SEC Adopts Rule 15c6-1; Establishes Three-Business-Day Settlement for Securities Transactions
|
SUGGESTED ROUTING |
|
Senior Management |
Executive Summary
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently adopted Rule 15c6-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to establish three business days, instead of five, as the standard settlement time-frame for most securities transactions. The new rule is effective June 1, 1995.
Background
Earlier this year, the SEC solicited comments on its proposal to adopt Rule 15c6-1 as one means of reducing the risks associated with unsettled securities transactions.
The proposed rulemaking followed several studies by government and industry groups after the October 1987 market break. These groups closely scrutinized the clearance and settlement system as they sought to identify causes for the market decline and develop initiatives to protect market participants from the impact of such declines in the future.
The Group of Thirty conducted one of these studies. The Group is an independent, non-partisan, nonprofit organization composed of international financial leaders that focuses on international economic and financial issues. In March 1989, the Group of Thirty issued a report with a number of proposals to improve clearance and settlement practices and standards. Among these proposals was the recommendation that settlement take place on the third day after trade date (T+3).
Following release of this report, two subcommittees, the U.S. Steering Committee and a U.S. Working Committee of the Group of Thirty, were formed to evaluate these recommendations. The subcommittees concluded that shortening the settlement cycle would be beneficial.
Next, the SEC convened a round table to discuss the subcommittees' recommendations. Round table participants generally agreed that these recommendations should be adopted but expressed concern about the impact on broker/dealers conducting a predominantly retail business.
Subsequently, an industry task force, headed by John W. Bachmann, the Managing Principal of Edward D. Jones & Co. of St. Louis, Missouri, undertook an independent evaluation of these issues. In May 1992, the Bachmann Task Force presented its findings supporting T+3 settlement to the SEC.
In its proposal, the SEC set forth three reasons for supporting adoption of Rule 15c6-1. "First, at any given point in time, fewer unsettled trades would be subject to credit and market risk, and there would be less time between trade execution and settlement for the value of those trades to deteriorate. Second, the rule would reduce the liquidity risk among the derivative and cash markets and reduce financing costs by allowing investors that participate in both markets to obtain the proceeds of securities transactions sooner. Finally, the SEC noted that a shorter settlement timeframe could encourage greater efficiency in clearing agency and broker/dealer operations."
According to its records, the SEC received more than 1,900 comment letters. After reviewing the comments, the SEC revised proposed Rule 15c6-1 and determined to adopt it effective June 1, 1995.
Description of Rule 15c6-1
Rule 15c6-1 provides that, unless otherwise expressly agreed to by the parties at the time of the transaction, a broker or dealer cannot enter into a contract for the purchase or sale of a security that provides for payment of funds and delivery of securities later than the third business day after the date of the contract. The Rule does not apply to a contract for an exempted security, government security, municipal security, commercial paper, bankers' acceptances, or commercial bills.
The rule allows a broker or dealer to agree that settlement will occur in more or less than three business days, provided the agreement is explicit and reached at the time of the transaction. However, this does not require broker/dealers to specify all contract terms before a trade is executed.
The rule provides three exemptions to its three-day-settlement provision:
- Transactions in limited partnership interests that are unlisted or not quoted in The Nasdaq Stock MarketSM.
- The sale for cash of securities by an issuer to an underwriter pursuant to a firm commitment offering registered under the Securities Act of 1933, or the sale to an initial purchaser by a broker/dealer participating in such offering.
- Securities transactions that the SEC may from time to time exempt by order if the SEC determines that such exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors.
Finally, it should be noted that the rule does not preclude individual investors from obtaining physical securities certificates.
In adopting the rule, the SEC expressed its confidence that broker/dealers can make the necessary systems and operational changes to comply with three-day settlement by June 1, 1995, the rule's effective date.
A copy of the SEC's release adopting Rule 15c6-1, which was published in the October 13, 1993, Federal Register, is attached.
Questions concerning this Notice may be directed to Samuel Luque, Associate Director, Compliance, at (202) 728-8472, or Brad Darfler, Compliance, at (202) 728-8946.
their securities on issuer records in a three-day settlement environment. Fifty-six of the commentators that oppose the Rule expressed concern about the costs of complying with the three-day settlement. A complete list of commentators is attached as Appendix 1. Staff of the Commission has prepared a summary of the comments, a copy of which has been placed in the official file.
As discussed below, the Commission agrees with many of the commentators' suggestions, and the Commission has modified Rule 15c6-1 accordingly. For example, the Commission is modifying the Rule to exempt at this time transactions in limited partnership interests that are not listed on a national securities exchange or traded in the over-the-counter market ("unlisted limited partnership interests") and certain new issues involving firm-commitment underwritings. Although the Commission is not expanding the scope of the Rule to encompass municipal securities, the Commission is calling upon the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board ("MSRB") to take all steps necessary to shorten the routine settlement cycle for municipal securities transactions by the effective date of Rule 15c6-1. In addition, the Commission has determined not to exempt other securities issued by mutual funds and private label mortgage-backed securities, or listed limited partnership interests. Finally, the Commission is modifying the Rule to authorize the Commission, by order, to exempt additional securities from the scope of Rule 15c6-1. For the reasons discussed in the Proposing Release and below, the Commission is adopting Rule 15c6-1, as revised, effective June 1, 1995.
In recognition of the importance of broker-dealer settlement practices to the clearance and settlement process,3 the Securities Acts Amendments of 1975 ("1975 Amendments")4 authorized federal regulation of the time and method by which broker-dealers settle securities transactions. In adopting the 1975 Amendments, Congress directed the Commission to act in the national interest to achieve safety and efficiency in clearance and settlement. Section 17A of the 1934 Act directs the Commission "to facilitate the establishment of a national system for the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of transactions in securities (other than exempted securities)."5 That directive was revised by the Market Reform Act of 1990 6 to reflect the interdependence of options, futures, and equity markets that trade products involving securities or stock indexes.
Currently, the settlement cycle in the U.S. varies among markets.7 Settlement of securities transactions on the fifth business day after the trade date ("T+5") is largely a function of market custom and industry practice. There is no federal rule that mandates a specific settlement cycle for securities transactions. Indeed, at one time, other settlement periods were considered "regular-way."8 Prior to 1953, settlement at the American Stock Exchange ("Amex") occurred on the second day after the trade date ("T+2"), and gradually moved to the third day after the trade date ("T+3") in 1953, T+4 in 1962, and to the present T+5 in 1968.9 The New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") originally settled trades on T+1 in the 1920s, but settlement has gradually moved to T+5.10 Currently, self-regulatory organization ("SRO") rules define "regular way" settlement as settlement on T+5.11 At this time, however, and for the reasons set out below, the Commission believes T+3 settlement should be mandated.
The market break of 1987 highlighted the need for improvements in the nation's clearance and settlement system.12 The performance of the clearance and settlement system was viewed by many as a threat to the stability of the market during this time. During and after the week of October 19, 1987, over 50 introducing brokers failed, many as a result of the inability of customers to meet margin calls and pay settlement obligations.13 The failure to meet margin calls and/or transaction settlement obligations exposed some clearing firms to financial loss, thus threatening the entire financial system.14
Shortly after the 1987 market break, then Treasury Secretary Nicholas F. Brady referred to the clearance and settlement system as the weakest link in the nation's financial system and noted that improving clearance and settlement would "help ensure that a securities market failure does not become a credit market failure."15 Gerald Corrigan, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York ("FRBNY"), noted: "[T]he greatest threat to the stability of the financial system as a whole [during the 1987 market break] was the danger of a major default in one of these clearing and settlement systems." 16
The connection between a crisis in the clearance and settlement system and the financial industry was highlighted by the bankruptcy in 1990 of Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, the holding company parent of Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc. ("Drexel"), a large broker-dealer. As described more fully in the Commission's testimony before the Senate Banking Committee,17 near gridlock developed in the mortgaged-backed securities market and in the corporate debt and equity markets where Drexel was an active participant. Drexel had significant positions in mortgage-backed securities that required physical delivery of certificates to settle and also in corporate equity and debt that could be liquidated by book-entry transfer. Lenders and counterparties, however, were reluctant to release both physical certificates and book-entry securities to Drexel. Those counterparties were concerned that the delivery of securities to Drexel against the promise of payment at the end of the day might result in the deliverer's inability to retrieve the securities if the deliverer did not receive payment because of an intervening event, such as the filing of a petition for bankruptcy by or against Drexel, or the assertion of a lien or set-off by one or more financial institutions handling those funds or securities.18
The events that surrounded the subsequent liquidation of Drexel's positions in mortgage-backed and corporate securities highlighted two concerns-first, the risk that counterparty credit concerns could lead to gridlock in securities markets, even where regulators assured markets that a major participant is solvent; second, that these risks are not limited to markets where transactions are subject to netting by clearing corporations. These events forced the conclusion that the clearance and settlement system deserved immediate attention.19
As noted by Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System ("Federal Reserve Board" or "Board"), "The importance of strong clearing and settlement systems cannot be overemphasized. This area was identified by the Brady Commission and others after the market break last year as a potential point of vulnerability in the U.S. financial system. The overloading of the* * * clearing systems last October induced breakdowns that dramatically increased uncertainty among investors and likely contributed to additional downward pressures on prices."20
In the Proposing Release, the Commission set forth three reasons with adoption of Rule 15c6-1 would be necessary or appropriate. First, at any given point in time, fewer unsettled trades would be subject to credit and market risk, and there would be less time between trade execution and settlement for the value of those trades to deteriorate. Second, the proposed Rule would reduce the liquidity risk among the derivative and cash markets and reduce financing costs by allowing investors that participate in both markets to obtain the proceeds of securities transactions sooner. Finally, the Commission noted that a shorter settlement timeframe could encourage greater efficiency in clearing agency and broker-dealer operations.
Commentators that support T+3 settlement believe that the new Rule would facilitate these goals. Commentators stated specifically that the Rule would significantly reduce settlement risk. The Federal Reserve Board stated that settlement systems for securities and other financial instruments are a potential source of systemic disturbance to financial markets and to the economy.21 In the Board's view, the key features of an ideal settlement system are the settlement of trades immediately after execution and payment in same-day funds, and compressing the settlement timeframe for corporate securities to three days from five days is an important and achievable step toward this ideal. Similarly, the FRBNY noted that shortening the settlement Cycle decreases the opportunity for adverse developments to occur between the execution and settlement of each trade, thus lowering the credit and market risks that can arise when settling individual transactions. A move to T+3 reduces the total volume and value of outstanding obligations in the settlement pipeline at any point in time; the FRBNY believes this will better insulate the financial sector from the potential systemic consequences of serious market disruptions.22
Commentators stated also that the Rule will facilitate risk reduction by achieving closer conformity between the corporate securities markets and the markets for other securities that currently settle in fewer than five days (i.e., government securities and derivative securities), and will encourage market participants to achieve greater efficiencies in clearing agency and broker-dealer operations. For example, the Government Securities Clearing Corporation ("GSCC") stated that settlement risk can arise from dissimilarities in settlement cycles among markets as well as the length of a specific market's settlement cycles, which can lead to artificial delays in moving securities and make it more difficult to establish risk reduction mechanisms such as common netting and cross margining arrangements.23 The American Bankers Association echoed these views, noting that by reducing the lag between the settlement of derivatives and government securities and the settlement of corporate securities, investors that participate in both markets will be able to reduce their financing costs and obtain the proceeds of their securities transactions on a more timely basis.24
The Commission believes that the benefits of three-day settlement will inure to all market participants. As noted in the Proposing Release, the value of securities positions can change suddenly causing a market participant to default on unsettled positions. Because the markets are interwoven through common members, default at one clearing corporation or by a major market participant or end-user25 could trigger additional failures, resulting in risk to the national clearance and settlement system ("system").26 This risk is even more acute given the growth of the over-the-counter derivative product markets where dealers shift risk exposure among major market participants in international centers and end-users.27 Finally, in a T+3 settlement environment, because the settlement date will be accelerated by two business days, a broker-dealer who executes a trade based on a customer's verbal agreement will be able to take action as much as two business days sooner than in a T+5 environment to mitigate losses in the event of the customer's cancellation.
The Commission believes that the potential benefits from shortening the settlement cycle by two business days outweigh the costs associated with such a change. The benefits of a shorter settlement cycle include reduced credit, market, and systemic risk. Perhaps no single conclusion from the Bachmann Task Force ("Task Force") Report28 is more significant than the equation "Time = Risk." A shorter settlement cycle not only reduces the number of outstanding trades, but significantly changes how market participants calculate credit and market risk.
Activity in the national clearance and settlement system measures in the tens of billions of dollars, with continuous-net-settlement ("CNS") processing at the National Securities Clearing Corporation ("NSCC") averaging over $22.5 billion in corporate equity and debt transactions a day. This activity creates considerable risk to clearing corporations, including credit risk, market risk on open contractual commitments, and systemic risk because clearing corporations interpose themselves between purchasers and sellers of securities. The Task Force found that the risk reduction to one clearing corporation, NSCC, from reducing the standard settlement cycle to T+3 in the event of the failure of an average large member could range from $6.5 million (or 58%) to $208 million (or 55%) in a worst case scenario.29 Equally significant, if the temporary insolvency of eleven average large firms were to occur on a typical trading day, T+3 would reduce the risk to NSCC by $72 million (or 59%) to $2.3 billion (or 55%) in a worst-case situation.30
Notwithstanding these benefits, some commentators, generally small retail broker-dealers, thought that the costs involved in shortening the settlement cycle would outweigh the benefits. Although they were unable to quantify their estimated expenses with precision, these commentators noted problems with receipt of confirmation, payment by check, and possible financing costs resulting from the rule." Commentators supporting the Rule, including exchanges, the ABA, the Securities Industry Association ("SIA"), and a significant number of broker-dealers representing a large majority of the retail customer base indicated that the risk reduction benefits of Rule 15c6-1 were important to the national clearance and settlement system, and they therefore supported the Rule.
