Municipal Securities

Municipal securities fall into two categories: 1) municipal bonds issued by states, cities, counties and other governmental entities to raise money to build roads, schools and a host of other projects for the public good; and 2) municipal fund securities. Municipal bonds are typically sold in minimum increments of $5,000, pay interest on a semi-annual basis, and have maturities that range from less than one year to 30 years. Municipal fund securities include 529 Savings Plans, which are established by states to provide a way for investors to pay for qualified education expenses, and ABLE Programs, which are savings accounts for individuals with disabilities and their families. Municipal bond and municipal fund security investments may offer tax advantages to certain investors.

A FINRA member that engages in municipal securities business or municipal advisory activities must register with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and  Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) and its registered representatives must be properly qualified.  Municipal securities broker-dealers and municipal advisors are subject to SEC and MSRB rules. Rules for municipal securities broker-dealers include, but are not limited to, the following:

  • Fair Dealing – Municipal broker-dealers must deal fairly with all persons and not engage in any deceptive, dishonest, or unfair practice.
  • Suitability – Firms recommending a municipal securities transaction must have reasonable grounds for believing that the securities are suitable for the customer.  This belief should be based on information available from the security’s issuer or any other source, as well as all facts known about the customer. 
  • Disclosures – Firms must disclose all material facts surrounding a municipal securities transaction before or at the time of trade.  Unlike suitability, this obligation exists whether or not the trade is recommended.
  • Pricing – Firms must trade with customers at fair and reasonable prices, considering all relevant factors. Part of this is making sure the price bears a reasonable relationship to the security’s prevailing market price.
  • Supervision – Firms must supervise their municipal securities business, and must have a supervisory system that is reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable rules and regulations.

In addition to Fair Dealing and Supervision, rules for municipal advisors include, but are not limited to, the following:

  • Standards of Conduct – Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, municipal advisors are deemed to owe a fiduciary obligation to their municipal entity clients.  MSRB rules define the specific conduct requirements of municipal advisors with respect to their fiduciary obligations.

The MSRB's Electronic Municipal Market Access system (EMMA) can be an excellent tool to help you gather information for suitability, disclosures, and pricing of municipal securities.

The SEC’s Office of Municipal Securities provides guidance on municipal advisor registration and municipal securities disclosure requirements.

FINRA is responsible for examining FINRA members that are municipal securities dealers or municipal advisors and for enforcing MSRB rules.  In addition, FINRA administers the professional qualifications program for the MSRB.  This includes the following qualification exams:

Contact FINRA

FINRA's Fixed Income Regulation (FIR) staff provides broker-dealers, attorneys, registered representatives, investors and other interested parties with guidance relating to FINRA’s enforcement of MSRB rules. 

FIR staff contacts:
Tiffany Buxton and Bonnie Bowes
FINRA, Fixed Income Regulation
1700 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 728-8000

