best price for their customers. The SEC has oversight of the MSRB and must approve its rule proposals.

The plan notes the SEC’s mandate, under the Dodd-Frank Act, to regulate municipal advisors, and states that the commission will focus on getting MA’s properly registered. The plan is open for public comment until March 10.

BY KYLE GLAZIER

FEB 3, 2014 4:14pm ET




Groups Urge Bank Regulators To Make Munis High Quality Liquidity Assets.

WASHINGTON — The Public Finance Network, elected public officials and dealer groups are urging bank regulators to categorize municipal securities as high quality liquid assets in a proposed rule, warning the failure to do so would significantly harm the municipal market and state and local governments.

The rule, as currently proposed, “will have significantly negative effects on the municipal securities market and communities across the country,” warned the Public Finance Network, which consists of 17 muni market groups.

“Failing to qualify municipal bonds as HQLA would significantly reduce the appeal of municipal securities for banks to underwrite these securities and investors to purchase them, resulting in increased borrowing costs for state and local governments and [public sector entities] to finance desperately needed infrastructure projects,” said a letter sent by the groups, which include the National Association of State Treasurers and National League of Cities.

The groups’ concerns stem from a rule that the Federal Reserve System’s Board of Governors, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency proposed in October to strengthen the liquidity positions of large financial institutions so they can better withstand periods of economic and financial stress.

The proposed rule would require large banks to maintain a minimum liquidity coverage ratio, defined as the ratio of HQLA to total net cash outflows. Assets would qualify as HQLA if they could be easily and immediately convertible to cash with little or no loss of value during a period of liquidity stress.

The regulators proposed three classes of HQLA: Level 1, which would include sovereign securities, including U.S. government securities and U.S. government-guaranteed securities; Level 2A, securities issued by U.S. government-sponsored enterprises and certain other sovereign entities; and Level 2B, investment-grade corporate debt with certain characteristics and equities in the Standard & Poors 500 Index.

The regulators said they did not include munis in any of these categories because they “these assets are not liquid and readily-marketable in U.S and thus do not exhibit liquidity characteristics necessary to be included in HQLA under this proposed rule.”

But the groups strenuously disagreed. Michael Decker, managing director and co-head of munis at the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, urged the banking regulators to include investment-grade munis as Level 2A liquid assets. “While it is true that not all municipal securities trade every day, which is also the case for investment-grade corporate and … GSE debt securities, the municipal market is nonetheless liquid in that it is always possible to obtain executable price quotes from dealers for any transactions of virtually any size,” he said in a letter to the regulators.

In 2012 daily trading volume in the U.S. muni market averaged $11.3 billion, compared to $22.6 billion for corporate bonds. However, on the basis of average daily trading volume in relation to total volume outstanding, 0.31% of total outstanding munis traded each day versus 0.25% of outstanding corporate bonds, Decker said. Trading volume in the muni market tends to remain fairly constant within a range, while subject to some seasonality and variation based on issuance activity and other factors, he added.

Bond Dealers of America chief executive officer Michael Nicholas said, “We disagree that municipal bonds are not readily marketable in U.S. markets.”

“Municipal securities are known as the second safest available investment, aside from U.S. Treasuries, with state and local governments having nearly a zero default rate, and meeting the agencies’ qualifications for limited price volatility, high trading volumes and deep and stable funding markets,” the network said. The proposed rule “favors foreign debt securities over U.S. state and local debt securities, and in doing so threatens to increase costs for national infrastructure development, three-quarters of which is financed through tax-exempt bonds,” it said.

New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer warned, “The proposed rule will likely result in decreased bank appetite for investment grade municipal securities” and hurt the city because large banks are significant purchasers of its debt. In a $896 million bond sale completed last month, bank purchases totaled $145 million or 16.2% of its fixed-rate offering, Stringer said.

“Banks have also made direct purchases and/or provided necessary liquidity support for the city’s variable rate demand bonds, providing lower-cost funding to make our capital program more affordable,” he added.

Connecticut Treasurer Denise Nappier said the proposed rule would “make the holdings of municipal debt by large banks less attractive and have a negative impact on the demand for municipal bonds.”

“The availability of bank credit and bank direct purchase alternatives for state and local governments will likely decrease and grow more costly,” she added.

John Pranckevicious, chief financial officer of The Massachusetts Port Authority, also called for munis to be treated as Level 2A HQLA, saying this would be necessary to “avoid any unintended and unnecessary increases in the cost of improving municipal infrastructure and engaging in new public works projects, which are vital not only to the authority and the New England region, but to the health of the U.S. air transport system.”

SIFMA’s Decker also said it makes no sense to assume that, in a financial crisis, such as the one in 2008, there would be 100% outflows for liquidity facilities extended to tender option bond financing and deposits collateralized by munis. Experience shows they should instead be 30% and 25%, respectively he said.

BY LYNN HUME

FEB 3, 2014 5:07pm ET




EMMAs New Look Coming Tomorrow.

To make it easier for investors and other municipal market participants to find important information about municipal securities, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) tomorrow will unveil an improved design and organization of its Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA®) website. The MSRB considered input from a broad spectrum of stakeholders to inform the changes. EMMA’s updated homepage and navigation should help all municipal market participants discover ways to use the website to make more informed decisions in the municipal market.

Learn more at:

http://msrb.org/msrb1/EMMA/pdfs/EMMA-Homepage-2014.pdf




MSRB Enhances Design of EMMA Website to Improve Access to Municipal Market Information.

Alexandria, VA – The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) today unveiled improvements to the navigation and design of its Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA®) website, making it easier for investors and other municipal market participants to find important information about municipal securities.

“Since 2008, EMMA has served as the official, free source of data and disclosure documents for virtually all municipal bonds,” said MSRB Executive Director Lynnette Kelly. “EMMA’s new look is designed to help users access information more easily and discover new ways to use EMMA to make more informed decisions in the municipal market. In the coming months, we will be making additional changes that will further enhance the market’s ability to evaluate trade prices for municipal securities.”

Enhanced features available on the EMMA website today include:

Many of the MSRB’s enhancements to EMMA align with the recommendations of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s July 2012 report on the municipal securities market. The MSRB also considered feedback from EMMA users and conducted a series of focus groups to ensure all changes to EMMA support the MSRB’s ongoing effort to improve the usability of the website.

The MSRB recently expanded its user engagement through the formation of the EMMA Development Advisory Group, a panel of volunteers from across the municipal marketplace that will offer regular input on potential enhancements to EMMA.

“The MSRB welcomes feedback from EMMA users and other municipal market stakeholders on the latest changes to the website and how we can continue to improve the transparency of the municipal market,” Kelly said.

Date: February 7, 2014

Contact: Jennifer A. Galloway, Chief Communications Officer

(703) 797-6600

jgalloway@msrb.org




SEC Examining Muni ATS', Broker's Brokers For Anti-Competitive Practices.

WASHINGTON — The Securities and Exchange Commission is examining the extent to which dealers using alternative trading systems and broker’s brokers are engaged in anti-competitive practices such as blocking or filtering out competitors from being able to bid on their municipal securities.

The SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations has sent letters to the ATS’, broker’s brokers and dealers seeking trade information, sources said.

Thomas Vales, chief executive officer and chairman of TMC Bonds, formerly TheMuniCenter, an alternative or non-exchange, trading system for municipal bonds, confirmed that he received a letter from the SEC but declined to comment further.

Officials from the other two biggest muni ATS’ — Tradeweb Direct, whose parent company is Tradeweb Markets, which acquired BondDesk Group in November, and KCG BondPoint, a division of KCG Americas, a subsidiary of KCG Holdings, Inc. — would not comment. SEC officials also would not discuss the letters or exams.

The exams may be a precursor to efforts by the SEC and Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board to get ATS’ and broker’s brokers to play a major role in improving muni price transparency.

In its report on the municipal securities market, released in July 2012, the SEC recommended it amend its Rule ATS, and the MSRB consider proposing rules, that would require ATS’ and broker’s brokers to publicly disseminate their best bid and offer prices. The report said they also should be required to disseminate, on a delayed and non-attributable basis, responses to “bids wanted” auctions. Ideally, the information would be posted on the MSRB’s Electronic Municipal Market Access of EMMA system, which provides disclosure and trade data to retail investors and other market participants for free.

But any anti-competitive activity would skew the pricing information from ATS’ and broker’s brokers. The fewer the bids for a muni bond, the less likely the buyer will get the best price.

The SEC said ATS’ and broker’s brokers are key to pre-trade price transparency because they most often are used by dealers trying to buy munis for retail customers.

Retail investors who want to buy munis typically ask a dealer to identify bonds with credit, payment, tax, maturity or other characteristics that meet their needs, the SEC said in its report. A dealer may recommend munis from its own inventory or try to obtain munis from other dealers, through a broker’s broker that brokers transactions between dealers, or through an ATS, an electronic trading platform that has participating dealers.

“To the extent there is pre-trade price transparency in the municipal securities market, the staff understands that it tends to be provided through electronic networks operated by broker’s brokers, ATS’ or similar trading systems,” the SEC report said.

These platforms account for a substantial portion of muni trades, but represent only a small percentage of dollar volume, which suggests they are used primarily for smaller-retail-size orders, the SEC said. Larger institutional trades tend to be executed through more traditional means, such as direct-voice negotiations with a muni dealer or voice brokerage and do not generate any pre-trade price transparency apart from the negotiation process, it said.

ATS’ and broker’s brokers tend to be ‘inventory-based,’ providing information only on the municipal securities their participating dealers would like to sell, and perhaps the prices sought (i.e. offers),” the SEC said. “Unlike a limit order book on an equities exchange or equity ATS, municipal securities ATS’ typically provide no information on the participants who would like to buy or the prices at which they would be willing to do so (i.e. bids).”

Legitimate Uses

Dealers sometimes block, screen or filter out other dealers for legitimate credit, regulatory or legal reasons.  For example, a dealer putting out bids for bonds through an ATS might not want to sell to another dealer that historically doesn’t follow through on its bid or has a bad reputation or legal issues.

But when a dealer merely wants to block other dealers from seeing its inventory and the munis it’s offering, that’s seen as anti-competitive.

The SEC noted these limitations in its muni report. The information from ATS’ and broker’s brokers is not widely accessible to the public for several reasons, the commission said. First, the trading interest reflected on these systems is generally only available to their participating municipal bond dealers and is not available or transparent to non-participants such as retail investors, it said. While some participating dealers may share information with certain customers, this is done solely at their discretion.

Second, these systems may allow participating dealers to limit the dissemination of their trading interests only to a subset of other muni bond dealer participants, the SEC said.

“For example, some ATS’ permit a participant to apply filters so that their interest in a particular municipal security is conveyed only to its preferred trading partners,” the commission said.

The MSRB raised similar concerns in interpretative guidance it issued in December 2012 on its Rule G-43 on broker’s brokers and warned these firms that regulators will be on the lookout for anti-competitive practices.

The MSRB noted that G-43 “permits a broker’s broker to limit the audience for a bid-wanted at the selling dealer’s discretion, a practice sometimes referred to as ‘screening’ or ‘filtering,’ because the MSRB recognizes there may be legitimate reasons for this practice.”

However, the MSRB noted, “such screening may reduce the likelihood that the high bid represents a fair and reasonable price” and warned, “Selling dealers should therefore be able to demonstrate a reason that is not anti-competitive (e.g., credit, legal, or regulatory concerns), rather than trying to eliminate access by a competitor, for directing broker’s brokers to screen certain bidders from the receipt of bid-wanteds or offerings.”

The board suggested, as a compliance measure, that a selling dealer might want to maintain a list of firms it would be unwilling to accept as a counterparty and the reasons why.

Broker’s Brokers Consortium

Meanwhile, 10 broker’s brokers have formed a consortium, called Municipal Bond Information Services, to provide pre-trade pricing information — offers and bids — on an anonymous basis to customers. Representatives of that group said they recently met with SEC officials to describe what they are doing and get some feedback.

Ron Valinoti, founder of Triangle Park Capital Markets Data, an information services company that is managing business operations for MBIS, said the group was incorporated in August, has been collecting pricing data for several weeks, and is currently lining up customers to sign contracts to take the data.

Valinoti says he expects customers will include: institutional investors; firms on the buy-side such as mutual funds, which must calculate net asset values on a daily basis; and firms that provide research services to retail investors either directly or through investment advisors, such as Morningstar and Yahoo Finance.

The trade data, which can be captured every five minutes and made available as often as every 30 minutes, can provide pricing transparency and be used to check information from pricing services or other sources, he said.

“We’re trying to help address the concerns that were raised in the SEC’s muni report to Congress. We’re trying to take a proactive approach” by making pre-trade pricing information available, Valinoti said.

The broker’s brokers in the group include: Associated Bond Brokers, Inc.; Butler Muni; Hartfield, Titus & Donnelly; RW Smith and Associates; Regional Brokers, Inc.; Sentinel Brokers Company, Inc.; Stark Municipal Brokers; Tradeweb Markets; Tradition Asiel (North America) Inc.; and Tullett Prebon Financial Services.

BY LYNN HUME

FEB 7, 2014 3:09pm ET




FINRA Moves to Allow Arbitrators to Call for Enforcement Midcase.

A proposed rule could give arbitrators more authority in referring cases for disciplinary action

A hotly debated rule change that the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. has proposed to the Securities and Exchange Commission could allow arbitrators to direct cases to Finra’s enforcement division before the case has closed.

Currently, arbitrators must wait until the case has concluded before they can report concerns to Finra’s Department of Enforcement, which is responsible for suspending, sanctioning or taking other disciplinary action against firms and individuals.

But Finra said that making arbitrators wait could delay the ability to take action against a bad actor or hamper its ability to collect evidence.

“Finra is concerned that the current rule’s requirement that arbitrators in all instances must wait until a case is concluded before making a referral could hamper Finra’s efforts to uncover threats to investors as early as possible,” according to the proposed rule change. “Finra is proposing, therefore, to broaden the arbitrators’ authority under the Codes to make referrals during the hearing phase of an arbitration in those extremely rare circumstances in which investor protection requires that the referral not be delayed.”

All initial pleadings for arbitration cases are also filed with and reviewed by Finra’s enforcement department, but in a small number of cases, new evidence can come up during a hearing that may warrant immediate disciplinary action, according to Marc Dobin of the Dobin Law Group PA.

The self-regulator has spent the past four years in a back-and-forth with the industry over how to handle those instances where an arbitrator learns information that could present a clear and present danger.

Finra submitted two similar proposals in 2010 and 2011, but they were withdrawn or replaced after drawing significant opposition from commenters, who took issue with the implementation.

The concern is whether an arbitrator’s disclosure of a possible investor protection issue could unnecessarily bias the rest of the panel against the respondent, Mr. Dobin said.

“It’s similar to a jury where they tell you not to discuss anything about the case until it is over,” he said. “It makes it harder to settle case if you’re on the respondent’s side if your arbitrators have said, ‘Oh by the way, we think what we’ve heard so far is so bad that we’re telling enforcement about it.’”

The original proposal, filed with the SEC in 2010, would have required the entire three-person arbitration panel to withdraw if one of the arbitrators made a mid-case referral. But commenters voiced concerns that this could unfairly affect the investor or claimant who would have to make their case a second time and incur additional expenses.

The latest proposal seeks to limit the disruption of a midcase referral.

According to the most recent draft, arbitrators will refer their claims to the director or president of enforcement, and then the director is required to notify the parties involved in an arbitration proceeding that the referral had been made.

The parties would then have the opportunity to request the recusal of that individual arbitrator.

But in an effort to add another layer of protection for the claimant, Finra stated that an arbitrator’s referring a claim for disciplinary action shouldn’t be considered proof of bias, and it is still up to the arbitrator whether to resign from the panel even after a party has filed a motion for recusal.

“This means that the entire panel could remain after a party’s recusal motion, and the case could proceed as normal,” the proposal stated. “The investor would be less likely, therefore, to experience procedural disadvantages, significant delays, and increased costs, because Amendment No. 1 minimizes the possibility that the arbitration would start anew.”

Final action could still be a way off. This proposal will go before the SEC where it will be on display for public comment, and then it will be subject to additional review by the commission before a final vote there on whether to approve the rule change.

By Mason Braswell

Feb 3, 2014 @ 1:30 pm




MSRB to Propose Best-Execution, MA Rules.

WASHINGTON — The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board plans to propose a rule that, for the first time, would establish a best-execution rule for dealers in the municipal market, MSRB officials said Tuesday, calling it “a very significant development for the municipal market.”

Recapping the results of their meeting in Atlanta late last week, the officials told reporters in a conference call that the proposed rule would require dealers to use “reasonable diligence” to provide the “most favorable terms” for munis given market conditions. It would be based on the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s Rule 5310 for equities and corporate debt, and would not apply to dealer trades with sophisticated municipal market professionals who require less protection.

“A best-ex rule is a key step to complement dealers’ current obligations to achieve a price that is fair and reasonable,” said MSRB board chair Dan Heimowitz. “The MSRB is committed to improving the structure and efficiency of the municipal market for the benefit of retail investors.”

Heimowitz said the proposed rule would be put out for comment in the coming weeks, though he said the timing is difficult to pin down in part because the MSRB will need to conduct an economic analysis of it under a formalized cost-benefit analysis it recently put in place.

As described by Heimowitz and MSRB executive director Lynnette Kelly, the proposed rule would go a bit beyond the “execution with diligence standard” that the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association proposed last year. SIFMA’s proposal would have required dealers to use reasonable diligence to get a “fair and reasonable” price for customers.

But more in line with SIFMA’s proposal, the MSRB rule would not necessarily require dealers to get the absolute best price on each transaction and would provide dealers a variety of ways to demonstrate “reasonable diligence” in meeting the new obligation.

The board also will ask the SEC to approve a $300 annual registration fee for each municipal advisor professional that would kick in the second quarter of the year. Heimowitz said the MSRB estimates it will collect about $2 million per year from these fees, which would be assessed in parallel with the July 1 effective date for the SEC’s final registration rule, Kelly said.

In addition, the MSRB will propose a supervisory rule for MAs and a one-time professional qualifications exam.

The supervisory rule will be principles-based and will take into consideration the diversity of the MA population, including small and single-person firms, the MSRB said.

In preparation for the professional qualifications exam, the MSRB plans to survey MAs on their core activities to show which areas need testing. It will then develop a study outline, which must be approved by the SEC. The board hopes to implement a pilot exam program later this year or early next. Heimowitz said the proposed rule will not include a grandfather clause exempting established advisors from taking the test.

The board did not come to a decision about continuing education requirements for MAs he said.

All of the MA rules will apply to dealer as well as non-dealer MAs, though dealer-MAs have for years been subject to the same MSRB rules that applied to dealers.

The Dodd-Frank Act mandated a fiduciary duty for MAs to put their clients’ interests first and subjected them to federal regulatory oversight. The MSRB is building from both that legislation and from the Securities and Exchange Commission’s MA registration rule adopted last year.

BY KYLE GLAZIER

FEB 4, 2014 2:01pm ET




Reuters: U.S. Municipal Bond Trade Markups Face New Regulatory Scrutiny.

(Reuters) – The compensation that dealers receive in U.S. municipal bond trades is once again in regulators’ crosshairs, with a member of the Securities and Exchange Commission saying on Monday that he is investigating how to give investors more information about markups.

SEC Commissioner Michael Piwowar, a Republican sworn in last August, is calling for retail investors to have a better sense of dealer markups – or compensation – in “riskless principal transactions.”

Most individual investors are in the dark about how much dealers add to prices in trades.

In its sweeping report on the $3.7 trillion municipal bond market released more than a year ago, the SEC recommended requiring dealers to disclose markups, saying the lack of information put individual investors at a disadvantage. Since then, the commission has fallen quiet on the issue.

Regulation is hazy on dealer compensation. Dealers must disclose their remuneration if they act as agents facilitating trades, but not if they act as principals in the trade. For most trades in the municipal bond market, dealers are “riskless principals” purchasing securities from their customers and immediately reselling them to other dealers.

Piwowar told a meeting of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that he asked the commission’s municipal securities office “to work with me to develop a few proposals to improve how the fixed-income markets operate,” highlighting markups as an area of concern.

Piwowar took an in-depth look at dealer compensation when he worked at the SEC as an economist, and his academic research on markups was frequently cited in the commission’s 2012 report.

“We engaged in a lot of conversations with the dealers and the dealers were saying things like ‘we commit capital to this market,'” he told reporters after the meeting.

“But we started looking at the data and a lot of these transactions look like they might be riskless principal transactions where the dealers aren’t actually committing any capital,” he said. “If they simply mark it up from where they bought it at, they don’t have to disclose what the markup is.”

Recording the markup would “enable investors to have better information,” he added.

Piwowar did not give details about the proposals, or when they might be released.

In recent years, federal regulators have expressed concerns that individual investors, the “mom and pop” buyers that support the municipal bond market, do not have adequate information about the debt they use for income. An investigation by the Government Accountability Office concluded that those investors often paid more for bonds than banks and other institutions because of this lack of information.

The SEC enforces the rules for the market written by the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, a self-regulatory organization made up of banks, issuers and advisers. But FINRA, or the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, has traditionally overseen markups and fined banks for not dealing fairly with their customers when they have tacked on excessive amounts. In one case in 2011, FINRA fined a bank for markups as large as 8.49 percent. Typically, they are closer to 2 percent.

“When you think about the number of securities in the market, the number of participants, the number of issuers, the spreads in these markets – I really think we can get more bang for our buck in terms of our resources and helping retail investors understand these markets better,” Piwowar said.

He added that the coming flood of retiring baby boomers and current uneasiness about the direction of interest rates should inspire deeper consideration of pricing.

WASHINGTON Mon Jan 27, 2014 2:51pm EST




MSRB Seeks Approval to Streamline and Consolidate Municipal Securities Dealers Fair Pricing Obligations.

The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) today requested approval from the Securities and Exchange Commission of a proposal to streamline and consolidate into a single rule existing obligations of municipal securities dealers related to fair pricing. Under the proposal, most pricing obligations would be contained in revised MSRB Rule G-30 on prices and commissions, including duties and guidance under current MSRB Rules G-18 on execution of transactions and G-17 on fair dealing.

View the rule filing:

http://www.msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/SEC-Filings/~/media/Files/SEC-Filings/2014/SR-MSRB-2014-01.ashx




FINRA Requests Comment on Proposed Amendments to FINRA Rule 4210 for Transactions in the TBA Market.

The proposal addresses, among other things, maintenance margin and variation margin requirements, risk limit determinations, concentrated exposures, and exemptions for de minimis transfer amounts and for transactions cleared through registered clearing agencies. You can find the full Regulatory Notice here and the proposed rule amendment available here.

A summary of the proposed amendments follows:

The proposed rule change provides that all members would be required to collect variation margin for transactions in Covered Agency Securities when the current exposure exceeds $250,000;

Members would be required to collect maintenance margin for transactions with non-exempt counterparties;

The proposed amendments apply to “Covered Agency Securities,” including TBA transactions for which the difference between the trade date and contractual settlement date is greater than one business day, inclusive of ARM transactions; Specified Pool Transactions, for which the difference between the trade date and contractual settlement date is greater than one business day; and transactions in CMOs issued in conformity with a program of an Agency, for which the difference between the trade date and contractual settlement date is greater than three business days;

Transactions cleared through a registered clearing agency, and subject to the margin requirements of that clearing agency, will not be subject to the proposed requirements;

The proposal provides that for transactions with exempt counterparties, maintenance margin will not be required;

If variation margin is not posted to secure the mark to market loss within five business days from the date the loss was created, the member is required to promptly take liquidating action, unless FINRA grants the member an extension; and

The proposal provides that for transactions with non-exempt accounts, members must collect variation margin and must collect maintenance margin equal to 2 percent of the market value of the securities.

The comment period expires February 26, 2014.  The BDA will be submitting a comment letter to FINRA on these proposed amendments.  Please reach out to us if you would like to be a part of that process.

Comment Period Expires: February 26, 2014

Executive Summary

FINRA is seeking comment on proposed amendments to FINRA Rule 4210 to establish margin requirements for transactions in the To Be Announced (TBA) market. The proposal, designed to reflect the growth of the TBA market and to replace current interpretive materials under Rule 4210 that have become outdated, is informed by the set of best practices adopted by the Treasury Market Practices Group (TMPG) of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY). Consistent with the overarching goal of many regulatory initiatives since the financial crisis, the proposal aims to reduce counterparty credit risk. The proposal would accomplish this in the TBA market by addressing, among other things, maintenance margin and variation (also referred to in the proposed rule language and this Notice as mark to market) margin requirements, risk limit determinations, concentrated exposures, and exemptions for de minimis transfer amounts and for transactions cleared through registered clearing agencies. The proposed rule amendment is available as Attachment A at www.finra.org/notices/14-02.

View the full notice at:

http://www.finra.org/web/groups/industry/@ip/@reg/@notice/documents/notices/p439087.pdf

Questions regarding this Notice should be directed to:

Glen Garofalo, Director, Credit Regulation, at (646) 315-8464;

Peter Tennyson, Director, Broker-Dealer Operations and Financial Responsibility, at (646) 315-8403;

Adam H. Arkel, Associate General Counsel, Office of General Counsel, at (202) 728-6961.




MSRB to Discuss Draft Rules on Best Execution, MA Compliance, Fees.

WASHINGTON — The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board will discuss draft rules creating a best execution standard for broker-dealers and establishing supervisory and compliance requirements as well as fees for municipal advisors during its next meeting Jan. 29-31 in Atlanta.

Best execution has been a concern for dealer groups, who have warned that a corporate bond-style rule requiring dealers to seek the best prices for their customers would not work in the more opaque and illiquid muni market.

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association had suggested an “execution with diligence” standard that would have been less stringent and would not result in a rule violation as long as a dealer made a reasonable effort to get a fair deal for a customer under prevailing market conditions.

MSRB executive director Lynnette Kelly has said that although the rule is based on an existing Financial Industry Regulatory Authority rule, it will be specific to the municipal market.

The board will also discuss a draft supervisory and compliance rule for municipal advisors, the MSRB announced. This rule is among several that dealer-affiliated financial advisors have been bound by for years but which will be new for non-dealer FAs and which will apply to anyone who provides targeted muni-related advice to a state or local government. MA regulation was mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act, and the MSRB is building from both that legislation and from the Securities and Exchange Commission’s MA registration rule adopted last year. The supervisory rule is likely to be similar to the board’s Rule G-27 on supervision for dealers, which requires written policies and procedures designed to ensure compliance with MSRB rules, among other mandates.

Besides the two draft rules, the MSRB announced the board will also discuss two other concepts related to MA rulemaking. One topic will be the development of professional qualifications standards for MAs, another rule that has an existing dealer counterpart. The board will also discuss the topic of municipal advisor fees. Board chairman Dan Heimowitz has said the MSRB will prioritize the development of MA rules this year, and that he is hopeful of having a strong framework of rules in place when a new chairman replaces him in October.

The meeting will shortly follow an educational outreach event the MSRB will host in Atlanta on Jan. 28. Separate sessions will cover municipal advisor regulation, improving transparency of municipal bond prices and the availability of educational resources for state and local governments that issue bonds, the MSRB has said.

BY KYLE GLAZIER

JAN 22, 2014 1:15pm ET




SEC Gives U.S. Municipal Advisers Six More Months to Register.

Jan 13 (Reuters) – U.S. regulators on Monday gave municipal advisers until July 1 to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission, making a last-minute concession to the securities industry, which had complained firms did not have time to digest a definition of advisers spanning 700 pages.

The definition, approved in September, was scheduled to take full effect on Monday.

It is the first step in fulfilling the Dodd-Frank Act’s requirement that those who consult with municipalities about selling debt or buying derivatives register and also comply with a fiduciary standard in which the municipalities’ interests come first.

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association had asked last week for a one-month delay in the effective date. In a statement on Monday, SIFMA President Ken Bentsen welcomed the postponement, saying it gives firms time to develop compliance programs and training.

The extension will allow advisers to analyze and understand guidance that the SEC released on Friday clarifying parts of the definition, said Allen Robertson, president of the National Association of Bond Lawyers.

“We believe that the delay in light of the breadth and complexity of the muni adviser rules is appropriate,” he said, adding he expects further SEC guidance on obligated persons and the investment of proceeds under the definition to come out soon.

The SEC and the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board have recently begun a full-court press to strengthen oversight of the advisers, who escaped federal scrutiny until the Dodd-Frank Act became law in 2010.

The MSRB, a self-regulatory organization that writes the rules the SEC enforces, unveiled a proposed rule last week addressing advisers’ fiduciary duties. It expects to release specific directives in five key areas this year, including the duties of solicitors.

Robertson said the delay in registration would likely not have an impact on the MSRB’s timing.

The initial proposed definition of who had to register was universally criticized as too broad when it was released more than two years ago and spawned more than 1,000 public comment letters. The SEC pulled the proposal and then crafted a final definition that relies more on a person or firm’s activities than on a job title or role.

Under a temporary placeholder rule, more than 1,100 advisers have registered with the SEC since September 2010. On Friday alone, the SEC posted 13 registrations. (Reporting By Lisa Lambert; Editing by Dan Burns, Nick Zieminski and Dan Grebler)




SEC Sets July 1 as Start of Municipal Advisor Registration.

July 1, 2014, is the date when the first set of municipal advisors will be required to register under new rules the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) finalized last year.

The SEC adopted the final rules, under the Dodd-Frank Act, on September 18, 2013, which require municipal advisors to register with the commission if they provide advice to municipal entities or certain other persons on the issuance of municipal securities, or about certain investment strategies, or municipal derivatives.

However, accountants do not have to register as municipal advisors if they provide accounting services that include audit or other attest services, preparation of financial statements, or issuance of letters for underwriters, according to the rules.

The new registration guidance was supposed to take effect on January 13, which concluded a sixty-day period that the final rules were published in the Federal Register. However, the start date was pushed back by almost six months to “give market participants additional time to analyze, implement, and comply with the final rules,” the SEC stated on Monday.

Kenneth Bentsen Jr., president of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), agreed that the new registration deadline will give firms the time they need to fully review the SEC’s guidance and incorporate it into compliance programs and employee training.

“The new compliance date will also give the industry additional time to identify accounts of municipal entities and obligated persons that contain proceeds of municipal securities,” he said in a written statement on January 13.

State and local governments that issue municipal bonds frequently rely on advisors to help them decide how and when to issue the securities and how to invest proceeds from the sales. These advisors receive fees for the services they provide.

Prior to the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010, municipal advisors were not required to register with the SEC like other market intermediaries. According to the SEC, this left many municipalities relying on advice from unregulated advisors, and they were often unaware of any conflicts of interest a municipal advisor may have had.

After the Dodd-Frank Act became law, the SEC established a temporary registration regime, and more than 1,100 municipal advisors have since registered with the SEC.

On January 10, the SEC’s Office of Municipal Securities issued interpretive guidance to address questions from market participants regarding the implementation of the final rules on municipal advisor registration.

The staff guidance, in the form of answers to frequently asked questions, covers the following topics:

Posted by Jason Bramwell on Jan 14 2014




U.S. Municipal Advisers get Guidance, but not Delay, on Regulation.

Jan 10 (Reuters) – The Securities and Exchange Commission on Friday closed potential loopholes in its new regulation on the financial advisers to U.S. states and cities and resisted calls to slow down creating oversight of a group that has long escaped government scrutiny.

The securities industry had asked the SEC for a one-month delay in enacting its full definition of exactly who counts as a municipal advisor, which is set to go into full effect on Jan. 13.

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association said firms did not have time to digest the final rule, which spans more than 700 pages and was approved last September.

The SEC released guidance late Friday that held firm on next week’s effective date. From there, regulators will build up an extensive regulatory regimen encompassing advisers’ fiduciary duties, compensation and qualifications.

“We continue to encourage the SEC to delay the Jan. 13 effective date…to give the industry sufficient time to incorporate this guidance into compliance programs and employee training,” SIFMA President Kenneth Bentsen said in a statement.

The Dodd-Frank Act signed in 2010 requires those who consult with municipalities about selling debt or buying derivatives to register with the SEC, putting them under the same regulation as brokers and dealers, and also requires them to carry out fiduciary duties involving putting clients’ interests first.

Determining exactly who is an adviser has been key to carrying out the law. The SEC largely looks at a firm or individual’s activities to make the classification.

In detailed question-and-answer form, the guidance addressed scenarios where someone may not be sure about qualifying as an adviser, where someone may unintentionally fall subject to the regulation, or where someone may want to give up the adviser role.

The guidance drove home the point that a broker-dealer cannot switch from the role of adviser to underwriter once an issuer decides to go ahead with a deal.

“It owes a fiduciary duty to the municipal entity with respect to that issue and must not take any action inconsistent with its fiduciary duty to the municipal entity,” according to the guidance.

Also, issuers must state they have selected a broker-dealer as an underwriter on a bond sale, confirming they know the firm does not have an adviser’s fiduciary responsibility.

The SEC drew a distinction between general information and advice, saying that an underwriter could include facts in business pitches without having to register as an adviser, but could not make recommendations.

In the same light an underwriter may discuss omissions from offering documents and lapses in past disclosure filings without being considered an adviser, and may meet with clients without having an adviser present.

The SEC initially laid out the parameters of who counts as an adviser nearly three years ago, but had to pull that definition after it was universally criticized as too broad.

Now that the final, more narrow definition is in place, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, a self-regulatory organization that writes the rules the SEC enforces, is racing to create a regimen on carrying out the Dodd-Frank provision.

More than 1,100 firms have registered as advisers since 2010, mostly under a temporary placeholder rule. The pace has picked up since the final definition was approved – with 41 firms and individuals registering since Sept. 19.

Fri Jan 10, 2014 6:03pm EST

By Lisa Lambert




Volcker, Ravitch Want More Regulation of U.S. Muni Bond Market.

Jan 14 (Reuters) – Two U.S. economic and policy heavyweights – former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker and former New York Lieutenant Governor Richard Ravitch – on Tuesday called for more stringent federal oversight of state and local borrowing in the municipal bond market.

Issuers in the century-old municipal market have long guarded their ability to issue bonds against federal intervention using the Tower Amendment, a part of securities law that bans the Securities and Exchange Commission from requiring them to file bond documents ahead of sales.

In a report on state budgets, Volcker and Ravitch said the amendment should be “revisited so the SEC can require issuers to comply with sensible disclosure requirements as well as with robust accounting standards.”

Currently, the amendment limits the SEC’s jurisdiction to fraud “and no other body has the affirmative obligation or authority to require full transparency and disclosure of risk,” the pair wrote in a statement introducing the final report of the State Budget Crisis Task Force that they chaired.

Ravitch did not say how the amendment should be revised or if it should be eliminated.

“I don’t think the SEC is God’s answer to every problem, but I think the more disclosure the more the public is protected,” he told reporters.

In July 2012, the task force released its first report on the budget and economic problems that forced states into fiscal tailspins during and after the 2007-09 recession.

The final report on Tuesday touched on many of the same themes – the need for long-range budgeting; the importance of strong federal relations; problems with low reserves and underfunded pension systems; and stressed healthcare funding. But it went beyond to look at finance, debt and reporting.

The task force recommended giving states strong oversight of local governments in advance of financial emergencies, and it called for helping states “develop rules for the creation of concise, timely and readable financial reports.”

Municipal bond disclosures, including annual financial statements, are frequently filed late and the SEC noted in an exhaustive 2012 report on the market that the information is often stale. In recent cases, the commission has charged that issuers lied about or omitted important financial details.

“The convoluted, sprawling nature of state financial statements make them of limited use for all but individuals with extensive training,” the report said. “Both budgetary and asset-based financial reporting should be easily accessible.”