The Commission is sensitive to the costs necessary for transition to a shorter settlement timeframe but on balance believes that the benefits to the financial system outweigh those costs. Moreover, the Commission believes Rule 15c6-1 creates an incentive for broker-dealers, particularly retail firms, to encourage timely customer payment and improve management of cash flows. With more than 19 months before the effective date of Rule 15c6-1, the Commission expects broker-dealers will have adequate notice to educate customers about the need for prompt payment and will have adequate time and incentive to implement changes to reduce the need for financing.
As discussed in more detail in the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("FRFA"), a potentially large expense for retail firms likely will be interest expenses, while a few firms projected a cost increase from hiring additional personnel.32 Many of the cost estimates are based on assumptions of static circumstances. Firms generally projected costs, or claimed the move to T+3 settlement would be impossible for them, by assuming continued reliance upon the U.S. mail for delivery of confirmations and checks and no change in the behavior of customers who do not provide payment until receipt of confirmations; all without considering use of new practices and technologies.
The Commission believes that alternatives exist to speed processing funds payments. For example, broker-dealers could encourage clients to deposit funds or securities with the broker-dealer upon placing an order, or to send funds and securities that day. Existing technology allows firms to advise customers immediately after trade execution what the net cost is. Sixteen commentators indicated that many customers will not pay by check until they see the written confirmation which means that funds won't arrive at the firm until after a "round-trip" mailing.33
Alternatively, firms could establish facilities with local banks that would permit customers to authorize payments to firms using electronic funds transfer systems. One type of electronic funds transfer system is the Automated Clearing House ("ACH") system operated under the guidelines established by the National Automated Clearing House Association ("NACHA"),34 which is now used by several retail service industries for periodic and occasional funds payments. A study done in 1990 by the U.S. Working Committee of the Group of Thirty indicated that the costs of ACH may be offset by a reduction of internal costs arising from the processing of checks and elimination of financing costs currently incurred for checks received after T+5 and could be absorbed by the initiating firm.35 Several commentators noted that firms and customers may be uncomfortable using these systems for security, administrative, and other reasons.
Several broker-dealers have expressed reluctance to use ACH because of liability that may result from a customer exercising his sixty-day right of rescission in the current ACH system. In response to this concern, NACHA recently passed a rule that will, effective April 1994, require a receiving depository financial institution to obtain a signed affidavit from a consumer when the consumer claims that a transaction to his or her account is unauthorized or that an authorization had been revoked. NACHA is confident that this rule amendment will make the ACH network more attractive for retail security transactions.
Seven retail broker-dealers, including the three retail broker-dealers that believe the Rule is not necessary, suggested that the Commission adopt a daily mark-to-market instead of shortening the settlement cycle to three days. These commentators believe that a daily mark-to-market is the best way to reduce "real" systemic risk, i.e., market risk, as opposed to time risk. The commentators suggested that the Commission propose a pass-through mark-to-market similar to the one NSCC imposes on open trades in its CNS system.36
The Commission believes the mark-to-market mechanism raises more concerns than it does solutions, inasmuch as it reduces, but does not eliminate, the potential risk of unsettled trades. Indeed, the Bachmann Task Force concluded that shortening the settlement cycle significantly reduced market risk to clearing agencies when a major participant defaults compared to a system that only required pass-through of daily marks-to-the-market. Moreover, it would appear to require firms to have the capacity to collect funds from customers to meet some or all mark-to-market obligations, particularly in volatile markets where the firm might not have enough working capital to meet the mark-to-market payment obligation. In addition, because the firm would not have any collateral to post, financing could be difficult to obtain except on an unsecured basis. In this regard, shortening the settlement cycle should be more manageable for firms because the firm can post the customer's securities as collateral for financing pending settlement with the customer.
As stated above, the Commission believes that greater risk reduction can be achieved through reducing the settlement timeframe. While a risk reduction measure such as a mark-to-market may be more readily acceptable to the retail segment of the industry, the Commission believes that retail broker-dealers and their customers can achieve T+3 settlement given the extended transition period for implementation.
Several commentators expressed concern that certain "building blocks" must be in place before the Commission mandated T+3 settlement. The building blocks most frequently cited were an interactive institutional delivery system at securities depositories (to allow institutional broker-dealers, money managers, and custodians to confirm trades, correct errors, and instruct release of funds and securities on an intraday basis), making as many securities as possible eligible for processing in those depositories, and improving retail customer payment systems to broker-dealers. Commentators also identified several regulatory initiatives they believe are predicates to T+3 settlement, including changes in the Commission's confirmation rule (Rule 10b-10), broker-dealer financial responsibility rules (Rules 15c3-1 and 15c3-3), and the Federal Reserve Board broker-dealer credit rules (Regulation T). These concerns are described briefly below and in greater detail in appendix 3.
The Commission believes that none of these building blocks justify delaying the Commission's adoption of Rule 15c6-1. Efforts to implement several of the building blocks commentators identified are underway, and the Commission reasonably anticipates implementation will be completed before June 1, 1995, the effective date of Rule 15c6-1. Indeed, if the Commission were to defer action on this Rule, those efforts might well languish. Moreover, certain changes, particularly those that involve regulation, are best considered after a date for shortening the settlement cycle has been established, as the Commission is doing today. Of course, the Commission will monitor efforts to address these and other concerns.
To facilitate three-day settlement, The Depository Trust Company ("DTC") is developing an interactive Institutional Delivery ("ID") system37 that would permit real-time confirmation/ affirmation of institutional trades. In March 1993, DTC distributed to its participants and other ID system users a design paper containing detailed descriptions of the various features of the interactive ID system as well as a tentative Implementation schedule for each. DTC proposes to introduce certain features in late 1993, with the interactive receipt of trade input and affirmations, and the interactive distribution of confirmations and Eligible/Ineligible Trade Reports, scheduled for the first half of 1994.
Institutional trades comprise a large part of the U.S. securities market. As of the third quarter of 1992, institutions held 29% of the total outstanding corporate equity securities in the U.S., totaling over $1.4 trillion.38 During 1992, institutions accounted for two-thirds, and perhaps more, of daily share volume on the NYSE.39
DTC's ID system is the workhorse for processing institutional trades in the national ID system, which links broker-dealers. Investment managers, and custodian banks through a network of electronic communications systems to speed confirmations, settlement instructions, and corrections among the agents for institutional investors. Currently, 81% of institutional transactions are affirmed by T+1, and 94% are affirmed by T+2. An interactive ID system will allow the processes of trade data input, confirmation output, affirmation, and issuance of settlement instructions to be completed in a matter of minutes. Consequently, with an interactive ID system in place, the number of institutional trades that are affirmed by T+2 could approach 100%. DTC has filed with the Commission a proposed rule change under section 19(b)(1) of the 1934 Act outlining its proposed enhancements to the ID system.40 Commission staff will review the proposal in light of the requirement under section 17A of the 1934 Act that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and the safeguarding of funds and securities.
Some commentators believe that T+3 settlement would be difficult to achieve without making all securities depository eligible. Currently, only a small fraction of securities listed on an exchange, the National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotation System ("NASDAQ"), or the over-the-counter ("OTC") Bulletin Board are not eligible for deposit at a registered clearing agency. Accordingly, the Commission does not believe this is a serious impediment to T+3 settlement, although the percentage of ineligible securities must remain minuscule. The Legal and Regulatory Subgroup of the U.S. Working Committee of the Group of Thirty ("Legal and Regulatory Subgroup") is drafting a uniform rule intended to incorporate a depository eligibility requirement into a listing standard for each registered national securities exchange and into the eligibility requirements of NASDAQ. The Commission expects the exchanges and the National Association of Securities Dealers ("NASD") to submit proposed rule changes to the Commission under section 18(b)(1) of the 1934 Act in the near future. Although the rules, if approved, would not reach settlement of transactions in securities that are not listed on a national exchange or NASDAQ, the Commission believes preliminarily that this effort could be an important step towards improving the efficiency of the national clearance and settlement system, and indeed towards facilitating T+3 settlement
The Commission did not solicit comment on the desirability of settling securities transactions in same-day funds. However, six commentators stated that additional risk reduction could be gained by converting to a same-day funds payment system. DTC and NSCC recently distributed a memorandum outlining their plans and timetable for converting to same-day funds settlement and detailing how DTC and NSCC believe many aspects of the same-day funds settlement system will function. DTC and NSCC expect to implement the proposal by late 1994 or early 1995. The Commission supports the efforts of the SROs and will continue to work with the SROs towards early implementation of the initiatives.
Some commentators suggested that implementation of a T+3 settlement period will require amendments to the Commission's confirmation rule, Rule 10b-10 adopted under the 1934 Act41 That rule, however, does not require the confirmation to be received prior to settlement, and therefore the current practice of sending the confirmation the day after trade date will satisfy Rule 10b-10 in a T+3 settlement cycle. Implementation of T+3, however, may alter the confirmation's utility as a customer invoice because confirmation delivery and transfer of customer funds and securities may not be possible within the three-day settlement period. The Commission therefore encourages broker-dealers to consider changes to their procedures for delivery of confirmations, as necessary, to accommodate three-day settlement. Such changes might include dispatch on trade date from offices within one-day delivery range of the customer or transmission of confirmations by facsimile or other electronic means.
Commentators also asked the Commission to review Rules 15c3-1 and 15c3-3 to determine whether amendments will be required to conform those rules to a shorter settlement timeframe. Rule 15c3-142 establishes the net capital requirements for brokers and dealers. To determine net capital, Rule 15c3-1 requires a broker or a dealer to deduct from net worth, as computed in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, assets not readily convertible into cash, including most unsecured receivables. A broker or a dealer also must deduct certain specific percentages from the securities and commodity positions that it carries in its proprietary account. The rule also requires that a failed to deliver contract that has been outstanding for a certain specified period of time be treated as a proprietary position of the broker-dealer and subject to a percentage deduction. This time period is dependent upon the time from the settlement date.43
Rule 15c3-344 requires brokers and dealers to maintain possession or control of all customer fully paid and excess margin securities. As with Rule 15c3-1, some of the requirements imposed on brokers and dealers by Rule 15c3-3 are dependent upon the time from settlement. One commentator referred specifically to Rule 15c3-3(m).45 Rule 15c3-3(m) requires that a broker or dealer that has executed a sell order for a customer, and has not obtained possession of such securities from the customer within ten business days after the settlement date, must immediately close the transaction with the customer by purchasing securities of like kind and quantity. The Commission notes that Rule 15c8-1 merely changes the number of days following the trade date that settlement will occur. Therefore, being keyed to settlement date, Rules 15C3-1 and 15c3-3, including Rule 15c3-3(m), are consistent with Rule 15c6-1.
Commentators urged the Commission, in conjunction with other regulators, to review Regulation T ("Reg T")46 to determine how, if at all, Reg T should be modified. Currently, Reg T does not require that any action be taken unless a customer fails to pay for securities within seven business days of the trade date. The commentators were concerned that Reg T as currently drafted could leave customers and broker-dealers with the impression that payment from the customer is not due in a three-day settlement environment until the expiration of the seven-day period specified by Reg T. The Commission understands that the Federal Reserve Board staff has undertaken a general review of Reg T, and the Commission has already asked the Federal Reserve Board staff informally to consider whether conforming amendments to Reg T would be necessary in a three-day settlement environment.
In the Proposing Release, the Commission solicited comment on whether the Commission should require disclosure of whether the securities being offered in an initial public offering ("IPO") are depository eligible, and if not, why not. Five commentators supported the adoption of a disclosure requirement for IPOs as described above. Three commentators stated that a disclosure requirement was not necessary. None of the commentators, however, articulated the basis for their support. Nevertheless, the Commission believes that disclosure regarding whether or not an IPO will be eligible for deposit at a securities depository may be appropriate. Accordingly, the Commission is directing the staff to pursue requiring disclosure in those instances when neither the issuer nor the underwriter intends to make the securities depository eligible.
The Commission believes that the benefits of a shorter settlement cycle exceed the costs associated with implementing that change, including the cost to firms to finance purchases by retail customers that traditionally rely on the U.S. mail service to deliver checks. The potential reduction in systemic risk coupled with the opportunity to provide smoother transmission of value from markets using a five-day settlement convention to markets using earlier settlement timeframes (such as the next-day settling government securities and derivative product markets) are essential to maintaining investor confidence and the premier competitive position of U.S. securities markets. As one commentator stated, "The speed with which market conditions can change today and the risk inherent in the five day settlement timeframe, warrant consideration of an earlier implementation date. We believe that the move to a three business day timeframe for settlements could and should occur earlier than 1996." 47 Although the transition to T+3 will entail costs and changes, the Commission believes the U.S. securities industry is more than equal to the challenge given current technology and financing sources.
The Commission is adopting Rule 15c6-1 with an effective date of June 1, 1995. The Commission believes that changes in industry practice and custom such as an earlier settlement timeframe must involve marketplaces, marketplace regulators, and participants in those markets acting cooperatively. In connection with this, the Commission recognizes that some broker-dealers need to make operational and procedural changes to comply with a three-day settlement period and that certain building blocks must be in place prior to compressing the settlement cycle. In view of the Commission's desire to minimize the potential cost of complying with the Rule and the need for more work at the SRO and regulatory levels, the Commission is adopting an extended transition period to allow affected parties to implement necessary changes gradually.