  • Regulatory Notice 18-12
    2018 GASB Accounting Support Fee to Fund the Governmental Accounting Standards Board
    04/17/2018
  • Regulatory Notice 16-10
    Direct Purchases and Bank Loans as Alternatives to Public Financing in the Municipal Securities Market
    04/04/2016
  • Regulatory Notice 15-27
    Guidance Relating to Firm Short Positions and Fails-to-Receive in Municipal Securities
    07/30/2015
  • Regulatory Notice 10-41
    FINRA Reminds Firms of Their Sales Practice and Due Diligence Obligations When Selling Municipal Securities in the Secondary Market
    09/20/2010
  • Regulatory Notice 09-35
    FINRA Recommends Review of Municipal Securities Activities
    06/30/2009
  • Notice to Members 04-95
    NASD Issues Reminder to Members Regarding the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board's Implementation of Real-Time Reporting and Dissemination of Transactions in Municipal Securities
    12/28/2004
  • Notice to Members 04-30
    NASD Reminds Firms of Sales Practice Obligations In Sale of Bonds and Bond Funds
    04/13/2004
  • Notice to Members 03-17
    Sales Material for Municipal Fund Securities
    03/24/2003
  • Notice to Members 00-08
    NASD Reminds Members Of Their Obligations Regarding Municipal Securities Transaction Reporting
    01/10/2000
  • Guidance
    Name Not Public
    Exemptive relief is granted based on representations that: the contribution pre-dated the contributor’s designation as an MFP; the MFP attempted to obtain a refund of the contribution; the Firm identified the contribution through its supervisory processes during its screening process when Name was being considered for a role that would cause her to be designated as an MFP; and the MFP will be prohibited from soliciting or otherwise being involved in municipal securities business with the City for at least two years from the date of the Contribution.
    November 09, 2021
  • Guidance
    Name Not Public
    Exemptive relief is granted based on representations that: although the MFP/MAP is deemed to be such by virtue of her appointment to the Firm’s Management Committee, she is not involved in the Firm’s municipal securities or municipal advisory business; although the MFP/MAP signed the $25 contribution check, she represents that the contribution was actually her husband’s and was motivated by his desire to support female political candidates, as evidenced by a pattern of small contributions to other female candidates; the MFP/MAP’s husband is not employed by the Firm or any of its affiliates; the MFP/MAP has obtained a refund of the contribution; and the Firm identified the contribution through its supervisory processes and has put additional processes in place to ensure the MFP/MAP will not be involved in municipal securities or municipal advisory business for two years from the date of the contribution.
    October 21, 2020
  • Guidance
    Name Not Public
    Exemptive relief is granted based on representations that: the MFP/MAP made the contribution during a period of retirement prior to his employment as an MFP/MAP; the Firm discovered the contribution through its pre-employment due diligence process; the MFP/MAP requested a refund of the contribution; the Firm hired the MFP/MAP for reasons unrelated to the contribution; the Firm has a long-standing relationship with the City ; the contribution was not related to any business with the City; and the MFP/MAP will be prohibited from involvement in municipal securities and municipal advisory business with the City for a period of time.
    November 06, 2018
  • Guidance
    Name Not Public
    Exemptive relief is granted based on representations that: the MFP and his spouse each intended to contribute $250 to the Candidate’s campaign; the MFP had pre-cleared a $250 contribution to the Candidate according to his Firm’s policies and procedures; the Firm identified the contribution through its supervisory process; the MFP requested and obtained a refund of the contribution; the Firm directed the Associate to refrain from certain communications involving the subject issuer; and the $500 contribution by the MFP and his spouse would not have triggered a ban on municipal securities business if the MFP and his spouse had both signed the check from their joint account or if they had written separate checks.
    February 09, 2017
  • Guidance
    Name Not Public
    Exemptive relief is granted based on representations that: the MFP made the contributions prior his employment as an MFP and before he was aware of Rule G-37; the Candidate is a personal friend of the MFP; the Firm discovered the contributions through its pre-employment due diligence process; the contributions were refunded; the Firm hired the MFP for reasons unrelated to the contributions; the Firm has a long-standing relationship with the State and the contributions are not related to any business; and the individual will be prohibited from involvement in municipal securities business with the G-37 Issuers for a period of time.
    June 01, 2016
  • Guidance
    Name Not Public
    Exemptive relief is granted based on: representations that at the time of the contributions the individual was not employed by the firm, was not an MFP and was not seeking employment as an MFP; the firm already had a significant business relationship with the City of which the contribution recipients are issuer officials (as defined); the individual has attempted to obtain the return of the contributions; the firm has instituted barriers and controls around certain municipal business communications; and the individual will be prohibited from involvement in municipal securities business with the City for a period of time.
    January 28, 2016
  • Exemptive Letter
    Name Not Public