Because the task force is loaded with financial experts including former Federal Reserve Vice Chairwoman Alice Rivlin and former Treasury Secretary George Schultz, it could help boost skepticism about the Tower Amendment. But it is not the first to tilt a spear at the provision.

More than five years ago, the SEC decided to take a narrower definition of the amendment and warned issuers they could not hide behind it completely. Then, in 2012, the SEC suggested Congress give it additional powers that would “meaningfully enhance disclosure practices by municipal issuers.”

Last year, the commission toughened municipal enforcement by increasing the number of cases brought against municipalities and setting new, strict precedents for prosecuting issuers and broker-dealers. The most notable case was against Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, over lack of disclosure and false public statements.




SEC Eases, Clarifies Muni Adviser Registration Requirements for RIAs, BDs.

Investment advisers who provide state and local governments with advice on using municipal derivatives in their investment portfolios won’t have to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission as muni advisers.

The SEC made a distinction between financial advisers who use security-based swaps as investments in muni pension plans, for instance, and those who advise municipalities on using derivatives to hedge risk in muni debt securities offerings in a Jan. 10 list of Frequently Asked Questions.

There are about 1,315 SEC-registered investment advisers who have muni clients.

The clarification on muni adviser registration prevents an unnecessary increase in regulation, according to the Investment Adviser Association.

“We are pleased these activities are not subjected to another duplicative and potentially conflicting regulatory regime,” said IAA general counsel Karen Barr.

The FAQs also draw brighter lines regarding how much a broker-dealer can communicate with a municipality about bond offerings before becoming a muni adviser and being disqualified as the underwriter of the issue, according to Paul Maco, a partner at Bracewell & Giuliani.

“As a result, underwriters and bond lawyers don’t have to worry about acting as a municipal adviser without registering as one as long as they follow the guidance they’ve been given,” said Mr. Maco, former director of the SEC Office of Municipal Securities.

The Dodd-Frank financial reform law requires that muni advisers register with the SEC.

The final registration rule was to have gone into effect Monday. Instead, the SEC delayed compliance requirements until July 1.

The provision of Dodd-Frank designed to put SEC oversight on muni advisers addresses congressional concerns that lax regulation in muni markets led to substantial losses for state and local governments that used complex derivative products.

But market participants need more time to figure out how the 777-page rule, which was first proposed in December 2010 and finalized last September, will affect them, Mr. Maco said.

“It’s a completely new group of registered people and activity,” he said. “Between Friday afternoon [when the FAQ was published] and Monday is not enough time for entities to change their business model or get themselves into compliance.”

Also last week, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board proposed a rulethat would place a fiduciary duty on muni advisers and require them to disclose all conflicts of interest.

The compliance delay also was welcomed by the IAA, which said that some SEC-registered advisers have an affiliated bank that serves as a trustee to a fund in which municipalities can invest. If municipalities put proceeds from a bond sale into the fund, it could require the adviser to register as a muni adviser.

The extension gives the advisory firm more time to determine whether money from muni securities sales is flowing into the funds.

“It’s been proving to be a huge challenge,” Ms. Barr said.

By Mark Schoeff Jr.

Jan 14, 2014 @ 12:09 pm (Updated 4:49 pm) EST




Dealers to MSRB: Reconsider Continuing Education Proposal.

WASHINGTON — Dealer groups are warning the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board that its proposal to require at least an hour of annual municipal securities training for their staffs could actually result in less efficient training and could be confusing, in addition to raising compliance burdens.

The MSRB proposal would alter the continuing education requirements laid out in the board’s Rule G-3 on classification of principals and representatives to require a minimum of one hour of training focused on municipal securities for professionals whose jobs primarily focus on munis. Firms are already required to offer continuing education to their staffs, but are not required to provide training specifically targeted to work in the municipal market. Comments on the proposal were due Monday.

Mike Nicholas, president and chief executive officer of Bond Dealers of America, warned in his letter that the one-hour training requirement could end up backfiring despite the good intentions of the MSRB. “While the MRSB does not want this one-hour requirement to be seen as the sole training criteria for ‘covered persons’ as defined in the proposed rule, this may well be an unintended result,” Nicholas wrote.

Instead, the BDA letter suggests the MSRB consider publishing an annual list of training topics based on current market issues, and require firms to incorporate at least one into their training programs.

The rule proposal would require such training of dealer firm employees engaged in muni business regardless of whether or not they have contact with customers, and Nicholas added that providing evidence of training completion for an expanded group of professionals could prove onerous.

“Additional recordkeeping is likely to be required possibly in the form of a certificate for each professional who has completed the continuing education requirement,” he wrote. “The BDA would suggest the MSRB consider how to minimize the effects of demonstrating compliance with new continuing education requirements.”

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association commented that the MSRB is essentially seeking to de-harmonize its rule with a similar Financial Industry Regulatory Authority rule without offering an adequate explanation.

Further, wrote SIFMA managing director and associate general counsel David Cohen, the MSRB offers no good reason to expand training to “back office” personnel with no customer contact. The MSRB should be focusing its efforts on establishing a “minimum threshold” of training for newly-regulated non-dealer municipal advisors, he said.

Tamara Salmon, senior associate counsel for the Investment Company Institute, also commented that the proposal is inconsistent with FINRA’s rule. In addition, Salmon wrote, the proposal offers no guidance on how firms should determine which of their employees would be covered by the rule and offers no economic justification for the proposed changes, which she suggested is a violation of MSRB’s new economic analysis policy.

Firms were supportive of MSRB’s proposal to no longer require them to designate a “financial and operations principal” since it is a requirement imposed on dealers by other regulators and therefore duplicative.

BY KYLE GLAZIER

JAN 14, 2014 2:36pm ET




MSRB Advances Cornerstone of Regulatory Framework for Municipal Advisors with Proposed Rule on Standards of Conduct.

Alexandria, VA – To protect state and local governments and investors, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) today advanced a cornerstone of its regulatory framework for municipal advisors by publishing a proposed rule on the duties of advisors when providing advice on municipal securities transactions and related products to their clients. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act charged the MSRB with developing standards of conduct and qualification for municipal advisors to help safeguard the interests of state and local governments that engage the services of municipal advisors.

“The MSRB aims to carry out Congress’ intent to protect state and local governments from the potentially costly consequences of relying on financial advice of municipal advisors that may lack sufficient expertise and accountability,” said MSRB Executive Director Lynnette Kelly. “Our proposal would ensure that all municipal advisors adhere to core standards of conduct, and that state and local governments have more complete and accurate information regarding the services of municipal advisors.”

The MSRB’s rule proposal sets forth specific obligations of municipal advisors, including the duty to exercise due care and make only informed and suitable recommendations to their clients. The proposed rule requires municipal advisors to disclose all conflicts of interest to their clients and to document the nature of their relationship with their clients, including compensation arrangements and the scope of advisory activities to be performed. The proposal identifies certain conduct that would be prohibited as deceptive, dishonest or unfair practices. Further, the proposal provides guidance on the application of the federal fiduciary duty, established by the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires municipal advisors to deal with their state and local government clients with the utmost good faith and to put their clients’ interests ahead of their own.

To ensure that the industry and public have adequate time to respond to the proposal, the MSRB is using a 60-day comment period. “The MSRB wants to hear from as many municipal advisors and other market stakeholders as possible on the details of this proposal,” Kelly said. “As a self-regulatory organization, the MSRB will rely on this input to ensure that it establishes appropriate and necessary guidance for municipal advisors on their obligations to their clients.” The MSRB is hosting an educational webinar on the core standards rule on February 6, 2014 at 3:00 p.m. ET. Register for the webinar.

The MSRB will be advancing a series of municipal advisory rule proposals and professional qualification standards following the approval by the Securities and Exchange Commission in September 2013 of a final registration rule for municipal advisors that defined the scope of municipal advisory activities that are subject to federal regulation. Future MSRB rule proposals for municipal advisors will include supervision requirements for municipal advisory firms and their employees; measures to address the potential for pay-to-play activities by municipal advisors; limitations on gifts and gratuities to employees of municipal securities issuers and other market participants; and duties of municipal advisors acting as solicitors.

The rule proposal on municipal advisor duties incorporates the MSRB’s preliminary economic analysis of the benefits, burdens and potential alternatives, and the MSRB requests comment on that analysis in addition to all aspects of the proposed rule.

“The MSRB plans to continue to engage the municipal advisory community, dealers and others through outreach and education as it develops this regulatory framework,” Kelly said. Market participants and other interested persons can stay up to date on the MSRB’s rulemaking, outreach and education initiatives in this area by visiting the Resources for Municipal Advisors section of the MSRB’s website.

Date: January 9, 2014

Contact: Jennifer A. Galloway, Chief Communications Officer

(703) 797-6600

jgalloway@msrb.org




SIFMA Statement on the MSRB's Request for Comment on Draft MSRB Rule G-42.

New York, NY, January 9, 2014- SIFMA today released the following statement from Leslie Norwood, managing director, associate general counsel and co-head of SIFMA’s municipal securities division, on the MSRB’s request for comment on draft MSRB Rule G-42, on duties of non-solicitor municipal advisors:

“SIFMA is pleased that the MSRB has released its request for comment on the standards of conduct for municipal advisors.  We feel that all municipal advisors need to understand the scope of their duties and how the term ‘fiduciary duty’ will be defined for this context. However, we are concerned with a key aspect of this rule proposal.

“Municipal advisor regulation in Dodd-Frank was intended to focus on bringing unregulated municipal advisors under a regulatory regime. Banks and broker dealers that provide any advice to a municipal entity or obligated person would be prohibited from offering principal services as such as, banking services, brokerage accounts, commodities trading, and swaps executions under today’s rule proposal.  Under the proposed rule, if a bank or broker dealer serves a municipal entity or an obligated person serves as a municipal advisor, then that firm and all its affiliates would be barred from engaging in any principal transactions with that client. As currently drafted, this proposed ban on principal transactions appears to include even transactions completely unrelated to the municipal advisory assignment.

“We are concerned that this would limit issuer choice by effectively preventing banks and broker dealers from being municipal advisors.  This proposal is also incongruous with the SEC’s staff recommended uniform fiduciary standard of conduct, which would permit acting as a fiduciary and a principal under certain situations.

“SIFMA looks forward to the MSRB’s upcoming rule proposals on municipal advisor regulation including professional qualifications and testing, restriction of political contributions, restrictions on gifts and entertainment and supervision.  SIFMA feels strongly that until the full series of rules for municipal advisors takes effect, issuers are not fully protected and the playing field for dealer and non-dealer advisors is not level.”

Release Date: January 9, 2014

Contact: Katrina Cavalli, 212.313.1181, kcavalli@sifma.org




MSRB Floats Draft Municipal Advisory Conduct Rule.

WASHINGTON — The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board on Thursday released a new draft rule that would govern the conduct of municipal advisors, and requested public comments on whether it should extend a fiduciary duty standard to cover all of an MA clients, including conduit borrowers as well as issuers.

Neither the Dodd-Frank Act nor the Securities and Exchange Commission’s MA registration rule approved in September extends the full fiduciary duty to “obligated persons” such as conduit borrowers.

The draft Rule G-42, called “Duties of Non-Solicitor Municipal Advisors,” codifies the language of the Dodd-Frank Act, which imposes a fiduciary duty on MA’s to put their client’s interest first before their own. The draft rule says MAs owe both a duty of loyalty and a duty of care to their municipal entity clients.

The MSRB said in its 36-page notice, that the goal of the draft standards is to promote “higher ethical and professional standards” for MAs.

The duty of loyalty is defined in the rule as requiring the MA to deal in the “utmost good faith” with municipal entities such as issuers and serve their best interests “without regard to the financial or other interests of the municipal advisor.” MAs would owe the duty of care to all clients, and would also be bound by the MSRB’s Rule G-17 on fair dealing.

The rule lays out the broad principles of MA duties to clients, but also includes many more specific conduct rules, some which have already been set by the SEC, such as those on recordkeeping.

MAs would be required to possess adequate expertise to assist their clients. They would need to disclose in writing all “material conflicts of interest” at the outset of their municipal advisory relationship. An MA would need to disclose whether and how much liability insurance it carries, which would pay out in the event of improper judgments or negligence, or must state that it carries no coverage. The MSRB asks for public comments on whether it should require MAs to have such insurance.

MAs also would have to disclose at the beginning of the relationship any legal or disciplinary event that might affect the client’s evaluation of them.

The draft rule contains the equivalent of a suitability rule for MAs, providing that advisors must have a reasonable basis to believe their recommendations are suitable for their clients. In that vein, the rule includes a “know your client” obligation which would require MAs to use “reasonable diligence” to know essential information about their clients. However, the draft does not provide an exhaustive list of what that information might be, except to say that it includes information necessary to the advisory relationship and required in order to comply with laws and rules.

Fee-splitting arrangements between MAs and other providers of services to clients would have to be disclosed at the outset of their relationships, but would be prohibited between MAs and underwriting firms. The rule would also bar MAs from engaging in any transaction in a principal capacity with a client, essentially barring any non-fiduciary business relationship running concurrent to the municipal advisory agreement.

There would be a presumption under G-42 that a municipal advisor would review the official statements of its issuer clients’ bond offerings. But the MA would not be required to conduct such a review if both parties agree it is not necessary. Any agreement about an OS review would need to be included in the documents establishing the relationship, and those documents would have to be updated to reflect any change in the scope of services provided by the MA.

MAs would be required to review third party recommendations provided to their municipal clients, if this is within the scope of the advisory activities agreed upon at the outset of the relationship.

The MSRB also said it would amend its Rules G-8 on books and records and G-9 on preservation of records to reflect the SEC’s requirement that MAs retain for at least five years records of all communications, policies and procedures, the names of associated persons, and any other material documents dealing with its clients. The records could be retained electronically.

The MSRB’s notice requests many comments, including whether or not all fee-splitting arrangements should be prohibited, whether MAs should be required to obtain written acknowledgement that a client received the necessary disclosures, and whether MAs should have to disclose all legal or disciplinary actions related to individuals not working with clients.

The MSRB is providing an extended comment period of 60 days, with comments due by March 10.

BY KYLE GLAZIER

JAN 9, 2014 1:00am ET




MSRB Requests Comment on Draft Rule G-42, on Duties of Non-Solicitor Municipal Advisors.

The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) is requesting public comment on draft MSRB Rule G-42, on standards of conduct and duties of municipal advisors when engaging in municipal advisory activities other than the undertaking of solicitations. The MSRB is also seeking comment on associated draft amendments to Rules G-8, on books and records, and G-9, on the preservation of records. Comments should be submitted no later than March 10, 2014.

http://msrb.org/~/media/Files/Regulatory-Notices/RFCs/2014-01.ashx?n=1




MSRB's First Draft Municipal Advisor Rule Alarms Dealers.

WASHINGTON — The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board on Thursday released a new draft rule that would govern the conduct of municipal advisors, alarming broker-dealers who fear a prohibition on business outside of an advisory relationship with an issuer could push dealer-affiliated MAs out of the market.

The draft Rule G-42, called “Duties of Non-Solicitor Municipal Advisors,” codifies the language of the Dodd-Frank Act, which imposes a fiduciary duty on MA’s to put their client’s interest first before their own. The draft rule says MAs owe both a duty of loyalty and a duty of care to their municipal entity clients.

It would prohibit MAs and their affiliates from engaging in any other transaction in a principal capacity with a client, which some market participants read as barring MAs from engaging in any non-fiduciary business relationship running concurrent to the municipal advisory agreement. It would not affect Rule G-23’s prohibition on underwriter role-switching, but is intended to ensure the highest level of objectivity among MAs.

This particular provision is a major sticking point for broker-dealers, who have long maintained that the MA section of Dodd-Frank was intended to rein in unregistered non-dealer advisors.

“We were stunned to see that the MSRB took the opposite approach,” said Leslie Norwood, associate general counsel and co-head of the municipal securities group at the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association.

Norwood said the draft rule’s ban on acting as a principal in transactions outside the advisory relationship essentially pushes bank-affiliated MAs out of the market, because the fact that their banking arms might manage accounts for a municipal entity locks them out of being that entity’s MA.

“We feel it unnecessarily limits issuer choice,” Norwood said. “It really makes no sense to us.”

Norwood, however, added that SIFMA is glad that the MA regulations have some more “meat and definition” on this rule, and that the group remains eager for the MSRB to complete other rules which will subject non-dealer advisors to the same level of regulation dealer-affiliated advisors are subject to under existing MSRB rules.

Neither Dodd-Frank nor the Securities and Exchange Commission’s MA registration rule, which was approved in September and takes effect on Jan. 13, extends the full fiduciary duty to “obligated persons” such as conduit borrowers. But the MSRB has asked for public comments on whether it legally can, and should, extend the fiduciary duty to cover all MA clients, including conduit borrowers.

The MSRB said in its 36-page notice, that the goal of the draft standards is to promote “higher ethical and professional standards” for MAs. The fiduciary duty, or duty of loyalty, is defined in the draft rule as requiring the MA to deal in the “utmost good faith” with municipal entities such as issuers and to serve their best interests “without regard to the financial or other interests of the municipal advisor.”

MAs would owe a “duty of care” to all clients, and are also be bound by the MSRB’s Rule G-17 on fair dealing.

MSRB executive director Lynnette Kelly said the rule is based on a large body of existing regulations.

“We drew on concepts established in our rules for municipal securities dealers, as well as the Investment Advisors Act of 1940,” Kelly said during a press call. “We believe the proposal is workable for municipal advisors of all sizes.” The rule lays out the broad principles of MA duties to clients, but also includes many more specific conduct rules, some which have already been established by the SEC, such as those on recordkeeping.

MAs would be required to possess the expertise to assist their clients. They would need to disclose in writing all “material conflicts of interest” at the outset of their municipal advisory relationship.

An MA would need to disclose whether and how much liability insurance it carries, or that it carries none. The MSRB has asked for comments on whether it should require MAs to have such insurance. MAs also would have to disclose at the beginning of the relationship any legal or disciplinary event that might affect the client’s evaluation of them.

Susan Collet, senior vice president of government relations at the Bond Dealers of America, said BDA is happy to have the first of the MA rules available for comment, and will look carefully at the principal transaction prohibition and the question of extending a fiduciary duty to cover obligated persons.

National Association of Bond Lawyers spokesman Bill Daly also said his group would be examining the rule very closely.” NABL is very pleased that the MSRB has gotten this important rule out so quickly and we want to congratulate them and thank them for their work,” Daly said.

National Association of Independent Public Finance Advisors president Jeanine Rodgers Caruso said NAIPFA will address specific concerns at a later date. “We appreciate the MRSB’s concept release and their willingness to allow ample time for comment on this important rule,” she said. “While many aspects of the release reflect what was in the MSRB’s 2011 proposal, there are additional mattes included within this release that merit thoughtful consideration.”

However, sources said the draft rule’s liability insurance provisions could also be a problem and that this kind of insurance isn’t even available in some states.

The draft rule contains the equivalent of a suitability rule for MAs, requiring advisors to have a reasonable basis to believe their recommendations are suitable for their clients. In that vein, it includes a “know your client” obligation that would require MAs to use “reasonable diligence” to know essential information about their clients. Such information would include anything necessary for the advisory relationship or required for compliance with laws and rules.

Fee-splitting arrangements would be prohibited between MAs and underwriters, but would be permitted for MAs and other providers of services to clients if disclosed at the outset of their relationships.

There would be a presumption that an MA would review the official statements of its issuer clients’ bond offerings, but the MA would not be required to do so if both parties agreed it was unnecessary. Agreement about an OS review would need to be included in the documents establishing the relationship, and those documents would have to be updated to reflect any change in the scope of services provided.

The MSRB said it would amend its Rules G-8 on books and records and G-9 on preservation of records to reflect the SEC’s requirement that MAs retain for at least five years records of all communications, policies and procedures, the names of associated persons, and any other material documents dealing with its clients.

The MSRB’s notice requests many comments, including on whether or not all fee-splitting arrangements should be prohibited, whether MAs should be required to obtain written acknowledgement that a client received the necessary disclosures, and whether MAs should have to disclose all legal or disciplinary actions related to individuals not working with clients.

The MSRB has set a comment deadline of March 10.

BY KYLE GLAZIER

JAN 9, 2014 3:45pm ET




Asset Managers Want Compliance Delay or Exemption from MA Rule.

WASHINGTON — Two groups are asking the Securities and Exchange Commission to delay the municipal advisor rule compliance deadline until July 1 for asset managers who manage swaps or securities-based swaps in the portfolios of their municipal clients.

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association’s Asset Management Group and the Investment Advisor Association made the request, and also asked for an exemption from the rule, in a Jan. 2 letter to SEC muni chief John Cross. They argued that traditional asset managers only recently found out that they could be included in the new municipal advisor regulatory regime, which is slated to become effective on Jan. 13. They said asset managers will need until July 1 — the date when all MAs will need to be registered under the final rules — to prepare for compliance.

The problem arose, SIFMA said, because these portfolio managers believed they were exempt from the final MA rule until they studied it and determined that including a single swap or security-based swap within the portfolios of their municipal entity clients” could trigger MA registration requirements.

The final rule includes an exemption for swap advisors registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, but those advisors will still have to register with the SEC as MAs if their portfolios include one or more securities-based swaps, said Matthew Nevins, managing director and associate general counsel for SIFMA’s asset management group. Asset managers not registered with the CFTC had believed they would be exempt because securities-based swaps would make up a fraction of their portfolios, he added.

“It took us by surprise that this rule could pick up asset managers,” Nevins said in an interview.

While SIFMA hopes the SEC grants this “time-limited” relief to asset managers so they can prepare for compliance, the group would like an interpretation of the MA rule that keeps them out of the regime entirely.

“We believe that the rule is properly interpreted to exclude registered investment advisers to the extent they engage in traditional asset management, including managing portfolios of municipal entity clients that may include swaps or security-based swaps,” SIFMA said in the letter. “This interpretation would prevent duplicate regulation of the same activity by the SEC under the [Investment] Advisers Act and by the [Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board] under its rules (as well as the SEC under the Exchange Act) and even potential triplicate regulation for some investment advisers that are also commodity trading advisors registered with the CFTC,” the groups said.

Nevins added that SIFMA is also hoping for some relief on the issue of pooled investment vehicles, which can include muni bond proceeds. Nevins said asset managers are having tremendous difficulty determining if these pools contain such proceeds and therefore require the manager to be an MA, The SEC should either grandfather all existing investment vehicles and grant them an exemption, or should allow a “good faith effort” to suffice in determining if they include municipal bond proceeds or not.

The SEC is expected to release further MA rule guidance any day. Nevins said he is not sure whether it will address the issues raised in the letter, but said he is confident the SEC is understanding of SIFMA’s concerns.

BY KYLE GLAZIER

JAN 8, 2014 2:38pm ET




WSJ: Rules to Curb Muni-Bond Advisers.

WASHINGTON—U.S. securities regulators, under pressure from Congress to prevent a repeat of financial debacles in municipalities like Detroit and Jefferson County, Ala., are set to propose a series of rules to rein in advisers that help states and localities raise cash in the $3.7 trillion municipal-bond market.

The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, a self-regulator for the muni-bond market, is expected this week to propose the first of a long-delayed set of rules for municipal advisers aimed at better protecting taxpayers from the types of complex transactions that soured during the financial crisis. Many unsophisticated local governments didn’t fully understand those transactions, which primarily involved so-called interest-rate swaps to hedge against higher borrowing costs.

The advisers targeted by the rules are firms, sometimes affiliated with banks, hired to work with states and localities to time, market and price municipal-bond deals and related transactions. But most advisers are unaffiliated with banks and were previously unregulated.

Lawmakers and regulators say they pushed to increase oversight of municipal advisers in the wake of tumult in localities like Jefferson County, where officials and Wall Street firms repeatedly used interest-rate swaps as a vehicle for kickbacks and other types of fraud. The 2010 Dodd-Frank financial law requires the advisers to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission and adhere to MSRB rules.

Matt Fabian, managing director at the research firm Municipal Market Advisors, said the rules could help municipalities avoid repeating mistakes that have caused financial turmoil in cities like Detroit, where the structure of swaps contributed to the now-bankrupt city’s problems. Under the coming rules, which set broad standards of conduct, a swap adviser would have to better understand and disclose the risks of such transactions to their clients.

Efforts to regulate advisers have taken far longer than lawmakers originally intended, in part because it took the SEC, which oversees the MSRB, until September to complete the definition of a municipal adviser and set up a permanent registration system. The final SEC rule spans 700 pages and goes into effect next week.

The coming MSRB rules are partly aimed at ensuring a level regulatory playing field between advisers affiliated with banks, such as Goldman Sachs Group Inc., GS -0.60% and so-called independent advisers that are unaffiliated with banks or brokerages. Bank- and brokerage-affiliated firms have long had to adhere to a set a conduct and pay-to-play restrictions that didn’t apply to independent advisers, which are typically small firms that employ three or four individual advisers.

The MSRB, which operates a separate registration system, says 928 firms are registered as municipal advisers. Of those, 224 are affiliated with banks or brokerages while 704 are “independent” firms.

Thomas Johnsen, a principal at Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates, an independent advisory firm based in Irvine, Calif., said advisers support the coming rules but worry about the affordability of compliance costs, especially for smaller firms.

The first set of MSRB rules seeks to ensure municipalities have competent advisers and establishes standards of conduct. Firms would have to possess expertise to advise on complex swaps transactions, disclose any conflicts of interest and adhere to a “duty of care” to act in the interests of their clients. They also would have to disclose the risks tied to a bond deal or related transaction, such as a swap.

In coming months, the agency also plans to propose supervisory provisions for advisory firms, restrictions on political contributions to local officials who can award bond business and limits on gifts and gratuities advisers can receive from clients. The MSRB also is developing a professional qualification exam similar to the exams brokers must pass.

The MSRB will collect public comments on all the proposals, and the SEC must sign off on them before they can go into effect.

By ANDREW ACKERMAN

Jan. 6, 2014 6:55 p.m. ET

Write to Andrew Ackerman at andrew.ackerman@wsj.com




FINRA Keeping Pressure on Complex Products in 2014.

Annual list of priorities has old favorites as well as some new areas of concern

Finra’s opening salvo of 2014, its annual list of examination priorities, sent a clear message to broker-dealers, especially those dealing in complex products: Don’t expect any relief in the new year.

The document, which Finra’s approximately 4,200 member firms will review carefully to shape their compliance efforts in the coming year, re-emphasized common trouble spots for broker-dealers, while also ratcheting up enforcement in key areas, including interest-rate-sensitive products and rogue brokers.

“It’s kind of like, ‘We’re going to look at everything like we always do every time,’” said Daniel Wildermuth, chief executive of Kalos Financial.

PRODUCT CONCERNS

Nontraded real estate investment trusts, complex structured products, emerging-markets investment funds, mortgage-backed securities, long-duration bond funds and municipal securities are among Finra’s priorities in its monitoring program, according to the letter, which was posted on its website last Thursday.

Complex structured products have made the list every year since Finra began sending the letter out in 2006 under the National Association of Securities Dealers, so their inclusion came as little surprise, according to Joe Halpern, who runs Exceed Investments, a product development company focused on structured investments.

“Structured products will be on this list forever,” he said. “This whole list is a fair list of the complex products out there.”

The new twist this year was Finra’s focus on fixed-income products and hedging products that could be susceptible to interest rate volatility. The regulator included investments such as long-duration bond funds and emerging-markets debt on its list of concerns.

“Finra remains concerned about the suitability of recommendations to retail investors for complex products whose risk-return profiles, including their sensitivity to interest rate changes, underlying product or index volatility, fee structures or complexity may be challenging for investors to understand,” Finra’s letter stated.

Mr. Wildermuth, whose firm focuses on alternative investments and structured products, said he agrees with Finra’s concerns that investors might not understand the impact of rising rates on these products, but he also said that Finra’s regular inclusion of these products on its watch list continues to make it tough on firms that seek to employ these strategies legitimately.

“I don’t disagree with interest rate sensitivity, but I do disagree with the assumption that they’re boxing you into a corner that anything you do is suspect or suspicious,” he said.

Executives at Mr. Wildermuth’s firm have found themselves trying to keep ahead of regulator demands. The firm hosts weekly two-hour due-diligence meetings and he said that one of the most helpful practices has been increasing its record keeping.

In the end, brokers have to take Finra’s focus in stride, said the head of an industry trade group for the nontraded real estate investment trusts.

“There’s not anything out of the ordinary there that has us concerned,” said Kevin Hogan, president and chief executive of the Investment Program Association. “I don’t think there’s undue scrutiny. It’s their recognition that this product is not a mainstream stock or bond. There’s some complexity.”

Mr. Hogan agrees with Finra that selling complex products requires enhanced training for sales representatives.

“Education and training is important to this industry in particular,” Mr. Hogan said.

Steven Thomas, director of compliance at Lexington Compliance, a division of RIA in a Box, said that financial advisers need to be even more careful with hedging products, what he calls “land mines” in a volatile interest-rate environment.

“If you haven’t been vigilant in documenting why you’ve been recommending these products and strategies, you better reassess your process and procedures. Otherwise, you’re going to get tagged [by Finra] for putting your clients in unsuitable investments,” said Mr. Thomas, former chief compliance officer for South Dakota. “If you’ve planted the land mines, you better not step backward.”

ROGUE BROKERS

Finra also said that it will expand a program implemented last year to target rogue brokers who land at new firms after being disciplined or fired.

“When Finra examines a firm that hires these high-risk brokers, examiners will review the firm’s due diligence conducted in the hiring process, review for the adequacy of supervision of higher-risk brokers — including whether the brokers have been placed under heightened supervision — based on the pattern of past conduct, and examiners will place particular focus on these brokers’ clients’ accounts in conducting reviews of sale practices,” the Finra letter states.

Mr. Thomas supports Finra’s crackdown on brokers who have a history of disciplinary problems.

“There’s not enough legitimate and accurate reporting about why someone has left a firm,” Mr. Thomas said. “Firms are afraid of defamation of character lawsuits.”

But he cautioned that the pipeline between the insurance and securities industries is not being monitored well enough, allowing problem insurance brokers to restart their careers at securities firms.

“There is not a national reporting system for insurance bad apples,” Mr. Thomas said.

InvestmentNews

By Mark Schoeff Jr. and Mason Braswell

Jan 3, 2014 @ 12:50 pm (Updated 3:57 pm) EST




MSRB Publishes 2013 Annual Report and Audited Financial Statements.

The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) today published its 2013 Annual Report, which highlights the MSRB’s progress in key priority areas, including enhancing regulatory efficiency, improving financial disclosure by state and local governments, and increasing municipal market transparency. The report also includes financial highlights for the organization for the fiscal year that ended September 30, 2013, and a link to access full audited financial statements on the MSRB’s website.

http://www.msrb.org/msrb1/pdfs/MSRB-2013-Annual-Report.pdf




SIFMA: Dealers Not Given Enough Time on MA Rule.

WASHINGTON — The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association is very concerned about the imminent effective date of the new municipal advisor rule, warning both that federal regulators have not given banks enough time to comply and that the rule remains unclear absent additional guidance.

SIFMA members were handed too large of a compliance burden when the Securities and Exchange Commission approved its new MA rule in September, Leslie Norwood, managing director, associate general counsel and co-head of the muni group along with Michael Decker, who is also a managing director, both said in an interview.

The SEC specified that the rule become effective 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register, an action that was delayed by a government shutdown but eventually took place in November. The rule now becomes effective Jan. 13.

Decker said that larger firms may have hundreds of bankers who need to be trained in the new compliance regime, which imposes a fiduciary duty on, and requires the registration of, individuals and firms who provide municipalities with particularized advice about issuing bonds, muni derivatives, or muni escrow funds.

SIFMA members also will have a lot of work to do in investigating the funds they manage to determine whether they contain bond proceeds and whether those funds therefore are subject to the new regime, Norwood said. This could involve interviewing state and local officials and other time-consuming processes, she explained.

“It is not as simple as just checking,” she said.

The MA rule, which codifies language included in the Dodd-Frank Act, came under fire from the underwriting community almost immediately after its release and unanimous approval. SIFMA and other dealer groups remain concerned that the rule as written will prevent some necessary communication between underwriters and issuers, a claim non-dealer financial advisors have dismissed.

Norwood said SIFMA is awaiting further guidance from the SEC, especially regarding the scope of the underwriter exemption. The rule allows underwriters to offer certain kinds of advice once they are engaged to underwrite a specific muni offering.

The SEC has said it would release more guidance, and market participants expected it would come before the rule’s effective date, but so far none has materialized.

Some lawmakers have spoken up in support of SIFMA’s position, including House Financial Services Committee member Rep. Steve Stivers, R-Ohio. Stivers penned a letter to the SEC last month urging the commission to “make it clear that a dealer providing particularized ideas, analysis, information, proposals or other communications that might otherwise be deemed ‘advice’ under the rule not be precluded from underwriting a bond transaction that might arise from that communication” as long as the dealer complied with applicable Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board rules.

“It has definitely gotten the attention of the Hill,” Decker said.

SIFMA maintains that the MA provision in Dodd-Frank was only meant to bring non-dealer financial advisors under regulation, not to restrict the activities of dealers and other entities already governed by MSRB rules.

“Congress never intended that,” Decker said.

The issue has flared up recently as some issuers have refused to consider advisory services from dealer-affiliated FAs. Both Los Angeles and the Greater Texoma Utility Authority in Texas have recently solicited business exclusively from non-dealer FAs. Norwood said dealer-FAs would be a more logical choice for issuers, since they are currently governed by more rules designed to protect issuers and investors. The MSRB is working on rules that will apply to all MAs, but non-dealer advisors are currently are governed by the fiduciary duty and the board’s Rule G-17 on fair dealing.

BY KYLE GLAZIER

JAN 3, 2014 12:01pm ET




DTC Backs Off Idea of Per-CUSIP Fees That Had Upset Muni Groups.

WASHINGTON — The Depository Trust Co. has submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission a flat fee increase for multi-CUSIP municipal bond transactions, rather than the higher per-CUSIP fees it discussed earlier that riled market groups.

The new fee structure, which was effective Jan. 1, raises from $500 to $800 the fee DTC collects per issue with more than one CUSIP. Single-CUSIP transactions, which are not as common in the muni market, will remain unchanged at $350 per transaction.

Although the rule is already effective, the SEC can suspend it at any time within 60 days of its Dec. 23 filing based on public comments it receives. The commission is accepting comments during this time.

The Government Finance Officers Association, Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, and National Association of Public Finance Advisors had protested in 2012 after hearing that the Depository Trust & Clearing Corp., which oversees the DTC, was considering a fee structure of $200 for the first CUSIP on a transaction and $150 for each additional CUSIP.

David Cohen, managing director and associate general counsel at SIFMA, said the new fee represents a favorable outcome compared with the per CUSIP structure initially discussed, despite not being ideal.

“This proposal from SIFMA’s perspective is not perfect, because it is a fee increase,” Cohen said, but added that SIFMA is still pleased that the DTC “refined” its earlier plan.

The fees jumped considerably three years ago, when multi-CUSIP transaction fees rose to $500 from $200, a spike that also outraged some sectors of the market.

The groups warned in 2012 that the new fee increase being discussed at DTC would lead to huge cost increases that would especially burden small issuers. An issuer of bonds with 20 different maturities, for example, would have paid $3,050 in fees under the initially discussed fee schedule. It would be $800 under the current one.

Nathan Howard, a lawyer at Affinity Law Group, LLC in St. Louis who serves as counsel to NAIPFA, was also pleased with the result.

“We’re very happy that DTC only increased their fees a minimal amount,” he said.