Forty of the commentators that support adoption of proposed Rule 15c6-1 suggested that the proposal he implemented on January 1, 1996, or earlier. The Cashiers' Association of Wall Street, Inc. ("Cashiers' Association"), the Public Securities Association ("PSA"), and Data Management Division of Wall Street ("Data Management Division") agreed that the proposal should be implemented in 1996 but believed implementing the proposal in January 1996 would place an excessive strain on broker-dealers' production systems.48 These commentators suggested implementing the proposed Rule late in the first quarter or second quarter of 1996 to allow broker-dealers more time to complete year-end processing.
Eight commentators suggested specifically that the proposed Rule be deferred until the necessary building blocks are in place or for an indefinite period, three retail broker-dealers stated that the Rule was not necessary, and one broker-dealer specifically opposed implementation earlier than January 1, 1996.
The Commission is adopting Rule 15c6-1 with an effective date of June 1. 1995, rather than January 1, 1996, for two principal reasons. First, the Commission believes it is better not to change the settlement cycle timeframe at the same time market participants, custodians, and investors might be distracted by other matters, such as year-end tax and trading concerns. Second, June 1, 1995, is reasonably close so as to draw the Immediate attention of those who must take steps to initiate compliance, and is reasonably far-off to permit completion of those preparatory steps. An effective date of January 1, 1996 or June 1, 1996, would continue to expose securities markets to risks that can and should be reduced. Accordingly, the Commission believes a 19 month delay in the effective date of Rule 15c6-1 is appropriate. Nevertheless, the Commission will monitor industry efforts toward implementation and will take all appropriate steps in that regard.
As stated above, the Commission encourages broker-dealers who wish to limit financing costs or the use of overnight mail to explore the available alternatives to payment by check through the U.S. mail. In addition, the Commission believes that customer education regarding those alternatives is paramount to successful implementation of T+3 settlement. For example, broker-dealers can require clients to deposit funds or securities upon placing an order, educate customers on the necessity of providing funds earlier, and emphasize the usefulness of In-house brokerage accounts. Alternatively, broker-dealers could encourage customers to use an electronic payment system, such as the ACH system, to pay for transactions.
The Commission recognizes that it must play its part in facilitating a smooth transition to shorter securities settlements. Adoption of Rule 15c6-1 may entail expense and may be unpopular among those who would prefer to see no change in current practice or would prefer to see next-day and even same-day settlement prevail. Reducing systemic risk is important to the safety and vitality of securities markets, and the Commission's efforts and resources remain committed to those goals. The Commission invites a continuing dialogue and partnership with all interested parties.
The Commission received approximately 66 comment letters addressing the scope of Rule 15c6-1. Generally, those commentators were supportive of the Commission's efforts to include a broad range of products within a shortened settlement cycle. The Commission has considered these comments, and for the reasons discussed below, the Commission believes that Rule 15c6-1 appropriately applies to securities issued by mutual funds, private-label mortgage-backed securities, and limited partnership interests that are listed on an exchange. The Rule does not apply to municipal securities, and the Commission has determined that, in addition, unlisted limited partnership interests and new issues should be exempt from the Rule for the reasons discussed below. Finally, the Rule has been revised to provide that the Commission may, by order, exempt additional securities from the scope of the Rule.
Several commentators voiced concerns that new issues of securities49 could not be settled by T+3 due to the need to deliver a prospectus prior to settlement.50 Specifically, commentators have indicated that because the prospectus cannot be printed prior to the trade date (the date on which the securities are priced), the prospectus printing and delivery process cannot be completed within a T+3 timeframe. The problems described by commentators would seem to be specific to firm commitment offerings where the underwriter must make payment with its own funds to the issuer on a specified date, whether or not its customers have purchased and paid for the securities.51
To address this problem, the Commission is modifying the Rule to provide a limited exemption from T+3 for the sale of securities for cash pursuant to firm commitment offerings.52 The exemption is limited to sales to an underwriter by the issuer and initial sales by members of the underwriting syndicate and selling group. Any secondary resale of such securities must be settled within T+3.
The Commission recognizes that the comment process may not have identified all situations or types of trades where settlement on T+3 would be problematic. Accordingly, the Rule has been revised to authorize the Commission to exempt, by order, additional types of trades from the scope of Rule 15c6-1.53 This revision and the exemption for firm commitment offerings should assure that the Rule will not interfere unduly with the settlement of securities whose characteristics make it difficult to operate within the framework of Rule 15c6-1.
In proposing Rule 15c6-1, the Commission invited commentators to address the merits of including municipal securities within the scope of the Rule. Due to differences between the corporate and municipal securities markets and the unique role the MSRB has in overseeing the municipal securities market, and based in part on comments received, the Commission has determined not to include municipal securities within the scope of Rule 15c6-l. The Commission makes this determination, however, with the expectation that the MSRB will take the lead in implementing three-day settlement of municipal securities by June 1, 1995, the implementation date of the new Rule.
Over fifty commentators favored including municipal securities within the scope of the Rule. Those commentators believe that maintaining separate settlement cycles for corporate and municipal securities is unnecessary and would impose significant cost and operational difficulties on industry participants.
Several other commentators favor excluding municipal securities from the scope of Rule 15c6-1, citing the many special features of the municipal securities markets. Those features include a lower confirmation/ affirmation percentage of transactions in municipal securities than corporate securities, lack of CUSIP numbers in many municipal securities,54 non-depository eligibility of many municipal issues, and the greater reliance on confirmations by purchasing investors.
The Commission believes that the benefits of reduced systemic, market, and credit risk justify reducing the settlement timeframe for municipal securities from five to three business days consistent with Rule 1SC6-1. The Commission recognizes, however, that the differences between the corporate and municipal securities markets may justify a different approach to implementing T+3 settlement for municipal securities than corporate securities. For example, while publicly-traded corporate debt issuances number in the thousands, there are over one million municipal securities "maturities," each of which is a separate security for purposes of trade clearance and settlement and not all of which are depository eligible. In addition, approximately 80,000 entities issue municipal securities, which are not subject to the provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 ("1933 Act") and are exempted from many provisions of the 1934 Act.
Despite these differences, significant progress has been made towards more efficient, automated clearance and settlement of municipal securities.55 First, the Commission understands that the system changes at clearing agencies necessary for T+3 settlement of municipal securities should be functional by July 1, 1994. Second, as a result of recent changes to MSRB rules, most, if not all municipal securities dealers and institutional investors have access (directly or through correspondents) to clearing agencies for automated clearance, confirmation, and settlement of their municipal securities trades. Third, only a fraction of newly-issued municipal securities are not routinely made eligible for deposit at securities depositories, and efforts are underway to address the remaining newly-issued securities. This progress has been the result of cooperative efforts by the Commission, the MSRB, clearing agencies, and their members.
Although commentators have raised concerns about the differences between municipal and other debt securities, the Commission believes that these differences can be overcome. For example, it may be appropriate to consider exempting certain types of municipal securities trades for a certain amount of time. Similarly, it might be appropriate to explore alternatives to the confirmation as the means of identifying securities that have been sold and as a risk disclosure document. It might also be appropriate to consider exemptions for trades in connection with firm commitment underwritings and for trades in securities for which CUSIP numbers are not required.
The Commission also understands commentator concern about potential costs to municipal securities dealers, such as financing retail customer purchase transactions pending receipt of payment from customers. With sufficient notice, the Commission believes that the municipal securities industry can identify and address these costs in ways similar to other broker-dealers.
In summary, the Commission is confident that municipal securities dealers and market participants, under the guidance of the MSRB, can accomplish the goal of shortening the settlement timeframe by two business days and that regular-way settlement for municipal securities can be subject to the same timetable as other securities. Accordingly, the Commission is requesting a report from the MSRB within six months outlining a time schedule in which the MSRB intends to implement T+3 in the municipal securities market.
The Commission invited comment as to whether limited partnership interests should be included in the scope of Rule 15c6-1. Eleven commentators supported inclusion of limited partnership interests, citing the difficulty caused by different settlement dates for different types of securities. Eight commentators opposed the inclusion of limited partnership interests.
Many commentators distinguished between limited partnership interests that are listed on an exchange or on NASDAQ ("listed limited partnerships") and those that are not listed ("unlisted limited partnerships"). Six commentators stated that listed limited partnerships should be included in the scope of the Rule, while no commentator specifically stated that listed limited partnerships should be excluded from the scope of the Rule. Six commentators stated that unlisted limited partnerships should be excluded from the scope of the Rule, while no commentator specifically stated that unlisted limited partnerships should be included in the scope of the Rule.
Accordingly, the Commission is modifying the Rule to distinguish between trades involving listed versus unlisted limited partnership interests, including listed limited partnership interests and excluding unlisted limited partnership interests. First, the majority of commentators appear to support the inclusion of listed limited partnerships. Second, as exchange or NASDAQ traded securities, these interests currently settle in a five-day timeframe and exclusion of listed limited partnerships from Rule 15c6-1 would unnecessarily contribute to the bifurcation of the settlement cycle in these markets. Under Rule 15c6-1, therefore, listed limited partnerships will be required to settle by T+3.
Many commentators expressed concern, however, about the ability to settle unlisted limited partnerships by T+3, indicating that extended time periods are required to settle trades in these instruments. In order to settle, transfer documentation must be obtained in order to determine whether the transfer of ownership is permitted on the books and records of the issuer.56 In addition, several commentators noted that there is not an active secondary market in unlisted limited partnership interests. Therefore, the Commission has determined to exempt unlisted limited partnership interests from the Rule.
As proposed, Rule 15c6-1 would include securities issued by investment companies.57 The Commission noted that mutual funds often permit customers to purchase shares by telephone and requested comment on whether a T+3 settlement timeframe would make it necessary for mutual funds and broker-dealers to implement operational changes to confirm the sale to the investor, to receive the proceeds, and to settle the transaction.58 Twenty-five commentators believed the proposed three-day settlement should be applied to securities issued by mutual funds. These commentators stated that the exclusion or delayed implementation of a shortened settlement cycle for mutual funds would complicate rather than simplify the transition to T+3. Seven commentators believed the Rule should provide an exemption for securities issued by mutual funds.
The Commission has determined that Rule 15c6-1 should apply to broker-dealer contracts for the purchase and sale of securities issued by investment companies, including mutual funds shares, A broker-dealer selling securities issued by a closed-end fund or unit investment trust could avail itself of the exemption for new issues in a firm commitment underwriting under Rule 15c6-1(b). Thus, the new issue exemption would cover underwritings of closed-end funds and unit investment trusts but not open-end funds.
The Commission believes it is appropriate to include mutual fund transactions because mutual fund shares represent a significant and growing percentage of a broker-dealer's transactions, Even though some mutual fund shares may represent diversified portfolios, contracts for the purchase and sale of these securities pose many of the same systemic, market, and credit risk concerns as other securities subject to Rule 15c6-1, and in the event of a broker-dealer insolvency, these contracts will also need to be resolved. In addition, many, if not most, mutual fund purchases and redemptions are now processed through the centralized "FUND SERV" system operated by NSCC.59 Although NSCC does not formally guarantee performance on contracts cleared in the "FUND SERV" service, its central role, coupled with potential changes to payment settlement timeframes, suggests that reducing the "FUND SERV" settlement timeframe to three business days would significantly reduce risk to the national clearance and settlement system,
Several commentators expressed concern that shortening the timeframe for redemptions by two business days would create liquidity concerns in the event of unexpectedly high volumes of redemptions. The commentators noted that although mutual funds generally meet redemption requests from cash on hand, a particularly large volume of redemption requests would require mutual funds to sell securities from their portfolios, The commentators maintain that application of the T+3 settlement requirement under these circumstances could be problematic, particularly for mutual funds with portfolios heavily invested in securities not subject to T+3 settlement.
The Commission shares commentator concern about the potential for redemptions to create a liquidity crisis, but believes several factors mitigate these concerns, First, the Commission expects that mutual fund managers will account for the risk of a liquidity crisis in planning their portfolio investments, Second, the Commission is delaying the effective date of Rule 15c6-1 by more than nineteen months, which should permit fund managers sufficient time to identify potential exposures and take appropriate remedial steps. Third, the primary components of mutual fund portfolio assets should, by June 1, 1995, settle within three business days of the date of the trade (including U.S. government, corporate equity and debt, and municipal securities). Indeed, as discussed above, the Commission expects the MSRB will act to implement T+3 settlement for municipal securities by June 1, 1995, consistent with Rule 15c6-1. Finally, the Commission will retain authority to exempt, by order, specific trades or classes of trades from the requirement of Rule 15c6-1.
Several commentators raised concerns about whether application of Rule 15c6-1 would be consistent with obligations and requirements under section 22(e)60 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 ("1940 Act") and section 11(d)(1) of the 1934 Act.61 Section 22(e) generally provides that investment companies may not suspend the right of redemption, or postpone payment or satisfaction upon redemption of any redeemable security for more than seven days after tender of the security being redeemed, except under certain circumstances.
The Commission believes that the primary purpose of the seven day period prescribed in section 22(e) is to set forth an outside limit on the amount of time that an investment company may take to satisfy a redeeming shareholder's request for payment. Further, the Commission believes that the underlying rationale of section 22(e) is to ensure that "redeemable" securities are, in fact, redeemable, and that that rationale does not conflict with the purposes of Rule 15c6-1.62 Moreover, industry practice regarding the settlement timeframe for securities transactions, including transactions in mutual funds, has fluctuated since the enactment of the 1940 Act. Accordingly, while the commentators may contend that the seven-day period provided by section 22(e) is analogous to the current industry convention of effecting settlement on the fifth business day following trade date, the fact that those periods are the same today is merely fortuitous.