    Exemptive relief is denied based on: Firm D was subject to a ban that was discernible via a review of publicly available Forms G-37 which disclosed that a PAC controlled by Firm D or a Firm D MFP made political contributions to the Issuer Officials; Firm D had a long history of making contributions to the Issuer Officials; the ban attached to Firm A upon completion of the acquisition of Firm D; neither Firm A nor Firm D attempted to obtain refunds of the contributions; Firm A’s proposed supervisory systems are not adequate to address regulatory concerns presented.
    January 04, 2016
  • Guidance
    Name Not Public
    Exemptive relief is granted based on: representations that at the time of the contribution the individual was not employed by the firm, was not an MFP, and did not anticipate an employment relationship with the firm; the firm already had a significant business relationship with the City of which the contribution recipient is an issuer official (as defined); the individual has attempted to obtain the return of the contribution; the firm has instituted barriers and controls around certain municipal business communications; and the individual will be prohibited from any involvement in municipal securities business with the City for a period of time.
    December 14, 2015
  • Guidance
    Name Not Public
    Exemptive relief is granted based on: representations that at the time of the contribution the individual was not employed by the firm and was not an MFP; the firm already had a significant business relationship with the state of whom the contribution recipient is an issuer official (as defined); the firm has instituted information barriers on certain municipal business communications; the individual will be prohibited from the solicitation of certain new municipal business for a period of time.
    May 21, 2015
  • Exemptive Letter
    Name Not Public
    Exemptive relief is granted based on: representations that at the time of the contribution the individual was not employed by the firm and was not an MFP; the firm already had a significant business relationship with the state of whom the contribution recipient is an issuer official (as defined); the firm has instituted information barriers on certain municipal business communications; the individual will be prohibited from the solicitation of certain new municipal business for a period of time.
    February 11, 2015
  • Exemptive Letter
    Name Not Public
    Exemptive relief is granted based on: representations that at the time of the contribution the individual was not employed by the firm and was not an MFP; the firm already had a significant business relationship with the state of whom the contribution recipient is an issuer official 9as defined); the firm has instituted information barriers on certain municipal business communications; the individual will be prohibited from the solicitation of certain new municipal business for a period of time.
    June 27, 2011
  • Exemptive Letter
    Name Not Public
    Exemptive relief is granted based on: the representation that at the time of the contribution the individual was not an MFP (as defined); the firm already has a significant business relationship with the government entity of which the contribution recipient was considered to be an issuer official; the firm has instituted information barriers on certain municipal business communications; the individual will be prohibited from the solicitation of certain new municipal business for a period of time.
    September 07, 2010
  • Exemptive Letter
    Name Not Public
    Exemptive relief is granted based on: the representation that at the time of the contribution the individual had no connection to the firm’s municipal securities business, and it was not contemplated that, at the time of the contribution, he would be promoted and, thus, become a municipal finance professional (as defined); the firm has significant and long standing business relationships with the government entity of which the contribution recipient was an issuer official; the firm has established additional compliance processes about political contributions; the individual will not be involved in any way in municipal securities business with the state or any other governmental issuer business for which the contribution recipient is an issuer official.
    June 10, 2010
  • Exemptive Letter
    Name Not Public
    Exemptive relief is granted based on: the representation that at the time of the contribution the individual was not an MFP (as defined); the firm already has a significant business relationship with the governmental entities of which the contribution recipients were considered to be issuer officials; the firm has instituted information barriers on certain municipal business communications; the individual involved will be prohibited from the solicitation of certain new municipal business for a period of time.
    June 10, 2009
  • Exemptive Letter
    Name Not Public
    Exemptive relief is granted based on: the representation that the acquiring firm did not engage in the soliciation of business and the individual was not, at the time, considered to be an MFP as defined; the acquiring firm did not have knowledge of the contribution and the contribution has been returned; the municipal securities business relationships of the acquired firm were long standing and existed prior to the contribution; the firm has instituted extensive information barriers on certain municipal business communications; the individual involved will be prohibited from the solicitation of new municipal securtiies business for a period of time.
    April 03, 2009
  • Exemptive Letter
    Name Not Public
    Exemptive relief is granted based on: the representations that the contributions were made prior to employment; the individual did not engage in the solicitation of, or have involvement in, municipal securities business (as defined) for the prior six years; the firm had no knowledge of the contributions at the time they were made; the firm has established detailed and comprehensive compliance procedures and has developed information barriers surrounding the solicitation of certain municipal securities business.