DTC’s filing indicated it believes that the fee schedule is equitable and will not disadvantage any market participant.

“DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition,” the filing reads. “The proposed changes will align DTC’s fees with the costs of delivering services to its participants, and the revised fee schedule will apply equally to all DTC participants in accordance with their use of DTC’s underwriting service.”

BY KYLE GLAZIER

JAN 7, 2014 2:30pm ET




Detroit's Orr Asked SEC To Probe Swaps.

CHICAGO — Detroit emergency manager Kevyn Orr said he asked the Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate the city’s interest-rate swaps amid “serious questions” about the legality of the financings.

Orr made the remarks Friday in testimony at a key hearing on the city’s proposed settlement with its swap counterparties. Despite misgivings about the original swaps and a 2009 provision that tapped casino revenues as collateral to the swaps, Orr is pushing for court approval to settle with the swap counterparties.

Bankruptcy Judge Steven Rhodes adjourned the hearing late Friday. Creditors who are challenging the deal will present closing arguments Monday morning.

The trial resumes as the city heads into key negotiations with bondholders Monday and Tuesday. It’s set to meet with holders and insurers of the city’s unlimited-tax and limited-tax general obligation bonds as well as water and sewer bonds in mediation sessions in New York.

Detroit’s swaps settlement with the counterparties, UBS AG and Merrill Lynch Capital Services Inc. has sparked the most opposition yet from municipal bond insurers and some debt holders in the historic bankruptcy case.

Opponents to the settlement include bond insurers Syncora Guarantee Inc. and Ambac Assurance Corp. and the city’s two pension funds.

Rhodes was set to rule on a settlement in mid-December, but suspended the hearings after an impasse with Detroit attorneys, who refused to disclose the legal arguments behind their decision to settle. Rhodes ordered the city back into negotiations with the banks to win a better deal.

A revised settlement, which is the subject of the current hearing, would have the city pay $165 million to UBS and Merrill Lynch to terminate the swaps, valued at roughly $248 million. The original deal called for a $230 million payment.

The city plans to secure a $285 million debtor-in-possession loan from Barclays PLC to pay off the swaps and use the remainder for various city services. The DIP financing is also part of the current trial, but did not come up much in testimony on Friday, according to local accounts.

Bond insurers, led by Syncora, which wraps some of the interest-rate swaps and the pension certificates they hedge, argue that the deal is too favorable to the banks in part because the original swap financings and the use of casino revenues as collateral violated state law.

Detroit emergency manager Kevyn Orr, in testimony Friday and in court documents, admitted that the city also had “serious questions” about the legal uncertainty surrounding the original financings. He said he even asked the Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate the deals.

“There were strong arguments,” Orr said. “But there are strong countervailing factual arguments.”

In the end, Orr said he decided the risks were too high, with the city’s odds of winning a legal battle at “more or less 50-50,” while tying up the casino revenue.

An Orr spokesman said that Orr asked the SEC to look into the swaps “a few months ago.”

“The SEC informed him that the commission has a four-year window to ‘look back’ on securities deals and that time period had passed,” Orr spokesman Bill Nowling said in an email, referring to the 2005-2006 pension certificate sale and the concurrent swaps. “The commission also said it had previously looked at the swaps deals and determined that it would not open a full investigation,” Nowling said.

Terminating the swaps is crucial for the city’s recovery, Orr said. “The city cannot plan unless it removes this potential risk from the table,” he testified.

Ambac also argued that the value of the swaps — and any termination payment — continues to fall in the city’s favor as interest rates rise, and so the $165 million payment does not represent a significant discount.

In closing arguments, Jones Day attorney Corinne Ball told Rhodes the city believes it has met its burden in proving that the settlement is in the best interest of the city and its creditors. The legality of the decision to pledge gaming revenue remains uncertain, Ball admitted. “Is it black and white on either side? No, we don’t think so. We thought it was litigable,” Ball said, according to the Detroit Free Press.

Earlier Friday, Ambac asked Rhodes to force the city to turn over its analysis of the legality of the swaps and the collateral, but Rhodes denied the motion.

The judge also denied Ambac’s later request that he immediately reject the swaps settlement with a “directed finding.”

BY CAITLIN DEVITT

JAN 3, 2014 5:33pm ET




WSJ: Wells Fargo Unit Ordered to Buy Back Auction-Rate Securities.

Firm Must Repurchase $94 Million From New Jersey Family

An arbitration panel has ordered Wells Fargo WFC +0.73%  & Co.’s brokerage unit to repurchase about $94 million in municipal auction-rate securities from a New Jersey family.

James Cohen and the trust of the late Robert Cohen, who founded the Hudson News newsstands, accused Wells Fargo Advisors of fraud, negligence and breach of fiduciary duty related to investments in municipal auction-rate securities, or MARS.

These securities, once touted as safe, froze up during the financial crisis, causing many brokers headaches and investors considerable losses. Firms ranging from E*Trade Securities ETFC +2.47%  LLC to Oppenheimer were forced to buy back auction rate securities from investors in recent years.

The Cohens, who filed their case in November 2011, sought damages of $20 million for investments in MARS starting in March 2008.

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. arbitration panel ordered the buyback at par value but denied the Cohens compensation and punitive damages, according to the award dated Dec. 24.

“We are disappointed with the decision and are reviewing it,” a spokesman for Wells Fargo said.

A lawyer for the Cohens wasn’t available for comment.

By MATTHIAS RIEKER

Dec. 27, 2013 2:56 p.m. ET




Miami Loses Bid to Dismiss SEC Fraud Lawsuit.

(Reuters) – The city of Miami on Friday lost its bid to dismiss a lawsuit by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that accused the city of fraud by making misleading statements and omissions in connection with municipal bond offerings.

U.S. District Judge Cecilia Altonaga in Miami, Florida, said she was not convinced the SEC’s complaint was a “shotgun pleading,” rejecting the city’s claims the agency failed to allege any false or misleading statement.

“Those general allegations support each claim for relief and identify the relevant events, misrepresentations, and omissions advanced by the SEC,” Altonaga wrote.

The judge also rejected arguments the SEC failed to show that any of the alleged misstatements or omissions were material to investors, saying there was “just enough” to prevent such a finding.

Miami Mayor Tomas Regalado in an interview said the city “sort of expected this ruling.” He promised to continue litigating, but also said Miami was willing to settle the case.

“What I hope is that we can get a settlement that would not affect the positive outlook that we have in the bond offerings of the city now,” he said.

In a separate ruling Friday, Altonaga also declined to dismiss the SEC’s fraud claims against Michael Boudreaux, a former budget director for the city. Boudreaux had contended that as a public official he had qualified immunity from civil liability.

Benedict Kuehne, a lawyer for Boudreaux, said in an email that his client “remains confident that his hard work will be recognized as being without fault, no matter the extraordinary level of scrutiny exercised by the SEC.”

Representatives for the SEC did not respond to a request for comment.

The SEC sued Miami and Boudreaux in July amid a crackdown by the agency on issuers in the $3.7 trillion municipal bond market for failing to provide investors accurate and timely information.

The lawsuit said that beginning in 2008, Miami and Boudreaux made misleading statements about interfund transfers in three 2009 bond offerings for $153.5 million.

The SEC also accused the administration of the city, which has a population of 414,000 people, of violating a 2003 cease-and-desist order entered into with the agency over similar misconduct.

Since the SEC filed the lawsuit in July, the city hired a new budget director, and a trio of top finance staff resigned in late August. In response to the allegation, the city has also offered to bring in a new finance team under a revamped structure.

The city is also under SEC investigation in a probe focused on $500 million in bonds that the city and county sold to pay for the Marlins’ new baseball park in Little Havana.

The lawsuit came two months after the SEC similarly sued Florida’s South Miami for fraud, saying it did not disclose issues with the tax-exempt status of two bond deals.

It was one of a number of actions the SEC has taken this year against municipal issuers.

In May, the SEC brought a landmark case accusing Pennsylvania’s capital city of Harrisburg of making misleading statements outside of disclosure documents.

A month earlier, it accused Victorville, California, and others of defrauded investors by inflating the value of property used to secure a 2008 bond sale.

The SEC in March settled securities fraud claims against Illinois for misleading investors about its pension problems.

Most recently, the SEC announced in November a $20,000 settlement with the Greater Wenatchee Regional Events Center Public Facilities District, a municipal corporation formed by nine cities in Washington state.

The settlement, which resolved claims it misled investors in a bond offering financing an events center and hockey arena, was the first time the SEC had assessed a financial penalty against a municipal issuer.

The case is Securities and Exchange Commission v. City of Miami, Florida, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, No. 13-22600.

BY NATE RAYMOND AND ZACHARY FAGENSON

Fri Dec 27, 2013 7:45pm EST




FINRA Regulatory, Exam Priorities for 2014 Include Risky Munis, MAs.

WASHINGTON — The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has identified the suitability of the bonds of distressed municipalities for investors, as well as municipal advisor activity, as areas it will focus on in 2014.

FINRA on Thursday published its annual report on its regulatory and examination priorities, which it said lists the primary drivers of its activities for this year.

The self-regulator’s 11-page open letter to its dealer-members focuses heavily on suitability, including the suitability of risky munis for retail investors. Municipal securities rules require a dealer to make an effort to confirm that a financial product is suitable for a customer. FINRA expressed some concern about the exposure to rising interest rates of debt of distressed municipalities, such as Detroit.

“FINRA examiners will especially focus on accounts with concentrations in interest rate sensitive securities and disclosures or omissions of material facts when these products are recommended,” FINRA said in the letter.

As interest rates rise, the letter continues, municipalities may be forced to roll over their retiring debt that was issued at historically low rates and issue new debt at the higher rates.

“These incremental factors could exacerbate financial distress in municipalities already straining under the burden of falling tax receipts,” FINRA’s letter warned. “Most at risk would be those issuers with significant debt maturing in the near-to-mid-term, unrated issuers, and those with less capital and liquidity to absorb the additional expense.”

The authority will also focus on something new in 2014 when it looks at MA activity.

The Securities and Exchange Commission finalized its MA registration rule in September, and also made FINRA responsible for monitoring and enforcing the rules of advisors who are already regulated as broker-dealers by FINRA. The final rules become effective Jan. 13. The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board is working on rules, including a muni-specific fiduciary duty rule. MAs are already subject to the fair dealing rule and have a fiduciary duty to put clients’ interests first. They also must be registered with the SEC.

In addition, FINRA said it would be expanding a program aimed at checking “recidivist brokers” who have displayed a pattern of behavior that could “harm investors as well as the reputation of the securities industry and financial markets.” Examiners will look at firms’ due diligence in hiring practices, and focus closely on the accounts of these “high risk” brokers, FINRA said.

BY KYLE GLAZIER

JAN 2, 2014 3:10pm ET




Expect a Lot of Enforcement in 2014, Experts Say.

WASHINGTON — The Securities and Exchange Commission’s enforcement division is expected to focus next year on holding municipal bond issuer officials personally accountable and making sure both issuers and underwriters understand the importance of disclosure policies and procedures.

A series of 2013 cases, including actions against Harrisburg, Pa., South Miami, Fla., and the Greater Wenatchee Regional Events Center Public Facilities District in Washington State, offer a blueprint of what the commission may do in the coming year, SEC officials, private securities lawyers and other market participants said.

“You will see our increased focus on municipal issuers and issuer officials,” said LeeAnn Gaunt, chief of the SEC enforcement division’s municipal securities and public pensions unit. Gaunt took over the unit several weeks ago after working on the muni team since 2010 and spending 13 years in the SEC’s Boston office.

The commission will make public a number of enforcement actions in the coming year. “We have a healthy pipeline,” she said.

Gaunt said the SEC’s 2012 comprehensive report on the municipal market remains “a useful guidepost” to where the commission’s efforts will be focused. That report flagged concerns regulators continue to have about the muni market, including the lack of both pricing transparency and disclosure in the secondary market.

Disclosure

“The enforcement division will continue to focus in on disclosure,” said Elaine Greenberg, a lawyer at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP’s Washington D.C. office. Greenberg is the former chief of the SEC’s municipal securities and public pensions enforcement unit.

She left the commission in July after presiding over several of the precedent-setting cases. She drew particular attention to the Wenatchee case, the first time the SEC ever collected a financial penalty from a municipal issuer.

The Wenatchee district agreed to pay $20,000 to settle charges it misled investors by falsely claiming no independent revenue estimates for an arena had been conducted, when in fact they had. Greenberg said the case could be a “harbinger” of things to come.

“It’s very instructive of where the SEC appears to be focused,” she said.

The case could be a preview of 2014 actions in two ways, according to Greenberg. First, the action shows that the SEC is willing to extract financial penalties from municipal issuers if the money can be obtained without affecting taxpayers, In Wenatchee, the money came straight from arena operating funds.

Second, Greenberg said, the case is a good indication that the SEC will bring action against underwriters who fail to do their due diligence and even a wider range of transaction participants. In the Wenatchee proceeding, the commission also went after underwriter Piper Jaffray & Co. as well as the developer, Global Entertainment. Individuals at Piper and Global were also charged and involved in settlements.

“The SEC is most likely going to continue to scrutinize their conduct,” Greenberg said of deal participants who have not traditionally faced SEC penalties.

Greenberg said the SEC will probably continue to bang the drum on pension and other post-employment benefits, or OPEB, liabilities. The topic has become increasingly hot as more and more municipalities have been forced to face growing pension and OPEB liabilities. The bankruptcy judge’s ruling on Detroit has raised the specter that pension benefits can be cut in bankruptcy proceedings.

Greenberg added that, in 2014, an issuer official might be charged with fraud in the secondary market, something that did not happen in 2013. The SEC’s 21(a) report on Harrisburg warned that issuer officials could face charges if they spread false information to the market, as Harrisburg’s mayor did in a “state of the city” address. The mayor was not charged. Harrisburg was, however, a unique case in that the city had not been filing proper disclosures for extended periods of time and forcing investors to rely on such informal information as a speech.

Individuals

The muni market should watch out for an increased focus on individuals, according to Paul Maco, a securities lawyer at Bracewell & Giuliani.”I think the signals have been pretty clear,” Maco said. “That is one of the possibilities the Harrisburg 21(a) report warned about.”

Maco noted several other indications in 2013 that individuals would come under fire in the coming year, including SEC commissioner Daniel Gallagher’s statement to The Bond Buyer that “municipalities don’t commit frauds, people do.” Maco said the SEC charged some individuals in the secondary market years ago, and looks to be pivoting back that way as a refresher.

“It is, in a way, shifting back and reminding officials,” Maco said. He added that there is no reason to think 2014 will not be as active in enforcement as 2013, given Gaunt’s background knowledge and experience working in the unit.

“Their new director is someone very familiar with the area, and doesn’t need any on-the-job learning,” he said.

John McNally, a lawyer at Hawkins, Delafield & Wood LLP, said the SEC’s recent muni actions clearly present a “theme” that market participants should expect to continue in 2014.

“The core message from the SEC’s enforcement actions is the importance of written disclosure controls and disclosure training,” McNally said, pointing out that SEC actions against New Jersey, Illinois, and Harrisburg all cited the importance of issuer disclosure training, while the more recent Wenatchee case made the same point for underwriters.

“The key is that written disclosure controls and training serve not only to enhance the quality of disclosure but also to establish a defense were misleading disclosures to occur,” he said.

McNally said the National Association of Bond Lawyers has undertaken a project aimed at providing guidance to the market on that very issue, and that it is likely to be available in the first quarter.

Another issue the SEC might explore is issuers’ failure to disclose deferred infrastructure maintenance, according to McNally. Governmental Accounting Standards Board accounting and reporting standards require municipal entities to report the true cost of unmade repairs, but governments are not actually bound to adhere to GASB standards unless they want a clean audit opinion. Issuers that say they are following the GASB standards, however, must do so or they could face fraud charges.

John Grugan, an attorney with Ballard Spahr LLC, said 2014 could be notable for an increased enforcement scrutiny on underwriters for shoddy due diligence, as well as additional investigations of “gatekeepers” such as lawyers and accountants.

“The SEC already has provided some indications about the areas it will focus on in 2014,” Grugan said. “The SEC, for some time now, has highlighted its enforcement actions against gatekeepers, such as lawyers, audit committee members, and accountants, but recently the SEC increased its scrutiny of underwriters and named underwriters as defendants in several cases in which [it] claims greater due diligence should have been undertaken. Additional enforcement actions charging gatekeepers can be expected as the SEC continues to dedicate additional resources to its municipal securities investigations.”

“Similarly, as the city of Harrisburg matter illustrates, the SEC now is examining secondary market disclosures, and it seems certain that the SEC will dedicate similar energy to its review of continuing disclosures,” he said.  “Further, the SEC announced a renewed focus on accounting fraud this fall, and this focus complements the SEC’s already-established enforcement efforts with respect to pension plan accounting and pension funding and related disclosures.  Additional investigations in these areas seem likely, as well.”

Municipal Advisors

While it seems clear the SEC is prepared to take a hard line on issuer and underwriter disclosures, as well as unfair pricing and pay-to-play violations as they occur, what is less certain is how the enforcement division will interact with the municipal advisor community.

MAs must register or re-register with the SEC beginning in July under the commission’s registration rule, which was approved in September. The rule itself becomes effective Jan. 13, but MAs have had to be registered under a temporary rule and have owed a federal fiduciary duty to their clients since the passage of Dodd-Frank in 2010.

Gaunt said the SEC could bring charges against MAs who break the fiduciary duty, and forthcoming rules from the Municipal Securities Rulemaking board will add specificity to the law. The MSRB has said one of its first priorities in 2014 will be a MA-specific fiduciary duty law.

Robert Doty, president and proprietor at municipal bond consulting firm AGFS, said he expects the SEC to flex its muscles in the MA space, but possibly not based on the basis of fiduciary duty.

“I would expect there to be enforcement actions against municipal advisors,” Doty said.

Dodd-Frank contains a broad antifraud provision that applies to muni advisors, Doty said, which could allow the SEC to take action. But other experts viewed the probability of enforcement cases against MAs as less likely.

“This is a whole new registrant population,” Greenberg said. “I think this may present opportunities for enforcement actions down the road.”

The coming year might be too soon for the SEC to take such action in the absence of MSRB rules, she added.

“It’s something that people should be on the lookout for down the road,” Greenberg said.

Maco agreed that the time for tough action against MAs is probably further away than the coming year, “The greater activity should be on guidance,” he said. “This is just the beginning. There is a lot more to come.”

Once the MSRB has written rules for the fiduciary duty, supervision, and gifts and gratuities, then the SEC might be more inclined to step in, according to Maco.

“It will probably be a few years,” he predicted.

Greenberg also said market participants should keep an eye on the possibility of enforcement actions against public-private partnerships after the South Miami enforcement case. In that case, the SEC took the city to task for not disclosing that the tax-exempt status of the bonds it used to fund a parking facility might be compromised.

P3s are growing in popularity in the U.S. particularly in Texas, Florida, and Virginia. The line between public and private use can get blurry, and that could be dangerous for municipalities, developers, officials, and other transaction participants who fail to be very straightforward about any tax issues they might have.

“As more of these deals get done, it presents a risk,” Greenberg said.

The coming year may also be a deciding one for a number of convicted bid-riggers, following the successful appeal and overturned convictions of a trio of General Electric bankers in November.

Dominick Carollo, Steven Goldberg, and Peter Grimm escaped prison on the grounds that the federal prosecutors did not move quickly enough to indict them for alleged fraud committed near the turn of the millennium, two of three judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled.

Former UBS AG bankers Peter Ghavami, Gary Heinz, and Michael Welty were convicted in August 2012 as part of the same government investigation, and their lawyers are currently reviewing the appeals court’s decision to see how it might be applicable to their case. A key party, CDR Financial Products founder David Rubin, was also convicted and is scheduled for sentencing next month.

Anthony Sabino, a Mineola, N.Y., white-collar defense attorney and St. John’s University law professor, said the overturned verdicts could open up a host of possibilities for the other convicted men.

“Frankly, I’m worried that this ruling will weaken future white collar crime cases because it draws a premature line as to when a conspiracy stops,” Sabino said. “Sure, most bad guys go for the fast buck, but this holding almost encourages crooks to be patient. Only time will tell.”

The ruling “opens up the door to a number of procedures to toss out their convictions, purely on the legal grounds at the heart of this case,” he added.

Sabino noted that even previously convicted men who took plea bargains have been freed in similar circumstances, such as when some Wall Street floor traders were set free following the Second Circuit’s decision in U.S. v. Finnerty in 2007.

U.S. Department of Justice attorneys have been silent on its plans for the muni bid-riggers, declining multiple requests for comment.

BY KYLE GLAZIER

DEC 30, 2013 11:33am ET




FINRA Fines Barclays $3.75 Million for Systemic Record and Email Retention Failures.

WASHINGTON – The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) announced today that it fined Barclays Capital Inc. $3.75 million for systemic failures to preserve electronic records and certain emails and instant messages in the manner required for a period of at least 10 years.

Federal securities laws and FINRA rules require that business-related electronic records be kept in non-rewritable, non-erasable format (also referred to as “Write-Once, Read-Many” or “WORM” format) to prevent alteration. The Securities and Exchange Commission has stated that these requirements are an essential part of the investor protection function because a firm’s books and records are the “primary means of monitoring compliance with applicable securities laws, including antifraud provisions and financial responsibility standards.”

FINRA found that from at least 2002 to 2012, Barclays failed to preserve many of its required electronic books and records—including order and trade ticket data, trade confirmations, blotters, account records and other similar records—in WORM format. The issues were widespread and included all of the firm’s business areas, thus, Barclays was unable to determine whether all of its electronic books and records were maintained in an unaltered condition.

Brad Bennett, Executive Vice President and Chief of Enforcement, said, “Ensuring the integrity, accuracy and accessibility of electronic books and records is essential to a firm’s ability to meet its compliance obligations. The format errors in this case made it nearly impossible for Barclays to verify that these key materials remained in an unaltered condition.”

FINRA also found that from May 2007 to May 2010, Barclays failed to properly retain certain attachments to Bloomberg emails, and additionally failed to properly retain approximately 3.3 million Bloomberg instant messages from October 2008 to May 2010. In addition to violating FINRA, SEC and NASD rules and regulations, this adversely impacted Barclay’s ability to respond to requests for electronic communications in regulatory and civil matters.

Finally, Barclays failed to establish and maintain an adequate system and written procedures reasonably designed to achieve compliance with SEC, NASD, and FINRA rules and regulations, as well as to timely detect and remedy deficiencies related to those requirements.

In concluding this settlement, Barclays neither admitted nor denied the charges, but consented to the entry of FINRA’s findings.

The investigation was conducted by Eric Adams and Katrina Laperuta, under the supervision of Michael Choi and Richard Best.

Investors can obtain more information about, and the disciplinary record of, any FINRA-registered broker or brokerage firm by using FINRA’s BrokerCheck. FINRA makes BrokerCheck available at no charge. In 2012, members of the public used this service to conduct 14.6 million reviews of broker or firm records. Investors can access BrokerCheck at www.finra.org/brokercheck or by calling (800) 289-9999. Investors may find copies of this disciplinary action as well as other disciplinary documents in FINRA’s Disciplinary Actions Online database.




Banks to Revamp Leveraged Muni Funds After Volcker Curbs.

Wall Street banks are trying to prevent the Volcker Rule from forcing them to wind down funds that use borrowed money to bet on the $3.7 trillion municipal-bond market.

The rule, named for former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker and approved by regulators last week, limits banks’ ability to run investments known as tender-option bond funds. The investments form a $70 billion segment of the local-debt market, according to the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association. The funds issue short-term securities and use the proceeds to buy longer-maturity local-government obligations, profiting from the difference in interest rates.

The purchases help lift demand for tax-exempt debt by giving investors a way to make leveraged bets on munis. Banks are searching for ways to restructure the funds to keep them in compliance with the law, which goes into effect in 2015.

“This affects trading desks and investors alike and they are working to find a solution,” said Vikram Rai, a municipal-bond analyst with Citigroup Inc. in New York. “There could be some restructuring that could happen so that business is continued as usual.”

Banks create tender-option bond funds for institutional investors seeking higher returns from munis, which pay lower yields than other debt because their interest is exempt from federal income tax. The vehicles issue short-term debt to money-market funds and use the proceeds to buy securities. Some of the investment returns go toward repaying the short-term debt, with investors pocketing whatever is left over.

The debt is typically backed by banks, which agree to repurchase it, so it can be sold at low interest rates to money-market funds.

The new regulations don’t take effect until mid-2015. Sifma, the New York-based trade group that represents banks and investors, is researching ways to allow the funds to keep operating once the new rules kick in.

“Sifma is in an exploratory phase now, working with sell-side and buy-side Sifma members to come up with a solution,” David Cohen, managing director and associate general counsel at the group, said in an interview. “We expect to be able to do that.”

Citigroup’s Rai said he expects that such changes will be found, and he doesn’t anticipate that funds will be required to unwind their investments.

“I don’t think we’ll see any forced selling,” he said.

One potential option would be for banks to bring in a third party to take over the job of backstopping the short-term debt issued by the funds, J.R. McDermott, head of short-term and liquidity products at New York-based Morgan Stanley, said on a conference call yesterday.

Lawyers are also examining whether the funds are permissible under certain exemptions in securities laws, he said.

“A lot of this is really in discovery mode right now, there’s not a lot of solutions in the marketplace,” McDermott said. “Everybody is obviously treating this with the utmost of urgency.”

By William Selway and Brian Chappatta  Dec 17, 2013

To contact the reporters on this story: William Selway in Washington at wselway@bloomberg.net; Brian Chappatta in New York at bchappatta1@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Stephen Merelman at smerelman@bloomberg.net




Volcker Rule Shows Its Wide Reach.

Banks Scramble to Reshuffle Their Portfolios

The effects of the week-old Volcker rule are being felt thousands of miles from Wall Street as small and midsize banks begin to sell debt. Other institutions are looking for new ways to finance muni bonds.

Financial institutions and investors are scrambling to line up a new way to finance municipal-bond investments, with the week-old rule set to curtail banks’ dealings in so-called tender-option bonds—a $75 billion niche of the market for debt issued by cities, states and local governments.

Meanwhile, more than a dozen small and midsize banks likely will need to sell collateralized debt obligations under a Volcker rule provision limiting certain risky bank investments, according to analysts. Zions Bancorp of Salt Lake City said Monday it would have to sell some CDOs, and that it would take a $387 million charge to write down the value of the securities.

Zions’ move shows that five years after the financial crisis, some banks continue to hold significant chunks of risky, hard-to-value assets on their books, fueling uncertainty among investors about their true financial health.

The developments are the latest fallout from the formal adoption last week of the Volcker rule limiting risk-taking by federally insured depository institutions.

The rule, part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial regulatory overhaul, will force giant banks to rethink virtually every aspect of their trading activities. Many banks already have sold, wound down or spun off restricted activities such as proprietary-trading desks that make wagers with the bank’s own money.

But the rule also is forcing changes at institutions thousands of miles from Wall Street, validating fears that unintended consequences from the rule could harm the financial industry and the U.S. economy.

“Regulators have been as methodical as they can be,” said Clifford Rossi, a finance professor at the University of Maryland’s business school. “But it’s a daunting task for regulators to think through every aspect to make sure there isn’t some hidden risk that they hadn’t thought of.”

In a tender-option bond transaction, banks, hedge funds and others use short-term borrowings to fund the purchase of long-term muni bonds. The hope is that they will profit from the difference in the interest they pay lenders—often money-market funds—and what they earn on the muni bonds.

The market is a fraction of the $3.7 trillion municipal-debt universe, but the debt has been popular with large investment firms such as OppenheimerFunds, Nuveen Asset Management and Eaton Vance, which often used the debt in leveraged strategies that aim to boost returns using borrowed money.

The Volcker rule, adopted in response to the 2008 financial crisis, will end large banks’ participation in tender-option bonds as they are currently structured, which likely will reduce trading and curb the issuance of new bonds, said critics. Existing deals may have to be unwound.

Banks will be working “feverishly” to come up with other options for financing municipal bonds, said Margaret Sheehan, a partner at law firm Ashurst LLC who argued for an exemption on behalf of banks including J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Wells Fargo & Co. and Deutsche Bank AG.

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association is forming a working group to find another way for its members to use leverage to invest in municipal debt, said David Cohen, managing director and associate general counsel at Sifma.

The trade group had said in its comment letter to regulators in February 2012 that “a disruption of tender option bonds will disrupt the municipal market.”

Tax-exempt money-market funds have been the main buyers of floating-rate debt issued under tender-option bond programs, comprising 20% or more of some funds’ assets. Assets in these types of money-market funds have shrunk to $257.4 billion from a peak of $483.8 billion, said Peter Crane, president of Crane Data LLC. The pool of investments that money market-mutual funds are able to buy has been shrinking, he said.

Banks and their attorneys are poring over the 953-page Volcker rule, which limits bank investments in CDOs backed by trust-preferred securities, or Trups.

Many small institutions issued the securities before the financial crisis through CDOs, which pooled the securities with those issued by other banks. The banks that acquired them saw them as a good investment partly because of steady interest payments they stood to receive.

Zions’ projected write-down means that it is currently valuing at least some of its CDOs above fair value, reflecting the price at which it could sell them in the market. The write-down stems in part from a change in the bank’s accounting treatment for the investments.

“This is not something that we had anticipated, nor do we think we reasonably could have anticipated based on what was in the proposed rule,” Zions Chief Financial Officer Doyle Arnold said on a conference call with investors Monday.

Most other banks probably won’t have to take significant write-downs, banking analysts said, in part because unlike Zions they don’t have CDOs they were intending to hold until they matured. The Volcker Rule’s requirement to sell those CDOs forced Zions to reclassify them, in a way that required the bank to re-value them and record part of its write-down.

Kevin Petrasic, a partner with the law firm Paul Hastings LLP who is advising banks on the Volcker rule, said the challenge for banks will be avoiding a “shotgun divestiture” of assets.

“What institutions will be doing is trying to figure out optimal timing,” he said.




Outlook 2014: Municipal Advisor Regulation to Dominate 2014.

Municipal advisor regulations are likely to be the focus of intense debate in 2014, as the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board labors to release rules and broker-dealer groups continue to push for interpretations favorable to underwriters.

Dealer groups, non-dealer financial advisors, securities lawyers, issuer groups, and regulators all expect the implementation of MA rules to take center stage in the coming year. They don’t anticipate much muni securities legislation in Congress.

The Securities and Exchange Commission released its MA definition in registration rules in September, finally fulfilling a mandate handed down by the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010. But even with the SEC’s work substantially complete, 2014 could be the “year of the municipal advisor” as various groups jockey for position to lobby regulators and rally public opinion to their sides.

MSRB chairman Dan Heimowitz said the board will give priority to MA rulemaking during the year, his last with the self-regulatory organization.

“It’s going to be the focus of a big part of our time in 2014,” Heimowitz said in a recent interview.

An initial milestone that could come up in the first quarter of 2014 is the MSRB’s release of a fiduciary duty rule, the cornerstone of the Dodd Frank mandate. The law places this duty on all firms or individuals giving particularized muni bond or derivatives advice to a municipal entity, meaning that municipal advisors must put the interest of issuers and other municipal entity clients ahead of their own.

Many MSRB municipal advisor rules were written two years ago when the SEC released a draft rule that it was forced to revise amid industry criticism that the language was too broad. Heimowitz and MSRB executive director Lynnette Kelly have said that the previously developed rules create a good base for the development of updated ones, including for the fiduciary duty requirement.

“We have a substantial amount of the board work done toward getting a draft out,” Heimowitz said.

Once that rule is out and is approved by the SEC, the board could turn to work on other rules governing other MA conduct, such as supervisory requirements and limits on gifts, gratuities, and political contributions, Heimowitz said. The professional qualifications exam for MAs is something he highlighted as being much helped by the work of the MSRB staff. A rule dictating that is unlikely to be out this year, though “we hope to make a substantial amount of progress,” he said.

Susan Collet, senior vice president of government relations at the Bond Dealers of America, agreed that the dialogue about MA regulation will now shift heavily to the MSRB, but said the SEC might still feel the need to chime in if it feels further interpretations or guidance are necessary.

Almost immediately after the SEC unanimously approved its MA definition, dealer groups and non-dealer FAs began sniping back and forth over its workability. Dealers have taken the position that the rule will restrict their abilities to offer certain types of advice to issuers at the risk of being unable to do underwriting business with that issuer, while non-dealer FAs maintain that the rule contains enough exemptions to prevent necessary communication between issuers and underwriters from being impeded.

Continued disagreement about what the rule, which takes effect on Jan. 13, does or does not allow is likely to prompt more guidance from the SEC.

“It may not be the last we hear from them,” Collet said.

Collet added that she didn’t expect quick action from the MSRB, but that dealer firms will be putting together compliance regimes in the opening weeks of 2014.

Leslie Norwood, associate general counsel and co-head of municipal securities at the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, said the dialogue about the rule is likely to continue as firms begin to implement the SEC rule, especially between the industry and the MSRB. Heimowitz has said the board plans to provide for public comment on all its MA rulemaking, and may utilize an expanded 60-day comment period on some rules.

“We feel this rule will take up a lot of the year,” Norwood said of the MA regulations. “The MSRB has a lot of work to do.”

Norwood said that SIFMA will continue efforts aimed at making sure non-dealer advisors and dealer-affiliated advisors have to play by the same rules.

“It’s going to be our goal to make sure there is a level playing field,” she said. Dealers claim their advisory firms are subject to all of the MSRB rules while MAs are mostly waiting for the MSRB rules. They are already subject to a fiduciary duty and to the MSRB’s Rule G-17 on fair dealing.

Jeanine Rodgers Caruso, president of the National Association of Independent Public Finance Advisors, agreed that the SEC would probably have more to add to the conversation on MA regulation. Caruso said she expects dealer groups to look for changes to the SEC rule.

A draft letter circulated to SIFMA members earlier this year indicated that the group would try to put pressure on federal regulators and lawmakers to alter or reinterpret the rule. The group has not followed through with a public campaign but NAIPFA issued sent an “open letter” to SEC chair Mary Jo White saying they support the rule and do not think changes are needed.

“Broker-dealer groups will continue to push for legislative changes to the municipal advisor rules,” Rodgers Caruso said.

She added that she doubts the MSRB would be able to get some of the key MA rules functioning until late in the year.

“Although the MSRB will likely release various rules, we don’t anticipate that the more complex rules, such as fiduciary duty and fair dealing, will be in place before the third quarter of 2014,” she said.

Robert Doty, president and proprietor of municipal bond consulting firm AGFS, said the MA rules will be a major story in 2014 as the industry adjusts to being regulated for the very first time.

“I really think it’s going to be a major shock to the industry, and I think there will be a lot of fallout from it,” Doty said.

He added that the onset of the regulations will lead to a slow weeding out of MAs who are not qualified or competent. Though there are many good financial advisors providing MA services, Doty said, there are many others who leave much to be desired and there are not enough good ones to serve all the municipal clients who could benefit from non-dealer advice.

Those changes could start in 2014, but will probably take much longer, he said, adding, “I think it’s going to take years.”

As large as the MA rule looms in 2014, there are other potential regulatory events that muni market participants will be watching for. One is the implementation of the Volcker Rule, which received joint approval from the SEC and other federal agencies earlier this month. The final rule contained a ban on proprietary trading, but exempted municipal securities, after several industry groups submitted comments urging that all munis, and not just state and local general obligation bonds, be exempt from the rule. However, the rule doesn’t exempt tender option bonds, causing dealers and other observers to warn that it will hurt the market in the coming year.

TOBs are securities issued by a special purpose trust into which bonds deposited. The trust issues floating rate securities, which are sold to money market funds, and inverse floating rate securities retained by the fund that sets up the trust.

SIFMA and other groups have told the SEC that TOB transactions are far more sound than risky private equity or hedge fund deals. Banks say the bar will hurt the market by reducing liquidity. SIFMA is exploring alternatives to TOB transactions, which is something Norwood’s co-head of municipal securities Michael Decker said will be “a big focus” next year.

William Oliver, an industry liaison with the National Federation of Municipal Analysts, agreed that Volcker could pinch the market next year.

“That’s clearly a potential negative,” he said.

Collet said it is hard to know right now how the Volcker Rule will affect munis, but said it should become clear soon.

“The implications of the Volcker Rule will be more apparent next year,” she said.

Another area of interest is the creation of a best execution standard, which Kelly has said could be proposed for public comment following the board’s January meeting.

The MSRB previously requested comment on whether it should create a best-ex rule, which would require dealer firms to make an effort to execute transactions with prices as favorable as possible for their customers, as required in the corporate bond marketplace. SIFMA and BDA have argued that the illiquid and opaque nature of the muni market makes it unrealistic to expect corporate-style regulation to be efficient, but the MSRB did not embrace SIFMA’s milder “execution with diligence” rule proposal. Norwood said SIFMA looks forward to working with the MSRB on that rule.

Collet said the best-ex proposal will come early next year and is likely to involve all the key market regulators. The SEC would have to approve the new rule, and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority may be involved in the dialogue as the author of a very similar rule for corporate bonds.

“I would expect the MSRB to put something out on that, and the SEC will have a view on that I am sure, as well as FINRA,” Collet said.

Few market participants expect much legislative activity, and one Congressional aide said the securities discussion on Capitol Hill has largely gone quiet in favor of tax issues. Collet said some committees might hold hearings about municipal default and bankruptcy issues as the Detroit saga continues to unfold.

“For securities, I think it will be a fairly quiet year,” Norwood said of the legislative outlook.

Issuers will also be awaiting the fate of money market mutual funds, for which the SEC has proposed reforms intended to curb the systemic risk. The SEC has proposed moving most MMFs to a floating net asset value from the current stable NAV of $1 per share. It also has proposed funds have liquidity fees and gates to discourage redemptions.

The proposals are aimed at preventing runs on MMFs such as the one that occurred during the financial crisis in 2008 when the Reserve Primary Fund “broke the buck” and led investors to pull more than $300 billion from prime money market funds.

Issuer officials have complained that forcing MMFs to adopt a floating NAV would limit the ability of municipalities to use MMFs as an investment vehicle. Other market participants, and even some lawmakers, have also said MMFs are huge holders of muni bonds and the changes could cause a ripple effect through the market. Dustin McDonald, director of the federal liaison center at the Government Finance Officers Association, which has many members who invest in MMF, said the GFOA will be working on this issue along with the MA rule.

Heimowitz and Kelly said that the MSRB will continue to expand its outreach programs in 2014. Beyond rulemaking, the MSRB is active in investor and issuer education. Heimowitz said the board will be holding outreach events in both Atlanta and Chicago this year. Kelly said the group will probably ramp up its new media efforts to evolve beyond solely printed materials.

“We are spending a lot of time on videos,” Kelly said. “That is really a new component of our education program.”

The board will also host seminars and webinars on different topics, the MSRB leaders said.

–Mike Cherney

BY KYLE GLAZIER

DEC 26, 2013 10:41am ET




SIFMA Releases Best Practices For Broker's Brokers.

WASHINGTON — The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association has released some best practice guidance designed to help firms comply with the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board’s Rule G-43 on broker’s brokers.

Rule G-43, which was approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission in June 2012 and became effective on Dec. 22, 2012, affirms a broker’s broker’s duty to make a reasonable effort to obtain a fair and reasonable price for municipal securities and reminds selling and bidding dealers of their fair-pricing obligations. The MSRB also issued a related interpretative notice for dealers using the services of a broker’s broker.

Broker’s brokers serve as intermediaries between broker-dealers seeking to buy and sell municipal securities on behalf of customers. They help provide liquidity in the secondary market.

An alternative trading system is not considered to be a broker’s broker if it meets a series of conditions.

David Cohen, SIFMA managing director and associate general counsel, said the SIFMA guidance originated with the group’s broker’s brokers committee.

“They felt there were some gaps and the market would benefit from some uniform practices,” he said. “We thought it was helpful to develop some uniform practices [in areas] that G-43 was silent on as well as to highlight the fair-dealing obligations of all of the parties in the bid-wanted process.”

The guidance, for example, stresses that if dealers selling munis use the bid-wanted process for price discovery, with no intention of selling the bonds through the process, they run the risk of violating Rule G-17 on fair dealing.

It also warns of possible G-17 violations from the practice of “pennying up,” under which a dealer selling munis does not provide a competitive bid prior to the collection process, and then purchases the munis afterward for its own account at prices exceeding the high bid obtained by the broker’s broker by a very small amount.

In addition, SIFMA says a selling dealer may want to make a broker’s broker aware that it will be in competition with the broker’s broker “to avoid any appearance of impropriety should the selling dealer decide to internalize the bid without executing the sale to the high bidder in the bid-wanted” process.

BY LYNN HUME

DEC 16, 2013 4:35pm ET




Public Officials Beware: The SEC Will Hold You Liable.

The Securities and Exchange Commission is making it clear: Government leaders who issue misleading financial information are putting themselves at risk.

Several recent actions by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against states and municipalities have highlighted the potential risk to government leaders who fail to disclose financial information on a timely basis or who issue information that might mislead investors. And the risk goes beyond liability for their jurisdictions: In some cases the federal regulator could hold public officials personally liable.

This March, the SEC charged the state of Illinois with securities fraud for misleading investors about serious problems with the state’s pension fund. A month later, the SEC accused the city of Victorville, Calif., a city official, the related Airport Authority and the city’s bond underwriter of securities fraud in connection with a $13.3 million bond sale in 2008. In May, the SEC brought actions against the cities of South Miami, Fla., and Harrisburg, Pa., alleging that investors were harmed by incomplete and misleading financial disclosures. And in July the SEC accused the city of Miami and its former budget director of securities fraud.

In a warning to government leaders across the country issued in connection with the Harrisburg case, the SEC took the unusual step of issuing a strongly worded report that clarifies and strengthens disclosure requirements under federal securities laws. That report explicitly highlights the risk to government officials of being held personally liable for securities fraud in connection with secondary market trading of municipal securities.

That was not an idle threat, as the charges of security fraud against the city of Miami and its former budget director demonstrate. The SEC alleged that the former budget director had sought to deceive investors and bond-rating agencies regarding the city’s financial health by transferring funds from other city accounts to hide deficits in the city’s general fund. The SEC also alleged that Miami had made material misrepresentations in its 2007 and 2008 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and in communications with rating agencies in 2009.

The SEC’s actions come at a time of increased public focus on the strength of the municipal bond market. Investors have been attracted to municipal bonds because they were seen as relatively safe and in some cases had tax benefits. But as the 2008 financial crisis spread, the financial contagion quickly had an impact on state and local tax bases, with a devastating effect on the financial positions of states and municipalities. Because of the risk of harm to investors in municipal bonds, the SEC has turned an increasing focus on state and local governments — and on their leaders and executives.

What does this all mean for state and local government officials?

• It’s never been more important to create — and maintain — institutional awareness of continuing disclosure obligations. States and municipalities should have complete and updated securities disclosure policies in place, and they should regularly train relevant employees and officials on the policies and related legal requirements under the federal securities laws.

• The CAFRs and Material Event Notices required under Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board rules and other continuing disclosure obligations must be filed on a timely basis.

• Government leaders and executives must be mindful of their obligations under federal securities laws, including the risk of personal liability for securities fraud. Public statements on financial matters should be balanced, measured and accurate.

The SEC’s recent actions highlight a sea change in the agency’s approach to enforcement regarding state and municipal securities issuers. Government leaders and executives should embrace the SEC’s recent actions as a teaching moment — an opportunity to recalibrate their understanding of their responsibilities under the federal securities laws.

BY IVAN KNAUER,JOHN SNODGRASS | DECEMBER 19, 2013




NAIPFA Issues MA Rule Guide; GFOA to Offer Training.

A group of non-dealer advisors on Wednesday released a guide for issuers and municipal advisors, saying it is designed to clear up misconceptions about the Securities and Exchange Commission’s municipal advisor rules.

The National Association of Independent Public Finance Advisors posted the four-page guide on its website.

At the same time, the Government Finance Officers Association announced it plans to provide an Internet training course, called “SEC Municipal Advisor Rule: Understanding the Future of the Issuer — Financial Advisor and Underwriter Interaction,” for issuers and public finance professionals on Jan. 15.

The “instructor” for the GFOA course will be John Cross, director of the SEC’s Office of Municipal Securities.

The MA rules, which take effect on Jan 13, require MAs to register with the SEC and to comply with Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board rules. An MA is defined as a firm or person who provides particularized advice about muni bonds to an issuer or other municipal entity. MAs have a fiduciary duty to put their clients’ interests first, before their own.

Explaining the guide, NAIPFA president Jeanine Rodgers Caruso, said: “It is our goal as municipal advisors to protect the interests of issuers, which includes making sure that issuers understand the new regulatory environment, what they can and cannot do, and what their professionals can and cannot do.”

Caruso said that while the SEC rules “may be not perfect, they are not overly burdensome and will achieve the SEC’s goal of protecting issuers.”

The NAIPFA guide provides answers to 16 questions or assumptions made about the rules.

Broker-dealers have complained that the rules will constrain them from providing the kind of advice that they have been giving issuers for years.

NAIPFA disagrees, saying in the guide that a dealer can provide certain advice to an issuer without being considered an MA including, information that is: of a factual nature without subjective assumptions, opinions, or views; not particularized to a specific or type of municipal entity; widely disseminated for use by the public, clients, or market participants other than municipal entities or obligated persons; or educational.

“Issuers can still talk with broker-dealers (i.e. underwriters) or bankers,” NAIPFA said in the guide. “There will, however, likely be a minor shift in terms of the manner in which those conversations occur.”

The communication “will become more formalized than in the past,” the guide said.

For example, a broker-dealer could recommend a type of financing to an issuer without being considered an MA if it meets one of three exemptions: the recommendation is in response to a request to a request for proposals or qualifications, the issuer has engaged the broker-dealer as an underwriter, or the issuer has hired an independent registered municipal advisor and makes the dealer aware of that in writing.

The term independence means the MA must not be, currently or within the past two years, associated with the dealer or underwriter relying on the exemption.

Dealer-financial advisors have complained that they are on an un-level playing field with MAs because MAs are not subject to the same rules that they are, including rules against hiring outside consultants or engaging in pay-to-play practices.

In its guide, NAIPFA says that since 2010 MAs have had a fiduciary duty to put clients’ interests first and have had to comply with the MSRB’s Rule G-17 on fair dealing. The MSRB is developing rules and rule changes for MAs, but that process could take months or even years.

The guide says that, unlike with an underwriter or banker, the role of an MA does not end once debt is issued. Its fiduciary duties extend whenever services are provided and continue for the life of an issue, NAIPFA says.

View the NAIPFA MA Rule Guide at:

http://naipfa.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/MA-Misconceptions-Final.pdf

BY LYNN HUME

DEC 18, 2013 4:13pm ET




What the Volcker Rule Means for the Municipal Market.

One provision of the finalized Volcker Rule could cause headaches for states and localities that issue bonds.

The municipal market received a vote of confidence with the newly finalized Volcker Rule but one provision that eliminates a common bank investment tool could cause some headaches for states and localities that issue bonds.

U.S regulators finalized the rule, part of the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, last week. The new reform restricts certain risky investments (like hedge funds) by banks. The first draft of the rule in 2011 included most types of municipal securities in such trading prohibitions. The final draft last week left them out, a move that “signals a recognition of their importance to public infrastructure creation and economic growth,” said analyst Matt Fabian of Municipal Market Advisers. (Three-quarters of the nation’s public infrastructure funding each year comes from municipal bonds.) This could actually help demand in the municipal market, he added.

But one aspect of the rule could put a damper on investmetn in municipal bonds. In limiting banks’ investments in hedge funds and other high risk vehicles, regulators also included what’s called Tender Option Bonds, or TOBs. These bonds represent a small fraction of the municipal market (about $75 billion of the $3.7 trillion market), and are short term bonds issued to hedge funds and banks to cover long-term investments. Short term borrowing has typically yielded very low interest rates while rates on longer-term bonds has been higher. So, banks hope to pocket the difference between the two rates as profit.

Regulators acknowledge that by limiting this investment option in the market, they are potentially burdening municipal bond issuers. There “may be an increase in financing costs to municipalities as a result of a decrease in demand for the types of municipal securities” typically financed with TOBs, the rule says. Without this financing mechanism, some municipalities may have to offer higher interest rates in order to sell their bonds.

But there is hope, said Thomas Jacobs, an analyst at Moody’s Investor Service. Although some banks will look to unwind these types of investments between now and the July 2015 implementation date for the rule, others will likely be looking for a way to work around the rule. Jacobs views the TOBs as an untended consequence of the Volcker Rule.

“I think someone didn’t want to start providing a lot of exemptions to [the rule] so they’re essentially telling people, ‘You have to find another way to do it,’” Jacobs said. “Once someone finds a way, I can’t think of a reason for a regulator to say, ‘That offends me.’ That violates the spirit of what they’re trying to do.”

BY LIZ FARMER | DECEMBER 18, 2013




Dealer Squeeze Could Be Muni Market's Weakest Link.

Battered by rising interest rates and credit concerns over Detroit and Puerto Rico in 2013, the muni market may face additional obstacles next year as regulatory limits on broker dealers could crimp liquidity.

Such regulations as those stemming from the Dodd-Frank Act and the Basel Accords could discourage broker-dealers at banks from participating in the buying and selling of munis, bond investors and analysts said.

Less broker-dealer participation in the marketplace could limit the market’s ability to steady itself during periods of selling pressure, said Priscilla Hancock, managing director, municipal strategist at JPMorgan Asset Management.

“The biggest restriction we’re going to see impact liquidity is not so much individual buyers, because it still appears to us that banks and insurance companies may buy munis,” she said. “The bigger issue is broker-dealers, who traditionally provide liquidity when there are outflows.”

Matt Fabian, managing director at Municipal Market Advisors, agreed. Major rule changes that restructure many of the ways the muni market does business will ramp up regulatory uncertainty and change the status quo, he said. Although it’s unclear exactly how these, including the Securities and Exchange Commission’s municipal advisor rules and the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board’s plans to propose best-execution rules, will play out in the marketplace.

Dodd-Frank required municipal advisors to be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission and to become subject to Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board rules.

The MSRB is expected to propose a best-execution rule similar to that of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, which would require dealers to use “reasonable diligence” to determine the best venue for trading a security and to trade it so the resulting price to the customer is as favorable as possible given prevailing market conditions.

“It’s regulators taking control of the muni market with the momentum from Dodd-Frank and other post-crisis initiatives, like Basel III,” Fabian said. “It’s going to be harder for dealers to continue to commit capital in our sector. Profits are down, uncertainty is higher, and it becomes more difficult to keep dealers committed to the market. So, if we can get through 2014 with the same number of market participants as we have now, it’ll be a victory.”

Basel III, approved by U.S. regulators in July with staggered effective dates through March 2018, includes standards for how much capital banks have to hold against investments in specific financial products.

The Federal Reserve Flow of Funds report for the third quarter shows that the muni holdings of brokers and dealers have been shrinking since 2010, to $18.3 billion from $40 billion. In addition, the muni market itself has shrunk to $3.69 trillion in bonds outstanding, from $3.72 trillion one quarter earlier.

Traditionally, broker-dealers would step in and buy when muni bond funds sell, Hancock said. They’ve provided liquidity and facilitated customer transactions by making markets through risking their own capital.

But regulations have ramped up pressure on broker-dealers, Hancock added. The Volcker Rule mandated by Dodd-Frank, which was approved this month by federal regulators, restricts banks from trading their own money. Though municipal securities are exempt, tender option bond programs are not, and the rule will compel broker-dealers to limit risk on their own portfolios.

The pressure on broker-dealers will filter out into the market, Hancock said. Rising rates could precipitate outflows from bond funds, which pushes rates higher.

Cheaper bonds should, in turn, generate more demand, driving down rates. And lower rates may prompt issuers to come to market. But then more supply would again put pressure on yields.

But there are forces to counter this cycle, she added. Higher taxes in 2013 could encourage more investing in tax-exempts. Also, higher rates mean less incentive fewer refundings from issuers.

“So, if new-issue supply is limited,” she said, “that’s helpful.”

The muni market won’t enter 2014 with tailwinds, as it suffered through a down year by most measures. For starters, the average muni bond fund returned negative-3.658%, according to Morningstar, Inc.

The Bank of America Merrill Lynch US Municipal Master Index fell over the year to date. It underperformed the Treasury/Agency Index by 28.4 basis points, negative-2.919% against negative-2.635%, according to a Dec. 13 research report.

Demand suffered. Weekly reporting muni bond mutual funds recorded outflows of $55.1 billion through the week of Dec. 11, the worst outflows Lipper FMI has seen. They far outpaced the $15 billion in outflows funds reported in both 1994 and 2011.

Issuance has fallen 14.7% on the year through November to $301 billion, compared with $352.9 billion through the same period last year, Thomson Reuters numbers show.

Damaging credit headlines from Detroit, Chicago and Puerto Rico alarmed investors, particularly retail buyers, and applied an upward pressure to yields.

Triple-A tax-exempt yields on the year through Wednesday rose 93 basis points at the 10-year and 130 basis points at the 30-year. By comparison, the 10-year Treasury yield rose 105 basis points over the same span, while 30-year jumped 85 basis points.

Contemplating these storm clouds, muni participants expanded and contracted the lens when discussing other weak points in the market.

Given the dysfunctional nature of Washington, munis’ bond with Treasuries and the interest-rate cycle remain their biggest issue, said Gene Gard, co-portfolio manager of the Dupree Municipal Bond Fund Family. But muni ratios to Treasuries present good news, he added.

“There’s some cushion there,” Gard said. “As far as municipal ratios to Treasuries, they’re still pretty favorable in that, the ratio is above its historic normal range.”

On the yield curve, the shorter part represents the most vulnerable segment when compared with the long end, said Ashton Goodfield, portfolio manager at Deutsche Asset and Wealth Management.

The yield curve for both tax-exempts and Treasuries should flatten out in 2014, she added, leading to outperformance at the long end.

“We think the short end, at the five-year, is much less attractive,” Goodfield said, “because of absolute yields and relationships to Treasuries, where the ratio’s about 79% five-year and 107% at the long end.”

BY JAMES RAMAGE

DEC 19, 2013 12:03pm ET




GFOA President Tim Firestine Weighs in on New SEC MA Rule.

Last week, GFOA President Tim Firestine weighed in on the discussion among municipal market participants about the SEC’s final rule defining the term municipal advisor. In a Bond Buyer op-ed, Firestine said: “The SEC’s final rule aims to set a clear line between advice and the underwriting of bonds. Differentiating these two practices is key to the implementation of the municipal advisor rule and will encourage best practices by issuers and other professionals, resulting in a stronger municipal market.” The piece goes on to discuss the “vocal opposition, primarily from the broker/dealer community, that this rule will stifle the ability to have important conversations and a flow of ideas between underwriters and issuers.” Mr. Firestine continued, “I believe these concerns are exaggerated, and are unhelpful to having the market move forward with finding appropriate ways to adapt to the new rule.” GFOA members can read the op-ed here.

http://gfoa.org/downloads/FirestineOpEd.pdf




FINRA Solicits Comment on Comprehensive Automated Risk Data System (CARDS) Proposal.

WASHINGTON—The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) issued a Regulatory Notice soliciting comment regarding an innovative proposal called Comprehensive Automated Risk Data System (CARDS). CARDS will involve account reporting requirements that would allow FINRA to collect, on a standardized, automated and regular basis, account information, as well as account activity and security identification information that a firm maintains as part of its books and records.

In its first phase, the CARDS program will increase FINRA’s ability to protect the investing public by utilizing automated analytics on brokerage data to identify problematic sales practice activity. FINRA plans to analyze CARDS data before examining firms on site, thereby identifying risks earlier and shifting work away from the on-site exam process.

“The information collected through CARDS will allow FINRA to run analytics that identify potential “red flags” of sales practice misconduct and help us identify potential business conduct problems with firms, branches and registered representatives,” said Susan Axelrod, FINRA’s Executive Vice President of Regulatory Operations.

FINRA’s Regulatory Notice discusses the CARDS concept without specific rule language, to solicit comments on the appropriate design of CARDS and related costs. The core principles in FINRA’s recently released Framework Regarding FINRA’s Approach to Economic Impact Assessment for Proposed Rulemaking will guide the CARDS rulemaking process and help reduce unnecessary burdens to the industry.

“FINRA’s new Framework will result in a more transparent and rigorous rulemaking process. FINRA will consult with key stakeholders and provide clarity about the objectives and potential impacts of the proposal,” said FINRA’s Chief Economist Jonathan Sokobin.

As currently envisioned, once CARDS is implemented, clearing firms (on behalf of introducing firms) and self-clearing firms would submit in an automated, standardized format, and on a regular basis, specific information relating to their customers’ accounts and the customer accounts of each member firm for which they clear.

FINRA, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, is the largest independent regulator for all securities firms doing business in the United States. FINRA is dedicated to investor protection and market integrity through effective and efficient regulation and complementary compliance and technology-based services. FINRA touches virtually every aspect of the securities business—from registering and educating all industry participants to examining securities firms, writing rules, enforcing those rules and the federal securities laws, informing and educating the investing public, providing trade reporting and other industry utilities, and administering the largest dispute resolution forum for investors and firms. For more information, please visit www.finra.org.




MSRB Enhances Protections for Investors Against Unexpected Changes to Bond Authorizing Documents.

The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) has received approval from the Securities and Exchange Commission to enhance protections for investors in municipal securities against unexpected changes in bond authorizing documents while preserving issuers’ legitimate interest in updating those documents.

The amendments to MSRB Rule G-11, on primary offering practices, generally prohibit municipal securities dealers from providing consent to changes to authorizing documents. The amendments also will enhance transparency regarding the practice of obtaining bondholder consents from dealers, and will take effect February 3, 2014.

The changes seek to ensure that investors are protected from situations in which an underwriter, which may own bonds momentarily during the initial distribution process but does not share the same economic interests as bondholders, could agree to changes to the authorizing documents in lieu of the bondholders. The amendments include several carefully defined exceptions to the prohibition to provide potential options for amending bond authorizing documents where other appropriate safeguards for investors exist.

“We are pleased that the final rule adequately balances the need to protect investors and the need for issuers to update bond authorizing documents,” said MSRB Executive Director Lynnette Kelly.

The change to MSRB Rule G-11 furthers the MSRB’s mission of protecting both investors in municipal securities and the municipal entities that issue them.

View the SEC approval order:

View the regulatory notice:




MSRB Responds to Adoption of Volcker Rule by Federal Regulators.

Alexandria, VA – The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) welcomed the harmonization of treatment of municipal securities under the so-called Volcker Rule on proprietary trading with how municipal securities are treated under existing federal securities laws. As passed, the provisions of the Volcker Rule avoid making artificial distinctions between municipal securities issued by state and local governments and those issued by their agencies or authorities. The MSRB believes that such distinction would not have served the purposes of the Volcker Rule and would have created regulatory complexity due to divergent treatment under the various applicable federal securities laws.

“The MSRB is pleased that the federal financial regulators agreed with the MSRB’s analysis and amended the initial proposal to avoid an unnecessary bifurcation of the municipal market,” said MSRB Chair Dan Heimowitz. “Exemption of all municipal securities as defined by the Securities Exchange Act ensures that the municipal market will not be splintered unnecessarily as a result of the Volcker Rule.”

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 mandated the development of a federal rule to restrict an insured depository institution and its affiliates from engaging in proprietary trading, among other provisions.

In a January 2012 comment letter to the five federal regulators jointly developing the Volcker rule, the MSRB urged that all municipal securities be treated equally under the governmental obligations exemption. The regulatory agencies – the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the U.S. Department of the Treasury Office of the Comptroller of the Currency – adopted a final rule that reflects the MSRB’s recommendation. The rule adopted today becomes effective April 1, 2014.




SIFMA Official: SEC Could be Flexible on MA Rule.

BOSTON — Additional guidance from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission should provide some clarity to how the proposed trading restrictions under its new municipal advisor registration rule apply to municipal issuers, according to a securities industry official.

“The SEC plans some additional guidelines on the rule and that’s really going to provide some flexibility regarding how the rule will apply,” said Michael Decker, a managing director at the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, which represents hundreds of securities firms, banks and asset managers. “We’ve talked with the SEC with regard to the rule, and they seem amenable to some flexibility.”

“Looking as it stands, it puts some pretty severe restraints on bankers to provide deal ideas or comment to a specific issue,” Decker said Thursday at the third annual Massachusetts investor conference at the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center.

Decker expects a statement from the SEC within days.

State Treasurer Steven Grossman gave the keynote address in the morning, citing the conference as a tool for enhanced disclosure. Grossman, a Democratic candidate for governor in 2014, has emphasized expanded disclosure since taking office in 2011. Related moves have included an annual investor conference and frequent investor calls, a new investor website and technical enhancements.

“Federal issues are overriding to all we do,” said Scott Jordan, Massachusetts undersecretary of administration and finance.

Earlier in the day, investors discussed market trends in transportation, higher education and new variable-rate products such as floating rate notes.

Nat Singer, a managing director at Swap Financial Group LLC, said new instruments reflect a changing landscape.

“When I think of the short-term market, it’s the opposite of what our parents told us about how tough they had it, how they had to walk five miles to school through the snow and the rain. Short-term is exactly the opposite,” said Singer. “You used to be able to slap on an insurance policy and sell an asset. You could rate the security with a cheap letter of credit. Then, 2008 happened.”

BY PAUL BURTON

DEC 13, 2013 11:26am ET




Volcker Rule Shift Lets Banks Continue Muni Bond Speculation.

U.S. financial regulations that curb banks’ ability to speculate with their own money included an exemption for the $3.7 trillion municipal bond market after issuers complained the rules could increase borrowing costs.

The Volcker Rule, issued today by regulators, allows banks to invest in securities issued by states, localities and government agencies. A draft version would have barred the practice with debt sold by agencies and authorities. The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board has estimated that such issuers account for about 40 percent of municipal bonds.

The change is a victory for borrowers and municipal securities dealers that pressed regulators to broaden the exemption. Without it, agencies that sell bonds for public works projects said they might have faced higher borrowing costs by eliminating banks as investors.

“That was a potential problem that has been avoided,” said Matt Fabian, an analyst who tracks tax-exempt securities for Municipal Market Advisors, which is based in Concord, Massachusetts.

The ban on most types of proprietary trading — banks using their own money to speculate in securities markets — is part of the Dodd-Frank Act, approved by Congress in 2010 in response to the credit crisis. The limits are intended to prevent another taxpayer-funded bailout. The rules exempt securities that pose less risk than corporate stocks and bonds.

Regulators’ Proposal

Agencies that run water, mass transit systems and school districts often sell municipal debt. In 2011, regulators proposed barring bank investments in such debt. The step drew opposition from bond underwriters as well as government officials, who argued that investments in such securities pose little risk to banks.

Wall Street banks have been closing proprietary trading units in preparation for the rules, and the Federal Reserve gave them until mid-2015 to comply.

Bond underwriter trade groups applauded the decision to allow them to keep investing in municipal securities.

“Had all municipal bonds not been excluded from the rule, the result would have been a more difficult environment for communities raising capital and decreased liquidity in the municipal market,” said Kenneth Bentsen, president of the New York-based Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, which represents banks, in a statement.

By William Selway and Darrell Preston December 10, 2013




MSRB Requests Comment on Continuing Education Proposal for Municipal Securities Dealers.

Alexandria, VA – Following a review of its professional qualification program for municipal securities dealers, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) today requested public comment on a proposal to require dealers to ensure that members of their staff primarily engaged in municipal securities business annually receive training in municipal securities.

The proposed change to the continuing education requirements for dealers set out in MSRB Rule G-3 would require a minimum of one hour of training focused on municipal securities for professionals primarily engaged in municipal securities activities. Currently, dealer firms are required to offer continuing education to their staff based on the firm’s assessment of its overall needs, but there are no existing obligations under MSRB rules to provide targeted training on municipal securities to dealer personnel.

“The MSRB recognizes that many dealers already offer continuing education programs that include municipal securities components,” said MSRB Executive Director Lynnette Kelly. “The MSRB’s proposal seeks to set a minimum baseline for this type of continuing education to ensure that firms consider the particular training needs of staff responsible for understanding municipal securities products and complying with MSRB rules.”

The request for comment seeks to reinforce the need for dealer staff primarily engaged in the municipal securities business to stay abreast of issues that affect their job responsibilities and informed about product and regulatory developments.

The MSRB also today provided notice of planned changes to two categories of municipal securities professional qualification. Upon approval by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the MSRB would no longer require the “Financial and Operations Principal” designation since it is a requirement imposed on dealers by other regulators and therefore duplicative of other regulation. Also, those individuals who have been qualified to engage in municipal fund securities activities, such as sales of 529 college savings plans, by passing a Limited Representative examination, would only be permitted to engage in sales-related activity, pending SEC approval.

The MSRB fosters competency of municipal market professionals and compliance with MSRB rules through professional examinations and continuing education requirements.

Date: December 13, 2013

Contact: Jennifer A. Galloway, Chief Communications Officer

(703) 797-6600

jgalloway@msrb.org




Congressman Asks SEC for MA Rule Clarification.

WASHINGTON — The Securities and Exchange Commission should provide guidance to broker-dealers assuring them that they will not be restricted from giving advice to issuers in their roles as underwriters, a congressman told SEC chairman Mary Jo White in a recent letter.

Rep. Ander Crenshaw, R-Fla., who chairs the House Appropriations Committee’s subcommittee on financial services and general government, wrote to White to express concern that the SEC’s recently-released municipal advisor registration rule will prevent dealers seeking to act as underwriters from giving advice to issuers about bonds for fear of being prevented from underwriting them later.

The MA rule, mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act, imposes a federal fiduciary duty on any entities that provide particularized advice about muni bonds to an issuing authority or conduit borrower, a duty to put the issuer’s interests first, which dealer firms have long held to be incompatible with the role of an underwriter.

The rule takes effect Jan. 13.

“I encourage you to clarify that dealers who declare their roles as bond underwriters when initiating communication with an issuer in compliance with Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board rules, will not be prohibited from underwriting bonds as a result of providing specific recommendations to bond issuers,” Crenshaw wrote.

MSRB Rule G-23 on the activities of financial advisors prohibits firms from serving as financial advisor and underwriter on the same bond issue, but some market participants contend it is unclear if registered MAs under the new regulatory regime would be prohibited from doing the same thing.

The issue has emerged as a central concern for dealer groups, non-dealer advisors, and the National Association of Bond Lawyers, though SEC officials have said the MA rule and G-23 are not the same thing.

The SEC’s MA registration rule allows a dealer firm engaged as underwriter on a bond issuance to provide certain advice about that specific security. The rule also allows an underwriter to provide advice if an issuer has retained and is relying on the advice of its own MA. Many market participants are eagerly awaiting guidance from the SEC before the rule’s effective date.

“A successful negotiated bond issuance relies on communication among the issuer, the underwriter, and other members of the financing team from the earliest stages,” Crenshaw wrote. “Issuers depend on underwriters to provide ideas, analysis, information and proposals that can minimize financing costs for state and local taxpayers. I appreciate your attention to this matter and I look forward to seeing the commission’s interpretive guidance on the MA rule.”

BY KYLE GLAZIER

DEC 9, 2013 4:03pm ET




Oppenheimer’s Sirianni Suspended for Muni-Bond Price Gouging.

David Sirianni, Oppenheimer Holdings Inc. (OPY)’s head municipal bond trader, was fined $100,000 and suspended for 60 days by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority for overcharging customers.

Sirianni marked up bonds as much as 16 percent from July 2008 through June 2009, Finra said today in a statement. New York-based Oppenheimer also was ordered to pay a $675,000 fine and $246,000 in restitution. The brokerage and the trader settled the case without admitting to the allegations, Wall Street’s self-regulator said in the statement.

“Finra has no tolerance for firms or individuals who charge customers excessive markups,” Thomas Gira, Finra’s head of market regulation, said in the statement.

The investigation involved 89 transactions in which the brokerage added more than 5 percent to the cost of the bonds, Finra said. Oppenheimer didn’t disclose the markups to its customers, according to the regulator. The firm’s supervisory system didn’t flag the trades for review because it looks at same-day markups and in these cases the bonds were held at least overnight, Finra said.

Oppenheimer altered its procedures to make sure that customers get fair prices on municipal bonds, according to Mary Beth Kissane, a spokeswoman for the firm at WalekPeppercomm. Finra’s claims involve a small number of trades, she said.

Sirianni declined to comment when reached by phone.

In one instance cited by the regulator, Oppenheimer bought Dowling College revenue bonds for 52.35 cents on the dollar on Dec. 9, 2008, and then sold them the next day for 14 percent more. On Dec. 11, Oppenheimer bought more securities of the Oakdale, New York-based college for 52.85 cents and 52.5 cents, which it flipped at a 13 percent markup.

Oppenheimer’s stock fell 0.8 percent today to $23.28.




Judge Blocks Auction-Rate Arbitration against Goldman.

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Goldman Sachs Group Inc has won a court order blocking a North Carolina utility from moving forward with an arbitration before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority over the extent the bank misled it about auction-rate securities.

U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer in Manhattan entered a preliminary injunction Monday preventing North Carolina Municipal Power Agency Number One from proceeding with the arbitration.

In making his ruling, Engelmayer pointed to decisions earlier in 2013 by two different judges in New York presiding over similar cases over auction-rate securities, in which the arbitrations were blocked because of forum selection clauses in broker-dealer agreements.

“The court agrees with their analysis and reasoning; and applies them here,” Engelmayer wrote.

Lawyers for Goldman and the North Carolina utility did not respond to requests for comment.

The case was one of a number filed in the wake of the global financial crisis of 2007 and 2008 by large institutions and investors seeking to bring cases before FINRA.

While arbitration has historically been seen by critics as defense-friendly, some plaintiffs viewed FINRA as attractive because of the speed it hears cases and the difficulty defendants face in overturning an arbitration award on appeal.

Of the 10 largest U.S. securities arbitration awards, seven were issued since 2008, according to Securities Arbitration Commentator Inc.

The case against Goldman stemmed from the North Carolina utility’s issuance of $149.7 million in auction-rate securities underwritten by the bank.

Auction-rate securities were a type of bond in which interest rates were set through bidding by investors. The market for the securities froze in February 2008 when banks ceased propping it up with support bids.

The agency, which provides wholesale power to 19 cities in North Carolina, filed the arbitration in December 2012 accusing Goldman of misrepresenting its role in supporting the market.

The bank, through lawyers at Sullivan & Cromwell, subsequently filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block the arbitration.

Among other arguments, the bank contended that the North Carolina utility waived its right to arbitrate by signing a broker-dealer agreement containing a forum selection clause requiring disputes to be litigated in federal court in New York.

‘PRECLUDE ARBITRATION’

In a 17-page decision, Engelmayer said the agreement “provides ‘positive assurance’ that the parties intended to preclude arbitration.”

Engelmayer also found the auction-rate securities issuance “constitutes a ‘transaction contemplated’ by the broker-dealer agreement and, as such, falls within the scope of the forum selection clause.”

He said the claims were also tied to the broker-dealer agreement. Goldman acted not just as underwriter but also broker-dealer, he said.

“NCMPAI cannot wish away the terms of the broker-dealer agreement when its claims are based on Goldman’s actions as a broker-dealer,” Engelmayer said.

The ruling follows a similar case in which Goldman blocked an auction-rate securities arbitration brought by Golden Empire Schools Financing Authority and Kern High School District in California.

Engelmayer relied in large part on that case, decided by U.S. District Judge Richard Sullivan in February, as well as a decision in May blocking an arbitration by a related North Carolina utility against Citigroup Inc.

The claimants in both Goldman cases and the Citigroup dispute are all represented by James Swanson, a lawyer at Fishman Haygood Phelps Walmsley Willis & Swanson.

The firm has brought several other big cases before FINRA against banks related to auction-rate securities. And while judges in New York have tended toward blocking the arbitrations, other courts have been receptive to the arguments of Fishman Haygoods’ clients.

In January, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed Carilion Clinic of Roanoke, Virginia, to proceed with an arbitration against UBS AG and Citigroup over $234 million in auction-rate securities.

A month later, a judge in Minneapolis refused UBS AG’s request to enjoin an arbitration by Allina Health System arising out of $125 million in auction-rate securities it issued in 2007.

The case is Goldman Sachs & Co v. North Carolina Municipal Power Agency Number One, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 13-01319.

For Goldman Sachs: David Braff and Matthew Schwartz of Sullivan & Cromwell.

For North Carolina Municipal Power Agency Number One: James Swanson of Fishman Haygood Phelps Walmsley Willis & Swanson; and Peter Mougey and James Kauffman of Levin Papantonio Thomas Mitchell Rafferty & Proctor.

By Nate Raymond




Bank of America Settles Municipal Bond Rigging Lawsuit.

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Bank of America Corp has agreed to pay $20 million to settle a lawsuit in which investors accused it of rigging bids for municipal securities, court papers filed on Wednesday show.

The settlement is part of litigation that began in March 2008, and that alleged Bank of America and other banks conspired to artificially fix prices and manipulate markets for so-called municipal derivatives.

Plaintiffs including the City of Baltimore, and the Central Bucks School District and Bucks County Water & Sewer Authority in Pennsylvania said this activity violated antitrust law, and caused them to receive lower interest rates than they would have in a competitive marketplace.

In a filing in the U.S. district court in Manhattan, lawyers for the municipal entities called the settlement “significant and of substantial benefit to the class.”

They added that Bank of America faced less liability than other defendants because it cooperated sooner, including by reporting misconduct to the U.S. Department of Justice.

More than one dozen people have pleaded guilty in the Justice Department probe.

Wednesday’s unopposed settlement requires court approval. It follows earlier settlements of $44.6 million by JPMorgan Chase & Co, $37 million by Wells Fargo & Co and $6.5 million by Morgan Stanley, court papers show.

Bank of America, JPMorgan, Wells Fargo, General Electric Co and UBS AG have settled related claims brought by various state attorneys general, the papers show.

The total payout for Bank of America is $82.5 million, including the earlier settlement, court papers show.

Bank of America, the second-largest U.S. bank, is based in Charlotte, North Carolina. A spokesman declined to comment.

The case is In re: Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 08-02516.

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Steve Orlofsky)




FINRA Fines Oppenheimer $675,000 and Orders Restitution of More Than $246,000 for Charging Unfair Prices in Municipal Securities Transactions and for Supervisory Violations.

WASHINGTON — The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) announced today that it has fined Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. $675,000 for charging unfair prices in municipal securities transactions and for failing to have an adequate supervisory system. FINRA also ordered Oppenheimer to pay more than $246,000 in restitution, plus interest, to customers who were charged unfair prices. In addition, FINRA fined Oppenheimer’s head municipal securities trader, David Sirianni, $100,000, and suspended him for 60 days.

Thomas Gira, FINRA Executive Vice President and Head of Market Regulation, said, “FINRA has no tolerance for firms or individuals who charge customers excessive markups. Oppenheimer charged customers unfair prices in numerous municipal securities transactions and failed to properly supervise municipal securities transactions with its customers.”

FINRA found that from July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009, Oppenheimer, through Sirianni, priced 89 customer transactions from 5.01 percent to 15.57 percent above the firm’s contemporaneous cost. In 54 of those transactions, the markups exceeded 9.4 percent. Sirianni purchased municipal securities from a broker-dealer on Oppenheimer’s behalf, held the bonds in inventory for at least overnight, and then made the bonds available for resale at an unfair price to the firm’s customers. Sirianni was responsible for determining the prices paid by customers in the 89 transactions.

Oppenheimer failed to detect the unfair prices charged. Oppenheimer’s supervisory system was deficient because supervisory personnel relied solely on a surveillance report that only captured intra-day transactions to review the fairness of markups/markdowns in municipal securities transactions. From at least 2005 through June 30, 2009, if an Oppenheimer trader purchased municipal securities and held those securities in inventory for a day or longer, the subsequent sales to customers would not populate the firm’s surveillance report or be subjected to a fair pricing review.

In concluding this settlement, Oppenheimer and Sirianni neither admitted nor denied the charges, but consented to the entry of FINRA’s findings.




Ex-GE Bankers Win Reversal of Convictions for Bid-Rigging.

Three former General Electric Co. (GE) bankers won an appeal of their convictions for defrauding cities and the federal government in a bid-rigging scheme involving municipal bonds.

The federal appeals court in Manhattan reversed the 2012 convictions of Steven Goldberg, Peter Grimm and Dominick Carollo on Nov. 26, without immediately providing a reason. The men were ordered released from prison the next day.

The three were found guilty in May 2012 of conspiracy to commit fraud by manipulating auctions for municipal bond investment contracts. U.S. District Judge Harold Baer sentenced Goldberg to four years and Grimm and Carollo to three years in federal prison.

The defendants appealed, claiming the government waited too long to charge them and that Baer should have declared a mistrial after a key prosecution witness disappeared and tried to kill himself before defense lawyers were able to complete their cross-examination. The witness, Adrian Scott-Jones a former broker for Tradition NA, was later sentenced to 18 months in prison for his role in the case.

A three-judge panel of the appeals court reversed the convictions, saying an opinion will be issued “in due course.”

The government claimed that from August 1999 to November 2006 the men gave kickbacks to brokers hired by local governments to solicit bids, win auctions and increase their profits. The charges grew out of a five-year investigation by antitrust prosecutors into the $3.7 trillion municipal bond market.

Bond Money

The case focused on guaranteed investment contracts, which cities buy with the money raised from selling bonds. The arrangement lets the cities earn money on the funds until they’re used for projects such as waste treatment plants, hospitals and roads.

The appeals case is U.S. v. Grimm, 12-04310, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Manhattan). The lower-court case is U.S. v. Carollo, 1:10-cr-00654, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

By Bob Van Voris – Dec 2, 2013 1:19 PM PT




NYT: Playing Pension Games.

Pity the municipal bondholder. Between Detroit’s bankruptcy and the rising concerns over unfunded pensions in Illinois and elsewhere, it has been a rough year for many muni bond investors. While the Standard & Poor’s municipal bond index has recovered from its September lows, it is still off 2.7 percent for the year.

A big problem for investors in this $3.7 trillion municipal market — mostly individuals — is that financial disclosures by states, cities and other issuers of tax-exempt debt can be decidedly inadequate.

Securities laws require issuers of municipal debt to provide the information investors need to make informed decisions when buying or selling these instruments. But lax disclosure practices remain, making it hard to spot signs of problems like those hobbling some states and cities. Disclosures about the soundness of public pensions, for example, can be essential to weighing the health of municipal bond issuers that are responsible for funding them.

Investors aren’t the only ones who need more information. This was on full display last week, when a judge in Detroit suggested in a groundbreaking ruling that the city’s pensioners would not get priority in the city’s bankruptcy, and their retirement pay could be considered an unsecured obligation.

John R. Mousseau, executive vice president and director of fixed income at Cumberland Advisers, a money management firm in Sarasota, Fla., said: “Detroit’s pensioners may be as eligible to take a haircut as the city’s bondholders or vendors. This development should demand more disclosure.”

But better disclosure practices among tax-exempt issuers are slow in coming, investors say.

If issuers make material misstatements or omit information, they can face civil or criminal penalties. The Securities and Exchange Commission has brought eight cases contending disclosure failings by municipal issuers this year.

A large case last March involved accusations that the state of Illinois misled investors about its unfunded pension. From 2005 to 2009, a period when the state issued $2.2 billion in bonds, the S.E.C. said Illinois failed to warn investors about the pension system’s woes and “the resulting risks to the state’s financial condition.”

Among the details missing from the state’s offering statements and filings, the commission said, were those relating to the contributions made by the state to its various pension funds. The commission said investors were not told that the state was contributing far less to the pensions than was required each year. Last week, the Illinois Legislature voted to shore up the pensions by raising the retirement age for some workers and lowering cost-of-living adjustments. The state is facing a pension shortfall of $97 billion.

Illinois settled with the S.E.C., but the agency did not impose fines or penalties. The S.E.C. doesn’t typically exact penalties in such cases, its officials said, because the money would come out of a state or city budget, making matters worse.

Disclosures about pensions in the muni arena rank high as an S.E.C. concern, according to John J. Cross III, director of its Office of Municipal Securities. “Our office expects to take a good hard look at pension disclosure issues,” he said. “It is a major concern because of the magnitude of unfunded municipal pension liabilities and the size and opaqueness of the investment portfolios.”

But the S.E.C. can’t dictate disclosure rules related to accounting, Mr. Cross explained. “We can’t mandate line-item things, but we could highlight more of what we think is appropriate to address material disclosure issues in the pension area as simply and clearly as possible.”

If issuers took the initiative on greater transparency, they’d most likely benefit from reduced borrowing costs, Mr. Mousseau said. Investors who feel confident that they understand the risks in a muni bond will accept a lower interest rate on that security, he explained. “Fewer unknowns in a world fraught with headline risk are a good thing,” he said.

Many people who put money in municipal securities are individual investors looking for a small but safe return, not a big gain on a risky investment. So investors not only need more information from tax-exempt issuers, they also need that information to be relatively simple. That’s the view of Chris Tobe, a public pension consultant and a former trustee of the Kentucky Retirement System. He is also author of “Kentucky Fried Pensions — Worse than Detroit.” He added: “Bad financial practices are a signal of stress down the road and should be disclosed. Investors need to be able to discern between good actors and bad actors.”

A crucial metric that should be found in issuers’ offering statements and filings is one cited by the S.E.C. in the Illinois case: the shortfall in annual contributions that are needed to keep a pension fully funded. Known as annual required contributions, or ARC, many states fail to meet them.

This has the effect of masking an issuer’s financial troubles, Mr. Tobe said. “There almost needs to be a bold statement saying the state is not paying 100 percent of its ARC payments,” he said.

He cites a December 2011 offering statement for $72 million of bonds issued by the University of Illinois. Nowhere does it detail the shortfalls in state contributions to the university system’s pension fund in recent years. Investors seeking this information must go to the Illinois State Universities Retirement System website.

On that website are annual reports and other revealing filings. The fiscal 2012 report shows that for the last five years, Illinois has contributed only 60 percent of the university system’s annual required contributions, on average. With each year the state pays less than the required contributions, the pension fund goes deeper into the hole.

The system has 200,000 members in the defined-benefit plan, 45,548 of whom are retired. The pension’s assets available to pay out benefits fell from 44.3 percent to 42.1 percent in 2012, the report said. The system’s actuarial liability is $19.2 billion.

I asked officials at the Illinois State Universities Retirement System if they planned to offer investors more clarity in future bond offering statements, given the S.E.C.’s recent case against the state.

Thomas Hardy, executive director for the office of university relations, said the pension’s unfunded liability is not the obligation of the university under current state law. But, he said, the Illinois university system’s filings would start including figures on unfunded pension liabilities in its 2015 fiscal year, which begins next July. It will do so to comply with new accounting rules issued by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, he said.

That’s a good thing. But many pension problems remain hidden from view. Bondholders lose because “they don’t get the interest rate they deserve for the risks they are taking,” Mr. Tobe said. “While issuers play these games, it’s investors who feel the losses.”

By GRETCHEN MORGENSON

Published: December 7, 2013




Obama Threatens to Veto Bill Exempting Private Equity Advisors From Registration.

H.R. 1105 is a step backward from the Dodd-Frank progress made to date, administration says

The Obama administration told members of Congress Tuesday that it would veto H.R. 1105, the Small Business Capital Access and Job Preservation Act, which would amend the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 to exempt nearly all private equity fund advisors from registration.

The bill is up for a vote Wednesday afternoon on the House floor.

There is much more to compliance examination survival than knowing all of the rules. It helps to understand why the rules were put in place—and to recognize that examiners are not the enemy.

Differences Between State and SEC Regulation of Investment Advisors

States may impose licensing or registration requirements on IARs doing business in their jurisdiction, even if the IAR works for an SEC-registered firm.  States may investigate and prosecute fraud by any IAR in their jurisdiction, even if the individual works for an SEC-registered firm.

“The legislation effectively provides a blanket registration and reporting exemption for private equity funds, undermining advances in investor protection and regulatory oversight implemented by the Securities and Exchange Commission under Title IV of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act,” the administration told Rep. Robert Hurt, R-Va., the bill’s sponsor, and its 12 co-sponsors.

The administration said that it was “committed to building a safer, more stable financial system,” and that H.R. 1105 represented “a step backwards from the progress made to date, given that private equity fund advisors have been filing reports with the SEC for over a year.”

Moreover, the administration said that the bill’s passage “would deny investors access to important information intended to increase transparency and accountability and to minimize conflicts of interest.” H.R. 1105 “would exempt private equity funds from the disclosure requirements that the Congress laid out in Wall Street Reform to allow regulators to assess potential systemic risks.”

Private equity funds are already subject to less stringent reporting requirements than other types of private funds and to an annual, rather than quarterly, filing requirement.

In addition, private fund advisors with less than $150 million in assets under management are exempted from registration and subject only to recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

By Melanie Waddell, ThinkAdvisor

Washington Bureau Chief

Investment Advisor Magazine




SIFMA Submits Comments to SEC on Issues Regarding Securities Industry Processors, Provides Industry Views on Critical Market Structure Reviews.

New York, NY, December 5, 2013 – SIFMA today submitted a letter to Mary Jo White, chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), in response to her recent statement on the SEC’s review of Securities Industry Processors (SIPs) following the August 22nd SIP outage that led to a halt in trading of NASDAQ-listed securities.

SIFMA commends the SEC’s leadership in examining this vital market structure issue and its call for the self-regulatory organizations (SROs) to work with broker-dealers as they craft proposals for enhancing SIPs. In addition, SIFMA appreciates the SROs’ initial engagement with our members as they formulated their preliminary proposals. SIFMA’s letter provides the Association’s viewpoint on the five workstreams for enhancing SIPs.

SIFMA’s letter also notes more broadly that the August 22nd SIP outage is a symptom of the outdated system by which critical market data is controlled and distributed. SIFMA urges the SEC to work with the SROs and industry members to examine SIPs more broadly and develop action plans that (1) revamp governance, (2) increase transparency in operations, and (3) provide for increased efficiencies.

“The events of August 22nd highlight the critical nature of the SIPs in maintaining fair and orderly markets and the need for regulators and market participants to collaborate to make sure the markets are operationally resilient,” said Randy Snook, executive vice president, business policies and practices. “Further, we believe the time is time is right for a broader review of SIPs to address concerns with transparency and governance. The current system for distributing market data was developed over 30 years ago. It’s time to reevaluate what’s best for the markets.”

SIFMA believes it is imperative that the broker-dealer and investment communities play an active and substantive role with the SROs as the SIP enhancement process moves forward from identifying preliminary concepts to developing concrete proposals. Collaboration between SROs and the broker-dealer community is essential to crafting comprehensive proposals that strengthen the resiliency of equity market structure in the United States.

SIFMA’s letter, which includes detailed comments on the five SIP workstreams identified by the SEC, is available here:

http://www.sifma.org/issues/item.aspx?id=8589946502




MSRB: Advancing Municipal Advisor Regulation.

The MSRB is advancing a regulatory framework for municipal advisors that includes rules for professional conduct, professional qualification examination requirements as well as education and outreach to municipal advisors. In light of the September 18, 2013 final registration rule from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) defining who is a municipal advisor, which takes effect January 13, 2014, the MSRB has prioritized the development of municipal advisor rules in five key areas. They are: fiduciary duty and fair dealing standards of conduct of municipal advisors to municipal entities and obligated persons; supervision requirements for municipal advisory firms and their employees; rules to address the potential for pay-to-play activities by municipal advisors; limitations on gifts and gratuities to employees of municipal securities issuers and other market participants; and duties of solicitors.

The MSRB will seek public comment before proposing rules to the SEC for approval. The MSRB also is continuing to work with the municipal advisory industry to develop a professional qualification exam to establish standards of competency for municipal advisors.




5 Big Regulatory Changes Coming in 2014.

Want to prepare your practice for potential changes in the year ahead? Keep your eye on these five areas

As I attempt to look at what’s on the 2014 horizon in terms of regulation, compliance and other best practices, I can’t overcome the feeling of déjà vu. Or perhaps I am just repeating myself.

Many of the topics here — a fiduciary standard, industry reorganization, arbitration methods — are not new. Yet, after years of effort, the months ahead might finally lead to changes in these hotly debated areas. Or not. Here are my predictions:

1. FIDUCIARY STANDARD

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but a fiduciary will never hurt me.

Acting in the best interest of the client does not have to be to the detriment of the financial advisor. A commission-based product may be in the best interest of the investor. A fee-based product may be in the best interest of the investor. Whether a financial advisor makes a fee or a commission, the financial professional is being compensated for services.

Fiduciaries can break laws and steal client money. Commissioned reps can have the highest of ethics. (And vice versa.) So it is not the label or the law that makes one honest; it is if one is actually honest that counts.

Let’s get beyond the in-fighting. The SEC should adopt a fiduciary standard for all financial services professionals, albeit with allowances for differences between investment advisor representatives and broker/dealer representatives. All financial advisors should have full disclosure of services, fees, conflicts of interest, and act in the best interest of the client. Send the lawbreakers to jail.

2. HARMONIZATION

Brokerage and advisory services are indistinguishable to investors.

Here is my ideal futuristic shape of the industry: We will be under one regulatory regime. No longer will we have the broker/dealer and registered investment advisor industries. There will be one registration for the company, one fee, one filing. One registration for reps, one fee, one grand-slam exam. One full-disclosure document used by all to replace the Form ADV.

Wealth management, life planning, financial planning, asset management, or simple buy-and-sell securities recommendations will be done under one roof. There will be a choice of fee structures, based on client suitability. Some specialist firms will continue to exist — with wealth management on one side of the spectrum and traditional brokerages on the other — but they will all fall under one regulatory scheme. The Financial Advisory and Investment Transaction Services Act of 2023 (FAITS Act) and its rules and regulations will be streamlined. Under this imaginary FAITS Act, some rules will apply for transactional trades, and other rules will apply for services that are advisory in nature — but all under one coordinated act.

Hmmm … I actually made this prediction 10 years ago. So I am adding on another 10 years to my dream regime.

3. ARBITRATION CLAUSES

You may believe arbitration is the civil way to resolve a dispute, but it could bring on the wrath of the state regulators.

When your client wants to pick a fight with you, would you rather get your day in court in front of a jury, or face a panel of arbitrators? It is not uncommon to see mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreements in broker/dealer and investment advisor contracts.

It is not my job, in the space of this article, to counsel you on your choice of forum. Broker/dealers utilize arbitration clauses under the good graces of FINRA. Federally covered registered investment advisors will find the SEC sitting on the fence on this matter. State registered investment advisors may find that these clauses are (or soon will be) prohibited in some states.

The North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA) announced its strong support for the Investor Choice Act of 2013 (H.R. 2998), which would (if passed) prohibit the use of mandatory pre-dispute agreements by broker/dealers and registered investment advisors.

The Investor Choice Act would not in any way prevent investors from voluntarily electing to resolve a dispute through arbitration or mediation after the facts and circumstances of the dispute have been discovered. The Investor Choice Act may die in committee.

The SEC has authority, under the Dodd-Frank Act, to either ban arbitration clauses in advisory contracts or, at a minimum, commence a study of the use of pre-dispute arbitration. The SEC has not acted in the three years since the Dodd-Frank Act was passed, much to the dismay of NASAA.

4. BUSINESS CONTINUITY PLANS

How will you get back up and running if your office becomes uninhabitable? Your files disappear? Your staff can’t get to work? Your phone lines go down?

It has been approximately 10 years since both the SEC and FINRA adopted rules for investment advisors and broker/dealers to implement a business continuity plan (BCP). The BCP addresses events that could cause a significant business disruption and how the business will regain functionality within the shortest possible time span.

Yet, year after year, disaster after disaster (think Katrina and Sandy), financial advisors are still getting caught off guard without a viable BCP in place. The SEC, CFTC and FINRA recently issued a joint advisory to suggest effective practices. The SEC Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations issued a separate risk alert for investment advisors.

5. IDENTITY THEFT

Can you spot the red flags for identity theft and prevent losses from your client accounts?

The Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Red Flags Rule implemented obligations imposed by the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACT Act). Many firms are already in compliance based on this original FTC rule; others firms hesitated to adopt policies, believing the FTC rule did not apply to them.

SEC Regulation S-ID recently implemented provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act, which amended the FACT Act and directed the SEC (and the CFTC) to adopt rules for identity theft red flags. For those firms that now need to come into compliance with the SEC rule, it was effective May 20, 2013, with a final compliance date of Nov. 20, 2013.

The Red Flags Rule requires specified firms to create a written identity theft prevention program (ITPP) that is designed to identify, detect and respond to red flags — patterns, practices or specific activities — that could indicate identity theft.

The Red Flags Rule requires firms to prepare an ITPP if they are either a “financial institution” or a “creditor” and offer “covered accounts.” It’s important to look closely at how the rule defines “financial institution” and “creditor” because the terms apply to groups that might not typically use those words to describe themselves.

An investment advisor who directly or indirectly holds transaction accounts and is permitted to direct payments or transfers out of those accounts to third parties is an example of an SEC-regulated entity that could fall within the meaning of the term “financial institution.”

Investment advisors who have the ability to direct transfers or payments from accounts belonging to individuals to third parties upon the individuals’ instructions — or who act as agents on behalf of the individuals — are susceptible to the same types of risks of fraud as other financial institutions. And individuals who hold transaction accounts with these investment advisors bear the same types of risks of identity theft and loss of assets as consumers holding accounts with other financial institutions. If such an advisor does not have a program in place to verify investors’ identities and detect identity theft red flags, another individual may deceive the advisor by posing as an investor.

By Nancy Lininger




SEC Puts Fiduciary Duty on 2014 Agenda as "Long-term action."

DOL’s fiduciary rule for retirement plans due out in August

The Securities and Exchange Commission is pursuing a rule that would raise investment-advice standards for brokers — just not in the near future.

But that is enough to give fiduciary-duty advocates hope.

The SEC put the rule on a 2014 regulatory agenda that included 43 items.

It was slated for “long-term action” without a specific timetable. Topics in the “proposed-rule stage” and “final-rule stage” were higher on the priority list.

Meanwhile, the Labor Department indicated on its 2014 priority list that in August it would re-propose its fiduciary-duty rule for investment advice pertaining to retirement plans. The measure was first floated in 2010 but withdrawn after fierce financial industry protest that its requirements would drive brokers out of the market for individual retirement accounts.

The SEC took off its list for next year a rule regarding mutual fund distribution fees.

The regulatory outlook, which was released last week by the Office of Management and Budget, covers a time period from now until next October. Neither agency has to follow the agenda strictly.

It can act on items that don’t currently appear.

The Dodd-Frank financial reform law gave the SEC the authority to promulgate a regulation that would require brokers to act in the best interests of their clients when providing retail investment advice — a more stringent standard than the suitability requirement that now governs sales of investment products. Investment advisers must act in the best interests of their clients.

The SEC is conducting a cost-benefit analysis of a potential fiduciary-duty rule.

Although action isn’t imminent on a proposal, one advocate noted that it is one of the few non-mandatory Dodd-Frank provisions that appears on the 2014 regulatory agenda.

“There is real interest in this at the SEC,” said Neil Simon, vice president for government relations at the Investment Adviser Association.

“It is a priority but not a top priority,” he said. “I do believe in time they will proceed.”

The SEC Investor Advisory Committee on Nov. 22 urged the commission to advance a fiduciary-duty regulation. That move, however, didn’t appear to move fiduciary duty up on the SEC’s regulatory agenda.

For 2013, it was listed under the heading of “pre-rule stage” – a designation that is about the same as “long-term action.”

“They’ve been looking at it for long time,” said Nancy Lininger, founder of The Consortium, a compliance consultant for investment advisers and brokers.

“Obviously, it’s not high on the list,” she said. “I thought [the IAC vote] would be the kick in the butt that would get the SEC going, but I guess not.”

The SEC and Labor Department agendas demonstrate that each regulator continues to move at its own pace regarding their fiduciary-duty rules. In October, the House passed a bill that would require the Labor Department to delay its rule until the SEC has acted.

“Maybe extending the timeline just a bit will allow them to get their ducks in a row and line up support for the proposal,” Mr. Simon said.

By Mark Schoeff Jr.




DOL Fiduciary Redraft Likely Out by May.

The Department of Labor’s redraft of its fiduciary rule was said to be on Labor Secretary Thomas Perez’s desk in mid-November, so it’s likely the redraft could be at the Office of Management and Budget by year-end, with a proposed regulation out by April or May, said Brian Graff, executive director of the American Society of Pension Professionals and Actuaries (ASPPA) and the National Association of Plan Advisors (NAPA).

As Phyllis Borzi, assistant secretary of labor for DOL’s Employee Benefits Security Administration, said Oct. 29 at ASPPA’s annual conference, EBSA is coming “very close” to finishing its work on the reproposed rule.

Even if the SEC had a larger budget and more resources, it is doubtful that the Commission would have the resources to regularly examine all RIAs. Therefore, the SEC is likely to continue relying on risk-based oversight to fulfill its mission of protecting investors.

Advertising Advisor Services and Credentials

Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act contains the anti-fraud provision of the statute and ensures that RIAs’ advertising and marketing practices are consistent with the fiduciary duty owed to clients and prospective clients.

In his comments at the Schwab IMPACT conference in Washington, Graff noted the problems he sees with the DOL’s fiduciary reproposal.

“It’s not so much that more people will be fiduciaries” under the proposal, Graff said, “but how they will get paid.” From an enforcement standpoint, DOL will get at the fiduciary problem “by limiting forms of compensation.”

The potential limit on compensation will affect the small-business market in that if a small business “doesn’t have a [401(k)] savings plan, who’s going to sell them a plan if they won’t get paid?”

Another problem, Graff said, is DOL including IRAs in the reproposal—which Borzi has confirmed will happen. If the definition of fiduciary advice is the same for retirement plans and IRAs, the DOL “will not have the authority to enforce” the IRA portion, Graff said, as IRAs are the jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS, he said, has six employees devoted to IRAs.

“If there’s no enforcement teeth, [DOL] could be creating a Wild West.”

By Melanie Waddell, ThinkAdvisor




SEC Loudens Drumbeat On FA Conflict Of Interest, Fee Warnings

The Securities and Exchange Commission loudened the drumbeat on the importance of conflict of interest and fee compliance at a meeting of financial advisory firm internal and external lawyers Friday in Washington, D.C.

Amplifying warnings regularly voiced for months, these two issues are what the SEC sees as the biggest problem areas for advisors, officials with the agency’s Office of Compliance, Inspections and Examinations and the Investment Management and Enforcement Division told the session.

In a rebuke to the industry, OCIE Chief Counsel and Chief Compliance and Ethics Officer Paula Drake said she could never understand the “paranoia” advisory firms have when Enforcement Division people are with OCIE staffers in on-site inspections.

“It is one SEC,” Drake said.

She noted 11 percent to 14 percent of OCIE exams find violations that are referred to Enforcement.

The OCIE executive said the unit is halfway through its plan to have specialized focus exams of 25 percent of the 1,600 private fund advisors who were required to register with the SEC for the first time by the Dodd-Frank Act.

While Dodd-Frank ordered the SEC’s Division of Investment Management to have its own exam staff, Investment Management Division Deputy Director David Grim said the chances of an advisor having an exam by Investment Management or seeing an IM staffer along with OCIE on an inspection are minimal. The primary reason, he noted, is that OCIE has 1,000 examiners while IM only has 10.

“You’re not going to get one of our examiners knocking on your door after [OCIE examiners] are there,” he told the investment advisor attorneys.

The SEC officials spoke during the American Bar Association Business Law Section’s annual fall conference in Washington, D.C.

During the meeting, new SEC Democratic Commissioner Kara Stein said the agency’s Dodd-Frank mandated Office of Investor Advocate is beginning to get established.

“It can be a powerful force for investors,” she said.

Stein said that while the JOBS Act rules have opened the door to mass advertising of hedge funds and other private offerings, it is important that those investment vehicles are only sold to accredited investors who can truly bear the risks.

Speaking to the technology glitches that have roiled the markets, the commissioner said investors need to know a computer error won’t wipe out their retirement accounts.

Recently departed SEC Republican Commissioner Troy Parades told the gathering that interpretive guidance by SEC divisions is not a perfect substitute for rule-making by commissioners because guidance doesn’t have the benefit of public comment before the directives are issued.

NOVEMBER 25, 2013 • TED KNUTSON




Missouri Brings New Case Against Moberly Bond Underwriter.

CHICAGO — The Missouri Secretary of State filed a civil enforcement action against Morgan Keegan & Co. Inc. accusing the firm of securities fraud in its role as underwriter of $39 million of defaulted bonds issued by a Missouri city.

The action is the latest attack on Morgan Keegan’s performance as underwriter of the bonds issued with an appropriation backing from the city of Moberly to finance a sucralose artificial sweetener plant by Mamtek US Inc., a subsidiary of a Chinese firm. The company abandoned the half-built plant several years ago and the city defaulted on the bonds.

Andrew Hartnett, securities commissioner in Secretary of State Jason Kander’s office, seeks in the filing full restitution for Missouri bondholders and a $15 million civil penalty from the firm. It also asks that civil penalties be imposed on 10 individually named defendants who are charged with various counts of state securities violations tied to their work on the bond sale.

The complaint, filed last week, alleges that the defendants failed in their fiduciary duty to “satisfy basic due diligence standards” on the project, its developers and their companies and claims “which would have revealed to Moberly and Missouri investors that Mamtek’s promises were false.”

The civil enforcement action marks an escalation of Kander’s effort to penalize Morgan Keegan. In April, the office issued a cease-and-desist order in a less punitive administrative action seeking full restitution. The new action seeks much stiffer civil penalties and fines, adds new defendants, and provides more documents and communications on Morgan Keegan’s marketing of the bonds.

Morgan Keegan has denied any wrongdoing or responsibility for investor losses, citing the city’s backing on the bonds. The firm filed a complaint in the state courts seeking to dismiss Kander’s administrative action, arguing there’s no factual evidence to warrant it and challenging the commissioner’s authority to impose any civil fines or order restitution under state securities laws.

The new case is a civil enforcement action. It was filed on Nov. 21 in Boone County Circuit Court where the largest single state bondholder is located. In addition to the company, the complaint targets William Kevin Thompson, Richard Temple Murray, Kevin Lee Edwards, Robert Baird, Elizabeth Gail Tyler, Chloe Baker Plunk, Chip Peebles, Kevin Giddis, Casey O’Brien, and Kevin Potter. Morgan Keegan became a subsidiary of Raymond James Financial Inc. in April 2012.

Giddis is president of fixed income capital markets at the firm and the others were bankers, traders, underwriters, or sales professionals. It appears from the filing that all are being represented by Morgan Keegan’s attorneys at Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP.

The complaint accuses the defendants of defrauding their clients by misrepresenting the facts about the offerings, including falsely stating that Moberly had promised to pay for the bonds; and omitting material facts, including that the defendants had not thoroughly investigated Mamtek, the only entity who investors could expect to pay for the bonds.

“Some of the defendants’ acts, practices, and courses of business included providing false information to those defendants who were selling the bonds to Missouri investors which in turn operated as a fraud on those investors,” the filing alleges.

In a statement the firm again firmly denied responsibility for the losses suffered by Missouri taxpayers. It noted the project’s review by local and state officials months before it was hired, the city’s backing, and ratings that supported the bonds.

“The city of Moberly failed to honor its moral obligation to appropriate funds, and passed a resolution changing the credit structure of the documents after default by Mamtek, over a year after the bonds were issued,” the statement read. The firm also noted that criminal charges are pending against Mamtek’s former president.

The new action seeks $6.7 million in restitution for Missouri-based investors, and asks that Morgan Keegan pay $15 million in civil penalties and cover the division’s investigation and prosecution costs. Additional penalties are being sought of between $100,000 and $800,000 from the other named defendants.

The commissioner also asks that Morgan Keegan be blocked from underwriting any further bond issues — beyond those they currently have been hired to manage — until the firm hires an independent consultant to review its due diligence policies and compliance. The consultant would also be charged with making recommendations to ensure the firm meets industry best practices.

The civil enforcement filing marks the latest development in a tale that has drawn the attention of state lawmakers and local, state, and federal regulators, and resulted in a series of bondholder lawsuits that have raised questions over how the project won borrowing assistance and state financial incentives.

The Moberly Industrial Development Authority sold bonds backed by a city appropriation pledge to help finance the sucralose plant in 2010. The firm in August 2011 defaulted on a payment to Moberly needed for debt service and the city informed trustee UMB Bank that it wouldn’t honor its pledge to repay the debt. Mamtek then abandoned the factory.

The bonds had carried an A rating from Standard & Poor’s based upon the city’s pledge. Moberly lost its investment-grade rating from Standard & Poor’s after it declined to make good on its pledge. The sucralose plant bonds are rated D. The trustee auctioned off the assets for about $2 million last year.

Local and state prosecutors and federal regulators have filed a mix of civil and criminal complaints alleging theft, fraud and securities violations against Mamtek’s former head, Bruce Cole, who had told city and state officials the company had operational facilities in China, which it did not.

The trustee and other creditors forced the company into involuntary bankruptcy. Various bondholder lawsuits are also pending against Morgan Keegan. State lawmakers held hearings on the project last year as it had been in line to receive $17.6 million in state subsidies.

In another recent development involving a lawsuit led by a large bondholder, Columbia, Mo.-based Shelter Life Insurance Co., the city settled with bondholders for $95,000. Shelter filed a lawsuit in Cole County Circuit Court accusing Morgan Keegan of securities fraud. It did not name the city but Morgan Keegan moved to bring the city into the lawsuit. The judge then dismissed the city from the case, but the firm filed what’s known as a writ of prohibition with the Missouri Supreme Court challenging the lower court’s decision.

Moberly decided the best course of action was to settle with bondholders given the lengthy challenge that could have ensued as Morgan Keegan sought to bring the city back into the litigation. The bondholder lawsuit had been set for a December trial date but it was put on hold pending the outcome of Morgan Keegan’s challenge.

BY YVETTE SHIELDS

NOV 26, 2013 7:31am ET




MSRB Provides Education for Issuers on Disclosure of Bond Ballot Campaign Contributions.

The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) has prepared a new educational resource to assist state and local governments in understanding the information that will be made public regarding municipal securities dealers’ contributions to bond ballot campaigns and any resulting municipal securities underwriting business. The MSRB began requiring additional disclosures in July 2013 to promote greater transparency surrounding dealers’ involvement in bond ballot campaigns, which secure voter approval for taxpayer-funded public projects.

http://msrb.org/msrb1/pdfs/Public-Disclosure-of-Bond-Ballot-Campaign-Contributions.pdf




WSJ: SEC Weighs Altering Rule on Private Deals.

Individuals With Financial Training Could Buy Into Nonpublic Stock, Bond Offers Without Meeting Income Threshold

Securities regulators are weighing whether to allow financially sophisticated investors with only moderate wealth to buy significant stakes in startups, as part of a review of 30-year-old rules that could ease constraints on investing in private companies.

Currently, only individuals who meet certain wealth or income standards are allowed to invest in private stock and bond offerings that are issued outside the public markets by companies.

But the Securities and Exchange Commission disclosed in a letter to lawmakers that it may alter standards for “accredited investors,” which could allow individuals who don’t meet the income threshold to invest in such deals if they have specialized training in finance, economics or accounting.

“Holding a particular license or degree may provide an individual with the knowledge and sophistication necessary to qualify as an accredited investor,” SEC Chairman Mary Jo White wrote Friday in a letter to Reps. Patrick McHenry (R., N.C.) and Scott Garrett (R., N.J).

Lawmakers seeking the change say it would help fuel demand for private shares of technology firms and other startups. They argue existing constraints have shut out many financially sophisticated investors from some of the fastest-growing market sectors, since shares in private companies are generally available only to investors whose individual net worth is at least $1 million—excluding their primary residence—or who make at least $200,000 annually.

The SEC is expected to update those thresholds as early as next summer, when it is required by law to report to Congress on the issue.

The existing thresholds, which stem from the 1980s and weren’t pegged to inflation, are widely viewed as outdated. The agency sought comment earlier this year on whether the existing net worth and annual income criteria are the best ways to measure financial sophistication, as part of a larger rule proposal. SEC officials also have discussed the idea of determining sophistication based on the amount of money an individual has invested, rather than on their income or wealth levels.

The review comes as the SEC has advanced rules, required by last year’s Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, that aim to make it easier for startups and hedge funds to advertise private offerings, as long as they only sell the investments to accredited investors. About 8.5 million U.S. households currently qualify, though only a small portion of those households participate.

The agency also last month proposed rules allowing startups to raise as much as $1 million using online “crowdfunding” techniques to sell small shares to lots of ordinary investors. The agency is expected to complete those rules next year.

Broadening the standards would likely increase the pool of eligible investors, encouraging more firms to raise money privately at a time when the market for such offerings already eclipses that of public offerings. Last year, companies raised more than $900 billion in private placements, nearly four times the amount raised through public stock offerings, according to a report released by the SEC this summer. The private placements were sold to just 234,000 investors.

Messrs. McHenry and Garrett say the SEC must modernize the accredited-investor criteria in a manner that doesn’t reduce the pool of qualifying investors by simply raising the existing income and wealth thresholds. Last month, they asked the SEC to broaden the standards to include those who work as certified public accountants, financial analysts and licensed securities traders.

“It’s time the SEC abolished its biased policy of shutting out everyday Americans from investment opportunities exclusively reserved for the top three percent,” Mr. McHenry said in a statement Monday. “A modern fix that offers all Americans merit-based access to the benefits of being an accredited investor will level the investment playing field and expand access to capital for aspiring entrepreneurs.”

In her letter Friday, Ms. White told Messrs. McHenry and Garrett that SEC staff have begun a “comprehensive review” of the accredited definitions, and that staff would consider and evaluate “alternative criteria” as part of that review. She acknowledged broadening the criteria the way they envision could boost liquidity for private offerings while also increasing “the extent of the expert review of the issuances.”

Ms. White cautioned that some argue criteria should factor a person’s ability to absorb the potential loss of an investment, and therefore favor standards based on net worth and income. She added it is possible many of the individuals who might qualify based on their professional credentials already meet the existing income and wealth thresholds.

Investor advocates agree the criteria are outmoded. Barbara Roper, director of investor protection at the Consumer Federation of America, said the existing thresholds are “inadequate.”

“We’re looking at ways to improve that definition,” including ways to account for financial sophistication, she said.

By ANDREW ACKERMAN




U.S. Court Questions ex-GE Bankers' Bid-Rigging Convictions.

NEW YORK (Reuters) – A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday questioned the convictions of three former banking executives at a unit of General Electric Co for being involved in a conspiracy to rig bids for contracts to invest municipal bond proceeds.

A three-judge panel for the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York appeared open at times to arguments by lawyers for the executives that the indictments were filed too late and that the convictions should be thrown out.

As part of a broad investigation into the $3.7 trillion municipal bond market, the government had accused the three GE Capital bankers of conspiring with brokers to submit artificially low bids for municipal finance contracts.

Following a three-week trial that ended in May 2012, a federal jury in Manhattan found Dominick Carollo, Steven Goldberg and Peter Grimm guilty of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and to defraud the United States.

The case began after a grand jury indicted the three men on July 27, 2010. Lawyers for the defendants argued that because the contracts at issue were awarded before July 27, 2005, the alleged conspiracies fell outside the five-year statute of limitations.

The government claims the conspiracy continued when the defendants’ employers paid artificially low interest rates to municipalities on their bond proceeds.

Judges on the 2nd Circuit panel on Tuesday peppered the government’s lawyer with questions over how long such payments could be considered as falling within the statute of limitations.

“Is it definite or indefinite?” asked Judge Dennis Jacobs.

Judge Chester Straub also questioned how the conspiracy could be considered ongoing when the co-conspirators were in no position to withdraw from it.

“There is nothing to withdraw from,” he said. “Everything has been accomplished other than the flow of money.”

ECONOMIC BENEFITS

James Fredericks of the U.S. Justice Department’s Antitrust Division said economic benefits continued to flow to General Electric, which was named a co-conspirator in the case.

“If the economic benefits stop accruing, the conspiracy is over,” Fredericks said.

Fredericks said that a ruling for the defendants could hamstring the government in other corporate fraud cases.

Lawyers for the defendants also faced tough questions from the panel. Straub voiced concern over the economic benefits that accrued as a result of obtaining the investment contracts.

Howard Heiss of O’Melveny & Myers, an attorney for Grimm, told the appeals court that the interest payments, which are still being made today, were not acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, but the result of the conspiracy. The government’s interpretation “makes no sense,” he said.

“It means that this conspiracy is ongoing today despite the fact that (the defendants) are in jail,” he said.

The government’s probe into the manipulation of the municipal bond market has led to guilty pleas or convictions of 19 individuals, the government said in July. It has also ensnared such major financial institutions as JPMorgan Chase & Co and Bank of America Corp, which agreed to pay millions in fines to resolve their roles.

Last October, Goldberg was given a four-year prison term, while Grimm and Carollo were each sentenced to three years.

The case is U.S. v. Peter Grimm, et al, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Nos. 12-4310, 12-4365, 12-4371.

(Reporting by Andrew Longstreth; Editing by Howard Goller and Leslie Adler)




MSRB Restates Rule G-29 Interpretive Notice.

The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) today issued a restated interpretive notice to MSRB Rule G-29, on the availability of MSRB rules. As the MSRB has transitioned to using primarily digital communications, the MSRB will no longer be printing and distributing its Rule Book on an annual basis. The MSRB will continue to maintain the “Rules” section of its website, at msrb.org, which contains the current version of every MSRB rule, as well as any related interpretive guidance and resources, and details of any upcoming rule changes. The restated Rule G-29 interpretive notice continues to provide that dealers may make the MSRB’s rules available to customers by a number of other means, including providing access to the MSRB’s website, using printed versions or software products produced by other companies.

To ensure that the digital availability of MSRB rules meets the needs of municipal securities dealers and municipal advisors, the MSRB will provide beginning January 2, 2014, a link on its website to a comprehensive PDF format of the Rule Book that will be updated on a quarterly basis with any new MSRB rules and amendments that have become effective. The PDF version of the Rule Book allows municipal market participants to search the entire library of MSRB rules for particular keywords, and print a full version of MSRB rules effective as of the publication date. However, msrb.org contains the most frequently updated version of MSRB rules, and should be consulted for the current status of all rules.

Read the full notice at:

http://www.msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/MSRB-Rules/General/Rule-G-29.aspx?tab=2




NAIPFA to SEC: MA Rule Won't Hurt Issuers.

The National Association of Independent Public Finance Advisors has sent an open letter to Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Mary Jo White insisting the municipal advisor rule the SEC adopted in September will not restrict the flow of information between issuers and other parties to a bond deal.




SEC Investor Advisory Committee to Vote Friday on Fiduciary Plan.

While SIFMA ‘strongly supports’ some recommendations, others are ‘incongruous’ with Dodd-Frank’s intent, says SIFMA’s Carroll

The SEC’s Investor Advisory Committee plans to vote Friday on one of its subcommittee’s recommendations on how the SEC should craft its fiduciary rule for brokers.

The draft proposal by the Investor as Purchaser Subcommittee, which is headed by Barbara Roper, director of investor protection for the Consumer Federation of America, was scheduled to come up for a vote at the Investor Advisory Committee’s Oct. 10 meeting, but that was postponed because of the government shutdown.

Roper told ThinkAdvisor that the subcommittee’s hope is that “by weighing in early in the [fiduciary rulemaking] process, we can help to shape the form that commission rulemaking takes.”

The subcommittee says that a fiduciary duty for investment advice should include, “first and foremost, an enforceable, principles-based obligation to act in the best interest of the customer.”

In approaching this issue, the subcommittee says that the SEC’s goal “should be to eliminate the regulatory gap that allows broker-dealers to offer investment advice without being subject to the same fiduciary duty as other investment advisors but not to eliminate the ability of broker-dealers to offer transaction-specific advice compensated through transaction-based payments.”

The subcommittee adds that “Though it may require both regulatory flexibility to permit the existence of conflicts of interest and some regulatory changes to reduce the most severe conflicts of interest in the broker-dealer business model, the Committee believes that advisory services offered as part of a transaction-based securities business can and should be conducted in a way that is consistent with a fiduciary standard of conduct.”

While the SEC is not bound by any recommendations of the Investor Advisory Committee, which was created under Section 911 of the Dodd-Frank Act, Section 911 does require the SEC to “review the findings and recommendations of the committee” and “each time the committee submits a finding or recommendation to the commission, promptly issue a public statement assessing the finding or recommendation of the committee; and disclosing the action, if any, the commission intends to take with respect to the finding or recommendation.”

While fiduciary advocates have voiced their support of the recommendations in comment letters to the subcommittee, some other groups have not. For instance, while the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association says that “many if not most” of the subcommittee’s recommendations “are in accord” with SIFMA’s views on how to implement Section 913 of Dodd-Frank, some recommendations are “incongruous with the intent and requirements” of Section 913.

Kevin Carroll, SIFMA’s managing director, told the subcommittee in his comment letter that the “incongruities” exist in preserving the broker-dealer business model and in the “intent to maintain forward progress under Section 913.” These incongruities, he said, “may be attributable to the fact that the subcommittee (and indeed, the committee) does not have a single broker-dealer representative.”

SIFMA “strongly agrees” with the subcommittee’s recommendation that brokers should provide investors with up-front disclosures, similar to Form ADV, Part 2, about potential conflicts of interest, compensation arrangements, the scope of services, and other important details about the customer relationship, Carroll said.

However, SIFMA and the subcommittee “diverge” in their beliefs that investors can be harmed under the broker-dealer suitability standard, Carroll said.

“The subcommittee states that it is essential that the SEC’s Section 913 cost-benefit analysis acknowledge the harms that can result from advice delivered under the current, broker-dealer suitability standard,” he wrote.

The subcommittee’s list of “alleged harms” include: an investor mistakenly believing that a financial advisor is acting in his best interest, when that is not the case, and thereby receiving advice that carries additional costs and risks; and failure to receive ongoing account supervision.

Carroll countered, however, that “there is no evidence that investors are being harmed by the current suitability standard,” and that “there could never be an empirical showing of whether or not suitability-based advice harms investors because there are too many independent variables, including investors’ choice to follow the advice or not, and the quality of the advice given, regardless of the best intentions of the giver.”

Thus, he argued, “imposing a ‘harm’ requirement would only serve as an insurmountable obstacle to implementing Section 913 — which seems contrary to the subcommittee’s stated goal.”

By Melanie Waddell, ThinkAdvisor

Washington Bureau Chief

Investment Advisor Magazine




Use EMMA’s Email Reminder Service for Recurring Financial Disclosures.

Scheduling email reminders on the Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA®) website can help ensure timely filing of annual and quarterly financial disclosures, including annual financial information, audited financial statements, annual budgets and quarterly financial statements.

http://www.msrb.org/msrb1/pdfs/Financial-Disclosure-Email-Reminders-Fact-Sheet.pdf




SIFMA Weighing Campaign Against Muni Advisor Rule Provisions.

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association is considering launching a campaign urging municipal issuers to lobby federal regulators and lawmakers against underwriter restrictions contained in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s final municipal advisor registration rule.

SIFMA has circulated a draft letter to member firms entitled “An Open Letter to the U.S. Municipal Community,” warning that the SEC’s rule, to take effect in mid-January, would “restrict issuers’ access to market information and impact their access to the capital markets – delaying financings for schools, hospitals, public housing, and other critical infrastructure projects in communities across America.”

The dealer group complains in the draft that the SEC “has done this by issuing the rule in final form with no chance for public review or comment.”

The MA rule, slated to take effect by mid-January, would require anyone offering particularized advice about muni bonds, muni derivatives, or the investment of bond proceeds to an issuer or other  municipal entity or conduit borrower to register as a municipal advisor. MAs owe a fiduciary duty to put the interests of the issuer or other municipal entity client above their own — something the underwriting community has long maintained is not consistent with the role of an underwriter.

Under the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board’s fair-dealing rule, underwriters are required to disclose to issuers that they do not have any fiduciary duty and that the transaction will be at arm’s length, with firms representing their own interests.

The problem is the interplay between the SEC’s new MA rule and the MSRB’s Rule G-23, which was recast in November 2011 to prohibit dealers from serving as financial advisors and underwriters on the same municipal bond deal.

“It is THE KEY issue for everybody – SIFMA, the National Association of Bond Lawyers,  and the Government Finance Officers Association.  Everything else is on the periphery,” said one non-dealer source familiar with the controversy. “The question is can broker-dealers do what they’ve done for 30 years and present new financing ideas and refunding plans to issuers and underwrite any deals that result?”

“Dealers have been living with the G-23 prohibition since 2011,” the non-dealer source said. But they’ve always viewed it in the context of a more formal situation, as a prohibition on a dealer trying to be a financial advisor and an underwriter for the same bonds.

The SEC’s MA rule are less formal. Under those rules, if a dealer provides targeted advice to an issuer, it becomes an MA with a fiduciary duty to the issuer.

“The concern is that if a dealer gives targeted advice to an issuer, that’s going to make the dealer an MA and knock it out of the underwriting box by virtue of treating the MA rule and G-23 as congruent,” the non-dealer source said.

The MA rule allows underwriters to offer limited advice on bonds they have already agreed to underwrite, such as guidance on investor road shows. The rule also contains exemptions designed to allow more extensive communication between prospective underwriters and issuers under certain circumstances. If the municipality retains its own registered MA and certifies in writing that it will rely solely on the advice of that advisor, then underwriters and other professionals could offer advice more freely without fear of becoming MAs. Dealers also would be exempted from the MA rule if they are responding to a Request for Proposals or Quotations that is sent out by an issuer, providing the request is not sent out to only one firm.

But SIFMA does not consider these exemptions to be sufficient enough to avoid “impeding the relationship between underwriters and the issuer clients they serve,” its draft letter states.

“Many issuers, large and small, choose not to employ financial advisors for bond transactions for a variety of reasons,” the draft says.  “Sometimes the issuer has sufficient internal resources to manage the transactions without an advisor. Sometimes the issuer may simply believe the value offered by a financial advisor does not justify the cost.”

While the draft is critical of the SEC’s decision to adopt the final rule without putting it out for public comment, the commission sifted through more than 1,000 comment letters in developing the final rule, several sources noted.

“ If the option of continuing to receive the free flow of information is important to the conduct of your debt program, the SIFMA draft concludes, “we urge you to consult with counsel and let the SEC, and members of Congress, know of your views.”

Michael Decker, co-head of municipal securities at SIFMA, confirmed that SIFMA remains concerned about these aspects of the rule. He said SIFMA circulated the draft letter to members in order to get reaction, but has not decided yet how to proceed with it. Decker said the SEC has indicated it will release more guidance and that a dialogue on the issues will continue.

“We’re hopeful through that process the rule will become more workable,” Decker said.

In fact, sources from several groups said that the SEC’s Office of Municipal Securities is currently collecting comments  and concerns with the idea of eventually putting out a set of frequently asked questions and answers on the commission’s website. There is precedent for this. When the SEC finalized its Rule 15c2-12 on disclosure in late 1994, it worked with the National Association of Bond Lawyers to put out two sets of FAQs on the rule.

NABL , which is currently holding its board meeting in South Carolina, is expected to send the SEC Muni Office some draft FAQs next week, sources said.

Some muni securities experts say they do not understand the controversy, that the MA rule are very different from the MSRB’s Rule G-23. When the MSRB issued the final version of Rule G-23, it said:  “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.”

Nathan R. Howard, counsel to the National Association of Independent Public Finance Advisors, said the potential SIFMA campaign is clearly more about protecting the interests of dealer firms and not those of issuers. Howard pointed to guidance issued by the GFOA which suggested that underwriter communication with issuers could still occur under the new rule.

“SIFMA’s continued efforts to undermine the MA rule will have a direct negative impact on the very issuers that the rule seeks to protect,” Howard said.  “These concerted attempts to undue issuer protections appear to be aimed solely at protecting the interests of SIFMA’s member firms. As the GFOA noted in its release yesterday, underwriters will have ample opportunity to provide ideas to issuers during the course of a transaction.”

Another market participant familiar with the debate also attacked the SIFMA effort.

“The SIFMA letter is purposefully misleading and a great example of how broker-dealers feel they are above the law.   If that letter is an example of the type of ‘balanced’ advice they give to issuers then perhaps the rule did not go far enough in constraining them.  The municipal advisor rule does not limit the free flow of ideas — it just helps ensure that the ideas presented to issuers (and paid for by taxpayers) are fiscally responsible.”

The MSRB is in the process of crafting rules stemming from the SEC’s work. MSRB executive director Lynnette Kelly said the board may address the issue if appropriate, but is hopeful the SEC will do so in the meantime.

“The MSRB supports the need for clarity on the activities of municipal advisors,” Kelly said. “The SEC is preparing guidance on its registration rule, which should address some of these concerns. The MSRB will evaluate the interplay between the registration rule and existing MSRB rules, and consider issuing guidance as appropriate.”

BY KYLE GLAZIER




SIFMA Keeps Up Push to Delay Suitability Rule Implementation.

Dealers want to extend the implementation of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board’s suitability rules and make clear that a different time of trade disclosure obligation exists when selling a bond vs. purchasing one. They also want it made clear that a broker-dealer has reduced duties to sophisticated municipal market professionals.

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association made the requests in a comment letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission, which must now consider whether to approve amendments the MSRB offered in an effort to cut down on voluminous interpretive guidance to several of its rules.

The package the MSRB sent to the SEC includes a proposed new Rule G-47 on time-of-trade disclosures that would consolidate existing requirements for dealers to disclose material information to customers in connection with purchases and sales of munis, as well as a proposal to consolidate dealers’ fair dealing obligations to experienced investors, called sophisticated municipal market professionals, with new Rules D-15 and G-48.

In addition, the MSRB is asking the SEC to approve a proposal to revise and harmonize its Rule G-19 on suitability with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s suitability requirements by adding considerations for analyzing the suitability of a recommendation to a customer.

Dealers have expressed approval of the goal of consolidating guidance into more easily-digestable rules, but still want refinements.

“This rule should reflect that a substantially different time of trade disclosure obligation exists when a dealer is selling a bond to a customer vs. purchasing a bond from a customer,” SIFMA managing director and associate general counsel David Cohen wrote of proposed rule G-47. Under current guidance contained in the MSRB’s fair dealing rule, dealers must disclose to customers, at the time of trade, all material information they know about the bonds as well as material information reasonably accessible to the market.

“Customers should know the characteristics of the bonds they own,” Cohen wrote.

SIFMA is also seeking clarifications on other aspects of the proposed rule, such as when providing a preliminary official statement to a customer would be a sufficient time of trade disclosure.  SIFMA members feel that Rule G-47’s ‘disclosure obligations in specific  scenarios “may not be applicable at all when a customer seeks to sell its holdings,” Cohen wrote.

SIFMA is also seeking a one-year, rather than six-month, implementation period for the MSRB’s proposal to revise and harmonize its Rule G-19 on suitability with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s suitability requirements by adding considerations for analyzing the suitability of a recommendation to a customer. The MSRB’s Rule G-19 currently requires dealers to collect information about a non-institutional customer’s financial and tax status, as well as investment objectives, before making recommendations to him or her. The proposal would expand that information to include the customer’s age, investment time horizon, liquidity needs, investment experience and risk tolerance.

“Any regulatory scheme takes time to implement properly. Municipal securities dealers that are not FINRA members, as well as FINRA members that only buy and sell municipal securities, will need a reasonable time to allow for a sufficient implementation period to develop, test, and implement supervisory policies and procedures, systems and controls, as well as training,” Cohen wrote.

But when dealing with an SMMP, the revised rules should make clear that dealers should have far fewer obligations, as the existing guidance states, he said.

“Since a dealer does not have a time of trade disclosure obligation to disclose material information that is reasonably accessible to the market to SMMPs, we believe the omission of this statement within the new rule governing time of trade disclosure obligations risks unnecessary regulatory confusion,” wrote Cohen.

The Investment Company Institute also commented, urging the SEC to make sure the rules make clear that they apply to 529 college savings plans.

“We recommend that, as part of this rulemaking, the MSRB incorporate all relevant suitability guidance into Rule G-19 – not merely the guidance for products other than 529 college savings plans, as is currently proposed,” wrote ICI senior associate counsel Tamara Salmon

That approach would both help to eliminate confusion and ensure that dealers who violate suitability requirements are not sanctioned under multiple rules for a single violation, as might be the case if a separate suitability rule for 529 plans exists, as under the MSRB proposal.

“For these reasons, we again strongly recommend that the MSRB include within Rule G-19 all of its suitability guidance that applies when a dealer recommends a 529 plan,” Salmon said.

The SEC could approve the MSRB proposals without changes or send them back to be changed.

BY KYLE GLAZIER




New MSRB Video Addresses Roles in a Municipal Bond Issuance.

The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) today released a short video that explains the roles of key participants involved when a state or local government borrows money from the investing public by issuing a bond. The Issuance Process seeks to clarify for state and local government issuers the distinct roles of underwriters and municipal advisors so that they can understand the nature of their relationships with each of these entities throughout the issuance process. The video continues the MSRB’s award-winning multimedia strategy to provide municipal market education to state and local governments and investors.

http://www.msrb.org/msrb1/events/Outreach/Issuer-Education.asp




For the SEC, a Continued Focus on the Municipal Bond Market.

Municipal bond offering cases have become an enforcement priority for the SEC. In recent months the Commission has brought a series of actions against the City of Miami, the West Clark City School District and others.

Now the agency has brought two proceedings related to bonds issued by a municipal corporation in Washington State. In the Matter of Greater Wenatchee Regional Events Center Public Facilities District, Adm. Proc. File No. 3-15602 (Nov. 5, 2013) and In the Matter of Piper Jaffrey & Co., Adm. Proc. File No. Nov. 5, 2013). The former names as Respondents: a municipal corporation formed by nine cities and counties to fund a Regional Center; Allison Williams, the Executive Services Director of Wenatchee, Washington who executed the closing certificate for the bond issue; Global Entertainment Corporation, the developer of the Regional Center; and Richard Kozuback, Global’s CEO and President. The latter names as Respondents the underwriter of the bonds involved here and Jane Towery, a Managing Director at Piper.

The underlying facts trace to 2005 when Mr. Kozuback made several presentations regarding potential funding sources to develop a Regional Center to interested groups. The next year the City of Wenatchee, Washington, along with eight neighboring municipalities and counties, formed the District which in turn entered into a development contract with Global, although the firm had limited experience in the area.

Global developed a series of financial projections for the operation of the Regional Center over the course of project. The projections were prepared for the budget and inclusion in the District’s Official Statement. After the initial projections were prepared in the summer of 2006, the City Council requested that in independent consultant review them. The consultant determined that the Regional Center might operate at a deficit and that its projected annual net operating income could be overstated by as about 16% to 25%. The next month the City entered into a contingent loan agreement which would provide financial support for all or part of the project if necessary. Construction began.

By early 2007 the facility had to be redesigned and reduced in size because of cost overruns and unexpected building costs. Global crafted new projections. Again, the City Council brought in a consultant. Again the Consultant raised questions about the projections although it concluded that the reduced project might be viable. In May 2007 the City Council voted to proceed with the Regional Center. Shortly thereafter the District authorized a lease agreement for the Center. Construction resumed.

By April 2008 Mr. Kozuback became concerned that sales of luxury seats were not proceeding as expected. Global provided new projections for the official bond statement which was in preparation.

Funds from the issuance needed to be available by the completion of the center in September 2008 for its acquisition by the District. Based on the projections, the underwriter advised that a bond issuance might be difficult. The Mayor, who had cast a decisive vote at the City Council meeting which approved continuation, demanded that the projections be revised to be more optimistic. The revisions were made. The revised projections were included in the Official Statement without revealing the issues surrounding the revisions. The underwriter was unable to complete the financing.

Piper Jaffrey was retained in late 2008. The City and the District were searching for financing avenues. While various options were considered, the only viable one called for the issuance of short-term Bond Anticipation Notes or BANs that would mature two years later. The short term instruments would be refinanced through the issuance of long-term bonds. At the time the District and Mr. Williams knew that that if the revenue from the Regional Center was not adequate to support a bond issuance to repay the short term instruments the support of the City would be necessary. In the offering materials for the short term bonds a section discussing the constraints on the financial ability of the City to assist was deleted.

In 2011 the District defaulted on the outstanding $41.77 million short term BANs which had been issued. The State legislature then passed a sales tax to assist. In late September the District sold the long term bonds secured by the sale tax revenues to refinance the short term instruments.

Order alleges that the Official Statement for the short term instruments was false and misleading as was the certification of full disclosure. The papers did not adequately disclose the facts regarding the projections for the project and the limitations on the City finances, according to the Order. It alleges violations of Securities Act Sections 17(a)(2) and (3).

The Respondents in both proceedings settled. The District undertook to establish appropriate policies, procedures and internal control, institute training and certify completion of these steps to the Commission. It also consented to the entry of a cease and desist order based on Securities Act Section 17(a)(2) and a directive to implement the undertakings and pay a civil money penalty of $20,000. Ms. Williams and Mr. Kozuback both consented to the entry of cease and desist orders but based on Securities Act Section 17(a)(3) and will each pay a civil penalty of $10,000.

Piper revised its due diligence procedures and Ms. Towery agreed to implement undertakings which include limiting her activities as an associated person of a securities professional and to retain a consultant to review Piper’s municipal underwriting due diligence polices and procedures. In addition, the firm and Ms. Towery each consented to the entry of a cease and desist order based on the Sections cited in the Order and to a censure. The firm will pay a penalty of $300,000 while Ms. Towery will pay $25,000.

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

Thomas O. Gorman




Wenatchee, Wash. Issuer, Others Settle SEC Arena Fraud Case.

The Greater Wenatchee, Wash., Regional Events Center Public Facilities District has agreed to pay $20,000 — the first financial penalty the Securities and Exchange Commission has assessed against a municipal issuer — and take remedial actions to settle securities fraud charges that it misled bond investors.

The SEC announced the action on Tuesday. The sanctions revolve around $41.77 million anticipation notes the district issued in 2008 to finance the construction of an events center and ice hockey arena. The BANs defaulted in 2011 but the default was later cured and the BANs were refunded with refunding bonds secured by sales tax revenues.

The case is notable not only for being the first instance of the SEC collecting a penalty assessed against an issuer, but also for the wide scope of transaction participants sanctioned.

Underwriter Piper Jaffray & Co. and its lead investment banker on the deal, Jane Towery, agreed to be censured and pay penalties of $300,000 and $25,000, respectively to settle charges. Towery also agreed to refrain for one year from any business contact with any existing or prospective municipal issuer client, as well as from speaking to issuer clients for the purpose of making due diligence decisions on behalf of a broker-dealer.

In addition, the developer, Global Entertainment, and its then-president and chief executive officer, Richard Kozuback, agreed to pay penalties of $10,000 each. Allison Williams, a senior staff member of the district, who certified the accuracy of the official statement, consented to an order to cease and desist from further violations.

The SEC said the official statement for the bonds wrongly stated there had been no independent reviews of the financial projections for the center, when an independent consultant had actually examined the projections twice and questioned the economic viability of the project. The OS also failed to disclose that the financial projections were revised upward based on optimistic assurances by civic leaders that the community would support the project, the SEC alleged. In addition, the OS omitted key information about Wenatchee’s remaining debt capacity of $19.3 million, which would limit its ability to support any future long-term bonds, the SEC found.

“The respondents negligently failed to act with reasonable prudence in the issuance of the BANs,” the SEC’s order against the district, Global, Kozuback, and Williams concludes, noting that all parties knew about the debt capacity issue. “It was thus unreasonable for the district to issue the BANs, for Williams to sign the closing certificate of the district, and for Kozuback to sign the certificate of Global Entertainment Corporation.”

The commission historically has been hesitant to impose financial penalties on municipal issuers because that would burden taxpayers, but SEC enforcement co-director Andrew Ceresney said that was not an issue in this case.

“Financial penalties against municipal issuers are appropriate for sanctioning and deterring misconduct when, as here, they can be paid from operating funds without directly impacting taxpayers,” Ceresney said. “This municipal issuer is paying an appropriate price for withholding negative information from its primary offering document and giving investors a false picture of the future performance of the project.”

Municipal issuers have previously agreed to settle SEC charges by disgorging ill-gotten gains, and the financial penalty the SEC is seeking against Miami, Fla. has not been paid because the city is contesting the SEC case at trial.

The SEC’s decision to charge Piper Jaffray, Global Entertainment, Kozuback, and Williams continues to reinforce the message that the commission will hold individuals accountable even if they are only negligent.

SEC chairman Mary Jo White said in an Oct. 9 speech that the commission’s enforcement arm would strive to be “everywhere,” and would take action even against even relatively minor fraudulent behavior. The SEC charged Miami’s former budget director in connection with its case against the city, but he, too, is fighting the charges.

The SEC order against Piper Jaffray takes the firm to task for failing to perform proper due diligence, which might have uncovered information important to investors.

“Piper and Towery conducted a cursory inquiry into the projections provided by Global, did not inquire about prior projections or revisions, and did not ask to see an independent consultant’s review of the projections despite being made aware of its existence, depriving BAN purchasers of material information relating to the revenue projections, the first source of payment for the majority of the BANs,” the order states.

Mark Zehner, deputy chief of the SEC enforcement division’s municipal securities and public pensions unit, said that as a result the firm could not be confident in the accuracy of the district’s offering documents.

“An underwriter’s due diligence obligation is critical, particularly when financing a startup revenue project,” Zehner said. “Piper Jaffray & Co. failed to develop a reasonable basis for believing the accuracy of key representations made in the official statement.”

The SEC’s order requires Piper Jaffray to retain an independent consultant to conduct a review of the firm’s muni underwriting due diligence policies and procedures as well as its supervisory policies and procedures relating to muni underwriting due diligence. The district also agreed to adopt written policies for disclosures in municipal offerings and continuing disclosure obligations, and to designate an individual responsible for ensuring compliance with those obligations. The respondents neither admitted nor denied the SEC’s findings.

Victor D. Vital, a lawyer with Greenberg Traurig in Dallas, who is representing Global Entertainment and Kozuback, said, “My clients neither admitted nor denied the allegations. They believe the resolution was a positive one for them.”

Other transaction participants and their lawyers could not be reached for comment.

BY KYLE GLAZIER




WSJ: SEC Fines a Muni Bond Issuer for First Time; Underwriter Penalized.

The Securities and Exchange Commission handed out its first-ever financial penalty against a municipal-bond issuer, fining an agency that developed an ice-hockey arena in Washington state for misleading investors.

The SEC charged the Greater Wenatchee Regional Events Center Public Facilities District with allegedly failing to disclose certain financial projections for a new regional ice rink and events center.

The district–which was formed by nine cities and counties in Washington in 2006 to develop the project–agreed to settle the charges and pay a $20,000 fine.

The district borrowed $42 million in 2008 and defaulted on its principal payments in December 2011. The SEC said the district failed to disclose to investors that an independent consultant had questioned the viability of the events center. A lawyer for the events-center district could not be immediately reached.

While the fine is relatively small, it represents another step in the SEC’s ongoing push to police the sale of municipal bonds.

The SEC also fined the underwriter of the bonds, Piper Jaffray PJC -1.88%  & Co., $300,000 and its lead investment banker on the deal $25,000—steps the agency didn’t take in other recent municipal cases brought against the state of Illinois and Harrisburg, Pa.

The settlement included Piper Jaffray, which under the terms must hire an independent consultant to review the firm’s municipal underwriting due diligence policies and procedures.

A spokeswoman for Piper Jaffray could not immediately be reached for comment.

The development company that built the facility—called the Town Toyota Center—and its former CEO were each fined $10,000. The events district agreed to train its staff involved in municipal-bond deals.

In an interview, Mark Zehner, deputy chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s Municipal Securities and Public Pensions Unit, said many parties in the deal were negligent in preparing disclosures to investors.

“Municipal finance has a self perception of being a backwater and some people use that as an excuse for being sloppy,” said Mr. Zehner. “The SEC is happy to go against sloppy, negligent conduct if need be.”

In some municipal cases, the SEC has been reluctant to fine a government issuer because the penalties would ultimately be borne by taxpayers who are already paying the price of a shoddy bond deal.

But in the case of the Wenatchee facility, the costs of the penalty will effectively be borne by users of the ice rink and events center, who chose to pay to attend hockey games and other events there.

All of the parties charged in the case settled without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings.

By MICHAEL CORKERY




SEC Charges Municipal Issuer in Washington’s Wenatchee Valley Region for Misleading Investors.

The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a municipal issuer in the state of Washington’s Wenatchee Valley region with misleading investors in a bond offering that financed the construction of a regional events center and ice hockey arena.  The SEC also charged the underwriter and outside developer of the project and three individuals involved in the offering.

The Greater Wenatchee Regional Events Center Public Facilities District agreed to settle the SEC’s charges by paying a $20,000 penalty and undertaking remedial actions.  It is the first time that the SEC has assessed a financial penalty against a municipal issuer.

The issuer is a municipal corporation formed by nine Washington cities and counties in 2006 to fund the Town Toyota Center, located in the city of Wenatchee.  An SEC investigation found inaccuracies in the primary disclosure document accompanying the issuer’s offering of bond anticipation notes in 2008.  The document, called the “official statement,” stated there had been no independent reviews of the financial projections for the events center.  However, an independent consultant twice examined the projections and raised questions about the center’s economic viability.  The official statement failed to disclose that financial projections had been revised upward based in part upon optimistic assurances by civic leaders that the community would support the project.  The document also omitted key information about the possibility that the City of Wenatchee’s remaining debt capacity of $19.3 million would limit its ability to support any future long-term bonds.

“Financial penalties against municipal issuers are appropriate for sanctioning and deterring misconduct when, as here, they can be paid from operating funds without directly impacting taxpayers,” said Andrew Ceresney, co-director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “This municipal issuer is paying an appropriate price for withholding negative information from its primary offering document and giving investors a false picture of the future performance of the project.”

The Greater Wenatchee Regional Events Center Public Facilities District issued $41.77 million in bond anticipation notes in 2008, and defaulted on its principal payments in December 2011.

The SEC’s settled administrative proceedings also name the developer Global Entertainment and its then-president and CEO Richard Kozuback, the underwriter Piper Jaffray & Co. and its lead investment banker Jane Towery, and Allison Williams, a senior staff member for the Greater Wenatchee Regional Events Center Public Facilities District who certified the accuracy of the official statement.

“An underwriter’s due diligence obligation is critical, particularly when financing a startup revenue project.  Piper Jaffray & Co. failed to develop a reasonable basis for believing the accuracy of key representations made in the official statement,” said Mark Zehner, deputy chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s Municipal Securities and Public Pensions Unit.

In settling the SEC’s charges, Piper Jaffray & Co. and Towery agreed to be censured and pay penalties of $300,000 and $25,000 respectively.  Global Entertainment and Kozuback each agreed to pay penalties of $10,000.  Williams consented to a cease-and-desist order and the issuer agreed to remedial actions, including training for personnel involved in the offering and disclosure process.  The issuer also agreed to adopt written policies for disclosures in municipal offerings and continuing disclosure obligations, and to designate an individual responsible for ensuring compliance with those obligations.  The respondents neither admit nor deny the SEC’s findings.

The SEC’s order requires Piper Jaffray & Co. to retain an independent consultant to conduct a review of the firm’s municipal underwriting due diligence policies and procedures as well as its supervisory policies and procedures relating to municipal underwriting due diligence.  Towery agreed to limit her activities as an associated person of a broker-dealer or municipal advisor for one year by refraining from any contact with any existing or prospective municipal issuer client for the purpose of conducting, maintaining, or developing business or for the purpose of making decisions on behalf of a broker-dealer in connection with any due diligence activities.

The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Monique C. Winkler in the San Francisco Regional Office, who is a member of the Municipal Securities and Public Pensions Unit.  The case was supervised by Cary Robnett, an assistant director in the San Francisco office.




Commentary: Long-Awaited Municipal Advisor Regulation Should Not Restrict Issuers.

In response to a recent commentary on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s approval of a final rule defining municipal advisors, we agree with Ms. Rodgers Caruso on an important point.

The SEC’s final rule is long-awaited and welcome as it will permit the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board to move forward on regulations governing the activities of non-dealer municipal advisors.

For too long, bond issuers have been poorly served by a regulatory scheme where municipal financial advisors are exempt from even the most fundamental level of oversight and regulation. With that said, Ms. Rodgers Caruso’s commentary is misleading in several key areas. First, the free flow of information and ideas between investment bankers and their clients is vital to ensuring the best possible transaction execution for municipal bond issuers.

Throughout the debate over the Dodd-Frank Act in 2009 and 2010, Congress’ attention with regard to municipal advisor regulation was directed exclusively at bringing unregulated financial advisors under the federal regulatory umbrella, not at impeding the relationship between underwriters and their clients.

Indeed, legislation approved by the U.S. House of Representatives in 2012 with unanimous bipartisan support, including former Rep. Barney Frank, would have clarified Congress’ intent in this regard.

Many issuers depend on their public finance bankers for ideas, market color, analysis and other value-added services during the time between transactions as much as they do when a transaction is being structured and brought to market. It is not in any issuer’s interest to limit their ability to communicate freely with any market participant.

Second, it is often difficult or impossible, due to constraints imposed by state and local procurement rules, for municipal issuers to formally engage underwriting firms when a new-issue transaction is in its early, formative stages. That is one reason why formal underwriter engagement letters are so rare in our market.

Third, since Dodd-Frank was enacted, the MSRB and SEC have made significant revisions to MSRB Rules G-17 and G-23, which for nearly two years have prohibited dealers from serving as both an advisor and an underwriter on the same transaction. Dealers are required to announce the role they are seeking (advisor or underwriter) at the time of first contact with the issuer. This is consistent with the intentions of the SEC’s muni advisor rule. MSRB Rule G-17 mandates substantial disclosures on the part of underwriters as to their role in a transaction, conflicts of interest, transaction risks and other key factors, including that the dealer is an underwriter and not an advisor or fiduciary.

Finally, many issuers, large and small, choose not to employ financial advisors for bond transactions for a variety of reasons. Sometimes the issuer has sufficient internal resources to manage the transaction without an advisor. Sometimes the issuer may simply believe the value offered by a financial advisor does not justify the cost.

In any case, the choice should be left to the issuer and not become a matter of federal regulation. If Congress wanted to mandate the use of muni advisors on every bond sale, the Dodd-Frank Act would have explicitly included such a requirement as it effectively does for swap transactions. The Dodd-Frank municipal advisor provisions were never intended to be the “full employment act” for advisors.

As Ms. Rodgers Caruso recognizes in her commentary, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association strongly supported the municipal advisor provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act because we believe it is in issuers’ interests for their advisors to be regulated.

In many cases, these firms have little or no financial capital. They regularly engage in “pay-to-play” behavior. Their employees usually have not passed any licensing or qualification examinations, and they are not required to manage or even disclose conflicts of interest.

In a large majority of cases, non-dealer municipal advisors are compensated only when a transaction closes, resulting in a huge incentive to advise a client to complete a transaction even if it’s not in the client’s interest, despite the municipal advisor’s “fiduciary duty.”

Today, well over three years after the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act, non-dealer municipal advisor conduct remains unregulated. For that reason, we are pleased that the MSRB is now free to pursue appropriate municipal advisor regulation. We urge the board to move expeditiously in their rulemaking in this area.

The dealer community is not, as Ms. Rodgers Caruso states, trying to “undo the rules’ issuer protections before they are even effective.” On the contrary, we seek to preserve the ability of issuers to communicate freely with bankers, to receive ideas and analysis, and, as Ms. Rodgers Caruso states, to “control whether, why and how to issue securities.”

Hopefully, the new municipal advisor rule will not inappropriately impede the ability of issuers to work with their bankers.

Michael Decker is a managing director and co-head of the municipal securities group at SIFMA.




Bingham McCutchen: A Guide to the Re-Proposed Credit Risk Retention Rules for Securitizations.

In light of efforts to exempt tender option bonds and nonprofit and state agency student loan organizations from risk retention rules imposed by the Dodd-Frank Act, we are reprinting Binghmam McCutchen LLP’s Guide to the Re-Proposed Credit Risk Retention Rules for Securitizations.

https://www.bingham.com/Alerts/2013/09/~/media/Files/Docs/2013/A-guide-to-the-Re-proposed-Credit-Risk-Retention-Rules.ashx




Municipal Market Participants Shocked By New LCR Definitions.

This article will focus on their perceptive views on the implications of the new NPR issued by the Fed regarding the Liquidity Cover Ratio for banks for municipal bonds in this paper: http://www.nabl.org/uploads/cms/documents/2012_10_25_Citigroup_Tax_Reform.pdf

Municipal market participants are aghast that the Fed’s definition of ‘High Quality Liquid Assets’ – eligible assets that would determine a bank’s ability to withstand a stress event – does not include even the highest quality municipal bonds. The Fed has probably heaped insult on injury by including, on the other hand, investment-grade corporate bonds and S&P 500 equity in HQLA.

Municipal bonds effectively get a 100% haircut

Citi analysts correctly call it ‘draconian’ that Munis are completely excluded from HQLA, pointing out that this is at odds with the Basel Committee Banking Supervision Guidance.

In fact, according to prior indications, municipals would have found a place in HQLA under Level 2A, but the Fed has apparently dispensed with this on the grounds of poor liquidity:

“…the agencies believe that, at this time, these assets are not liquid and readily-marketable in U.S. markets and thus do not exhibit the liquidity characteristics necessary to be included in HQLA under this proposed rule. For example, securities issued by public sector entities generally have low average daily trading volumes.”

Since the average large bank would hold significant amounts of municipals, the authors point out that for the purpose of computing HQLA, these holdings are effectively being subjected to a 100% haircut.

This is patently unfair, given that in a stress event, good quality municipals would be more liquid than a medium, or lower-rated corporate bond.

Profound implications

The Fed’s action has grave implications for the municipal bonds market.

This will severely cramp the ability of banks to invest in Munis.

As a result, market values and liquidity in the Muni bond market would deteriorate.

The larger banks would cease to function as liquidity makers in Munis. (The authors point out that banks absorbed much of the Muni paper that was offloaded by retail investors over the last 2.5 years).

State and local issuers will be hamstrung in their efforts to raise low-cost funding for their projects.

However, the new LCR is still in a comment period for some time, and therefore these are only proposals as of yet. Obviously, banks and muni issuers would have to bring these concerns before the regulators.

by Saul Griffith




Dealers: Don't Confuse Investors With Too Much Data.

Dealer groups are telling the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board that they worry too much pricing data will confuse investors and hurt the secondary market.

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and the Bond Dealers of America aired their concerns in the comments sent to the MSRB over its concept release on pre-trade and post-trade pricing data dissemination through a central transparency platform.

The release requested industry feedback on what pre-trade and post-trade pricing information the MSRB should consider publicly disseminating over the CTP it plans to develop. There is currently no central location where muni market participants can access pre-trade pricing data. Such information is often available to institutional investors through broker’s brokers, alternative trading systems, or other systems. But it is not really available to retail investors.

The MSRB collects and publicly disseminates secondary market trade data and prices over EMMA, but wants to know what improvements can be made.

The board has indicated that it is especially interested in whether it should require reporting of so-called “conditional trade commitments,” which occur when dealers often solicit, accept, and conditionally allocate orders prior to the signing of a bond purchase agreement. The prices agreed upon at that time often do not reflect market conditions at the time of the formal award of the bonds.

Because trades cannot officially be executed until the bonds are formally awarded to the underwriter, conditional commitments appear on EMMA the same day as the day the bonds are issued and initially sold. There is no easy way to distinguish between conditional commitments and bonds sold the first day. The board wants to know if it should develop a new indicator for conditional trading commitments, as well as indicators showing what venues trades occurred in.

While dealers said they have been and remain supportive of making the muni market more transparent, they harbor deep concerns about bewildering retail investors, compromising the strategies of brokers, and having to pay for the costs the new reporting requirements could impose on them.

“The BDA believes some additional data elements might be helpful to dealers in the way of securing high quality and timely bids and offers,” BDA president and chief executive officer Mike Nicholas wrote in the group’s comment letter. “However, we would suggest that the MSRB further consider the consequences of requiring dealers to produce this additional information and making this information available to investors without appropriate context and detailed educational materials for the investor to understand the value in the information.”

“While the BDA believes increased transparency is ultimately better for the investor,” his letter continues, “we would caution that some of the new data elements being considered by the MSRB for pre-trade reporting may undermine trading strategies resulting in the constriction of some market participants for fear that their trading strategies may be compromised, leading to depletion in liquidity.”

Leslie Norwood, managing director, associate general counsel, and co-head of municipal securities at SIFMA, questioned whether the benefits of this transparency could ever outweigh the “astronomical” costs firms would incur setting up their systems in order to be compliant. She also said SIFMA fears investors would have trouble processing too much information.

“We have serious concerns about investors getting information overload,” Norwood said.

The MSRB could choose to propose a rule or series of rules addressing pre-trade and post-trade disclosure, but is currently prioritizing rules stemming from the Securities and Exchange Commission’s municipal advisor registration rule, as well as working on a muni market best execution rule.

BY KYLE GLAZIER




Bloomberg: Banks Fret Over Fed’s Planned Liquidity Requirement.

U.S. banks led by JPMorgan Chase (JPM:US) & Co. and Wells Fargo (WFC:US) & Co. have bought a record amount of municipal debt. That demand is now at risk under a Federal Reserve proposal that excludes local bonds from a list of easy-to-sell assets.

Banks added $63 billion of the securities in the year through June, more than any category of buyer, helping lower state and city borrowing costs as individuals yanked a record amount of cash from muni mutual funds, Fed data show. The companies hold about $390 billion of munis, the most since at least 1945 and about 10.5 percent of the market. Three years earlier, they owned about 6 percent.

JPMorgan, the biggest U.S. bank, more than doubled its holdings in that period, to $37 billion, outpacing seven other banks reviewed by Bloomberg. The industry’s appetite may drop and yields climb if the Fed plan is implemented, according to analysts from JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley (MS:US) and Municipal Market Advisors. Some banks may have bought on the assumption the bonds would satisfy liquidity rules, Peter DeGroot, a strategist at JPMorgan in New York, said in an Oct. 25 report.

“If it causes them to change the way they are accounted for in the bank portfolios, that could be significant for the muni market because it’s reducing the demand,” said Daniel Solender, director of munis in Jersey City, New Jersey, for Lord Abbett & Co., which manages $16.5 billion of local debt.

Cash Destination

Banks have directed more cash to state and local debt as they have fewer opportunities to extend commercial and home loans after the financial crisis, said Marty Mosby, a bank analyst with Guggenheim Securities LLC in Hernando, Mississippi.

The Fed on Oct. 24 said some banks should be required to hold enough assets that are easy to sell during a 30-day credit crunch. While the central bank included Treasuries, certain sovereign debt and publicly traded investment-grade corporate securities among assets that would meet the proposed rule, it excluded state and local debt.

The requirements are intended to satisfy global rules making the financial system less vulnerable to periods of stress similar to the credit freeze after Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.’s bankruptcy filing in 2008.

January Deadline

“This is going to increase the market’s reliance on a rebound in mutual-fund buying,” said Matt Fabian, a managing director at Concord, Massachusetts-based research firm Municipal Market Advisors.

Under the proposal, the rule would phase in starting in 2015, with full compliance in 2017, according to the Fed notice. The public comment period ends on Jan. 31.

Barbara Hagenbaugh, a Fed spokeswoman in Washington, referred to the central bank’s notice on the proposal.

“The agencies believe that, at this time, these assets are not liquid and readily marketable,” the notice says. “For example, securities issued by public-sector entities generally have low average daily trading volumes.”

About $10.4 billion of munis traded daily on average last month, according to Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board data. That compares with about $19.5 billion of investment-grade and high-yield corporate debt, data from the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority show.

Loss Feeder

The $3.7 trillion municipal market has already lost 2.4 percent this year, the worst performance since 2008, Bank of America (BAC:US) Merrill Lynch data show. Local debt has suffered along with other fixed-income assets amid bets a growing economy will lead the Fed to curb its bond-buying program.

“The rule raises the yield at which this important group of counter-cyclical buyers would provide liquidity,” DeGroot said in his report. “General-obligation bond spreads may experience some pressure over the near term as these assets may have been positioned with the assumption that they would be included” among eligible assets, he said.

The proposal would consider corporate bonds rated one level above junk as liquid assets while excluding state general-obligation debt, Chris Mauro, head of muni strategy at RBC Capital Markets in New York, said in an Oct. 30 report.

Moody’s Investors Service’s average general-obligation rating among states it grades is one step below the top, according to David Jacobson, a spokesman.

Disruption Denial

“It’s just hard to believe there would be no market for triple-A state general obligations during a period of credit disruption,” Mauro said in an interview.

The Fed’s proposal also excludes letters of credit that banks extend to variable-rate munis for additional security, Mauro said. Such a move may push up costs for that financing method, he said.

Well-known entities such as states and large cities and issuers rated one or two levels below top-rated borrowers trade frequently, Solender said.

“The higher-grade parts of our market have a lot of liquidity,” Solender said. “There’s a lot of demand for them right now.”

Top-rated munis have lost 1.2 percent this year, about half the decline of the average city and state bond this year, Bank of America data show.

Individual Reliance

Individuals hold about 70 percent of munis either directly or through mutual funds, and decreased bank demand would extend the market’s reliance on those buyers, Michael Zezas, chief muni strategist at Morgan Stanley in New York, said in an Oct. 29 report.

JPMorgan boosted its holdings from $14.7 billion three years ago, based on its securities portfolio and trading account, according to quarterly filings. The 152 percent increase is the biggest among the eight banks reviewed. Justin Perras, a spokesman, declined to comment.

San Francisco-based Wells Fargo, the fourth-largest U.S. bank, increased state and local debt to $43 billion from $17.8 billion in the same period. Ancel Martinez, a company spokesman, declined to comment.

Pittsburgh-based PNC Financial Services Group (PNC:US) Inc., the second-biggest U.S. regional bank, had $2.2 billion of munis as of June 30, up from $1.3 billion three years earlier. Fred Solomon, a spokesman, declined to comment.

Trend Buster

Some banks are going against the trend. Bank of America’s muni assets fell 30 percent to about $5 billion during the period, even though the Charlotte, North Carolina-based bank has added in each of the last three quarters. Jerry Dubrowski, a spokesman, declined to comment.

Citigroup (C:US) Inc. held $21.8 billion of munis, down almost 2 percent from June 2010. Scott Helfman, a spokesman for the New York-based bank, declined to comment.

In the municipal market this week, issuers are set to sell about $5 billion in long-term debt with benchmark yields at a four-month low, data compiled by Bloomberg show.

The interest rate on AAA 10-year munis is 2.64 percent, the lowest since June 21. That compares with 2.55 percent on similar-maturity Treasuries.

The ratio of the yields, a gauge of relative value, is about 104 percent, compared with an average of 94 percent since 2001. The higher the figure, the cheaper munis are compared with federal debt.

Following is a pending sale:

Massachusetts plans to sell about $288 million in highway grant-anticipation notes backed by federal aid next week, Bloomberg data show.

To contact the reporter on this story: Michelle Kaske in New York at mkaske@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Stephen Merelman at smerelman@bloomberg.net

By Michelle Kaske November 01, 2013




Reuters: U.S. House Passes Bill to Delay Fiduciary Rules at SEC, Labor Dept.

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a controversial bill on Tuesday that would delay two government regulators from adopting rules requiring stock brokers and retirement account financial advisers to put their customers’ interests ahead of their own.

The bill, which was approved in a 254-166 vote, has virtually no chance of becoming law, after the White House late Monday threatened to veto the measure.

Its passage, however, marks yet another symbolic effort by Republicans to express their discontent over the sweeping new regulations that stem from the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law.

The bill is one of two measures before the House this week that would amend the Dodd-Frank law.

On Wednesday, the House is also expected to pass a bill with some bipartisan support that would loosen a requirement for banks to spin off their risky derivative trading desks into separate legal entities.

Although the White House has cautioned against passage of the derivatives bill, it stopped short of a veto threat.

FIDUCIARY RULES DELAYED

The fiduciary bill, sponsored by freshman Republican Representative Ann Wagner of Missouri, targets rulemaking efforts at both the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Labor that would impose a fiduciary duty on certain kinds of financial advisers.

The bill calls for the SEC to undertake additional study before writing any new rules to harmonize standards between investment advisers and stock brokers to determine whether regulatory changes would help or hurt retail investors.

It would also force the Labor Department to delay adopting any rules targeting retirement advisers until the SEC completed its own regulations first.

In voting to pass it, 30 Democrats joined ranks with Republicans in support of the measure.

“The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Labor…are headed towards proposing two massive and inconsistent rulemakings that are going to hurt the ability of retail investors to get financial advice,” said House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling.

Maxine Waters, the ranking Democrat on the committee, voted against the measure, saying it “just goes too far…

“The bill holds the Labor Department hostage while throwing up road blocks for the SEC,” she said.

The Dodd-Frank law required the SEC to study whether it should harmonize two different standards of care for stock brokers and investment advisers.

It also authorized, but did not require, the SEC the develop new standards.

Investment advisers are already held to a fiduciary duty, meaning they must put their investors’ best interests first.

Brokerages, however, are only required to offer advice about investments that are “suitable” – a less stringent standard that some say leads to conflicts of interest because brokerages may be more likely to recommend products that generate higher compensation.

The SEC released a study on the issue in 2011 that called for imposing a harmonized fiduciary standard for advisers and brokerages.

Meanwhile, the Department of Labor has separately been pursuing its own proposal that would impose fiduciary responsibilities on advisers to workplace retirement plans and individual accounts.

To date, however, the SEC has not yet issued a proposal and the Labor Department in 2010 withdrew an earlier version amid heavy criticism from the brokerage industry.

The SEC solicited more data from the industry in a March 2013 request, in an effort to help inform whether it will proceed with writing the new rules.

Earlier this month, SEC Chair Mary Jo White told reporters the fiduciary rule was still a “major focus” and the SEC was working to resolve “where we’re going on it.”

The Labor Department has also been working toward issuing a revised proposal, but has yet to do so amid a strong push by Wall Street to delay the measure.

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, the leading trade group for the brokerage industry, has opposed to the DOL’s efforts.

“The DOL should not act in this area until the SEC. Dodd-Frank made it very clear that it was the SEC’s responsibility,” SIFMA Chief Executive Judd Gregg told Reuters on the sidelines of a recent conference.

Proponents of strong fiduciary duty rules, however, have been out in force urging lawmakers to oppose the bill.

The bill is a “back door attempt to undermine investor protection provisions in Dodd-Frank,” the Financial Planning Coalition argued in a letter to Congress issued on Monday. (Reporting by Sarah N. Lynch; additional reporting by Suzanne Barlyn in New York.; Editing by Phil Berlowitz and Leslie Gevirtz)




SEC Judge Dismisses Commission’s Securities Fraud Suit Against UBS Executives.

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s chief administrative law judge has dismissed securities fraud charges the commission filed against two UBS Financial Services, Inc. of Puerto Rico executives for allegedly misleading mutual fund investors.

Brenda P. Murray ruled in an initial decision Tuesday that the SEC failed to adequately prove its case against Miguel Ferrer, chairman of the firm, and Carlos Ortiz, head of its capital markets trading desk.

The pair was charged in May 2012, along with their firm, with concealing a liquidity crisis and masking UBS’ control of the secondary market for 23 proprietary closed-end mutual funds. UBS previously agreed to settle the SEC charges for $26.6 million.

The SEC alleged that the firm knew about a significant “supply and demand imbalance” and discussed the “weak secondary market” internally, but made misleading statements to investors and increased its own holdings to keep prices up and maintain the appearance of a stable market.

“This case is unusual, Murray wrote in her initial decision. “The facts are undisputed and the witnesses were for the most part forthcoming and credible. The issue is a serious difference of opinion about the level of information required to be provided to investors about a policy decision by the parent company and whether Ferrer’s and Ortiz’s actions in response to that policy decision violated the antifraud provisions of the securities statutes.”

The SEC complaint rested heavily on whether Murray found that UBS concealed that it was reducing fund prices to sell inventory, and whether Ferrer and Ortiz’s communications with UBS financial advisors claiming that the fund shares were priced according to market forces represented a violation of federal securities laws.

Murray also considered allegedly misleading statements and prices published in a Puerto Rican newspaper and statements Ferrer and Ortiz made at investor conferences. The SEC would have to show that the pair made untrue statements with the intent to deceive or with negligence. Murray concluded that the SEC did not meet that standard.

“There is not one bit of evidence that UBS PR, Ferrer, and Ortiz engaged in a course of conduct to mislead or a scheme to mislead investors by hiding or disguising the fact that UBS PR was in a period when it was not buying fund shares and was reducing fund share prices,” Murray wrote. “The trading desk did not, and could not, keep its activities secret. FAs knew what the trading desk was doing through the inventory sheets, in phone conversations with the trading desk, in weekly sales meetings held in the branches, and communicated this information to customers.”

Murray said she found the SEC’s charge that Ferrer’s and Ortiz’s communications with FAs were fraudulent “unpersuasive.”

“The fund situation was odd compared to other securities in other markets, but the preponderance of the evidence is that in 2008-2009, there was a solid factual basis which showed the pricing of fund shares to be proper and legitimate,” she wrote. “For these reasons, I do not find that the preponderance of the evidence supports the division’s allegation that UBS PR, Ferrer, and Ortiz engaged in a fraudulent course of conduct or a scheme to mislead customers and FAs when they represented the funds as profitable, safe, and stable investments and that supply and demand were responsible for fund prices.”

Melvin A. Brosterman, with Stroock, Stroock & Levan in New York, which is representing Ferrer, said, “We are delighted by the decision ….It was thorough and thoughtful and [Murray] she was very careful to review all of the evidence.”

Ortiz’s lawyers could not immediately comment.

The trial was three weeks. The SEC staff has 21 days to appeal the decision to the full commission. If they don’t appeal, Murray’s initial decision becomes final and binding.

Two law firms have filed arbitration cases with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority claiming $500 million in losses on their UBS PR Investments, and UBS has also done an internal investigation.

After ‘the switch,’ state regulators pounced on advisers changing jurisdiction

27% more state licensing applications were withdrawn in 2012 after letters of deficiency issued

BY KYLE GLAZIER




States Increase Scrutiny of Investment Advisers.

State securities regulators cracked down on more investment advisers last year after thousands of midsize advisers switched to state oversight from the Securities and Exchange Commission.

A total of 3,564 license applications were withdrawn in 2012 during the vetting process, a 27% increase from 2011, according to a new enforcement report from the North American Securities Administrators Association Inc. slated for release Thursday. In addition, the states denied or revoked another 736 licenses.

The trend reflects the fact that more than 2,100 investment advisers with assets under management between $30 million and $100 million transferred to state regulation from the SEC that year under a provision of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law. State regulators issued letters of deficiency to many of the advisers who had never been examined by the SEC, resulting in withdrawal of the application. The commission has said it has the resources to perform annual examinations of only about 8% of the nearly 11,000 advisers registered with the agency.

“Closer scrutiny of licensing applications has resulted in a noticeable increase in the number of licensing withdrawals in the past year,” said Andrea Seidt, NASAA President and Ohio Securities Commissioner.

“The added attention the states gave these advisers who switched brought to light some of the issues that may not have been identified by the SEC,” said Judith Shaw, Maine securities administrator and former chairwoman of the NASAA enforcement section.

The problems that came up included firms having unlicensed investment adviser representatives, failing to document suitability in their investment recommendations and not providing appropriate privacy notifications to clients.

It’s not surprising that more deficiencies would arise in midsize firms because they have bigger books of business and are more likely to have custody of client funds or deal with complex products, according to Ms. Shaw. For the most part, the problems did not indicate fraud.

“We’re not talking about intentional efforts to violate the law,” she said.

The results demonstrate the volume of reviews more than a spike in malfeasance, according to Keith Woodwell, director of the Utah Division of Securities and vice chairman of the NASAA enforcement section.

“I don’t think there was a particular problem with the switching advisers,” he said. “It was a function of an increased quantity of audits that led to an increased quantity of enforcement actions.”

Overall, the number of state securities investigations dropped to 5,865 in 2012, from 6,121 in 2011, and enforcement actions declined to 2,496, from 2,602 in 2011. The 2012 actions resulted in $694 million in restitution, and $115 million in fines and penalties, compared with $2.2 billion and $126 million, respectively, in 2011.

The declining numbers reflect the fact that cases related to the 2008 financial crisis are concluding, according to Mr. Woodwell.

“We’re seeing the number of compliance and enforcement cases come down to pre-recession levels,” he said.

The two products at the center of the most enforcement actions in 2012 were unregistered securities and oil and gas investments.

The trend is a sign that investors are losing faith in traditional Wall Street companies because of their own compliance problems, Mr. Woodwell said.

“They’re looking for alternative investments vehicles and, frankly, that’s where people get themselves into trouble,” he said. “We try to get people to deal with the licensed industry, but the headlines don’t always help in that regard.”

By Mark Schoeff Jr.




Bond Dealers of America Submits Comment Letter to MSRB Re: Concept Release on a New Central Transparency Platform.

Today, the BDA submitted a comment letter addressing the MSRB’s concept release on pre-trade and post-trade pricing data dissemination through a new Central Transparency Platform.

The comment letter focused on the following items:

You can find the final letter here:

http://origin.library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1105697510106-307/Final_BDA_letter_CTP2.+11+1+13.pdf




MSRB Holds Quarterly Meeting.

The Board of Directors of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) held its quarterly meeting October 23-25, 2013 where it established priorities for implementation of a regulatory framework for municipal advisors and agreed to develop and solicit public comment on a “best execution” rule for the municipal market, among other decisions affecting municipal market transparency and integrity.

In light of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) September 2013 final registration rule for municipal advisors, which addresses interpretative issues relevant in determining whether a firm or individual is engaging in municipal advisory services, the Board agreed to proceed with the development of a regulatory framework for advisors that prioritizes five rules aimed at protecting municipal entities and investors. They are: fiduciary duty and fair dealing standards of conduct of municipal advisors to municipal entities and obligated persons; supervision requirements for municipal advisory firms and their employees; rules to address the potential for pay-to-play activities by municipal advisors; limitations on gifts and gratuities to employees of municipal securities issuers and other market participants; and duties of solicitors. Additional conforming rule changes will also be proposed as appropriate.

The Board directed staff to focus immediately on a proposed rule that will provide guidance on the statutory fiduciary duty owed by municipal advisors to municipal entities and the duty of fair dealing owed by municipal advisors to municipal entities and obligated persons. The Board will request public comment as soon as it has completed its review and development of a proposed rule.

“We are proceeding with municipal advisor rulemaking in a thoughtful and thorough manner, and one that acknowledges the challenges of writing rules for a newly defined class of financial professionals,” said MSRB Chair Daniel Heimowitz. “While we diligently develop rules, we will also put in place a professional qualifications program, and conduct targeted education and outreach for advisors to address the full scope of our responsibilities.”

At its meeting, the Board also discussed comments received on the MSRB’s concept proposal about establishing a best execution rule for the municipal securities market. The Board directed MSRB staff to develop and publish for public comment a rule proposal modeled on Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s (FINRA) best execution rule for the equity and corporate fixed income markets, Rule 5310. The Board said it would ensure that any rule proposal takes into consideration the unique characteristics of the municipal market.

“A best execution rule in the municipal market would improve market efficiency by assuring the flow of information in support of fair pricing for investors,” said Heimowitz.

Taking up earlier work, the Board will proceed with two proposals to simplify existing rules – one to consolidate municipal securities dealers’ fair pricing obligations and one to consolidate the MSRB’s multiple registration rules and forms for municipal securities dealers and municipal advisors. The Board reviewed comments received and approved filing both of the proposals with the SEC.

The Board also conducted a thorough review of its professional qualifications regime, which consists of examinations and continuing education requirements. In connection with this review, the Board agreed to request public comment on potential changes to the continuing education requirements for municipal securities dealers.

Finally, the Board met with SEC Chair Mary Jo White and FINRA Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Richard Ketchum to discuss top issues facing the municipal securities market. These conversations with the leadership of the SEC and FINRA support coordination and informed policymaking in areas of mutual interest, including enforcement.




MSRB Announces Expanded State Outreach.

The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) today announced a national, multi-year campaign to increase its outreach to state and local governments that issue municipal securities. The effort aims to share with municipal entities how the MSRB’s Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA®) website is a resource for evaluating municipal finance options, complying with disclosure requirements and communicating with investors.

Read the full press release: http://www.msrb.org/News-and-Events/Press-Releases/2013/MSRB-Announces-Expanded-State-Outreach.aspx




MSRB Prioritizes Best Execution, Fiduciary Duty Rules.

The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board will request comment on a best execution rule for the municipal market as early as this calendar year, and has also decided to prioritize rules governing municipal advisors, beginning with a fiduciary duty rule.

MSRB leaders announced the decisions Monday in a conference call following the board of directors’ meeting in Alexandria, Va. last week. The meeting was the first for the fiscal year 2014 board, and the first since the release of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s final rule on municipal advisor registration. MSRB Executive Director Lynnette Kelly said the board directed staff to develop a best execution rule based on the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s rule governing corporate bonds, and would tackle fiduciary duty, supervision, political contribution, gifts and gratuities, and conduct rules for MAs in the coming months.

Kelly said that the best execution rule could be put out for public comment prior to the board’s next meeting in January, and though based on the FINRA rule, would take the unique characteristics of the muni market into account. Broker-dealers have been wary about such a rule, which would require them to make an effort to execute transactions with prices as favorable as possible for their customers, as required in the corporate bond marketplace. Dealers have warned that copying the FINRA corporate rule would not work for the municipal bond market because munis are traded infrequently and there is no central platform where dealers can check prices quickly.

MSRB chairman Daniel Heimowitz, who assumed the role Oct. 1, said the board had a very robust discussion about municipal advisor rulemaking. He said that the MSRB would attempt to “define and clarify” the obligations of MAs under the fiduciary standard mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act, with particular attention to when that duty begins and ends for the advisor. Heimowitz said that while underwriters have a fair idea of when their roles begin and end on a particular transaction, the timing is a bit more unclear for MAs.

“We want to be as precise as we can be,” Heimowitz said.

The chairman declined to be specific about when a fiduciary duty rule could be put out for comment, but said he was optimistic it could be well before next summer. Both Kelly and Heimowitz said the board would not be recycling rule proposals issued two years ago under the SEC’s first crack at municipal advisor, proposals that the MSRB withdrew after the SEC decided not to move forward with its original MA rule.

“This is a new board,” Heimowitz said. He added that as the MSRB moves forward, it will continue to host webinars and publish educational materials for MAs, who have not been subject to MSRB regulation before.

“We committed to an educational process,” Heimowitz said.

Kelly said the new rules will be subject to the MSRB’s new policy of formally incorporating economic analysis into the process, which will be visible in the requests for comment. She said the analysis does entail more work for MSRB staff “on the front end”, but would not be the cause of any delay in the process.

The board also decided to file with the SEC its proposals to consolidate existing rules and guidance on both fair pricing and MSRB registration. One proposal would consolidate guidance from the MSRB’s fair dealing and prices and commissions rules into a single fair-pricing rule. The other seeks to create a single rule, A-12, governing MSRB registration. That would allow the board to eliminate its Rules A-14 on an annual fee, A-15 on notification to the board of a change in status, name or address, and G-40 on electronic mail contacts, as well as Forms RTRS and G-40, according to the MSRB. The SEC has the authority to approve the rules, reject them, or seek further comment.

Kelly said the board also conducted a comprehensive review of professional qualifications exams and continuing education requirements for municipal securities dealers, and will issue a proposal seeking to amend the continuing education requirements sometime before the next meeting.

BY KYLE GLAZIER




MSRB Proposal to Consolidate Guidance Under MSRB Rule G-17 Published in Federal Register.

The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB)’s request for approval from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of a package of rule proposals to consolidate existing interpretive guidance under MSRB Rule G-17 related to three key fair dealing obligations for municipal securities dealers has been published in the Federal Register. The proposals establish or revise stand-alone rules on time-of-trade disclosures to investors, dealings with sophisticated municipal market participants and suitability of recommendations.

Read the MSRB’s rule filing in the Federal Register at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-10-22/pdf/2013-24549.pdf

The deadline for submitting comments to the SEC is November 12, 2013.




MSRB Proposal to Amend Rule G-11 Published in Federal Register.

The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB)’s request for approval from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of a proposed rule change to MSRB Rule G-11 to clearly prohibit, except in limited circumstances, dealers from providing consents to changes in bond authorizing documents has been published in the Federal Register.

Read the MSRB’s rule filing in the Federal Register at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-10-22/pdf/2013-24558.pdf

The deadline for submitting comments to the SEC is November 12, 2013.




MSRB Announces Topics For Board Meeting.

Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board’s board of directors will discuss a possible best execution rule and municipal advisor regulation during their meeting in Alexandria, Va. this week, the MSRB said in a recent notice.

The Oct. 23-25 meeting at MSRB’s headquarters will be the first for the new board members who took their seats this month. Led by new chairman and RBC Capital Markets managing director Daniel Heimowitz, the board members will discuss pricing, registration of regulated entities, and professional qualification exams for dealers in addition to best execution and municipal advisors.

The board’s discussion of a possible best execution rule will be centered around public input received following a request for comment the MSRB issued in August. Broker-dealers have been skittish about such a rule, which would require them to make an effort to execute transactions with prices as favorable as possible for  their customers, similar to a rule that already exists in the corporate bond marketplace. Dealers have warned that copying the corporate rule written by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority would not work for municipal bonds because munis are traded infrequently and there is no central platform where dealers can check prices quickly.

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association has repeatedly suggested its own version of a best execution rule, called “execution with diligence,” which would require dealers to use “reasonable diligence” to determine the market for a bond so the price it provides to a customer is “fair and reasonable under prevailing market conditions.”

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s 2012 report on the municipal market recommended that the MSRB develop a best execution rule, noting the relative “opacity” of the market and that prices have tended to run higher for smaller “retail” trades than those obtained on larger institutional trades.

The board also will discuss the SEC’s recent adoption of a permanent municipal advisor registration rule, and talk about the possibility of an MSRB rule codifying the duties of MAs to their clients. The Dodd-Frank Act bestows a fiduciary duty on MAs to act in their clients’ best interests. The SEC defines MAs as individuals giving specific advice to a municipal entity or conduit borrower about the issuance of bonds, the investment of bond proceeds, or muni escrow funds.

The MSRB is considering proposing a Rule G-42 that would “set basic standards for the conduct of municipal advisory activities by municipal advisors,” but would not include duties of solicitors, according to an MSRB release.

Other items on the board’s plate for the upcoming meeting include proposals to streamline existing rules and guidance, including the possibility of consolidating guidance from the MSRB’s fair dealing and prices and commissions rules into a single fair-pricing rule. The consolidation would not alter the substance of existing requirements, MSRB officials have said, and public feedback on the proposal has been generally supportive.

The board will also discuss public feedback on creating a single rule, A-12, governing MSRB registration. That would allow the board to eliminate its Rules A-14 on an annual fee, A-15 on notification to the board of a change in status, name or address, and G-40 on electronic mail contacts, as well as Forms RTRS and G-40, according to the MSRB.

The meeting will also include a discussion of professional qualifications exams and continuing education requirements for municipal securities dealers.

BY KYLE GLAZIER




Senator: FINRA Too Weak to Go After Deadbeat Brokers.

In letters to Ketchum and SEC Markey calls for tougher expungement rules and more effort to throw out rogues

Sen. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., is pushing the SEC and Finra to tighten the screws on rogue

The lawmaker who 20 years ago wrote the legislation that led to the creation of a database containing background information about brokers is calling on financial regulators to crack down on brokers who violate securities rules and continue to practice.

In a letter Friday, Sen. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., told Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary Jo White that the commission should take “remedial regulatory action” to address what he calls weaknesses in the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc.’s ability to protect investors from “unscrupulous brokers.”

Mr. Markey said that it is too easy for brokers to clear their records of disciplinary actions in the BrokerCheck database and avoid paying arbitration awards to harmed investors.

“Plainly, the Finra rules need to be strengthened,” Mr. Markey wrote. “[A]ll arbitration awards and settlements should be reported by BrokerCheck. Expungement should truly be rare, and arbitrators should not be allowed to decide that an award should be expunged. Rather, Finra should establish an internal process that determines whether a particular award or settlement meets stringent expungement criteria.”

The SEC, which has authority over Finra, also should prevent brokers from wiggling out of paying arbitration awards by shutting down their operations or declaring bankruptcy. He cited Finra statistics which show that $51 million in arbitration awards from 2011 have not yet been fulfilled.

“Current regulations allow brokerages to open with far too little capital — certainly not enough to pay an arbitration award,” Mr. Markey wrote. “The SEC needs to investigate these deadbeat brokers and amend existing or promulgate new rules to address this problem.”

In calling for the reforms, Mr. Markey highlighted a recent report in the Wall Street Journal which said that more than 5,000 brokers who worked for firms thrown out of the industry by Finra are still practicing. He also referred to a recent study by the Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association that showed that expungement was granted more than 90% of the time it is requested by brokers in arbitration cases that were settled from 2007 through 2011.

“If brokers with that number of disciplinary disclosures are allowed to continue practicing, Finra needs to revise its disciplinary system,” Mr. Markey wrote.

Mr. Markey sent letters to both Finra and the SEC on Friday. The SEC declined to comment.

In a statement, Finra said that it has barred more than 2,300 brokers from the industry over the past five years and is reviewing expungement rules.

“FINRA has been actively assessing the expungement process,” the organization said. “We have recently begun to implement changes and will continue to take any and all steps necessary in this and other areas to ensure the integrity of BrokerCheck and strengthen investor protection.”

In response to the PIABA study earlier this month, Finra released a statement saying that the regulator granted 838 expungements following court orders between 2007 and 2011, or less than 5% of the 17,635 arbitration cases filed during that period.

Bryan Ward, a partner at Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP, said it’s difficult for brokers to get arbitration claims removed from their records. Their requests are reviewed by arbitrators and then have to be approved by a court.

“It seems like a lot of commotion without a single instance of expungement having been granted improperly,” Mr. Ward said, referring to Mr. Markey’s letter. “It seems to be used appropriately, given the numbers.”

Mr. Ward also said it’s not practical to remove arbitrators from the expungement process.

“The point of the Finra arbitration system is to allow arbitrators to make findings of fact rather than Finra itself,” Mr. Ward said. “It would certainly be a burden on Finra to be making those decisions.”

Nearly every client agreement at brokerages includes a clause requiring mandatory arbitration of investor disputes. Finra operates the arbitration system.

In a statement, Mr. Markey said the investor-protection rules regarding broker disciplinary disclosure that emanated from his legislation more than 20 years ago need to be updated.

“It is unacceptable that some brokers have been able to conceal significant disciplinary information from the public,” Mr. Markey said. “Even worse, it is unacceptable that once a consumer has won an award against a brokers by a securities industry arbitration panel, that some brokers have failed to pay the award that has been ordered. I will continue to call for a most rigorous tracking and disciplinary system.”

By Mark Schoeff Jr.




Financial Regulators Propose Joint Standards for Assessing Diversity Policies and Practices of Regulated Entities.

JOINT RELEASE

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

National Credit Union Administration

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

Securities and Exchange Commission

Six federal financial regulatory agencies are proposing joint standards for assessing the diversity policies and practices of the institutions they regulate.

The proposed standards are intended to promote transparency and awareness of diversity policies and practices within the institutions.

The assessment standards cover four key areas:

•    Organizational commitment to diversity and inclusion.

•    Workforce profile and employment practices.

•    Procurement and business practices and supplier diversity.

•    Practices to promote transparency of organizational diversity and inclusion.

In developing these proposed standards, the six agencies tailored the standards to account for variables including asset size, number of employees, governance structure, income, number of members or customers, contract volume, location, and community characteristics. The agencies recognize standards may need to change and evolve over time.

Each of the federal financial regulatory agencies houses an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion (OMWI). Under Section 342 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, each OMWI is required to develop standards for assessing diversity policies and practices in the regulated entities.

The agencies’ OMWI directors held roundtable discussions with a range of parties, including representatives from depository institutions, holding companies, credit unions, and industry trade groups to solicit input on assessment standards and learn about the challenges and successes of current diversity programs and policies. Roundtable discussions also were held with financial professionals, consumer advocates, and community representatives to gain a greater understanding of issues facing minorities and women in employment and business contracting in the financial sector. Information obtained from those discussions helped shape the proposed standards.

Once published in the Federal Register, the proposed policy statement will be available for public comment for 60 days.




SIFMA Squares Off with SEC Advisory Group Over Fiduciary Standard.

Claims adhering to 1940 Act would be too restrictive to brokers

“The proposal would completely foreclose broker-dealers from the retirement-planning and investment-planning businesses — businesses in which broker-dealers have served clients for many decades,” wrote Kevin Carroll, SIFMA’s managing director and associate general counsel.

A major Wall Street trade organization opposes a recommendation by a Securities and Exchange Commission advisory group that calls on the agency to raise investment advice standards for brokers based on the law that currently governs investment advisers.

In an Oct. 11 letter to the SEC, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association said that if the agency proposes a rule to strengthen the standard of care for retail investment advice, it should use as its starting point the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which set rules for broker-dealers.

SIFMA said that it supports a rule that would require brokers to act in the best interests of their clients — the standard that advisers now meet. Brokers currently operate under a less stringent suitability standard.

This month, a subcommittee of the SEC Investor Advisory Committee released a proposal saying that the SEC should craft a rule to establish a uniform fiduciary duty by narrowing the broker-dealer exemption to the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

But brokers rely on the exemption in the 1940 law to charge commissions for securities transactions related to retirement and investment planning, according to SIFMA. It has long opposed subjecting brokers to the law.

“The proposal would completely foreclose broker-dealers from the retirement-planning and investment-planning businesses — businesses in which broker-dealers have served clients for many decades,” wrote Kevin Carroll, SIFMA’s managing director and associate general counsel. “Only investment advisers could then engage in those businesses. Such an approach would be grossly anti-competitive and unfair, and completely out of line with [the financial reform law] promise of a business model neutrality.”

In an interview, Mr. Carroll said that changing the broker-dealer exemption must be done legislatively rather than through regulation.

“Only Congress can do that,” Mr. Carroll said. “The notion that the SEC can modify the 40 Act is not a workable solution.”

The Dodd-Frank financial reform law authorizes the SEC to raise investment advice standards. It has not yet made a decision to proceed.

The Investor Advisory Committee, which was created by Dodd-Frank to represent the interests of small investors, was scheduled to vote on the fiduciary-duty proposal at an Oct. 10 meeting. That session was canceled due to the government shutdown and has not been rescheduled.

In addition to the SIFMA letter, the SEC has received comments from fi360 Inc., a fiduciary-duty consulting firm, the Investment Adviser Association and the Institute for the Fiduciary Standard regarding the fiduciary-duty proposal.

An IAC subcommittee recommended that the SEC use the 1940 Act as its foundation for a fiduciary-duty rule in order to ensure that the current standard is not watered down.

“We did not expect them to support the recommendation of rule making under the Advisers Act,” said Barbara Roper, director of investor protection at the Consumer Federation of America and a member of the IAC subcommittee.

She stressed that the subcommittee also recommended a way for the SEC to propose a fiduciary-duty rule under the 1934 law, as long as it includes a requirement for brokers to act in their clients’ best interests. In its letter, SIFMA endorsed that approach.

“It is gratifying that the main broker-dealer trade association is in support of one of those two options,” Ms. Roper said.

By Mark Schoeff Jr.




MSRB Enhances MyEMMA Search Functionality.

The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) has enhanced its MyEMMA service to enable more tailored searches for information about specific groups of municipal securities. MyEMMA is a free service that allows users to sign up to receive alerts when new information about an individual security or group of securities becomes available on EMMA. MyEMMA users now can limit their advanced searches to their groups of securities and more quickly find information related to particular securities. MyEMMA also allows users to save frequently used sets of search criteria.

Learn more about searching with MyEMMA.

http://www.msrb.org/msrb1/EMMA/pdfs/MyEMMA-Advantages.pdf




Chicago's UNO Charter School Network Under SEC Scrutiny.

The Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating Chicago-based UNO Charter School Network for potential securities violations apparently tied to its October 2011 $37 million bond issue, the organization disclosed Wednesday.

The network issued $37 million of mostly tax-exempt new-money and refunding bonds in 2011 to help fund its ongoing expansion. The Illinois Finance Authority issued the bonds on the not-for-profit’s behalf. Robert W. Baird & Co. Inc. and Cabrera Capital Markets LLC served as underwriters with Kutak Rock LLP acting as bond counsel.

“Last month, UNO Charter School Network received a request for documents from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. We are responding to this request while continuing our community work, including educating more than 7,600 students, over 95% of which are from low-income and minority families, and implementing the reforms outlined earlier this year by Judge Wayne Andersen,” the organization said in a prepared statement Wednesday. “With respect to the government inquiry, we’re maintaining a level of confidentiality required by the SEC.”

The Chicago Sun-Times earlier this year reported on insider deals involving school construction contracts. Reports tying state grant payments to companies owned by relatives of a top UNO executive Miguel d’Escoto prompted Gov. Pat Quinn to halt funding this spring. Under the grant agreement, UNO should have disclosed the potential conflict of interest, state officials said. The network was awarded a $98 million state grant appropriation in 2009. D’Escoto has since resigned.

UNO commissioned Andersen, a retired federal judge, to conduct a review that resulted in a report recommending changes in governance and contracting practices.

Quinn soon restored funding, saying he was satisfied with reforms UNO was undertaking including its cancellation of the d’Escoto-related contracts.

UNO revamped its board in late May. Longtime chief executive officer Juan Rangel stepped down from his board post while keeping his paid position. Martin Cabrera Jr., well known in local public finance circles as the owner of Cabrera Capital Markets, took over as board chairman with the task of implementing reforms.

Cabrera abruptly resigned the post last month. Cabrera said Thursday during his three months as the unpaid UNO board chairman he had no knowledge “of any type of regulatory investigation by the SEC or others.”

“I resigned because of difference in philosophy and mission.  Meanwhile, Cabrera Capital Markets will continue to always strive to meet our responsibility and accountability to our clients in full compliance of all industry regulations,” he said of his decision to leave.

The SEC declined to comment Wednesday and an IFA spokeswoman said the agency has not been contacted by the SEC seeking any information.

In the Sept. 20 letter from the SEC to UNO posted by the Chicago Sun-Times, the SEC said it is “conducting an investigation…to determine if violations of the federal securities laws have occurred.”

The agency ordered UNO to forward to its enforcement division by Oct. 11 documents and communications related to its state grant agreements, all documents related to its 2011 bond issue and the offering statement, information provided to investors, communications with underwriters on the bonds and investors, and information on who worked on disclosure included in the offering statement.

The request also sought documents and communications related to the engagement of the d’Escoto-related firms to build grant-funded schools, including communications relating to potential conflicts of interest. The SEC also sought transcripts from board meetings during which the bond issue, official statement, or d’Escoto was discussed.

The Chicago Public Schools oversees UNO’s charter and provides funding support. It’s the largest charter school operator in the state.

UNO carries a BBB-minus rating from Standard & Poor’s, the lowest investment grade level. In a December 2012 report, analysts said the UNO Charter School Network continues to expand and to manage its expansion well overall.

In fiscal years 2011 and 2012, the charter schools UCSN had surpluses, after two years of deficits.

Demand continues to be strong, as evidenced by wait lists at each school. However, growth and timing partly contributed to a low days’ cash on hand calculation of 32 days at fiscal year-end 2012. In addition to being secured by the revenues of nine of the organization’s schools, the bonds carry a guaranty of the closely affiliated organization, United Neighborhood Organization, which acts as the charter management company and owner of properties.

UNO, a prominent Latino organization with strong local political ties, was established in 1984 and the organization established the charter school network in 1998.

The Standard & Poor’s reports noted the state support of $98 million. The school network has a total of about $67 million in debt.

BY YVETTE SHIELDS




St. Louis Municipal-Bond Underwriter Agreed to Pay-to-Play Fine.

L.J. Hart & Co., a St. Louis-based municipal-bond underwriter, agreed to pay a $200,000 fine to settle charges that it violated pay-to-play rules by giving tickets to sporting events to win work from schools and counties.

L.J. Hart gave school and county officials more than 2,000 tickets to attend games played by the Kansas City Chiefs, St. Louis Cardinals and other teams, according to Financial Industry Regulatory Authority documents. The tickets were valued at $183,546.

The gifts show that securities regulators haven’t eliminated underwriters’ practice of giving gifts to public officials from whom they seek business in the $3.7 trillion municipal-bond market. This year about three-fourths of the $233.4 billion of municipal debt sold has been through negotiation, instead of competitive bidding, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

“The regulators need to go further in limiting gifts,” said Joy Howard, principal with WM Financial Strategies, a St. Louis-based financial adviser who favors competitive sales. “If you’re doing competitive bidding, all of this is a moot point.”

With competitive sales, governments take bids on their bonds the way they would for construction contracts or office-supply products. With negotiated sales, the officials hire underwriters to place the bonds with investors.

Financial Incentives

The firm agreed to a settlement in a Finra disciplinary proceeding. L.J. Hart didn’t admit or deny allegations that it violated Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board rules designed to remove financial incentives in awarding underwriting business for negotiated deals, according to a Finra order dated Sept. 24. The Alexandria, Virginia-based MSRB makes rules for the municipal-bond market.

The firm broke MSRB gift rules because its own officials didn’t attend events with the clients, according to the Finra order. If firm officials had attended, the firm wouldn’t have violated the restrictions.

L.J. Hart, which has been giving tickets since 1994, “never used the tickets as an inducement” to be hired, according to a document the firm said it submitted to Finra. The firm said it didn’t think it was necessary to accompany public officials to the games.

“L.J. Hart uses the tickets as an expression of its appreciation to its clients for their previous business and to serve as a reminder advertising of L.J. Hart’s services,” according to the document.

Past Gifts

Larry J. Hart, founder and principal, said in an interview that the firm had provided regulators information about its gifts in past audits and that no questions had been raised. The firm has changed its policies to require firm officials to attend events with clients, he said.

“We agreed to settle to proceed as a business and to avoid extensive legal costs,” said Hart.

The ruling, which covered actions between January 1, 2009, and March 31, 2011, was reported earlier today in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

The MSRB supports “vigorous enforcement” of its gift rules, which are “designed to preserve the integrity of the municipal market,” said Lynnette Kelly, executive director, in an e-mailed statement. “The public needs to have confidence that municipal securities business is awarded based on an underwriter’s qualifications and not its ability to provide tickets to coveted sporting events.”




SEC Wants Muni Underwriters to Stay on Top of Disclosure.

Oct 10 (Reuters) – A U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission official warned municipal bond underwriters on Thursday that they must make sure their issuer clients keep up with their disclosure obligations.

Throughout 2013, the commission has cracked down on cities, states, schools and other issuers in the $3.7 trillion municipal market to ensure they provide bond buyers with accurate and timely information. Its landmark fraud charges against Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, were based in part on the city’s failure to make required annual disclosures.

But Peter Chan, assistant regional director in the SEC’s enforcement division, said the regulators also hold underwriters who price the bonds responsible.

“Don’t get cute,” Chan said at the Bond Dealers of America National Fixed Income Conference, adding that the absence of due diligence files will only make the SEC “more curious.”

Underwriters should have procedures and documentation in place to prove due diligence in terms of researching that an issuer is compliant on disclosing its financial reports and other material information, he said.

The federal government has greater authority over banks, financial institutions and broker-dealers than over state and local governments, and some of the recent rash of municipal bond charges have involved underwriters.

In July, the SEC hit an Indiana school district and its bond underwriter with charges after official documents for a 2007 bond sale falsely claimed the district had complied with disclosure obligations. A few months earlier it accused the underwriters of a Victorville, California, airport deal of misleading investors about the value of property used to secure the bonds.

Chan, who works on enforcement cases in the Midwest, said public corruption is also an area of concern for the regulator, noting that the SEC brought civil charges last year against former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick and others over an alleged gift exchange meant to influence city pension fund investments.

Kilpatrick, who was convicted on federal criminal corruption charges in March, was sentenced on Thursday to 28 years in prison.

Chan said underwriters should not “cross the line” in their attempts to get business from public debt issuers, warning that the SEC has “no problem” getting cooperation from the U.S. Attorney and other law enforcement authorities.

“Don’t even get close to the line,” he said, adding that if they observe one of their competitors relying on gifts, charitable contributions or other enticements to get business, they should contact the SEC.




SEC Official to Muni Underwriters: "Don’t Get Cute."

Peter Chan, assistant regional director in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s division of enforcement, had some advice Thursday for municipal-bond underwriters when dealing with regulators: “Don’t get cute.”

“Stuff like, ‘Oh, we don’t keep due diligence files,’ stuff like, ‘It’s privileged,’ and so forth, it doesn’t stop us,” said Mr. Chan, at a conference in Chicago put on by Bond Dealers of America. “It actually gets us more curious.”

Mr. Chan also said that if underwriting firms see their competitors winning business by unscrupulous methods, broker-dealers should not seek to emulate the potentially illegal behavior. Instead, he said, they should contact the SEC.

“Don’t get mad,” he said. “Call the SEC.”

“Don’t even get close the line,” he added. “Criminal authorities get very, very interested in this area.”

In general, municipal securities regulations prohibit broker-dealers from giving gifts to public officials in excess of $100 a year. There is an exception to the $100 limit for “normal business dealings,” such as occasional tickets to events if representatives of the broker-dealer are also in attendance.

Mr. Chan highlighted a recent case against West Clark Community Schools, in Indiana, which was charged with falsely stating to bond investors that it was providing annual financial information, as it agreed to do in connection with previous bond sales.

The SEC said in July that it was the first time a municipality was charged with falsely claiming in bond offering documents that it was providing financial updates to investors. The school district settled the case, agreeing to adopting written policies for providing updated figures.

The underwriter on its bond sale, City Securities Corp. in Indianapolis, was also charged and agreed to pay nearly $580,000, according to the SEC.




Fiduciary Duty Rule Still in SEC's Sights, Agency Chair Says.

(Reuters) – U.S. regulators are still working their way through the thorny question of whether they should write rules to create a harmonized fiduciary rule for retail brokers and investment advisers, Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Mary Jo White said Wednesday.

“It’s a major focus of our efforts,” White told reporters on the sidelines of the annual Securities Enforcement Forum in Washington, D.C.

“I can’t predict time wise when we actually reach it, but it’s obviously something very important to both work on and resolve where we’re going on it.”

The SEC has struggled for some time over how to tackle different standards of care that advisers and brokers owe to their customers.

Advisers are held to the higher standard and must put their customers’ interests ahead of their own. Brokers, by contrast, are only required to make investment recommendations that are “suitable” for their customers.

The 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law required the SEC to study the issue and gave the SEC the authority to write rules but did not mandate any changes.

A resulting SEC study, released in 2011, called for creating a uniform standard that would still be flexible enough to accommodate different business models.

Brokers have embraced the concept, saying they are supportive of a new standard as long as they can continue selling products.

But advisers have said they fear the SEC’s rule could water down the fiduciary duty and create potential conflicts of interest.

The SEC never managed to get out a proposed rule after the study came out, however, after Republican commissioners at the time criticized the report and said more economic study is required to determine if a fiduciary duty rule is even necessary.

The SEC put out a request for more data to help inform its policymaking in March. But since then, little has been said about the issue or how the SEC may proceed.

As the SEC continues its work on the issue, the U.S. Department of Labor is also working on a proposal that would impose fiduciary responsibilities on advisers serving workplace retirement plans and individual retirement accounts.

Brokerages have lobbied heavily against such a proposal, saying they would be unable to continue to provide advice to middle Americans because of the additional regulatory burdens.

The department withdrew an earlier version of the proposal in 2010, after heavy criticism from the brokerage industry.

Plans to introduce a revised proposal this month have been delayed.

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, the brokerage industry’s main trade group, has been pushing for the department to hold off on its plan until the SEC unveils its own proposal.




MSRB Publishes First Report on Timing of Municipal Bond Annual Financial Disclosures.

The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) today released a report that documents for the first time statistics on the average time after the end of a fiscal year it takes issuers of municipal securities and other obligated persons to make their financial information available to the public.

View the report at: http://msrb.org/msrb1/EMMA/pdfs/MSRB-CD-Timing-of-Annual-Financial-Disclosures.pdf




WSJ: FINRA Mulls Insurance for Brokerage Firms.

The U.S. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority may require brokerage firms to carry insurance to cover the payment of arbitration awards to investors, the Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday.

FINRA, Wall Street’s industry-funded watchdog, will consider whether brokerage firms should be required to have “errors and omissions” insurance, which can cover legal claims, said Susan Axelrod, FINRA’s executive vice president of regulatory operations, according to the newspaper.

Insurance could help reduce the number of brokerage firms that shut down without paying awards or other legal claims owed to investors.

FINRA said $51 million of arbitration awards granted in 2011 had not been paid, or 11 percent of the total awards, up from 4 percent in both 2009 and 2010, according to the Journal.

A spokesman for the Securities and Exchange Commission, which oversees FINRA, said net capital rules ensure brokerage firms can return investor assets if the firm fails, according to the newspaper.




MA Rule May Change Dealer Practices.

Broker-dealer practices may change under the Securities and Exchange Commission’s new municipal advisor registration rule, as the rule encourages firms to establish underwriting relationships with issuers early in order to be exempt from registration.

SEC muni chief John Cross told participants in a webinar hosted jointly by The Bond Buyer and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association that the rule’s registration exemption for underwriters will probably result in earlier letters documenting a firm’s engagement to underwrite a bond deal.

The rule does not require underwriters to register as municipal advisors and allows them to provide certain advice on a specific issuance of bonds. But it only affords them the underwriter exemption from registration once they have been engaged as underwriter on a specific bond deal.

“That will be a change in focus for the broker-dealer community,” Cross said.

The SEC rule says that an MA is someone who provides advice to an issue or other municipal entity or borrower on the issuance of municipal bonds, the investment of bond proceeds or escrow funds, guaranteed investment contracts, and derivatives such as swaps. Advice means recommendations tailored to the municipal entity, and does not include general information or statements of fact.

While the SEC has not taken the position that “engagement” as an underwriter explicitly requires a contractual agreement, Cross said he expects such agreements to be used and to be signed early in the relationship between dealers and issuers. By making clear that they have been engaged on the transaction, dealer firms could rely on that exemption from the registration rule while providing advice on the structure, terms, and timing of the offering.

Dave Sanchez, general counsel at De La Rosa & Co. and former SEC official who also participated in the webinar, said dealer firms are already assuming they are entering a new world under the regulatory regime.

“A majority believe it will have a major effect on their business,” he said.

Sanchez asked Cross and SEC attorney-fellow Rebecca Olsen to describe the relationship between the MA rule and Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board Rule G-23 on activities of financial advisors. G-23 prohibits financial advisors from also serving as underwriters on the same transaction. Bond lawyers have questioned whether a municipal advisor under the SEC rule must also be a financial advisor under the MSRB rule. Some have suggested that dealers could offer unsolicited advice to issuers, accept the fiduciary duty that comes with that, and then inform the issuer that they will seek to underwrite at an arm’s length later with no fiduciary duty attached at that time.

But the two regulators were quick to discourage that line of thinking.

“Rule G-23 still needs to be complied with,” Olsen said.

Cross underscored the intent of G-23, which was designed to prevent dealer-affiliated financial advisors from recommending bond deals that they then underwrite, regardless of whether those deals are in the best interest of the municipality.

“That seems like the classic role-switching that the MSRB rule relates to,” Cross said.

Firms will be required to register as MAs with the SEC under the rule on a staggered basis beginning July 1 2014, though the substantive and interpretative aspects of the rule will take effect 60 days following the publication of the rule in the Federal Register, which has not yet happened.

About 1,150 MAs are currently registered under a temporary registration rule that expires at the end of 2014. Cross said he expects that number to remain about the same once final registration is finished.

But Lanny Schwartz, a lawyer at Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP who also took part in the webinar, said some firms have been “waiting in the weeds” to register under the final rule. Cross said those firms should already be registered under the temporary rule.

The MSRB has the task of creating rules with which registered MAs must comply.

MSRB executive director Lynnette Kelly told webinar participants that while the MSRB board has control over the rulemaking agenda, she expects it may take up a fiduciary duty and fair dealing requirements first and tackle other rules or rule changes over the next 12-18 months. Those are likely to include requirements on supervision, gifts and gratuities, political contributions and professional qualifications. The MSRB also has to develop a professional exam for MAs, who will have to register with the board as well as the SEC.

by: KYLE GLAZIER




Shutdown Delays Advisor Rule Implementation.

The federal government shutdown will leave some agencies overseeing the bond market mostly operational in the near-term, but the municipal advisor rule’s implementation will be delayed and Build America Bond subsidy payments might be temporarily halted.

The Securities and Exchange Commission and core Treasury Department offices will largely continue to function in the absence of congressionally-approved funding. The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, a self-regulator, is not covered by the shutdown. However, the Internal Revenue Service is operating on a skeleton crew focused mainly on upholding tax laws, with only 9.3% of the agency’s roughly 94,500 employees exempt from furlough, according to agency documents. The tax-exempt bond office appears to be closed.

Most federal websites will not be updated until Congress passes a continuing appropriations bill, and the Federal Register will not be updated. Because publication in the Federal Register starts the 60-day countdown for effectiveness of the SEC’s recently approved MA registration rule and the rule wasn’t published before Tuesday, its implementation  will be further delayed.

Congressional Republicans and Democrats are at a stalemate over funding, with conservatives insisting on defunding or delaying Obamacare. The last government shutdowns, which occurred in 1995 and 1996, totaled 28 days, sources said.

SEC spokesman John Nester said the commission has funds available to allow it to continue functioning for weeks, despite the absence of government spending. This means that personnel in the enforcement and muni offices will still be reporting for work as usual, he said.

“Unlike most other agencies, our appropriations language provides that our funds ‘remain available until expended,’ Nester said. “It is not uncommon for us to have carryover balances at the end of a fiscal year, and we have determined that our carryover balances are sufficient to allow us to remain open for a few weeks during the lapse of appropriations.”

The MSRB, which reports to the SEC and has rules mandated by federal law, is funded by fees and portions of penalties from enforcement cases and will not be affected by the shutdown.

To the extent that Build America Bond subsidy payments are treated as tax refunds, they won’t be paid during the shutdown. “Tax refunds will not be issued until normal government operations resume,” the IRS said in an announcement about its operations during the shutdown.

The Treasury’s published shutdown procedures note that the Office of Domestic Finance will “continue Treasury borrowing/debt programs to meet the government’s financial obligations and avoid, or minimize, disruptions to Treasury’s financing schedule.” State and local groups are worried about what the shutdown could mean for federal payments and support they are accustomed to receiving.

“Besides shirking its responsibilities, Congress’ failure to pass a budget has real economic consequences for families and businesses in our communities,” said National League of Cities executive director Clarence Anthony. “The economic uncertainty this creates is quite frankly, frustrating, and we urge Congress to move forward in finding a way out of this mess.”

“Congress’ failure to reach agreement on even a short-term budget fix is disappointing and, if not resolved soon could impose harmful impacts on state and local governments,” said Dustin McDonald. director of the federal liaison center for the Government Finance Officers Association. If the shutdown is not ended, all non-mandatory discretionary government spending will cease in a few weeks, he said.

“State and local bond issuances could also be adversely affected by market uncertainty about the shutdown, delaying issuers from going to market for fear of higher borrowing costs,” McDonald continued. “Finally, it isn’t completely clear whether or not IRS subsidy payments to issuers of direct-pay bonds, such as the Build America Bonds program will go forward under a shutdown. Obviously that is a concern, especially in light of the 8.7% cut to the federal subsidy payments that issuers of these bonds have already been forced to endure through sequestration.”

Mesa, Ariz. Mayor Scott Smith, president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, said municipal leaders will continue to work despite Congress’ impasse.

“It is unfortunate that Washington has chosen to go the route of a government shutdown instead of figuring out a way to move forward for the sake of all Americans, including the majority of people who live in cities,” Smith said. “Regardless of what happens in Washington, the nation’s mayors will continue to lead, balancing budgets and solving problems. We do not have the luxury of turning our backs on our residents. We are pragmatic doers who believe in rolling up our sleeves, finding common ground on even the most difficult of issues and getting things done for the good of the whole.”

National Association of State Treasurers senior vice president Richard Ellis, who is the state treasurer of Utah, said it is unclear when or if federal payments states expect, including infrastructure funding, will be made. “We’re all kind-of waiting to see what this means to us,” he said.

by: KYLE GLAZIER




MSRB to Implement Revised Rules Addressing Retail Order Periods.

The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) has received approval from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to revise MSRB rules to establish certain basic regulatory standards relating to the use of retail order periods in the primary offering of municipal securities. The revised rules support the MSRB’s mission to protect municipal securities issuers and investors.

State and local governments may designate that a specific amount or specific maturities of new bonds be marketed to “retail” investors. The revised rules address concerns that dealers may be disregarding issuers’ criteria for participation in a retail order period.

The MSRB amended its initial proposal to the SEC in response to public comments requesting clarification of certain terms and concepts in the proposal. For example, the MSRB clarified that the definition of “retail order periods” in its proposal covers both those retail order periods in which the issuer has specified that only retail orders be accepted and those periods in which the issuer instructs the dealer to prioritize retail orders over other types of orders.

Revised MSRB Rule G-11 on primary offering practices and related revisions to Rule G-8 on recordkeeping and Rule G-32 on disclosures in connection with primary offerings will take effect on March 31, 2014.

The SEC Approval Order is available at:

http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/msrb/2013/34-70532.pdf




Dealers Concerned About MA Rule.

Broker-dealers are concerned about the exemptions provided for underwriters in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s municipal advisor registration rule, but securities lawyers and non-dealer municipal advisors say the more than 700-page release makes some important clarifications.

Much of the scrutiny of the rule, which came over the weekend after the rule was released late Friday, centers on the exemption from MA registration for underwriters.

While groups in every corner of the market praised the SEC for delivering the rule and for listening closely to industry feedback, broker-dealers also said the new rule may do some harm by preventing would-be underwriters from pitching ideas to issuers for fear they won’t be able to underwrite the bonds.

“This final rule does present some problems,” said Leslie Norwood, managing director, associate general counsel, and co-head of municipal securities at the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association.

Norwood said dealer firms frequently make suggestions to municipalities, and under the new rule these suggestions would itself create a fiduciary relationship inconsistent with underwriting. Under MSRB Rule G-23, firms cannot be both a financial advisor and an underwriter on the same bond issue. The SEC rule allows underwriters selected to handle a specific transaction to offer limited advice related to underwriting, but Norwood said uncertainty about what kind of communications might trigger a fiduciary relationship could lead broker-dealers to pull back from offering input that might be helpful to municipalities.

“That is a significant problem and we feel issuers will be harmed by not receiving these ideas,” she said.

Mike Nicholas, chairman and chief executive officer at the Bond Dealers of America, also said that there may be some lingering question about where the line between an advisor and an underwriter is drawn.

“If that is unclear in any fashion, the result is underwriters are going to be cautious,” he said.

But non-dealer MAs are pleased by the narrowness of the exemption.

“Based upon our preliminary review of the release, we are pleased that the SEC has determined to develop registration triggers that center upon whether the individual is providing municipal advisory services to municipal issuers and obligated persons,” said National Association of Independent Public Finance Advisors president Jeanine Rodgers Caruso. “Although we are concerned that underwriters will be exempt from the registration requirements when providing advice relative to the issuance of securities and in the scope of their underwriting engagement, we are pleasantly surprised by the limited nature of this exception.”

Securities lawyers said a broad new exception that allows anyone to offer financial advice to the issuer as long as the issuer has retained a registered MA on the same topic might create into some issues as well. The rule requires that the issuer certify in writing that it will rely solely on the advice of its MA. But issuers may balk at having to make such certifications. Other issuers might be confused by complex correspondence from dealers aimed at making clear they are not municipal advisors under the independent advisor exception.

An attorney who preferred not to be identified said it could be a compliance headache. “You may not be able to use the independent MA exception as often as you would like,” that lawyer concluded.






Copyright © 2026 Bond Case Briefs | bondcasebriefs.com