Section 11(d)(1) generally prohibits a person that acts as both a broker and a dealer from extending credit to a customer to allow that customer to purchase securities issued by a mutual fund. The Commission preliminarily believes these requirements should not be an obstacle to reducing the settlement timeframe for trades in mutual fund shares. At the time these requirements were enacted, the settlement timeframe was T+2. Commentators have discussed with the Commission staff the potential application of these provisions and the staff expect to address these concerns before June 1, 1995. 5. Mortgage-Backed Securities
As proposed in February 1993, private-label mortgage backed securities ("MBS")63 would fall within the ambit of Rule 15c6-1. The Rule would not, however, apply to those MBSs issued by government agencies and government sponsored enterprises ("GSE").64 In the Proposing Release, the Commission invited commentators to consider whether adopting a T+3 settlement timeframe would cause difficulties for issuers and investors in the MBS market and to consider generally whether additional safeguards relating to clearance and settlement of MBSs would be appropriate.
The commentators generally were supportive of applying the proposed Rule to MBSs. Some of the commentators stated that the Rule should apply to MBSs issued by government agencies and GSEs as well as to private-label collateralized mortgage obligations ("CMO"). The PSA stated that although it would prefer that all MBSs settle on the same basis, the bifurcation between private-label MBSs on the one hand, and government agency and GSE MBSs on the other, did not present an insurmountable barrier. The PSA stated that the larger firms probably would adopt a T+3 settlement standard for all MBSs, whether or not subject to the Rule.
Commentators identified several areas of concern with respect to MBSs. The first relates to the availability of factors,65 and whether that could create a barrier for private-label MBSs to move to T+3. Transactions that are effected before the current month's factor is available must go through a cancel and correct procedure to ensure that the correct amount of principal and interest is attributed to the investor for that month. Shortening the settlement cycle could make it less likely that the current month's factor will be available for a given transaction, which would be reflected by more cancel and correct transactions.
The Commission notes, along with The PSA, that for private-label MBSs settling through DTC, DTC's CMO Trade Adjustment System66 keeps track of trades settling with the previous month's factor and automatically adjusts those trades after the current factor is available. Over three-quarters of outstanding private-label CMOs are on deposit at DTC, and the CMO Trade Adjustment System is used regularly among participants.67
The Commission believes that trades in private-label CMOs should be included within the scope of Rule 15c6-1. First, although CMO trades could require some adjustments to reflect changing principal payments in underlying collateral, existing trade adjustment and reconciliation systems and practices appear adequate. Second, the potential for gridlock in the event of a major participant default68 warrants the exchange of as much value as soon as possible in these markets, even if that means that some post-trade adjustment is necessary. This is even more important given the increasing complexity of CMO products, the absence of transparent markets for establishing fair value, and concern about the liquidity of CMO markets in the event of a major market event.
Commentators also expressed concern about how contracts for purchase or sale of mortgage pass-throughs in the to-be-announced ("TBA") market would be treated under Rule 15c6-1. Trading in this market occurs without providing specific mortgage pool information. Among other things, TBA trading allows an underwriter of a private-label mortgage pass-through security to acquire the financing necessary to assemble the pool of mortgages that will comprise a given mortgage pass-through security.69 In response to those concerns, the Commission will interpret Rule 15c6-1 to require that settlement of mortgage pass-through securities occur within three days after a specific pool is contract. Under current TBA market conventions, as specified in PSA Guidelines,70 firms must designate specific pools allocated to a TBA transaction at least 48 hours before settlement.71 Firms following this convention will be deemed to comply with Rule 15c6-1.
In summary, all private-label MBSs shall be subject to the T+3 settlement requirement. TBA trades will not be subject to the Rule; instead, once a pool is designated, settlement must occur within three days. New issuances of CMOs that are the subject of a firm commitment underwriting will be subject to the settlement timeframe applicable to other initial issuances as provided in Rule 15c6-1(b).
As proposed, Rule 15c6-1 provides that, unless otherwise expressly agreed by the parties at the time of the transaction, a broker or dealer is prohibited from entering into a contract for the purchase or sale of a security (other than an exempted security, government security, municipal security, commercial paper, bankers' acceptance, or commercial bill) that provides for payment of funds and delivery of securities later than T+3. As described above, the proposed Rule allows a broker or dealer to agree that settlement will take place in more than three business days, when the agreement is express and reached at the time of the transaction.
Several letters from individual commentators and approximately 1,550 substantially similar letters expressed concern that the ability to override the three day settlement requirement could create a market inefficiency that could be exploited by some broker-dealers. Those commentators suggested that the ability of broker-dealers to override the three day settlement requirement for specific transactions will permit broker-dealers to establish two classes of investors, providing advantages to investors holding with the broker-dealer in indirect or beneficial ownership form over those investors choosing to own shares of stock in direct ownership form.
Several commentators suggested eliminating from the Rule the ability to override the three day settlement requirement. The large majority of the letters, however, did not suggest eliminating the override provision, but rather encouraged the Commission to ensure that broker-dealers do not use the override provision to discourage direct forms of securities ownership,
The override provision was intended to apply only to unusual transactions, such as seller's option trades, that typically settle as many as sixty days after execution as specified by the parties to the trade at execution. It was not intended to permit broker-dealers to specify before execution of specific trades that a group of trades will settle in a timeframe other than T+3. In general, broker-dealers will not be able to contract out of the three day settlement timeframe.
The Commission supports industry efforts to develop products which will enhance the ability of retail investors to choose among suitable forms of ownership. The Commission, moreover, intends for the choice of securities ownership to be driven by market forces, and not for the override provision of Rule 15c6-1 to be used by market participants to prefer one form of ownership over another. The Commission will continue to monitor the use of the override provision of Rule 15c6-1, and, if such abuses are detected, will consider additional rulemaking.
Section 23(a)(2) of the 1934 Act72 requires the Commission, in adopting rules under the 1934 Act, to consider the anti-competitive effects of such rules, if any, and to balance any impact against the regulatory benefits gained in terms of farthering the purposes of the 1934 Act. Several commentators, primarily small retail broker-dealers, raised concerns that Rule 15c6-1 would increase their costs, thereby making it more difficult to compete with larger broker-dealers. The Commission notes that Rule 15c6-1 does not distinguish between categories of broker-dealers, and believes that the costs created would be imposed evenly upon larger and smaller broker-dealer firms. The costs may be higher for certain firms, regardless of their size, that have not invested in necessary infrastructure and technology.73 These costs would be necessary in assuring that the purpose of the Rule, risk reduction, is met. The Commission has considered Rule 15c6-1 in light of the standard cited in section 23(a)(2) and believes that adoption of the Rule will not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the 1934 Act.
The Commission believes that Rule 15c6-1 will reduce credit and liquidity risks, reduce the settlement gap between the corporate securities market and the government securities and derivatives markets, and increase efficiency in broker-dealer and clearing agency operations. Some broker-dealers currently have the operational capability to comply with three-day settlement. However, where a broker-dealer's procedures currently are not designed to accommodate three-day settlement, the facilities to expedite the settlement process do exist (e.g., bank wire systems or overnight postal courier services). The Commission believes that broker-dealers and their customers can make the necessary systems and operational changes to comply with three-day settlement given the extended transition period for implementation of the Rule. The Commission recognizes, however, that the extent and nature of modifications depends on the specific needs of each firm. Nevertheless, the Commission recommends that, as necessary, industry participants that need to make significant systems or operational changes evaluate their progress periodically as the implementation date for T+3 approaches and make adjustments as appropriate to ensure a smooth transition to T+3 settlement.
The Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("FRFA") regarding Rule 15c6-1, in accordance with5 U.S.C. 604. The FRFA notes the potential costs of operational and procedural changes that may be necessary to comply with the Rule. In addition, the FRFA notes the importance of the risk reduction that will result from a shorter settlement cycle. The Commission believes that the benefits of Rule 15C6-1 outweigh the costs that will be incurred by industry participants in complying with the Rule.
A copy of the FRFA may be obtained by contacting Christine Sibille, Attorney, Branch of Debt and International Clearing Agency Regulation, Office of Securities Processing Regulation, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Mail Stop 5-1, Washington, DC 20549.
List of Subjects
17 CFR Part 200
Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations (Government agencies), Organizations and functions (Government organizations).
17 CFR Part 240
Brokers and dealers, Registration and regulation, Securities.
Text of the Amendments
In accordance with the foregoing, title 17 chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 200-ORGANIZATION; CONDUCT AND ETHICS; AND INFORMATION AND REQUESTS
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77s, 78d-1, 78d-2, 78w, 78ll(d), 79t, 77sss, 80a-37, 80b-11, unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
§ 200.30-3 Delegation of authority to Director of Division of Market Regulation.
* * * * *
* * * * *
PART 240-GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS, SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77c, 77d, 77g, 77j, 77s, 77eee, 77ggg, 77nnn, 77sss, 77ttt, 78c, 78d, 78i, 78j, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o, 78p, 78s, 78w, 78x, 78ll(d), 79q, 79t, B0a-20, 80a-23, 80a-29, 80a-37, 80b-3, 80b-4, and 80b-11, unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
§ 240.15c6-1 Settlement cycle.
Dated: October 6, 1993.
By the Commission.
Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
3 The term "clearance" includes the comparison of data regarding the terms of settlement of securities transactions and the allocation of securities settlement responsibilities. After trade comparison, most trades clear through a continuous net settlement system ("CNS") operated by a clearing corporation registered with the Commission under Section 17A of the 1934 Act. Under CNS, the clearing corporation nets each clearing member's purchases and sales to arrive at a daily net receive or deliver obligation for each security and a daily net settlement payment obligation. The term "settlement" includes the delivery of securities in exchange for funds, pursuant to the terms of the original transaction, and the custody of securities. See section 3(a)(23)(A) of the 1934 Act, 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(23)(A).
4 Public Law 94-29 section 16, 89 Stat. 146.
5 See 15 U.S.C. § 78o, 78q-1, and 78w.
6 Public Law 101-432.104 Stat. 963.
7 Settlement in the futures, options, and government securities markets occurs on the day after trade date ("T+1") using same-day funds. Settlement of most trades in corporate and municipal securities, on the other hand, takes place on the fifth business day after the trade date ("T+5") with money payments among financial intermediaries made in next-day funds (i.e., payment by means of certified checks passing between the clearing corporation and its members). Thus, financial intermediaries have good funds on "T+6."
8 See e.g., Remarks of Commissioner Mary L. Schapiro before the Securities Industry Association ("SIA") Regional Conference (March 20, 1991), stating that "[p]rior to 1968, equity transactions in the U.S. were settled on the fourth day after the trade date ("T+4"), without causing undue harm to retail customers."
9 Letter from Mary Ann Callahan, Vice President/ Director of International Development, National Securities Clearing Corporation ("NSCC"), to Toshitsugu Shimizu, Assistant Manager, Tokyo Stock Exchange (June 30, 1987).
10 Frank w. Curran, Address to Executives and Officers of Korea Securities Industry (March 28, 1974).
11 See e.g., National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. Uniform Practice Code 1 3512, section 12 and New York Stock Exchange Rule 64.
12 Commentators opposed to Rule 15C6-1 predominantly expressed concern about the cost implications of the rule, which are addressed in section II.B of this release. Fewer than ten commentators indicated that the rule was unnecessary or that Commission goals could be achieved by other means. See discussion, infra, at pp. 19-21.
13 Division of Market Regulation, The October 1987 Market Break ("Market Break Report") 10-20 (February 1988).
14 Id. at 10-16. Clearing firms stand between the clearing corporation, on the one side, and market professionals, introducing firms, and public investors on the other. Many customers, institutional and otherwise, open their accounts with an introducing broker. Introducing brokers use executing brokers (which are usually members of a clearing agency) to execute and clear customer trades. If the customer fails to meet margin calls made by the executing firm or fails to pay on T+5 the settlement amount for securities it has purchased, the introducing or executing broker must pay that debt. If the amount exceeds the introducing broker's ability to pay and it fails, the clearing member executing firm will be responsible for the customer's debt. If the clearing member fails to meet its obligation to the clearing agency, the clearing agency will suspend and cease to act for that member. Clearing agencies ceased to act for three clearing members during the week of October 19, 1987. The Depository Trust Company ("DTC") and NSCC ceased to act for Metropolitan Securities ("Metropolitan"), American Investors Group, and H.B. Shaine and Co. ("Shaine"). The Options Clearing Corporation ("OCC") ceased to act for Shaine, and MBS Clearing Corporation ceased to act for Metropolitan. Id.
15 The Market Reform Act of 1989: Joint Hearings on S. 648 before the Subcomm. on Securities and the Senate Comm. on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, 101st Cong., 1st Sess. 225 (Oct. 26, 1969) (statement of Nicholas F. Brady, Secretary of the Treasury).
16 Luncheon Address: Perspectives on Payment System Risk Reduction by £. Gerald Corrigan, President, FRBNY, reprinted in The U.S. Payment System: Efficiency, Risk and the Role of the Federal Reserve 129-30 (1990).
17 The Issues Surrounding the Collapse of Drexel Burnham Lambert, Hearings before the United States Congress, Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 5 (1990) (testimony of Richard C. Breeden, Chairman, Commission) ("Drexel testimony").
18 Ordinarily, lenders who accept securities hi DTC's pledge program release those securities to the debtor's control without requiring full payment of outstanding loans, provided payment (including refunding through new pledge loans) occurs before the end of the day. This permits the debtor (typically, a broker-dealer) to deliver the pledged securities against payment to another participant or to NSCC during both of DTC's delivery processing cycles. Because settlement of transactions typically starts with delivery of securities, with the deliverer assuming the risk that payment will be made at or before the end of the day, release of pledged collateral can help maximize the number of trades that settle while shifting some credit risk to the deliverer's bank.
When Drexel experienced financial difficulties, however, its lenders and counterparties took steps to reduce their credit risk exposure to Drexel. In particular, because of concern about what might happen during the day or the quality of collateral that might be posted at the end of the day, lenders insisted upon repayment before release of securities, which meant Drexel could not settle open transactions even as it was winding down its portfolio. See Drexel testimony at 47.