    June 29, 2007
  • Exemptive Letter
    Name Not Public
    Exemptive relief is granted based on: the representation that the individual did not engage in the solicitation of municipal securities business; for the six years prior to being hired by the Firm; the Contributions were made prior to the individual being employed by the Firm; imposition by the Firm of extensive Firm-wide information barriers on certain municipal securities business communications; prohibition of, for a specified period of time, the individual's solicitation of new municipal securities business; and the commitment to a quarterly certification of compliance.
    October 16, 2006
  • Exemptive Letter
    Name Not Public
    Exemptive relief is granted based on: the representation that the individual did not solicit municipal securities business; the contribution being made prior to his employment at the Firm; the Firm's imposition of Firm-wide information barriers on certain municipal securities business communications: for a specified period, prohibition of the solicitation of new municipal securities business by the individual; and the commitment to a quarterly certification of compliance.
    August 30, 2006
  • Exemptive Letter
    Name Not Public
    Exemptive relief is denied based on: the Firm’s repeated failure to detect Officer A’s contributions in excess of $250; the Firm had actual knowledge of all three of Officer A’s contributions and that the Firm violated the municipal securities ban on two separate ocassions; and the firm failed to discover its own rule violations prior to NASD’s intervention.
    May 17, 2006
  • Exemptive Letter
    Name Not Public
    This request for exemptive relief is granted based on the Firm's representation that the individual did not engage in the solicitation of municipal securities business, as defined by MSRB Rule G-37, the imposition by the Firm of extensive Firm-wide information barriers on certain municipal securities business communications, prohibition of, for a specified period of time, the individual's solicitation of new municipal securities business, a Firm commitment to conduct training or re-training for all Firm MFPs and new hire MFPs, including an on-going annual educational effort, a review of existing Firm procedures and the development of necessary enhancements.
    February 23, 2006
  • Exemptive Letter
    Name Not Public
    This request for exemptive relief is granted based on the representations that the Contributions were made prior to the individual's employment with the Firm, and the individual has never been involved in municipal securities business as defined by MSRB Rule G-37. Additionally, the Firm has agreed to institute information barriers and compensation restrictions, and the contributions have been returned.
    October 11, 2005
  • Exemptive Letter
    Name Not Public
    This request for exemptive relief is granted based on the Firm's representation that the Contributions were made prior to the individual being employed by the Firm, and that the individual has never engaged in municipal securities business, as defined by MSRB Rule G-37, the return of the Contributions, and the extensive information barriers and compensation restrictions.
    October 11, 2005
  • Exemptive Letter
    Name Not Public
    This request for exemptive relief is granted based on the Firm's representation that the Contributions were made prior to the individual's employment with the Firm, and that the individual was never engaged in municipal securities business, as defined by MSRB Rule G-37 ("Rule"), and the individual has never solicited municipal securities business from the City or City agencies of whom the Contribution recipients are issuer officials. The Firm agreed to institute certain information barriers, the individual will, for a period of time, be prohibited from soliciting municipal securities business as defined by the Rule, and the individual may not receive any compensation derived directly or indirectly from municipal securities business from City or certain City agencies for a period of time.
    September 22, 2005
  • Exemptive Letter
    Name Not Public
    This request for exemptive relief is granted based on the Firm's representation that the contributor has never solicited municipal securities business, as defined by MSRB Rule G-37, from the State or entities or agencies connected with the State of whom the contribution recipient is considered to be an issuer official, the Contribution was returned, and representations that the Firm has imposed certain limitations on the individual's municipal business solicitation, and receipt of compensation from the Firm's municipal securities business with the State or State agencies.
    September 20, 2005
  • Exemptive Letter
    Name Not Public
    An exemption is granted based on the following: First, the Firm took prompt remedial action by placing Name in an "inactive status" and directing him to not engage in any work for the Firm. Second, you have represented that Name, prior to being hired by the Firm, was not engaged in the solicitation of municipal securities business, as defined in the Rule, and during his Firm employment as an MFP Name did not engage in municipal securities representative activities and did not solicit municipal business. Third, you have represented that the Firm has a long relationship as an underwriter of municipal securities for County #1 and County #2, and the State and neither the hiring of Name nor his Contributions were necessary to obtain municipal securities business from such issuers. Fourth, the Firm has agreed to undertake an education initiative, as described below, for all employees of the Firm's Municipal Securities Group.