19 Initiatives in clearance and settlement reform undertaken since 1967 are outlined in Appendix 2.
20 See Remarks by Alan Greenspan before the Annual Convention of the SIA (November 30, 1988).
21 Letter from William W. Wiles, Secretary to the Board, to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Commission (September 1, 1993). See also Bank for International Settlements, Delivery Versus Payment in Securities Settlement Systems (September 1992).
22 Letter from William J. McDonough, President, FRBNY, to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Commission (August 27, 1993).
23 Letter from Jeffrey F. Ingber, General Counsel and Secretary, GSCC, to Jonathan G. Kali, Secretary, Commission (June 30, 1993).
24 Letter from Sarah A. Miller, Senior Government Relations Counsel, American Bankers Association, to Jonathan G. Katz (June 30.1993].
25 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 3225(1 (May 14, 1993), 56 FR 27486 (concept release regarding changes to Commission's net capital treatment of derivative products); and the Group of Thirty, Derivatives: Practices and Principles (July 1993).
26 Clearing corporations function as, among other things, post-trade processing facilities and guarantors of post-trade settlements. Upon reporting matched trade information to its members, the clearing corporation becomes the counterparty to every trade and guarantees payment and delivery. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 20221 (September 23, 1983), 48 FR 45167 ("Full Registration Order"). To protect against the credit risk presented by unsettled positions, clearing corporations obtain contributions from their members to a pool of funds designed to provide a ready source of liquidity in case of a member default See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 16900 (June 17, 1980), 49 FR 4192 (announcing the Division of Market Regulation's standards for the registration of clearing agencies); 20221 supra; and 30879 (July 1, 1992), 97 FR 30279 (order approving modifications to the CNS portions of NSCC, Midwest Clearing Corporation, and Securities Clearing Corporation of Philadelphia clearing fund formulas). Any sizable loss in liquidating the open commitments of a defaulting member, however, would be assessed pro rata against all clearing members. See e.g., NSCC Rule 4. See also, Market Break Report, Chapter 10.
27 Task Force on Securities Settlement Report to the Governor of The Bank of England (June 1993).
28 Bachmann Task Force, Report of the Bachmann Task Force on Clearance and Settlement in the U.S. Securities Markets ("Task Force Report") (May 1982).
29 Task Force Report at 35.
30Id. at 38.
31 Based on the information received from commentators upon staff requests for further data, the firms' estimated costs ranged from SO to $5 million. Three firms stated that they expected to incur little or no cost Other firms cited annual cost figures as follows: $12,000, $20,000, $99,000, $75-100,000, $87,000, $99,300, $1 million, $3.8 million, and $9 million.
Two clearing firms provided specific cost data. One clearing firm stated that it would have initial start-up costs of approximately one million dollars to make changes to its cash management and trade processing systems and procedures. Letter from George Minnig, Managing Director, Penning Division of Donaldson, Lufkin and Jenrette Securities Corporation ("Pershing"), to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Commission (June 21, 1993). The other responding clearing firm stated that its informal analysis indicated that it would have annual costs, mainly based on financing late payments, of approximately five million dollars. Letter from Jeffrey R. Larson, Senior Legal Counsel, Fidelity Investments Institutional Services Company, Inc. ("Fidelity"), to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Commission (June 24, 1993).
32 The Commission notes that the cost data received in general were very rough estimates, not based on detailed studies, and the Commission expects that actual costs will vary among firms depending on many factors including the nature and location of the firm's clientele and the level of technology employed by the firm.
33 In addition, three commentators indicated that the customer needed to review the confirmation to eliminate unauthorized transactions. Commentators raise valid concerns about unauthorized transactions and the utility of the written confirmation in detecting unauthorized transactions. Nevertheless, unauthorized transactions generally represent a small percentage of all trades executed each day. and the key to avoiding those transactions is prompt communication of key trade terms to the customer, which could be accomplished orally as well as in writing. Even more to the point, firms should take corrective action whenever they discover unauthorized transactions in customer accounts without regard to when the customer receives a confirmation.
34 ACH is a domestic electronic payment system operated under the direction of NACHA and is utilized by over 22.000 hanks, thrifts, and other depository financial institutions on behalf of corporations and individuals.
35 U.S. Working Committee, Implementing the Group of Thirty Recommendations in the United States (November 1890).
36 See e.g., letter from Robert C Disset, Director. Operations Division, A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. ("A.G. Edwards"), to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Commission (June 1, 1993).
37 In the ID system, broken notify the depository of trades made by an investment manager on behalf of an institutional client. The investment manager and the client's custodian banks are notified of too trade and asked to affirm that the information is correct. Trades affirmed by T+3 settle automatically by book-entry at the depository on T+5.
The majority of settlements between broker-dealers and their institutional customers are processed through the National Institutional Delivery System ("national ID system" or "NIDS") which includes links with three securities depositories (Midwest Securities Trust Company, Philadelphia Depository Trust Company, and DTC) and their member broker-dealers. See, e.g. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 25120 (November 13, 1887), 52 FR 44506.
38 NYSE, Fact Book for the Year 1992 (April 1993) at 28.
39 For the first six months of 1983. an average of 284 million shares wen traded daily on the NYSE.
40 See File No. SR-DTC-93-07.
41 17 CFR 240.10b-10.
42 17 CFR 240.15c3-1.
43 See Rule 15c3-1(c)(2)(ix).
44 17 CFR 240.15c3-3.
45 17 CFR 240.15c3-3(m).
46 Reg T, 12 CFR part 220, at. seq., imposes, among other things. Initial margin requirements and payment rules on securities transactions. See 15 U.S.C. § 78a et seq., part 220.
47 Letter from Albert Peterson, Executive Vice President, State Street Bank and Trust Company, to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Commission (June 2, 1993).
48 See letters from Paul Farace, President, Cashiers Association, to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Commission (June 14, 1993); and letter from Salvatore N. Cucco, President, Data Management Division, to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Commission (June 16, 1993).
49 A new Issue of securities includes both IPOs and offerings of additional debt or equity issues by reporting companies.
50 See section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 ("1933 Act") (15 U.S.C § 77e).
51 In a firm commitment offering, the underwriter purchases the securities from the issuer, generally for a fixed price, and then re-sells the securities to the public, thereby assuming the risk of market fluctuations in the price of securities.
52 The exemption will apply only to offerings when cash is the sole form of consideration given in exchange for the securities. This requirement is intended to limit the exemption to the conventional firm commitment public offerings which are associated with the problems raised by the commentators rather than including transactions such as issuer exchange offers or business combinations.
53 Concurrent with the adoption of the Rule, The Commission is delegating to the Director of the Division of Market Regulation authority to exempt such additional types of trades.
54 CUSIP is an acronym for the Committee on Uniform Securities Identification Procedures. Although most outstanding municipal securities have CUSIP numbers, there probably are several thousand maturities that do not
55 For example, the Commission recently approved a rule proposed by the MSRB requiring the use of automated clearance and settlement systems on most Delivery Versus Payment and Receipt Versus Payment customer transactions. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 32460 (July 22, 1993), 56 FR 39260. In addition, the MSRB has filed with the Commission a proposed rule change that will require use of automated clearance and settlement systems on most interdealer transactions. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 32282 (May 4, 1993), 56 FR 27757. That proposed rule change was filed in concert with NSCC's recently implemented comparison system which accelerates the comparison cycle for municipal securities. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 32747 (August 13, 1993), 58 FR 44530. The Commission also approved an MSRB proposal requiring most interdealer transactions in municipal securities that are eligible for book-entry settlement in a registered securities depository to be settled by book-entry through the facilities of that depository or in an interface with another registered securities depository.
56 Required paperwork varies among different issuers, and the processing requirements may take weeks. According to the comment letter from the Chicago Partnership Board, some issuers require that blank paperwork be ordered after a trade is agreed to, and these same issuers often take weeks to deliver the paperwork once ordered. Letter from James Frith, Jr., President, Chicago Partnership Board, to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Commission (June 4, 1993).
57 The Investment Company Act of 1940 ("1940 Act"). 15 U.S.C. 80a-1, describes several forms of investment companies. Among these are "open-end" and "closed-end" management companies and unit investment trusts. Sections 4, 5, 1940 Act; 15 U.S.C 809-4, 80a-5. Open-end companies, commonly known as mutual funds, offer redeemable securities. Unit investment trusts also issue redeemable securities, although their sponsors generally create a secondary market for their shares. Closed-end companies resemble corporations in that at any time they have a fixed number of shares outstanding that are traded on an exchange or in the over-the-counter market at prices which reflect supply and demand.
58 See Proposing Release, at note 33.
59 The Mutual Fund Settlement, Entry, and Registration Service ("Fund/Serv") was implemented in 1986 to enable NSCC members to submit mutual fund purchase and redemption orders to NSCC, and to enable NSCC In turn to transmit the orders to its members acting on behalf of eligible mutual funds.
60 15 U.S.C. 80a-22(e).
61 15 U.S.C. 78k(d)(1).
62 The legislative history of section 22(e), although sparse, indicates the significant importance placed on an open-end investment company shareholder's right to redeem shares, "and receive at once, or within a very short time, the approximate cash asset value of such shares as of the time of the tender." See Hearings Before a Subcomm. of the Comm. on Banking and Currency on S. 3580,76th Cong., 3d Sess. (1940), at 985. The Commission believes that the wording of section 22(e)-"No registered investment company * * * shall* * * postpone the date of payment or satisfaction upon redemption of any redeemable security* * * for more than seven days after the tender of such security"-clearly suggests that the section is intended to be a "limit" rather than a "grant"
63 MBSs include mortgage pass through securities, collateralized mortgage obligations ("CMO"), and Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits ("REMIC"). Private-label MBSs include privately issued MBSs collateralized by agency or government sponsored enterprise mortgages or mortgage pass through securities.
64 Government agencies include, for example, the Government National Mortgage Association ("Ginnie Mae"). GSEs include, without limitation, the Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae") and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("Freddie Mac").
65 A (actor is the proportion of outstanding principal to the original principal balance, expressed as a decimal. In the case of CMOs and REMICs, factors are made available once a month, and in the case of private-label MBSs, this occurs at the end of the month.
66 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 30277 (January 22, 1992), 57 FR 3657 (order approving DTC's CMO Trade Adjustment System).
67 Telephone conversation with James Riley, Planning Department, DTC, and Patricia Trainor, Associate Counsel, DTC (August 23, 1993).
68 See e.g., testimony concerning the bankruptcy of Drexel.
69 Mortgage pass-through securities have been traded for many years and frequently are the collateral from which CMOs and REMICs are created. For a description of this market, see e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 26671 (March 28, 1989), 54 FR 13266 (granting the Participants Trust Company temporary registration as a clearing agency).
70 PSA, Uniform Practices for the Clearance and Settlement of Mortgage-Backed Securities and Other Related Securities 8.B.1 (1992).
71 Forward trades are done typically on a TBA basis because certain specifics, such as the pool numbers, ere not available at the time of the trade and are typically provided 46 hours before settlement to allow for the smooth settlement of the pass-through security. Letter from Dominick F. Antonelli, Chairman, PSA Municipal Securities Division Operations and Compliance Committee, and Stephen W. Hopkins, Chairman, PSA Mortgage Securities Division Operations Committee, to Jonathan G. Kalz, Secretary, Commission (July 8, 1993).
72 15 U.S.C. 78w(a)(2).
73 These broker-dealers, however, are not subject to a unique cost. Instead, they are incurring a cost previously paid by their competitors.
Note: Appendices 1 through 3 to the preamble will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
Appendix 1-List of Commentators
The following commentators submitted comments relating to- proposed Rule 15c6-1.
Government Agency
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System ("Federal Reserve Board" or "Board")
Self-Regulatory Organizations
Boston Stock Exchange ("BSE")
Chicago Mercantile Exchange ("CME")
The Depository Trust Company ("DTC")
Government Securities Clearing Corporation ("GSCC")
International Securities Clearing Corporation ("ISCC")
Midwest Clearing Corporation/Midwest Securities Trust Company ("CHX")
Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board ("MSRB")
National Securities Clearing Corporation ("NSCC")
New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE")
The Options Clearing Corporation ("OCC")
Trade Associations
American Bankers Association ("American Bankers")
American Bar Association Section of Business Law, Subcommittee on Market Regulation and Subcommittee on Registration Statements, 1933 Act of the Committee on Federal Regulation of Securities (" American Bar Association")
American Council of Life Insurance ("American Council")
American Society of Corporate Secretaries, Inc. ("Corporate Secretaries")
Association of Reserve City Bankers ("Reserve City Bankers")
The Cashiers' Association of Wai)
Street, Inc. ("Cashiers' Association")
Corporate Transfer Agents Association. Inc. ("CTAA")
Data Management Division of Wali Street (Securities Industry Association)
("Data Management Division")
Investment Company Institute ("ICI")
National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. ("NASD")
National Automated Clearing House Association ("NACHA")
New York Clearing House ("NYCH")
Public Securities Association ("PSA")
Regional Municipal Operations Association ("RMOA")
Securities Industry Association ("SLA")
Securities Operations Division of the S1A ("SOD")
Security Traders Association ("Traders Association")
The Securities Transfer Association, Inc. ("STA")
Syndicate Operations Association Incorporated ("SOA")
Broker-Dealers
A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. ("A.G. Edwards")
Alex. Brown & Sons Incorporated ("Alex Brown")
Arthurs Lestrange & Company Incorporated ("Arthurs Lestrange")
Asiel & Co. ("Asiel")
Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated ("Baird")
Baker & Co., Incorporated ("Baker")
Bear Stearns & Co., Inc. ("Bear Stearns")
Bodell Overcash Anderson & Co., Inc. ("Bodell Overcash")
Jack V. Butterfield Investment Company ("Butterfield")
J.W. Charles Securities, Inc. (4 letters)
("J.W. Charles")
Chatfleld Dean & Co., Inc. ("Chatfield")
Cheevers, Hand & Angeline, Inc. ("Cheevers")
The Chicago Corporation ("Chicago Corporation")
Collopy & Company Inc. ("Collopy")
Consolidated Financial Investments, Inc. ("Consolidated")
CUSO Equities, Inc. ("CUSO")
Cygnet Resources, Inc. ("Cygnet")
D.A. Davidson & Co. ("Davidson")
Davenport & Co. of Virginia, Inc. ("Davenport")
Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. ("Dean Witter")
J.V. Delaney & Associates ("Delaney")
Dempsey & Company ("Dempsey")
H.C. Denison Co. ("Denison")
Dorsey & Company, Incorporated ("Dorsey")
East/West Securities Co. ("East/West")
Ferris, Baker Watts, Incorporated ("Ferris Baker")
Fidelity Investments Institutional Services Company, Inc. ("Fidelity")
Financial Network Investment Corporation ("Financial Network")
John Finn & Company, Inc. ("John Finn")
The First Boston Corporation ("First Boston")
First Dallas Securities Incorporated ("First Dallas")
First Manhattan Co. ("First Manhattan")
First Northeast Securities, Inc. ("First Northeast")
Gilbert Marshall & Company ("Gilbert")
Goldman, Sachs & Co. ("Goldman Sachs")
Grove Securities, Inc. ("Grove")
Gruntal & Co. Incorporated ("Gruntal")
G-W Brokerage Group, Inc. ("G-W")
Hamilton & Company Incorporated ("Hamilton")
The Heitner Corporation ("Heitner")
Hopper Securities-Vermont ("Hopper")
Wayne Hummer & Co. ("Hummer")
Interstate/Johnson Lane Corporation ("Interstate/Johnson Lane")
Raymond James 4 Associates, Inc. (2 letters)
("Raymond James")
Kenneth Jerome & Company ("Jerome")
JJC Specialist Corp. ("JJC")
Edward D. Jones & Co. ("E.D. Jones")
Juran & Moody, Inc. ("Juran & Moody")
Kidder, Peabody & Co., Incorporated (2 letters)
("Kidder")
Kirk Securities Corporation ("Kirk")
La Branche & Co. ("LaBranche")
Legg Mason Wood Walker, Incorporated ("Legg Mason")
Lewco Securities Corp. ("Lewco")
Locust Street Securities, Inc. ("Locust")
McCourtney-Breckenridge & Company ("McCourtney")
M.E. Metzler Organization, Incorporated ("M.E. Metzler")
Merchant Capital Corporation ("Merchant Capital")
Mericka & Co., Inc. ("Mericka")
Meridian Associates, Inc. ("Meridian")
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated ("Merrill Lynch")
Miller & Schroeder Financial, Inc. ("Miller")
Montgomery Securities ("Montgomery")
Morton Seidel & Co., Inc. ("Morton Seidel")
Mutual Service Corporation ("Mutual")
Nicodemus & Sherwood, Inc. ("Nicodemus")
Northern Trust Securities, Inc. ("Northern Trust")
Paine Webber Incorporated ("Paine Webber")
Paulson Investment Company Inc. ("Paulson")
Pershing Division of Donaldson, Lufkin and Jenrette Securities Corporation ("Pershing")
Peterson Financial Corp. ("Peterson")
Pflueger & Baerwald Inc. ("Pflueger")
Piper Jaffray Companies Inc. ("Piper Jaffray")
Pirrone & Co., Inc. ("Pirrone")
Robert A. Podesta & Co. ("Podesta")
The Principal/Eppler, Guerin & Turner, Inc. ("Principal Financial")
Protective Group Securities Corporation ("Protective")
Prudential Securities Incorporated ("Prudential")
Quick & Reilly, Inc ("Quick & Reilly")
Quincy Cass Associates Incorporated ("Quincy")
Richards. Merrill & Peterson. Inc. ("Richards Merrill")
Robinson & Lukens, Inc. ("Robinson Lukens")
Rodgers Capital Corporation ("Rodgers")
Roland Francis & Co., Inc. ("Roland Francis")
Sands Brothers & Co., Ltd. ("Sands Bros.")
Saperston Financial Inc. ("Saperston")
Charles Schwab & Co., toe. ("Schwab")
S.C. Parker & Co., Inc. (3 letters)
("S.C Parker")
Janney Montgomery Scott Inc. ("Montgomery Scott")
Scott & Stringfellow Investment Corp. ("Scott Stringfellow")
Selected Securities Company ("Selected")
Sierra Trading ("Sierra Trading")
Smith, Moore & Co. ("Smith Moore")
Southwest Securities Incorporated ("Southwest")
Summitt Investment Corporation ("Summitt")
Robert Thomas Securities, Inc. ("Robert Thomas")
Robertson, Stephens & Company ("Robertson Stephens")
The Warner Group Inc. ("Warner")
U.S. Clearing Corp. ("U.S. Clearing")
Wheat, First Securities, Inc. ("Wheat First")
William J. Conway&Co., Inc. ("Conway")
Wulff, Hansen & Co. ("Wulff Hansen")
Wyoming Financial Securities. Inc. ("Wyoming")
B.C. Ziegler and Company ("B.C. Ziegler")
Ziegler Thrift Trading, Inc ("Ziegler Thrift")
Investment Advisors
Jobel Financial, Inc. ("Joben Massachusetts Financial Services Company ("Massachusetts Financial")
Neuberger & Berman ("Neuherger")
Oppenheimer Management Corporation ("Oppenheimer Management")
Seger-Elvekrog, Inc. ("Seger-Elvekrog")
Society National Bank ("Society")
St. Denis J. Villere & Company ("St. Denis")
Stephenson and Company ("Stephenson")
Bank Custodians
Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association ("Bank of America")
The Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. ("Chase")
Citibank, N.A. ("Citibank")
Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York ("Morgan Guaranty")
United States Trust Company of New York ("U.S. Trust")
Wachovia Trust Services, Inc. ("Wachovia")
Insurance Company-Affiliated Broker-Dealers
Green Hill Financial Service Corp, ("Green Hill")
MML Investors Services, Inc. ("MML")
Sun Investment Services Company ("Sun")
Limited Partnerships Broker-Dealer
Chicago Partnership Board, Inc. ("Chicago Partnership Board")
Mutual Fund Broker-Dealers
Chubb Securities Corporation ("Chubb")
Penn Square Management Corporation ("Penn Square")
H.D. Vest Investment Securities, Inc. ("H.D. Vest")
Municipal Bond Broker-Dealers
Clayton Brown & Associates, Inc. ("Clayton Brown")
Halpert and Company, Inc. ("Halpert")
Hanifen, Imhoff Inc. ("Hanifen")
The Lsedy Corporation ("Leedy")
Transfer Agents
Burnham Pacific Properties, Inc. ("Burnham")
Chemical Banking Corporation ("Chemical")
Fidelity Accounting & Custody Services Company ("FACS")
Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated ("Morgan")
Oppenheimer Shareholder Services Division of Oppenheimer Management Corporation (2 letters)
("Oppenheimer Shareholder")
State Street Bank and Trust Company ("State Street")
Southern Company Services, Inc. ("Southern")
Texaco Inc. ("Texaco")
Valero Energy Corporation ("Valero")
Wisconsin Energy Corporation ("Wisconsin")
Individuals
Scott G. Abbey
John W. Bachmann
Dr. & Mrs. L.O. Banks
Rodney E. Bate
Chris Bennett
Nelda Bergsten
Russell M. Bimfaer
Helen A. Bird
Allan R. Black
Weston A. Boyd
Carl R. Brasee
D.N. Bulk
Mark C Bublak
Thomas A. Byrne
D.H. Carlson
John Cirrito
Daniel B. Coleman
Richard Conway
Douglas Czarnecki
Martin H. Drayer
Karen Frye
Gordon G. Carney
Elaine Graham
Rae T. Gaida
Professor Steven Hill
Donald R. Hollis
Frank Hutcheon
Mark Jackson
Rex and Susan Jacobsen
Kenneth S. Janke
Marilyn D. Jennings
James A. Jephcote
William P. Kilroy
David M. Klausmeyer
Donald R. Kryzan
Robert T. Levine
Lowell H. Listrom
Pearl Lurio
Ina Mandel
Joseph J.F. March
George J. Minnig
Stephen A. Molasky
H.J. Porter
Mani K. Pulimood
Richard R. Romane
Donald Rhyne
Michael A. Rogawski
Ramona B. Schafehen
Charles F. Schlein. Jr.
D. Schroeder
Kenneth Shazel
Hank Simon
Richard B. Smith
George Sneed
Murray L. Solomon
Walter Stelma
Frank C Vogel
Robert C. Waldo, Jr.
Warren D. Weber
Martin J. Webler
Barbara Wilkinson
Theo L. Wealinsh
Daniel P. Worth
Insurance Company
Aetna
Other
Armstrong World Industries, Inc
William Batdorf & Company, Certified Public Accountant
BellSouth Corporation ("BellSouth")
Bryan Cave The College Retirement Equities Fund("CREF")
DQE
E.F. Miller & Company ("E.F. Miller")
Federal Reserve Bank of New York ("FRBNY")
The Group of Thirty ("Group of Thirty")
Minnesota Utility Investors ("MUI")
Sixty Niner Investment Club ("Sixty Niner")
Texas Industries, Inc. ("Texas Industries")
Thomson Financial Services ("Thomson")
In addition, the Commission received substantially similar letters from three separate groups, as set out below.
Individual Investors
1,550 Identical letters supporting direct registration
Regional Investment Brokers, Inc. ("RIBS") Letters ("RIBS Letters")
[101 letters opposing T+3 settlement]
Century Capital Corp. of South Carolina ("Century")
Corporate Securities Group, Inc. (16 letters) ("Corporate Securities")
Culverwell & Co. Inc. (5 letters) ("Culverwell")
Girard Securities, Inc. ("Girard")
Greenway Capital Corporation ("Greenway")
Investors Associates, Incorporated ("Investors Associates")
La Jolla Capital Corporation ("Lajolla")
M.H. Meyerson & Co., Inc. ("Meyerson")
Royce Investment Group, Inc. ("Royce")
RIBS Royce Employees (69 letters) Sentra Securities Corporation ("Sentra")
Spellman & Company, Inc. ("Spellman")
Wilson-Davis & Company Incorporated ("Wilson Davis")
Transfer Agent Letters
17 letters supporting T+3 settlement
The Bank of New York ("BONY")
Barnett Banks, Inc. ("Barnett")
CBI Industries Inc. ("CBI")
CEL-SCI Corporation ("CEL-SCI")
Central and South West Corporation ("Central")
E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company ("DuPont")
Nevada Power Company ("Nevada Power")
First Chicago Trust Company of New York ("First Chicago")
Florida Progress Corporation ("Florida Progress")
GenCorp Mellon Financial Services Corporation No. 17 ("Mellon")
Northern States Power Company ("Northern States")
Northwest Natural Gas Company ("Northwest")
Ottertail Power Company ("Ottertail")
Society National Bank ("Society National")
WPL Holdings. Inc. Union Daia Service Center, Inc. ("Union Data")
Appendix 2-Recent Initiatives in Clearance and Settlement Reform
Although the U.S. clearance and settlement system is among the safest in the world, recent events have demonstrated that vulnerabilities exist. Record volume and volatility during October 1987 proved detrimental to broker-dealers who were unable to resolve processing errors before settlement with their customers on T+5. Moreover, the steep decline in stock prices during that period, as well as the decline on October 16, 1989, left some broker-dealers vulnerable to loss from the positions of customers who were unable or unwilling to meet either margin calls or transaction settlement obligations. This in turn called into question the ability of those broker-dealers to meet their obligations to the clearing corporations.1
After the October 1987 market break, several groups sought to identify causes of the market decline and changes that could be made to shield market participants from the impact of sudden steep declines in the market.2 All these studies identified clearance and settlement as an area which needed further attention.3
At the same time, in March 1988, the Group of Thirty4 organized a symposium in London to discuss the state of clearance and settlement in the world's principal securities markets. The symposium participants concluded that there was a need for international agreement on a uniform set of practices and standards for the clearance and settlement of securities transactions in order to improve the process. In light of this conclusion, the Group of Thirty organized a Steering Committee to work with a professional and broad-based Working Committee in order to produce a set of operational proposals for practices arid standards in the area of clearance and settlement.
In March 1989, the Group of Thirty issued a report by the Steering Committee setting forth nine recommendations ("Group of Thirty recommendations"),5 including implementation of settlement on T+3, to modernize and improve clearance and settlement systems at a local level and to make them compatible with each other internationally.6 Following the release of the Group of Thirty Report, several countries initiated separate efforts to study how their clearance and settlement systems compared with the Group of Thirty recommendations. In the U.S., a Working Group was created for this purpose, The U.S. Working Group concluded that, while the U.S. was in compliance with seven of the Group of Thirty recommendations, continued consideration should be given to the implementation of the two remaining recommendations, T+3 settlement and settlement in same-day funds.7
Two subcommittees, a U.S. Steering Committee and a U.S. Working Committee of the Group of Thirty ("the U.S. committees") were formed to evaluate the benefits of shortening the settlement cycle and converting to the use of same-day funds. The U.S. committees urged adoption of the two recommendations and, in order to support a move to T+3 settlement, also recommended that: (1) Book-entry settlement be mandatory for transactions between financial intermediaries and between financial intermediaries and their institutional customers;8 and (2) all new securities issues should be made eligible for depository services.