    May 25, 2005
  • Exemptive Letter
    Name Not Public
    An exemption is granted based on the following considerations. First, you have represented that Name, prior to being hired by the Firm, was not engaged in the solicitation of municipal securities business, as defined in the Rule. Second, you have represented that the Firm has a long relationship as an underwriter of municipal securities for the State and State agencies, and neither the hiring of Name nor his Contribution was necessary to obtain municipal securities business from such issuers. Third, the Firm has agreed to institute preventive information barriers to help avoid the potential for conflicting interests to exist and be used, or appear to be used, by the Firm or Name to obtain municipal securities business or compensation or other financial benefits related to such business.
    October 27, 2004
  • Exemptive Letter
    Name Not Public
    This request for exemptive relief is granted based on the Firms’ representation that the Contribution was made by an employee who does not and has never engaged in the solicitation of municipal securities business, the imposition of certain “information restrictions” and other Firm-wide compliance measures, a Firm- imposed “censure” and compensation restrictions, and the return of the Contribution.
    August 23, 2004
  • Exemptive Letter
    Name Not Public
    This request for exemptive relief is granted based on the contributions made being small in amount, in support of personal relationships, the Firm’s representation that the contributor will be restricted in his municipal securities activities and municipal securities compensation, the individual will be subject to a period of heightened supervision, and the return or reasonable attempt at the return of the contributions.
    November 11, 2003
  • Exemptive Letter
    Name Not Public
    Exemptive relief is granted based on the following: (1) Name was not an MFP at the time the Contribution was made and was not engaged in, and did not supervise, municipal securities business; (2) the Firm took action once it became aware of the Contribution by retaining outside counsel to review the proposed reorganization and the possibility of municipal securities business restrictions as a result of the Contribution; (3) the Firm notified Name that when the municipal activities of certain retail sales brokers and MFP’s become part of the Business Unit on Month Day, 2003, the Firm will consider her to be an MFP and her municipal securities business activities will be restricted as a result of her Contribution and of her responsibilities3; (4) the Firm has agreed to restrict Name’s municipal securities activities, minimizing the potential for a quid pro quo resulting from the Contribution; and (5) although a less weighty factor, the Contribution has been returned.
    January 07, 2003
  • Exemptive Letter
    Name Not Public
    Exemptive relief is granted based on the following considerations: (1) Name was not an MFP at the time the Contribution was made and was not involved in the solicitation of new municipal securities business; (2) the Firm took action once it became aware of the Contribution by instituting a self-ban on new City municipal securities business; (3) the Firm notified Name of her designation as an MFP and the accompanying restrictions; (4) the Firm has agreed to establish information barriers to help ensure the segregation of information flow, minimizing the potential for quid pro quo resulting from the Contribution; (5) the Firm represents that it has corrected the technical political contributions database problems and has established new procedures for direct notification to legal and compliance personnel of additions to the Parent Management Committee; and (6) although the Contribution has not been returned, the Firm represents that reasonable efforts have been made to obtain the return of the Contribution.
    November 15, 2002
  • Exemptive Letter
    Name Not Public
    An exemption is granted based on the following: (1) Name was not an MFP at the time the Contribution was made and was not involved in the solicitation of new municipal securities business; (2) the Firm took action once it became aware of the Contribution by voluntarily refraining from new State or its issuing authorities municipal securities business pending the outcome of the exemption request; (3) the Firm notified Name of his designation as an MFP and the accompanying restrictions; (4) the Firm has agreed to restrict Name's municipal securities activities, minimizing the potential for quid pro quo resulting from the Contribution; and (5) although a less weighty factor, the Contribution has been returned.
    September 30, 2002
  • Exemptive Letter
    Name Not Public
    Exemptive relieve is granted based on the following considerations: (1) Firm A took prompt action once it became aware of the Contribution by instituting a self-ban on any Issuer new business solicitation; (2) Firm A sent an electronic reminder to all Firm A and Firm A affiliate employees about Firm A's requirements for pre-clearance of all political contributions; (3) at the time of the Contribution, Name had no personal involvement in soliciting new, or participating in existing, municipal securities business; (4) Firm A has now offered to put in place processes to help ensure the segregation of Issuer information flow, minimizing the potential for quid pro quo resulting from the contribution; and (5) although a less weighty factor, the contribution was returned.
    August 15, 2002
  • Exemptive Letter
    Name Not Public