In November 1990, the Commission held a Roundtable to discuss the recommendations of the U.S. committees, Roundtable participants generally agreed that the two recommendations should be adopted, but urged that the timetables for implementation be sufficiently flexible so that obstacles to implementation could be fully explored and practical solutions found and implemented. Roundtable participants expressed concern that broker-dealers conducting a predominantly retail business might have difficulty operating in a three business day settlement timeframe in the national clearance and settlement system because of the need, among other things, to obtain payment from retail clients for purchase transactions.
Following the Commission's Roundtable, former SEC Chairman Richard Breeden asked Howard Shallcross, Director of Operations, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated ("Merrill Lynch"), to form a committee to examine how retail firms and their customers could best be accommodated in a T+3 settlement environment and to report the committee's findings to the Commission. The committee was asked specifically to determine hew to solve the problem of timely payments for retail purchase transactions as well as any other retail issues that it considered appropriate. The Shallcross Committee prepared a draft report that recommended alternative risk reduction proposals, such as marking unsettled securities transactions to the market beginning on T+1.9 Subsequently, former Chairman Breeden asked the U.S. Steering Committee of the Group of Thirty to form a task force, chaired by John W. Bachmann, Managing Principal, Edward D. Jones & Co., to review what changes to the clearance and settlement system were necessary, to identify practical solutions, and to propose a reasonable timeframe for implementation of each of those solutions.10 The Bachmann Task Force11 ("Task Force") undertook that challenge, identifying many of the issues that would confront retail broker-dealers in a T+3 settlement environment and proposing solutions and timetables for resolving those issues.
In May 1992, the Task Force presented its findings and recommendations to the Commission.12 Among other things, the Task Force concluded that "time equals risk" and that the settlement cycle for corporate and municipal securities should be compressed to T+3.13 The Task Force also evaluated the principal suggestion of the Shallcross Committee, i.e., that unsettled trades should be marked-to-the-market. The Task Force produced a quantitative analysis that showed that shortening the settlement cycle to T+3 would result in greater risk reduction than a daily mark-to-market without a shortened settlement cycle.14 The Task Force concluded that compared with T+5 settlement, T+3 settlement would result in a 58% reduction in risk to National Securities Clearing Corporation ("NSCC")15 in the event of the failure of an average large clearing member. The Task Force's data further showed that NSCCs average expected exposure in a T+5 settlement period with a daily mark-to-market would be 30% higher than its exposure to a T+3 settlement period without a daily mark-to-market.
On June 22, 1992, the Commission published the Task Force Report in the Federal Register for public comment16 The Commission received over 1,000 comment letters from backs, broker-dealers, investment advisors, trade associations, clearing agencies, exchanges, transfer agents, and Individual investors. Although many of these commentators expressed concern about the potential loss of access to physical certificates,17 In large part they were supportive.
The Commission agrees with the Task Force conclusion that "time equals risk." Based on that analysis and recent events demonstrating that vulnerabilities still exist in the U.S. clearance and settlement system, the Commission believes that it is prudent to shorten the time that unsettled trades remain outstanding.
1 See Division of Market Regulation, Commission, The October 1987 Market Break Chapter 10 at 20-21 ("Market Break Report").
2Id. See also Working Group on Financial Markets, Interim Report to the President of the United States (May 1988) (Appendix D) (the Working Group is chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury and its members include the Chairmen of the SEC, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and the Board of Governors of die Federal Reserve System); Presidential Task Force on Market Mechanisms, Report to the President of the United States (January 1988) (the so-called "Brady Report"); and General Accounting Office, Preliminary Observations on the October 1987 Crash (January 1968).
3 Since 1987, considerable progress has been made toward increasing clearing corporations' capabilities to handle large volumes of trades and manage financial risk. Examples include increases in the number of cross margining facilities sponsored by The Options Clearing Corporation ("OCC") and commodity clearing organizations, expansion of the depository system to include new financial products such as commercial paper, and development of extensive lines of communication between banking, securities, and commodities organizations.
4 The Group of Thirty, established in 1978. is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit organization composed of international financial leaders whose focus is on international economic and financial issues.
5 See Group of Thirty, Clearance and Settlement Systems in the World's Securities Markets (March 1989) ("Group of Thirty Report").
6 These recommendations were; (1) By 1990, trade comparison between direct market participants should occur by the day following the date of trade execution; (2) by 1992, indirect market participants should be members of a trade comparison system which achieves positive affirmation of bade details; (3) by 1992, each country should have an effective and fully developed central securities depository; (4) by 1992, if appropriate, each country should implement a netting system; (5) by 1992, a delivery versus payment system should be employed as the method for settling all securities transactions; (6) countries should adopt a same-day funds payment method for settlement of securities transactions; (7) a rolling settlement system should be adopted by all markets as follows: (a) by 1990, final settlement should occur on the fifth day after the date of trade execution, (b) by 1992, final settlement should occur on the third day after the date of execution; (8) securities lending and borrowing should be encouraged as a method of expediting the settlement of securities transactions; and (9) by 1992, each country should adopt the standards for securities numbering and messages developed by the International Standards Organization.
7 "Same-day funds" refers to payment in funds that are available on payment date and generally are transferred by electronic means.
8 On June 11, 1993, the Commission approved a proposed rule change filed by the securities exchanges and the National Association of Securities Dealers ("NASD") that requires members, member organizations, or affiliated members of the securities exchanges and the NASD to use the facilities of a securities depository for the book-entry settlement of all transactions in depository eligible securities with another financial intermediary (broker, dealer, or bank). In addition, the rule prohibits members, member organizations, or affiliated members of the SROs from effecting a delivery-versus-payment ("DVP") or receipt-versus-payment ("RVP") transaction in a depository eligible security with an institutional customer unless the transaction is settled by book-entry using the facilities of a securities depository. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 32455 (June 11, 1993), 58 FR 33679.
9 Shallcross Committee, Impact of T+3 Migration on the Retail Sector A Preface .o the Interim Report to the SEC (March 20, 1991).
10 Letter from Richard C Breeden, Chairman, Commission, to Lewis W. Bernard, Chairman, U.S. Steering Committee, Group of Thirty duly 11, 1991).
11 In addition to Mr. Bachmann, the members of the Task Force included: David M. Kelly, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Securities Clearing Corporation ("NSCC"); Richard C. Ketchum, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, NASD; John F. Lee, President, New York Clearing House; Gerard P. Lynch, Managing Director, Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York; James J. Mitchell, Senior Executive Vice President, Northern Trust Securities, Inc.: Richard J. Stream, Managing Director, Piper Jaffray Companies Inc.; and Arthur L. Thomas, Senior Vice President, Merrill Lynch.
12 Bachmann Task Force. Report of the Bachmann Task Force on Clearance and Settlement in the U.S. Securities Markets (May 1992).
13 The Task Force recommended that this be accomplished by July 1994. The Task Force made eight other recommendations that would facilitate settling securities transactions on T+3: Revising the Automated Clearing House ("ACH") system; requiring an interactive institutional delivery process; settling all transactions among financial intermediaries and their institutional customers in book-entry form only and in same-day funds; depository eligibility for new issues: monitoring flipping (i.e., the sale of stock back to the underwriting syndicate during the new issue stabilization period): expanding cross-margining; streamlining the handling of physical certificates; and monitoring all market activity.
14 Task Force Report at 34-39.
15 NSCC is the largest U.S. clearing corporation and is registered as a clearing agency under Section 17A of the 1934-Act NSCC, among other things, functions as a post-trade processing facility and as a guarantor of post-trade settlements. In the latter capacity, NSCC assumes the credit risk of fails to deliver and fails to receive by substituting itself us the contra party on the day after trade date. Trades that are not settled on settlement date are carried forward to the next settlement day as open obligations. NSCC seeks to protect against the financial risk of these open positions by obtaining contributions from its members to a pool of funds. Any sizable loss in liquidating the open commitments of a defaulting member essentially would be absorbed by all members.
16 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 30802 (June 15, 1992), 57 FR 27612.
17 Over 800 of the comment letters were from individual investors responding to the recommendation to streamline the handling of physical certificates. The letters indicate a belief that the Task Force recommendation to streamline the handling of physical certificates would result in the elimination of physical certificates and force investors to hold securities in street name. The Task Force did not propose eliminating physical certificates for those retail investors who choose to maintain their record of ownership in that form.
Appendix 3-Building Blocks
Moving settlement to T+3 requires that the affirmation1 process be completed on T+1. Early affirmation of institutional trades can be accomplished by enhancing OTC's existing batch processing ID system to permit DTC to process information on receipt and distribute reports on request.
Commentators consider DTC's interactive ID system a critical building block to successful implementation of Rule 15c5-1. Twenty-one of the 101 commentators that support the proposed Rule express the need for early affirmation of institutional trades. These commentators believe that DTC's proposed interactive system will allow participants to be highly interactive, allowing completion of the confirmation/affirmation process on T+1, rather than on T+2 or T+3 as is the case in DTC's current batch processing ID system. One trade association, one clearing broker-dealer, and two retail broker-dealers conditioned their support of the proposal on DTC's interactive ID system being fully operational prior to adoption of the proposed Rule. Those commentators believed that T+3 settlement was not possible if affirmation/confirmation was not completed by T+1. Finally, five opposing commentators stated that their opposition to the Rule was based in part on the need to implement first DTC's interactive ID system.
DTC is developing an enhanced ID system that would provide users with an interactive option and would unify the existing ID and International ID systems. DTC expects to offer the interactive system to ID users in early 1994.2 System users will be able to use the system either in the present batch environment or interactively, with the capability to accomplish all ID processing within a single business day. DTC plans to implement the enhanced system in stages. The proposed system includes a Standing Instructions Database ("SID"), to be implemented in late 1993;3 an Electronic Mail feature, to be implemented in late 1993 or early 1994;4 a "matching" system, to be implemented in mid-1994;5 and an Authorization/Exception Processing and Reporting feature to be implemented in mid-1994.6
DTC has filed a proposed rule change under Section 19 of the 1934 Act regarding the interactive ID system. Although the Commission generally supports DTC's efforts towards an interactive ID system, Commission staff will review the proposal for consistency with the purposes of the 1934 Act.
To address the problem of timely payments between a retail broker and its customer, broker-dealers should consider ACH7 as one alternative to physical checks for payment and collection of funds to and from customers.
Ten of the 100 commentators that supported the proposed Rule suggested that an electronic payment system that results in finality of payment would make T+3 settlement more practicable, particularly for retail transactions. Most of the commentators addressing this issue stated that ACH would be the desired method of payment if the securities and banking Industries could reach a consensus on the necessary revisions to Regulation E and NACHA operating rules so that transactions executed through registered broker-dealers would not be subject to rescission. Four commentators conditioned their support of Rule 15c6-1 on the implementation of a payment system that achieves finality of payment. NACHA, although it was officially neutral on the general merits of proposed Rule 15c6-1, stated that in a three-day settlement environment, the industry would need a payment system such as ACH for retail transactions.8 Five opposing commentators stated that one reason for their opposition was the lack of an electronic payments system that results in finality of payment, which was considered by those commentators as an essential building block for T+3 settlement.
Following publication of the Bachmann Task Force Report, NACHA proposed a rule amendment that would remove the sixty-day right of rescission for payments in connection with securities transactions. That proposal was defeated. On August 30, 1993. NACHA approved a rule amendment that requires a receiving depository financial institution to obtain a signed affidavit from a consumer when the consumer claims that a transaction to his or her account is unauthorized or that an authorization has been revoked.9 With the affidavit process in place, a retail securities transaction can be processed through the ACH network as fellows: (1) A consumer will purchase securities from his or her broker; (2) the broker will initiate a debit to the consumer's account through its bank; and (3) the debit w ill be effected against the consumer's account at his or her bank. The consumer Claiming that a retail securities transaction was unauthorized or that the authorization for that entry had been revoked would go to his or her bank and sign an affidavit to that effect prior to the bank returning the transaction. Under NACHA rules, the consumer has fifteen days after the receiving depository financial institution sends or makes available to the consumer information pertaining to that debit entry to claim that a transaction was unauthorized or that the authorization was revoked. The receiving depository financial institution must return the rescinded transaction within sixty days of the original settlement date. This change modifies the current process for handling unauthorized transactions over the ACH network, making it consistent with the procedures In the check processing system.
The Commission understands that further changes may be imminent. For example, NACHA is considering modifying the rule change to establish a dollar limit on the mandatory affidavit request and to establish a definition of what constitutes a reasonable timeframe for the receiving depository financial institution to respond to a request from the originating depository financial institution for a copy of the affidavit.10
The Commission encourages banks, broker-dealers, clearing agencies, and securities industry representatives to continue to improve the ACH process. The Commission recognizes, however, that ACH represents one of several methods of effecting payments and, accordingly, encourages broker-dealers to pursue other ways to secure good funds on T+3, including wider use of asset management accounts.
Some commentators believe that T+3 settlement would be difficult to achieve without mandating depository eligibility for all securities. In connection with this, one commentator indicated that the cost of doing business in new issues would increase significantly unless mandatory depository eligibility is developed along with an automated means of tracking flipping.11
Nine commentators believed that depository eligibility should be mandatory for all new issues. Two retail broker-dealers indicated that they would not support adoption of the proposed Rule without mandatory depository eligibility. Data Management Division, while neutral on the overall merits of proposed Rule 15c6-1, stated that depository eligibility for all securities should be mandatory.12 Three opposing commentators believed that all new issues should be depository eligible.