    Exemptive relief is granted based on the following factors: (1) the Contribution was made by Company prior to signing an acquisition agreement with the Firm Parent;6 (2) at the time of the contribution Company had no involvement in soliciting new, or participating in existing, municipal securities business; (3) Company has been acquired by the Firm Parent and merged into Firm Y, an existing subsidiary of the Firm Parent that reports to and is controlled by the equities business unit of the Firm; (4) Firm Y securities information flow is controlled by NYSE approved information barriers designed to prevent the use of confidential information and conflicts of interest, minimizing the potential for quid pro quo resulting from the Contribution; (5) the Firm has put in place additional processes to ensure the segregation of the acquired Company business operations and its principals from State Business; and (6) although a less weighty factor, the Contribution was returned.
    June 27, 2002
  • Exemptive Letter
    Name Not Public
    Exemptive relief is granted based on the following considerations: (1) the contributions were made prior to Individual's employment by the Firm; and (2) at the time of the contributions, Individual had no personal involvement in soliciting new, or participating in existing municipal securities business.
    June 11, 2002
  • Exemptive Letter
    Name Not Public
    Exemptive relief is granted based on the following factors: (1.) prior to Name's contribution, Firm X maintained a thorough and comprehensive set of procedures reasonably designed to ensure compliance with the Rule; (2.) the Firm had no knowledge of Name's contribution; (3.) once Firm X learned of Name's contribution, it took all available steps to return of the contribution; (4.) Firm X took appropriate remedial or preventive measures.
    May 15, 2002
  • Exemptive Letter
    Name Not Public
    Exemptive relief is granted based on the following considerations: (1) the Contribution was made nine months after Name last held a position which would have resulted in his designation as an MFP; (2) since becoming a Title of Company C, Name continues to be designated an MFP only because of the Rule’s two-year “look back” provision; (3) at the time Name was a member of the Firm X Board, Name had no personal day-to-day involvement in Firm X's municipal securities activities, and, since resigning from the Firm X Board, Name has had no involvement in the Firm’s municipal securities business; and (4) , the Contribution was returned and was small.
    May 01, 2002
  • Exemptive Letter
    Name Not Public
    Exemptive relief is denied based on the following considerations: (1) this marks the second time in three years that Name made a political contribution without following the Firm’s established pre-clearance processes resulting in a prohibition of municipal securities business under the Rule;5 and (2) Name has an extremely high profile within the Firm and the state’s political and business community. -
    January 29, 2002
  • Exemptive Letter
    Name Not Public
    Exemptive relief is granted based on the following considerations: 1) the contribution was inadvertent, de minimis, and was returned; and (2) the contribution was made to a candidate for public office who never had the opportunity to influence the award of municipal securities business (Candidate was not an elected official, was never elected to the office for which he was a candidate, and he died during the election campaign).
    November 14, 2001
  • Exemptive Letter
    Name Not Public
    An exemption is granted based on the following: (1) the contribution was made more than one year after Name transferred from the Firm Municipal Finance Department to another department; (2) from his/her transfer on May 1, 2000, to the present, Name continues to be designated an MFP only because of the two year "lookback" provision; (3) Name had no personal involvement in Firm's municipal securities activities with City, including the pre-existing and established selection of Firm as one of several underwriters; and (4) the contribution, which was returned, was made to the campaign of a candidate for public office who is not now an issuer official, and who had no apparent opportunity to influence the award of municipal securities business.
    August 08, 2001
  • Exemptive Letter
    Name Not Public
    Exemptive relief is granted based on the following considerations: the Contribution was made by an individual who, at of the time of the Contribution, had never been an MFP nor was Name involved in the Firm’s municipal securities business. We believe the possibility that the payment was intended to influence issuer officials is significantly minimized. To the extent that any potential investor protection concerns exist, the staff believes these concerns will be appropriately addressed by the Firm’s existing firewall procedures for Name.
    July 17, 2001
  • Exemptive Letter
    Name Not Public
    An exemption is granted based on consideration of the MSRB’s published interpretation of Rule G-37 regarding mergers of corporations in the municipal securities industry3 and on your representation that Individual will not be engaged in helping Firm A obtain municipal securities business or engaged in municipal securities representative activities before September 24, 2001, when the two-year ban under Rule G-37 would otherwise expire.
    December 18, 2000
  • Exemptive Letter
    Name Not Public
    Exemptive relief is granted based on the following considerations: (1.) the de minimis nature of the Contribution mitigates the probability that the payment will improperly influence issuer officials; (2.) the Contribution was made by an individual who has never been employed in the municipal securities business.
    October 10, 2000
  • Exemptive Letter
    Name Not Public
    Exemptive relief is granted based on the following considerations: (1.) the de minimis nature of the Proposed Hire’s Contribution made more than one year ago; (2.) the Contribution was made by an individual who has never been employed in the municipal securities business.
    June 30, 2000