As a practical matter, according to DTC, 94% of all issues listed on the New York Stock Exchange and 99% of issues traded in the over-the-counter market on the National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotation System ("NASDAQ") are depository eligible.13
Representatives of SROs and the Legal and Regulatory Subgroup of the U.S. Working Committee of the Croup of Thirty ("Legal and Regulatory Subgroup") are drafting a uniform SRO rule for depository eligibility for new issues. The uniform rule is intended to incorporate a depository eligibility requirement into a listing standard for each registered national securities exchange and into the eligibility requirements for NASDAQ. Because listing standards for each SRO differ and the manner in which those standards are set forth in their respective rules is not uniform, however, individual SROs will consider the appropriate means to adopt such a uniform depository eligibility requirement to their current listing standards when all SROs have agreed upon and developed a uniform rule. Although the rules, if approved, would not roach settlement of transactions in securities that are not listed on a national exchange or NASDAQ, the Commission preliminarily believes this effort represents an important step towards improving the efficiency of the national clearance and settlement system, and indeed towards making T+3 settlement more practicable.
As discussed above, an issue closely related to mandatory depository eligibility is how to prevent the practice of selling back to syndicate members during the new issue stabilization period, i.e., flipping. The current practice by lead managers in the settlement of IPOs is to issue and deliver certificates in physical form in order to track the sale of securities during the stabilization period. Most of the commentators addressing the depository eligibility issue suggested that an alternative method of monitoring flipping be developed. The U.S. Working Committee of '.he Group of Thirty Focus Group on Flipping ("Focus Group") has developed a conceptual framework as an alternative to the current practice for monitoring flipping. The Focus Group intends to provide the controls for underwriters to monitor flipping while allowing book-entry settlement to occur.
Although a number of issues remain to be resolved, the Commission recognizes the potential benefits that can be achieved from mandatory depository eligibility and the development of an automated means of monitoring flipping, such as increasing the efficient operation of the clearance and settlement system. The Commission therefore encourages efforts to address concerns and advance these initiatives.
Six commentators suggested that the industry should implement same-day funds settlement prior to shortening the settlement cycle. The Commission believes that significant risk reduction can be gained by converting to a same-day funds payment system. DTC and NSCC are preparing to convert to same-day funds settlement by late 1994 or early 1995. DTC and NSCC recently distributed a Memorandum that details how DTC and NSCC believe many aspects of the new same-day funds settlement system will function, and solicited comments on the proposal.
DTC now processes securities deliveries through two different settlement systems, one that settles in same-day funds ("SDFS") and the other in next-day funds ("NDFS"). The NDFS system primarily services corporate equities and corporate and municipal debt issues; the SDFS system primarily services commercial paper and other money market-like instruments. The vast majority of transactions that settle at DTC settle in its NDFS system, although the total value of the transactions that settle in the SDFS system is much larger than that in the NDFS system. NSCC currently operates a single NDFS system in which the money settlement obligations of NSCC's participants are the net results of all NSCC activity.
DTC's and NSCC's .NDFS systems and operations are intertwined. DTC is the nation's largest depository for corporate and municipal securities, while NSCC, in addition to its other services, operates the securities industry's largest trade clearance and settlement system for corporate securities. Under the proposed SDFS system, DTC will combine its NDFS and SDFS systems into a single SDFS system, using its current SDFS system as the base design. DTC and NSCC will employ a mandatory netting procedure (expected to be implemented prior to SDFS conversion) whereby a participant's net debit at one organization will be netted against the amount of its net credit, if any, at the other organization. Participants will continue to settle separately with DTC and NSCC.
The same-day funds conversion project is intended to provide two major benefits: Standardization of the form in which funds are settled and risk reduction. It should simplify the cash management practices of firms that currently deal in both same-day and next-day funds settling securities, as well as reducing existing overnight exposure.
The Commission encourages DTC's and NSCC's efforts to finalize the details of the same-day funds proposal. The Commission urges DTC and NSCC to start an educational campaign targeting retail participants, and have the flow of information begin well ahead of the implementation date for Rule 15c6-1.
As discussed below, the Commission will recommend to other appropriate regulatory authorities that they amend their rules as necessary and appropriate to permit three business day settlement.
Some commentators suggested that implementation of a T+3 settlement period will require amendments to the Commission's confirmation rule, Rule 10b-10 adopted under the 1934 Act.14 Rule 10b-10 requires that broker-dealers send customers written confirmation disclosing; information relevant to the transaction "at or before completion" of the transaction.15 Generally, Rule 15c1-1 under the 1934 Act defines "completion of the transaction" to mean the time when: (i) A customer is required to deliver the security being sold; (ii) a customer is required to pay for the security being purchased; or (iii) a broker-dealer makes a bookkeeping entry showing a transfer of the security from the customer's account or payment by the customer of the purchase price.16
Currently, broker-dealers typically send customer confirmations the day .after trade date. While the confirmation must be sent by settlement, because the confirmation does not need to received prior to settlement, the current practice of sending the confirmation the day after trade date will satisfy Rule 10b-10 even under T+3.
Implementation of T+3, however, may alter the confirmation's utility as a customer invoice because confirmation delivery and transfer of customer funds and securities may not be possible within the three day settlement period. Under the current five day settlement period, confirmations generally reach customers in time for the customer to review them prior to transferring funds or securities to the transacting broker-dealer. Under T+3, the customer frequently will not receive the confirmation through the mails by day three; thus, shortening the settlement period to three days may require broker-dealers either to Cover the cost of the transaction for a longer period of time or demand funds or securities from the customer earlier than under current practice.17 Accordingly, the Commission encourages broker-dealers to consider changes to their systems to dispatch confirmations as early as possible following execution of a trade. The Commission also encourages broker-dealers to develop and implement the systems necessary to provide customers, at the time of execution, the net purchase price.
In addition to serving currently as an invoice, the confirmation serves other significant investor protection functions. In particular, the confirmation serves as a written record of the customer's transaction, thus satisfying the Statute of Frauds, 18 provides customers a means of checking the accuracy of their trades, and informs the customer of the broker-dealer's status and often its compensation in connection with the trade. Although the Commission believes that implementation of T+3 will not create compliance problems with regard to Rule 10b-10, it is continuing to consider the effect of T+3 on the confirmation's investor protection functions.
Rule 15c3-119 establishes the net capital requirements for brokers and dealers. Rule 15c3-320 requires brokers and dealers to maintain possession or control of all customer fully paid and excess margin securities. Commentators asked the Commission to review these rules to determine whether amendments will be required to conform them to a shorter settlement timeframe.
In determining a broker-dealer's net capital under Rule 15c3-1, the broker-dealer deducts from net worth, as computed in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, assets not readily convertible into cash, including most unsecured receivables. A broker-dealer also must deduct certain category specific percentages from the securities and commodity futures positions that it carries in its proprietary account. The rule also requires that a failed to deliver contract that has been outstanding for a certain specified period of time be treated as a proprietary position of the broker-dealer and subject to a percentage deduction. This time period is dependent upon the time from settlement date. A contract becomes a fail when it has not settled by the prescribed settlement date. By establishing a shorter settlement timeframe, Rule 15c6-1 will affect the 15c3-1 requirements correspondingly, thus a contract will become a fail in three business days rather than the current five business days.
As with Rule 15c3-1, some of the requirements imposed on broker-dealers by Rule 15c3-3 are dependent upon the time from settlement. One commentator, Goldman Sachs,21 referred specifically to Rule 15c3-3(m).22 Rule 15c3-3(m) requires that a broker or dealer that has executed a sell order for a customer, and has not obtained possession of such securities from the customer within ten business days after the settlement data, must immediately close the transaction with the customer by purchasing securities of like kind and quantity.
The Commission notes that Rule 15o6-1 merely changes the number of days following the trade date that settlement will occur. For example, under the new rule, the ten day time period referred to in Rule 15c3-3(m) would generally begin three business days following the trade date, instead of the five business day convention currently in effect. Therefore, Rules 15c3-1 and 15c3-3 are consistent with Rule 15c6-1.23
Commentators urged the Commission, in conjunction with the Federal Reserve Board, to review Reg T24 to determine how, if at all, Reg T should be modified. Currently, Reg T does not require that any action be taken unless a customer fails to pay for securities within seven business days of the trade date. The concern is that Reg T as currently drafted could leave customers and brokers and dealers with the impression that payment from the customer is not due in a three day settlement environment until the expiration of the seven-day period specified by Reg T. Consistent failures of customers to make payment until seven days would diminish greatly the benefits to be achieved from Rule 15c6-1. Recently, the Federal Reserve Board published notice of its intent to review Reg T generally, including perhaps tying the deadline for payment to settlement date.25 Accordingly, the Commission has authorized the Division to request the Federal Reserve Board staff to consider whether conforming amendments to Reg T requiring payment from customers within two business days following the settlement date would be appropriate.
Five commentators supported the adoption of a disclosure requirement for IPOs as described above. The Cashiers' Association, DTC, and CHX agreed that the Commission should adopt a disclosure requirement concerning depository eligibility of IPOs, but these commentators believed that it was not necessary to include as an exhibit to the registration statement a letter from a securities depository confirming that the securities are eligible for deposit with that depository. Three commentators opposed the proposal, stating that it was unnecessary.
The Commission believes that depository eligibility is important to perfecting the national clearance and settlement system. Moreover, the Commission believes that disclosure regarding whether or not an IPO is, or will be, eligible for deposit at a securities depository is appropriate. SRO rules require broker-dealers to use depositories to confirm and settle trades in depository eligible securities. Disclosure that the securities are not depository eligible will facilitate compliance and efficient clearance and settlement in the secondary market immediately after the offering. Accordingly, the Commission is directing the staff to pursue requiring disclosure when neither the issuer nor the underwriter are intending to make the securities being offered depository eligible.
1 Under standard practice, an affirmation serves as the Institution's authorization to the custodian to deliver securities against payment by (or accept securities and release payment to) the broker-dealer. A confirmation differs from an affirmation in that confirmation reports must contain all the information required by Rule 10b-10. If the broker-dealer includes all the necessary data about the trade in the ID transmission, he can comply with the trade confirmation requirements of Securities Exchange Act Rule 10b-10.17 CFR 240.10b-10 (1992).
2 DTC. An Interactive Option for the Institutional Delivery System, Memorandum to Participants and Other ID Users (March 31, 1993).
3 The SID feature will be a repository for customer account and settlement information such as customer name, agent and interested parties furnished by institutions, agents and broker-dealers. This SID will eliminate the need for the broker-dealer to maintain ail such information in its internal records and to provide all such information each time that it enters trade data into the ID system. See File No. SR-DTO-83-07, at 3-5, describing the features of the interactive ID system.
4 The Electronic Mall feature will eliminate the need to make telephone calls or send facsimile transmissions by enabling broker-dealers and institutions to send and receive details of an order execution, allocations of block trades, or requests for cancellation (if the institution disagrees with a confirmation that the Institution has received through the ID system). Id.
5 The enhanced ID system will match trade data received from the broker-dealer with the instructions received from the institution automatically with the results of the matching being reported through the distribution of various output reports to the broker-dealer, the agent and the institution. Id.
6 This feature will allow delivering parties to authorize settlement of unaffirmed trades of DTC-eligible securities on the settlement date and later. Id
7 ACH is a domestic electronic payment system operated under the direction of the National Automated Clearing House Association ("NACHA") and is utilized by over 22,000 banks, thrifts, and other depository financial institutions on behalf of corporations and individuals.
8 Letter from Elliott McEntee, President & Chief Executive Officer, NACHA. to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Commission June 10, 1993).
9 Letter from Elliott McEntee, President & Chief Executive Officer, NACHA, to Jeff Marquardt, Assistant Director, Payment Systems Studies & Payment System Risk Division of Reserve Bank Operations & Payment Systems, Board of Governors (August 31, 1993).
10Id.
11 Letter from Stanley I KrasVa. President. SO A. to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Commission (June 22.1993). Flipping occurs when, during the new issue stabilization period, an investor sells the stock back to the syndicate or to another investor who in turn sells it back to the syndicate. Under current practice, the securities certificate number is used to identify which member of the syndicate sold the issue to the investor who "flipped" it back to the syndicate. Identifying that syndicate member allows the syndicate to recoup from the syndicate member a portion of the seller's concession.
12 Letter from Salvatore N. Cucco, President Data Management Division, to Jonathan G. Kate, Secretary, Commission (June 16, 1893).
13 Telephone conversation with Richard Netson, General Counsel, DTC (September 21, 1993).
14 17 CFR 240.10b-10.
15 17 CFR 240.10b-10(a).
16 17 CFR 240.15c1-1(b).
17 Rule 10b-10 does not specify mail delivery as the sole means of sending customer confirmations. Facsimile transmissions would be acceptable under the Rule as well.
18 Uniform Commercial Code section 8-319 states that a "contract for the sale of securities is not enforceable by way of action or defense unless * * * there is some writing signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought or by his authorized agent or broker, sufficient to indicate that a contract has been made for sale of a stated quantity of described securities at a defined or stated price." U.C.C. 8-319 (1990).
19 17 CFR 240.15c3-1.
20 17 CFR 240.15c3-3.
21 Letter from Anthony J. Leitner, Vice President-Associate General Counsel, Goldman Sachs, to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Commission (June 30, 1993).
22 17 CFR 240.15c3-3(m).
23 Similarly, the Commission notes that the time periods indicated in the formula for determining reserve requirements for brokers and dealers. Rule 15c3-3a, also are consistent with Rule 15c6-1.
24 Reg T, 12 CFR part 220, et. seq., imposes, among other things, initial margin requirements and payment rules on securities transactions. See 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq., part 220.
25 See Securities Credit Transactions, Review of Regulation T, "Credit by Broken and Dealers" (August 18, 1992), 57 FR 37109.
[FR Doc. 93-25093 Filed 10-12-93; 8:45 am)
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P