  • Exemptive Letter
    Name Not Public
    The request for exemptive relief is denied. You represent that Firm had established comprehensive and detailed procedures which included the requirement to pre-clear political contributions. Indeed, the firm’s procedures were attached to your exemption request as "Attachment No. 2," and they require that "all public finance employees" of the firm obtain prior approval of political contributions. The CEO did not follow the firm’s established procedures. This lapse by a senior official is significant and leads us to conclude that the request for an exemption should be denied.
    January 12, 2000
  • Exemptive Letter
    Name Not Public
    It appears that the violation of the Rule, as described in your letter, relates directly to the failure of the firm to develop and institute procedures reasonably designed to ensure compliance of the Rule i.e., for the review and approval of political contributions by a municipal finance professional prior to making the contribution. Accordingly, the firm's request for an exemption is denied.
    December 02, 1997
  • Exemptive Letter
    Name Not Public
    Exemptive relief is granted based on the determination that the dealer: (1) had developed and instituted procedures reasonably designed to ensure compliance with the rule; (2) had no actual knowledge of the contribution prior to or at the time of the contribution; (3) had taken all available steps to cause the person involved in making the contribution to obtain a return of the contribution; and (4) had taken such other remedial or preventative measures as were appropriate under the circumstances.
    July 31, 1997
  • Exemptive Letter
    Name Not Public
    A conditional exemption is granted. The Committee determined that B's second contribution was a violation of MSRB G-37 (the Rule) because, when consolidated with the first contribution, the total was $480. This significantly exceeded the $250 de minimis contribution exemption in the Rule. However, the Committee found that the second contribution at issue resulted from human error rather than from insufficient compliance procedures, failure by the firm to educate key personnel, or ignorance by firm personnel of the Rule.
    May 20, 1997
  • Exemptive Letter
    Name Not Public
    Firm X's request for exemption is denied. The Rule imposes a requirement on all firms subject to its provisions to know them and to have in place supervisory procedures to reasonably insure compliance with the Rule. The language of the rule is clear with respect to the limitations imposed on member firms, as distinct from municipal financial professionals. In the instant matter, we cannot conclude that ignorance of the Rule's provisions constitutes reasonable justification or excuse for granting the requested exemption.
    March 09, 1997
  • Exemptive Letter
    Name Not Public
    Exemptive relief is not granted based on the firm's failure to implement compliance procedures sufficient to educate its municipal finance professionals regarding the particular provisions of the Rule, or otherwise prevent the occurrence of the contributions.
    February 28, 1997
  • Exemptive Letter
    Name Not Public
    Exemptive relief is denied due to a failure of the firm to develop and institute procedures reasonably designed to ensure compliance with Rule G-37.
    February 28, 1997
  • Exemptive Letter
    Name Not Public
    Exemptive relief is based on the firm's failed to implement compliance procedures sufficient to educate its municipal finance professionals regarding the particular provisions of the Rule, or otherwise prevent the occurrence of the contributions.
    February 28, 1997
  • Exemptive Letter
    Name Not Public
    Exemptive relief is denied based on the firm's failure to implement compliance procedures sufficient to educate its municipal finance professionals regarding the particular provisions of the Rule, or otherwise prevent the occurrence of the contributions.
    February 28, 1997
  • Exemptive Letter
    Name Not Public
    It appears that the violation of the rule described in your letter related directly to the failure of Firm X to adopt procedures to review for political contributions prior to offering employment. Therefore, we cannot conclude that Firm X has demonstrated reasonable justification or excuse for granting the requested exemption. Accordingly, Firm X's request for an exemption is denied.
    January 27, 1997
  • Exemptive Letter
    Name Not Public
    Exemptive relief is denied. Although C's employment with Firm X was the result of an "internal reorganization", it did result in C being a new employee with Firm X. Had Firm X's procedures as to new hires been followed, the disclosure of the contribution would have been known before C's transfer from an affiliated entity had been effected, rather than after.
    January 07, 1997
  • Exemptive Letter
    Name Not Public
    The request for exemption stems from the fact that several political contributions were made from Firm X's checking account which Person A contends should have been issued from Person A's checking account. Under the MSRB rules, the NASD may grant exemptions only when the situation involves a disgruntled employee contribution or a number of small contributions totaling slightly more than the $250 de minimis amount. Accordingly, Firm X's request for an exemption is denied.
    May 13, 1996
  • Guidance
    Fixed Income Mark-up Disclosure
    Since 2018, FINRA’s and the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board’s (MSRB) amendments to FINRA Rule 2232 (Customer Confirmations) and MSRB Rule G-15 have required firms to provide additional transaction-related information to retail customers for certain trades in corporate, agency and municipal debt securities (other than municipal fund securities).
  • Compliance Tools
    MSRB Due Diligence Report Card

    The MSRB Due Diligence Report Card is a monthly status report to help firms monitor their issuances being brought to market in order to support firm's due diligence efforts.  The report shows how many total issuances have been brought to market and which of those had issuers with previous issuances in the market that are lacking current audited financial filings (LCF) on EMMA.  If any of the issuances being brought to market have a previously issued CUSIP LCF, then the current issuance is identified on this report card.

    The report offers two alternative views:

  • Compliance Tools
    MSRB G-32 Report Card

     The MSRB G-32 Report Card is a monthly status report to help firms evaluate the timeliness of their required filings under Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) Rule G-32. Amended Rule G-32, which became effective on June 1, 2009, consolidated the filing requirements of former Rule G-36 and the official statement delivery requirements of Rule G-32.

  • Compliance Tools
    MSRB Markup/Markdown Analysis Report

    The MSRB Markup/Markdown Analysis Report is a monthly report designed to assist firms in their supervision activities by providing transparency into a portion of FINRA's surveillance of fixed income transactions' customer pricing.  

    The MSRB Markup/Markdown Analysis Report is built upon logic developed to pair purchase and sale transactions reported to EMMA.  

  • Compliance Tools
    Municipal Continuing Disclosure Report

    The Municipal Continuing Disclosure Report displays statistics about transactions that your firm effected with customers. The report provides relevant information about the availability of official statements, annual financial filings, and event filings on the MSRB's Electronic Municipal Market Access system (EMMA) at the time the securities were sold or purchased. Specifically, the report shows counts of transactions with customers for which official statements and/or current annual financial filings were not available on EMMA at the time the transaction occurred.

  • Compliance Tools
    Municipal Primary Offering Disclosure Report

    The Municipal Primary Offering Disclosure Report displays statistics about transactions your firm effected with customers during the securities’ Primary Offering Disclosure Period. This report is designed to aid firms in monitoring their compliance with Rule G-32(a) customer disclosure requirements, which apply to all broker-dealers selling offered municipal securities.

  • Compliance Tools
    Municipal Trades Below Minimum Denomination Report

    The Municipal Trades Below Minimum Denomination Report displays statistics about transactions your firm effected with customers where the denomination was below the minimum denomination provided to DTCC’s New Issue Information Dissemination Service (NIIDS) and/or reference data obtained from Thomson Reuters.  This report is designed to aid firms in monitoring their compliance with MSRB Rule G-15(f).  MSRB Rule G-15 (f) requires, with some exceptions, that firms should not effect a customer trans

  • Compliance Tools
    Underwriter Financial Status Report

    The Underwriter Financial Status Report is a monthly report designed to help firms evaluate the timeliness of financial disclosures made to EMMA, for issuances previously brought to market.   

    The purpose of this report is to highlights issuances lacking current audited financial filings (LCF) and the lateness of these missing financial filings, based on their anticipated filing time line.

    The report offers two alternate views: