Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change to Require an Indicator When a TRACE Report Does Not Reflect a Commission or Mark-Up/Mark-Down, 47546-47550 [2015-19381]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
47546
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 152 / Friday, August 7, 2015 / Notices
change and require that the proposed
rule change be refiled in accordance
with the provisions of Section 19(b)(1)
of the Act.12
IV. Solicitation of Comments
Interested persons are invited to
submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing,
including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act.
Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:
Electronic Comments
• Use the Commission’s Internet
comment form (https://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml); or
• Send an email to rule-comments@
sec.gov. Please include File Number SR–
CFE–2015–005 on the subject line.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Paper Comments
• Send paper comments in triplicate
to Secretary, Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549–1090.
All submissions should refer to File
Number SR–CFE–2015–005. This file
number should be included on the
subject line if email is used. To help the
Commission process and review your
comments more efficiently, please use
only one method. The Commission will
post all comments on the Commission’s
Internet Web site (https://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the
submission, all subsequent
amendments, all written statements
with respect to the proposed rule
change that are filed with the
Commission, and all written
communications relating to the
proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than
those that may be withheld from the
public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission’s Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such
filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal
office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change;
the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR–CFE–
2015–005, and should be submitted on
or before August 28, 2015.
12 15
U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:24 Aug 06, 2015
For the Commission, by the Division of
Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
authority.13
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015–19572 Filed 8–5–15; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
[FR Doc. 2015–19382 Filed 8–6–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–75588; File No. SR–FINRA–
2015–026]
[File No. 500–1]
In the Matter of Solar Acquisition
Corp., Order of Suspension of Trading
August 5, 2015.
Solar Acquisition Corp. (CIK No.
0001375495) is a Florida corporation
located in Ann Arbor, Michigan with a
class of securities registered with the
Securities and Exchange Commission
(‘‘Commission’’) pursuant to Section
12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (‘‘Exchange Act’’). Solar
Acquisition Corp. is delinquent in its
periodic filings with the Commission,
having not filed any periodic reports
since it filed a Form 10–K for the period
ended December 31, 2012. On
November 6, 2014, the Division of
Corporation Finance sent Solar
Acquisition Corp. a delinquency letter
requesting compliance with its periodic
filing obligations, but the letter was
returned because of Solar Acquisition
Corp.’s failure to maintain a valid
address on file with the Commission. As
of June 16, 2015, the company’s stock
(symbol ‘‘SLRX’’) was quoted on OTC
Link (previously, ‘‘Pink Sheets’’)
operated by OTC Markets Group, Inc.,
had eight market makers, and was
eligible for the ‘‘piggyback’’ exception of
Exchange Act Rule 15c2–11(f)(3).
It appears to the Commission that
there is a lack of current and accurate
information concerning the securities of
Solar Acquisition Corp. because it has
not filed any periodic reports since its
Form 10–K for the period ended
December 31, 2012. The Commission is
of the opinion that the public interest
and the protection of investors require
a suspension of trading in the securities
of Solar Acquisition Corp.
Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to
Section 12(k) of the Exchange Act, that
trading in the securities of Solar
Acquisition Corp. is suspended for the
period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on August 5,
2015, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on
August 18, 2015.
13 17
Jkt 235001
By the Commission.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
PO 00000
CFR 200.30–3(a)(73).
Frm 00097
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Self-Regulatory Organizations;
Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a
Proposed Rule Change to Require an
Indicator When a TRACE Report Does
Not Reflect a Commission or Mark-Up/
Mark-Down
August 3, 2015.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2
notice is hereby given that on July 20,
2015, Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc. (‘‘FINRA’’) filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission
(‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and
III below, which Items have been
prepared by FINRA. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement of the Terms of Substance of
the Proposed Rule Change
FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA
Rule 6730 (Transaction Reporting) to
require an indicator when the TRACE
report does not reflect a commission or
mark-up/mark-down.
Below is the text of the proposed rule
change. Proposed new language is in
italics.3
*
*
*
*
*
6000. Quotation and Transaction
Reporting Facilities
*
*
*
*
*
6700. Trade Reporting and Compliance
Engine (Trace)
*
*
*
*
*
6730. Transaction Reporting
(a) through (b) No Change.
(c) Transaction Information To Be
Reported.
1 15
U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
CFR 240.19b-4.
3 The text of the proposed rule change reflects
rule text approved by the SEC in SR–FINRA–2014–
050, but which does not become effective until
November 2, 2015. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 74482 (March 11, 2015); 80 FR 13940
(March 17, 2015) (Order Approving File No. SR–
FINRA–2014–050).
2 17
E:\FR\FM\07AUN1.SGM
07AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 152 / Friday, August 7, 2015 / Notices
Each TRACE trade report shall
contain the following information:
(1) through (10) No Change.
(11) The commission (total dollar
amount), if applicable;
(12) through (13) No Change.
(d) Procedures for Reporting Price,
Capacity, Volume.
(1) Price.
For principal transactions, report the
price, which must include the mark-up
or mark-down. (However, if a price field
is not available, report the contract
amount and, if applicable, the accrued
interest.) For agency transactions, report
the price, which must exclude the
commission. (However, if a price field is
not available, report the contract
amount and, if applicable, the accrued
interest.) Report the total dollar amount
of the commission if one is assessed on
the transaction. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, a member is not required to
include a commission, mark-up or
mark-down where one is not assessed
on a trade-by-trade basis at the time of
the transaction or where the amount is
not known at the time the trade report
is due. In all cases, a member must use
the No Remuneration indicator as
provided in paragraph (d)(4)(F) where a
trade report does not reflect either a
commission, mark-up or mark-down.
(2) through (3) No Change.
(4) Modifiers; Indicators.
Members shall append the applicable
trade report modifiers or indicators as
specified by FINRA to all transaction
reports.
(A) through (E) No Change.
(F) No Remuneration Indicator.
Where a trade report does not reflect
either a commission, mark-up or markdown, select the No Remuneration
indicator.
(e) through (f) No Change.
• • • Supplementary Material:
.01 through .02 No Change.
*
*
*
*
*
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule
Change
In its filing with the Commission,
FINRA included statements concerning
the purpose of and basis for the
proposed rule change and discussed any
comments it received on the proposed
rule change. The text of these statements
may be examined at the places specified
in Item IV below. FINRA has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant
aspects of such statements.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:24 Aug 06, 2015
Jkt 235001
A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule
Change
1. Purpose
FINRA Rule 6730 (Transaction
Reporting) sets forth the requirements
applicable to members reporting
transactions in TRACE-Eligible
Securities,4 and provides the specific
items of information that must be
included in a TRACE trade report.
Among other things, Rules 6730(c) and
(d) require that firms report the
commission (total dollar amount)
separately on the TRACE trade report
for agency transactions. FINRA then
combines the dollar amount that is
reported as the commission with the
amount that is reported in the price
field, and disseminates to the market
this aggregate amount as the
transaction’s price. For principal
transactions, Rule 6730(d)(1) provides
that firms must report a price that
includes the mark-up/mark-down, and
FINRA disseminates this price to the
market. The goal of these reporting
requirements is to enable FINRA to
provide investors and market
participants with pricing information
that better reflects comparable prices for
principal and agency trades in a
TRACE-Eligible Security.
FINRA is proposing that firms
identify those transactions for which a
commission or mark-up/mark-down is
not reflected in a TRACE trade report
because the firm does not charge or does
not know the amount of the commission
or mark-up/mark-down at the time of
TRACE reporting. For example, some
firms may assess a charge that is not
transaction-based, such as in the case of
a ‘‘fee-based account’’ where
remuneration is based upon assets
under management (and individual
commissions or mark-ups/mark-downs
are not charged).5 As a result, when the
price of the transaction is publicly
disseminated, there currently is no
4 Rule 6710 generally defines a ‘‘TRACE-Eligible
Security’’ as: (1) A debt security that is U.S. dollardenominated and issued by a U.S. or foreign private
issuer (and, if a ‘‘restricted security’’ as defined in
Securities Act Rule 144(a)(3), sold pursuant to
Securities Act Rule 144A); or (2) a debt security that
is U.S. dollar-denominated and issued or
guaranteed by an ‘‘Agency’’ as defined in Rule
6710(k) or a ‘‘Government-Sponsored Enterprise’’ as
defined in Rule 6710(n). Most transactions reported
to TRACE are publicly disseminated immediately
upon receipt of a transaction report.
5 Another example of a fee structure that is not
transaction-based is where an ATS charges
subscribers a fixed fee for unlimited trading each
month. The ATS could then execute trades either
as principal, by acting as an intermediary in all
subscriber trades, or on an agency basis, by
providing the system through which subscribers’
trades are executed.
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
47547
indication to the public that the price is
not inclusive of a commission or markup/mark-down.
By way of further example, some
firms charge a commission or mark-up/
mark-down, but may not know the exact
amount of that commission or mark-up/
mark-down at the time the TRACE
transaction report is required to be
submitted because of their remuneration
structure (e.g., a firm may not calculate
a mark-up for a transaction on a tradeby-trade basis, but will, nonetheless,
ultimately assess transaction
remuneration pursuant to a monthly
volume-based schedule). As a result, the
firm will not know the commission or
mark-up/mark-down at the time of
TRACE reporting.6
FINRA therefore proposes to require
firms to identify such trades, and FINRA
will flag these disseminated transactions
as not being inclusive of remuneration.7
As is the case now, the disseminated
TRACE feed will not explicitly
distinguish between agency and
principal transactions, and the noremuneration flag will apply to both
principal and agency transactions.
FINRA believes that pricing information
disseminated today may be incomplete
and, in some cases, misleading given
that disseminated prices on transactions
that do not include remuneration are
not distinguished from transactions that
do include a commission or mark-up/
mark-down. FINRA believes that the
proposal will provide more meaningful
pricing transparency through TRACE by
identifying those transactions where no
commission or mark-up/mark-down was
charged or known at the time of TRACE
reporting, while not inhibiting possible
firm remuneration arrangements,
particularly if these arrangements
benefit customers.
FINRA also believes that this proposal
will enhance its regulatory audit trail
6 As a practical matter, it is difficult for firms to
comply with the current TRACE rules for these
types of volume-based mark-up/mark-down
arrangements, since firms are unable to report
accurately all the required information related to
the transaction on a timely basis and would need
to submit a cancel and replace to update the pricing
information. In some cases, this information may
not be known until the end of the month. Under
the proposal, members would not be required to
reflect a mark-up/mark-down or commission in a
TRACE trade report where the charge is not known
at the time of the transaction, but would be required
to report the proposed identifier.
7 In addition, if a firm does not charge any
remuneration associated with the trade (in any
form), they would be required to identify the trade
as one for which no remuneration was assessed to
the transaction. FINRA notes that the MSRB has
similarly proposed to require members to report an
indicator that would be disseminated to identify
transactions that do not include a dealer
compensation component. See MSRB Regulatory
Notice 2014–14 (August 13, 2014).
E:\FR\FM\07AUN1.SGM
07AUN1
47548
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 152 / Friday, August 7, 2015 / Notices
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
and surveillance patterns. With this
additional level of detail, surveillance
patterns should yield fewer false
positives regarding mark-up and best
execution surveillance, reduce
regulatory inquiries, and provide greater
focus for FINRA’s regulatory efforts. For
example, without this designation,
FINRA’s surveillance patterns for best
execution may generate an alert for
transactions whose prices reflect a
commission or a mark-up as being
outliers compared to transactions whose
prices do not reflect a charge.
FINRA discussed the proposal with
advisory committees in developing its
approach. These parties were supportive
of the proposal, believing that it would
improve the value of information for
TRACE-Eligible Securities that is
submitted to FINRA, and, by extension,
to investors and market participants.
With regards to effort involved in
affecting the change, committee
members did not express any particular
concerns with respect to the operational
impacts or costs of the proposal.
However, as to facilitate planning and
scheduling, firms specifically requested
that sufficient lead-time be provided
when determining the effective date of
the rule. Further discussions with firms
that would be directly impacted by the
proposal also indicated that the
proposal would be beneficial to market
participants, and that the necessary
technological changes would not be
unduly burdensome given an adequate
implementation timeframe.
If the Commission approves the
proposed rule change, the proposed rule
change shall be effective upon
Commission approval. The
implementation date will be May 23,
2016.
2. Statutory Basis
FINRA believes that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the provisions
of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,8 which
requires, among other things, that
FINRA rules must be designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, and, in
general, to protect investors and the
public interest, and Section 15A(b)(9) of
the Act,9 which requires that FINRA
rules not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or
appropriate.
FINRA believes that this proposal is
consistent with the Act because the
additional identifier will enhance its
regulatory audit trail and surveillance
patterns. With this additional level of
8 15
9 15
U.S.C. 78o–3(b)(6).
U.S.C. 78o–3(b)(9).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:24 Aug 06, 2015
Jkt 235001
detail, surveillance patterns should
yield fewer false positives regarding
mark-up and best execution
surveillance, reduce regulatory
inquiries, and provide greater focus for
FINRA’s regulatory efforts. For example,
without this designation, FINRA’s
surveillance patterns for best execution
may generate an alert for transactions
whose prices reflect a commission or a
mark-up as being outliers compared to
transactions whose prices do not reflect
a charge. FINRA also believes that the
proposal will improve the information
value of TRACE reports as investors and
other market participants will receive
additional information regarding pricing
information for TRACE-Eligible
Securities. Finally, FINRA believes that
this proposal would permit firms
additional flexibility in structuring their
fee arrangements with investors, which
may provide cost benefits to such
investors.
B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement on Burden on Competition
FINRA does not believe that the
proposed rule change will result in any
burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act. FINRA notes
that the proposed rule change is
designed to assist FINRA in meeting its
regulatory obligations by enhancing its
audit trail and surveillance patterns.
While this proposal will require
members to meet the proposed reporting
obligation, ensure that they can properly
ascertain transactions that require the
new identifier, and update their
compliance procedures and reporting
protocols accordingly, FINRA notes that
this proposal will apply uniformly to
firms that report transactions in TRACEEligible Securities. FINRA also believes
that this proposal will allow firms more
flexibility in designing their fee
structures.
As set forth above, FINRA has
undertaken an economic impact
assessment to further analyze, among
other things, the need for the proposed
rulemaking and the economic impacts
of the proposed rulemaking. As
discussed above, FINRA does not
believe that the compliance costs
associated with the proposal would be
unduly burdensome given an adequate
implementation timeframe.
Economic Impact Assessment
FINRA has undertaken an economic
impact assessment, as set forth below, to
further analyze the need for the
proposed rulemaking, the regulatory
objective of the rulemaking, the
economic baseline of analysis, and the
economic impacts.
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(a) Need for the Rule
FINRA believes that pricing
information disseminated today may be
incomplete and, in some cases,
misleading given that disseminated
prices on transactions that do not
include remuneration are not
distinguished from transactions that do
include a commission or mark-up/markdown.
(b) Regulatory Objective
FINRA believes that the proposal will
provide more meaningful pricing
transparency through TRACE by
identifying those transactions where no
commission or mark-up/mark-down was
charged or known at the time of TRACE
reporting, while not inhibiting possible
firm fee remuneration arrangements,
particularly if these fee arrangements
benefit customers. FINRA also believes
that the additional identifier will
enhance its regulatory audit trail and
surveillance patterns, because it will
require the firm to affirmatively report
this information related to the
commission or mark-up/mark-down and
will enable FINRA to more efficiently
separate out no-remuneration trades for
purposes of surveillance, analysis, and
dissemination.
(c) Economic Baseline
The staff analyzed corporate bond
transactions reported to TRACE in Q3
2013.10 Transactions where the brokerdealer acts in an agency capacity are
reported to TRACE with a separate field
for commission. FINRA can therefore
accurately identify agency-capacity
transactions reported without a
commission.11 In contrast, for
transactions where the broker-dealer
acts in a principal capacity, the mark-up
or mark-down is included in the
reported price. It was necessary for the
staff to pair a broker-dealer’s buy and
10 For purposes of this analysis, FINRA used data
reported to TRACE (not the TRACE-disseminated
data). Although the TRACE-disseminated data
includes a flag (Y or blank) that identifies whether
a commission is included in the disseminated price,
the data does not specify in what capacity the
dealer acted in the transaction. As such, an agency
transaction without a commission, e.g., the
commission flag is blank, would look the same on
the TRACE-disseminated data as a principal
transaction with or without a mark-up/mark-down.
Corporate bond transactions represented
approximately 73% of all transactions reported to
TRACE in 2013.
11 Although FINRA is currently able to accurately
identify agency-capacity transactions that are
reported without a commission, this process
requires FINRA to match trades where the
commission field is blank with trades where the
dealer acted as agent. With the no-remuneration
flag, the firm will be required to affirmatively report
this information related to the commission or markup/mark-down, and FINRA will be able to more
efficiently identify such trades.
E:\FR\FM\07AUN1.SGM
07AUN1
47549
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 152 / Friday, August 7, 2015 / Notices
sell principal-capacity transactions of
equal sizes in a given security on a
given day to estimate the mark-ups or
mark-downs on the customer
transactions.12
During Q3 2013, the daily average
number of agency-capacity transactions
in corporate bonds was 9,100.13
Approximately 55% of agency-capacity
transactions in corporate bonds were
customer transactions. Based on the
data, the staff estimated that
approximately 85% of Investment Grade
corporate bond customer transactions
where the broker-dealer acted in an
agency capacity were reported without
a commission. For Non-Investment
Grade and unrated corporate bonds, the
proportions were 74% and 92%,
respectively. Such transactions may
have been executed for fee-based
accounts or other accounts where firm
remuneration was not determined on a
per-transaction basis. For the agencycapacity customer transactions reported
with commissions, the table below
summarizes the average commission
charged for agency-capacity customer
buy and customer sell transactions in
Investment Grade, Non-Investment
Grade and Unrated securities over the
quarter.
Average commission (in basis points)
Investment grade
Customer Buy ............................................................................................................
Customer Sell ............................................................................................................
During Q3 2013, the daily average
number of principal-capacity
transactions in corporate bonds was just
under 48,000.14 Approximately 45% of
principal-capacity transactions in
corporate bonds were customer
transactions. Using the previously
Non-Investment
grade
18
21
described pairing methodology, the staff
estimated that 19% of these customer
transactions were reported to have been
executed without a mark-up or markdown. For the principal-capacity
customer transactions estimated to
include mark-ups or mark-downs, the
Unrated
21
20
21
32
table below summarizes the estimated
average remuneration charged for
principal-capacity customer buy and
customer sell transactions in Investment
Grade, Non-Investment Grade and
Unrated securities in the quarter.
Average mark-up/mark-down (in basis points)
Investment grade
Customer Buy ............................................................................................................
Customer Sell ............................................................................................................
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
(d) Economic Impacts
FINRA believes that the proposal will
enable market participants, including
investors relying on TRACE for
valuation information, to better
understand the prevailing market prices
by being able to distinguish between
transactions that include remuneration
and those that do not. As discussed
above, FINRA further believes that the
additional identifier will enhance its
regulatory audit trail and surveillance
patterns. With this additional level of
detail, surveillance patterns should
yield fewer false positives regarding
mark-up and best execution
surveillance, reduce regulatory
inquiries, and provide greater focus for
FINRA’s regulatory efforts. For example,
without this designation, FINRA’s
surveillance patterns for best execution
may generate an alert for transactions
whose prices reflect a commission or a
mark-up as being outliers compared to
12 FINRA recognizes that any pairing
methodology adopted requires assumptions as part
of that methodology. Further, there is not a unique
set of assumptions that reasonable parties might all
choose to adopt if they were to go through a similar
exercise. As a result, FINRA provides results of this
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:24 Aug 06, 2015
Jkt 235001
Non-investment
grade
75
50
Unrated
66
78
73
60
transactions whose prices do not reflect
a charge.
The proposal will require member
firms to meet the proposed reporting
obligation, ensure that they can properly
ascertain transactions that require the
new identifier, and update their
compliance procedures and reporting
protocols accordingly. Member firms
would also need to make technological
changes to their systems to include the
identifier. Based on discussions with
advisory committees and member firms,
FINRA does not believe that the
compliance costs associated with the
proposal would be unduly burdensome
given an adequate implementation
timeframe.
III. Date of Effectiveness of the
Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action
C. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement on Comments on the
Proposed Rule Change Received From
Members, Participants, or Others
IV. Solicitation of Comments
Written comments were neither
solicited nor received.
methodology as part of the baseline in order to
inform the discussion of potential regulatory
impacts.
13 This excludes List or Fixed Offering Price
Transactions, as defined in FINRA Rule 6710(q),
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Within 45 days of the date of
publication of this notice in the Federal
Register or within such longer period (i)
as the Commission may designate up to
90 days of such date if it finds such
longer period to be appropriate and
publishes its reasons for so finding or
(ii) as to which the self-regulatory
organization consents, the Commission
will:
(A) By order approve or disapprove
such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine
whether the proposed rule change
should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to
submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing,
including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act.
and Takedown Transactions as defined in FINRA
Rule 6710(r).
14 This excludes List or Fixed Offering Price
Transactions, as defined in FINRA Rule 6710(q),
and Takedown Transactions as defined in FINRA
Rule 6710(r).
E:\FR\FM\07AUN1.SGM
07AUN1
47550
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 152 / Friday, August 7, 2015 / Notices
Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
Electronic Comments
[Release No. IC–31732]
• Use the Commission’s Internet
comment form (https://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml); or
• Send an email to rule-comments@
sec.gov. Please include File Number SR–
FINRA–2015–026 on the subject line.
Paper Comments
• Send paper comments in triplicate
to Secretary, Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549–1090.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
All submissions should refer to File
Number SR–FINRA–2015–026. This file
number should be included on the
subject line if email is used. To help the
Commission process and review your
comments more efficiently, please use
only one method. The Commission will
post all comments on the Commission’s
Internet Web site (https://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the
submission, all subsequent
amendments, all written statements
with respect to the proposed rule
change that are filed with the
Commission, and all written
communications relating to the
proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than
those that may be withheld from the
public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission’s Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the
filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal
office of FINRA. All comments received
will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR–FINRA–
2015–026 and should be submitted on
or before August 28, 2015.
For the Commission, by the Division of
Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated
authority.15
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015–19381 Filed 8–6–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
15 17
CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:24 Aug 06, 2015
Jkt 235001
Notice of Applications for
Deregistration Under Section 8(f) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940
July 31, 2015.
The following is a notice of
applications for deregistration under
section 8(f) of the Investment Company
Act of 1940 for the month of July 2015.
A copy of each application may be
obtained via the Commission’s Web site
by searching for the file number, or for
an applicant using the Company name
box, at https://www.sec.gov/search/
search.htm or by calling (202) 551–
8090. An order granting each
application will be issued unless the
SEC orders a hearing. Interested persons
may request a hearing on any
application by writing to the SEC’s
Secretary at the address below and
serving the relevant applicant with a
copy of the request, personally or by
mail. Hearing requests should be
received by the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on
August 25, 2015, and should be
accompanied by proof of service on
applicants, in the form of an affidavit or,
for lawyers, a certificate of service.
Pursuant to Rule 0–5 under the Act,
hearing requests should state the nature
of the writer’s interest, any facts bearing
upon the desirability of a hearing on the
matter, the reason for the request, and
the issues contested. Persons who wish
to be notified of a hearing may request
notification by writing to the
Commission’s Secretary.
ADDRESSES: The Commission: Brent J.
Fields, Secretary, U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549–1090.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Diane L. Titus at (202) 551–6810, SEC,
Division of Investment Management,
Chief Counsel’s Office, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549–8010.
Dow 30 Premium & Dividend Income
Fund Inc. [File No. 811–21708]
Dow 30 Enhanced Premium & Income
Fund Inc. [File No. 811–22029]
Summary: Each applicant, a closedend investment company, seeks an
order declaring that it has ceased to be
an investment company. Applicants
transferred their assets to Nuveen Dow
30sm Dynamic Overwrite Fund, and on
December 22, 2014, made distributions
to their shareholders based on net asset
value. Expenses of $536,640 incurred in
connection with the reorganization were
paid by applicants.
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Filing Date: The applications were
filed on June 26, 2015.
Applicants’ Address: 333 West
Wacker Dr., Chicago, IL 60606.
Encompass Funds [File No. 811–21885]
Summary: Applicant seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an
investment company. On May 29, 2015,
applicant made a liquidating
distribution to its shareholders, based
on net asset value. Expenses of $14,433
incurred in connection with the
liquidation were paid by Brick Asset
Management, Inc., applicant’s
investment adviser.
Filing Date: The application was filed
on July 17, 2015.
Applicant’s Address: 1700 California
St., Ste. 335, San Francisco, CA 94109.
KKR Series Trust [File No. 811–22720]
Summary: Applicant seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an
investment company. On March 31,
2014, applicant made a liquidating
distribution to its shareholders, based
on net asset value. Expenses in
connection with the liquidation were
paid by KKR Credit Advisors (US) LLC,
applicant’s investment adviser.
Filing Date: The application was filed
on July 17, 2015.
Applicant’s Address: 555 California
St., 50th Floor, San Francisco, CA
94104.
BlackRock MuniYield New Jersey
Quality Fund, Inc. [File No. 811–7138]
Summary: Applicant, a closed-end
investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an
investment company. Applicant
transferred its assets to BlackRock
MuniHoldings New Jersey Quality
Fund, Inc. on July 13, 2015. Expenses of
$310,020 incurred in connection with
the reorganization were paid by
applicant and BlackRock Advisors, LLC,
applicant’s investment adviser.
Filing Date: The application was filed
on July 9, 2015.
Applicant’s Address: 100 Bellevue
Parkway, Wilmington, DE 19809.
John Hancock Tax-Exempt Series Fund
[File No. 811–5079]
Summary: Applicant seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an
investment company. Applicant
transferred its assets to John Hancock
Tax-Free Bond Fund, a series of John
Hancock Municipal Securities Trust,
and on February 13, 2015, made
distributions to its shareholders based
on net asset value. Expenses of $201,891
incurred in connection with the
reorganization were paid by applicant
and John Hancock Advisers, LLC,
applicant’s investment adviser.
E:\FR\FM\07AUN1.SGM
07AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 152 (Friday, August 7, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47546-47550]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19381]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-75588; File No. SR-FINRA-2015-026]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change to Require
an Indicator When a TRACE Report Does Not Reflect a Commission or Mark-
Up/Mark-Down
August 3, 2015.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 20, 2015, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
\2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change
FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA Rule 6730 (Transaction Reporting)
to require an indicator when the TRACE report does not reflect a
commission or mark-up/mark-down.
Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed new
language is in italics.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The text of the proposed rule change reflects rule text
approved by the SEC in SR-FINRA-2014-050, but which does not become
effective until November 2, 2015. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 74482 (March 11, 2015); 80 FR 13940 (March 17, 2015)
(Order Approving File No. SR-FINRA-2014-050).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
6000. Quotation and Transaction Reporting Facilities
* * * * *
6700. Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (Trace)
* * * * *
6730. Transaction Reporting
(a) through (b) No Change.
(c) Transaction Information To Be Reported.
[[Page 47547]]
Each TRACE trade report shall contain the following information:
(1) through (10) No Change.
(11) The commission (total dollar amount), if applicable;
(12) through (13) No Change.
(d) Procedures for Reporting Price, Capacity, Volume.
(1) Price.
For principal transactions, report the price, which must include
the mark-up or mark-down. (However, if a price field is not available,
report the contract amount and, if applicable, the accrued interest.)
For agency transactions, report the price, which must exclude the
commission. (However, if a price field is not available, report the
contract amount and, if applicable, the accrued interest.) Report the
total dollar amount of the commission if one is assessed on the
transaction. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a member is not required to
include a commission, mark-up or mark-down where one is not assessed on
a trade-by-trade basis at the time of the transaction or where the
amount is not known at the time the trade report is due. In all cases,
a member must use the No Remuneration indicator as provided in
paragraph (d)(4)(F) where a trade report does not reflect either a
commission, mark-up or mark-down.
(2) through (3) No Change.
(4) Modifiers; Indicators.
Members shall append the applicable trade report modifiers or
indicators as specified by FINRA to all transaction reports.
(A) through (E) No Change.
(F) No Remuneration Indicator.
Where a trade report does not reflect either a commission, mark-up
or mark-down, select the No Remuneration indicator.
(e) through (f) No Change.
Supplementary Material:
.01 through .02 No Change.
* * * * *
II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change
1. Purpose
FINRA Rule 6730 (Transaction Reporting) sets forth the requirements
applicable to members reporting transactions in TRACE-Eligible
Securities,\4\ and provides the specific items of information that must
be included in a TRACE trade report. Among other things, Rules 6730(c)
and (d) require that firms report the commission (total dollar amount)
separately on the TRACE trade report for agency transactions. FINRA
then combines the dollar amount that is reported as the commission with
the amount that is reported in the price field, and disseminates to the
market this aggregate amount as the transaction's price. For principal
transactions, Rule 6730(d)(1) provides that firms must report a price
that includes the mark-up/mark-down, and FINRA disseminates this price
to the market. The goal of these reporting requirements is to enable
FINRA to provide investors and market participants with pricing
information that better reflects comparable prices for principal and
agency trades in a TRACE-Eligible Security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Rule 6710 generally defines a ``TRACE-Eligible Security''
as: (1) A debt security that is U.S. dollar-denominated and issued
by a U.S. or foreign private issuer (and, if a ``restricted
security'' as defined in Securities Act Rule 144(a)(3), sold
pursuant to Securities Act Rule 144A); or (2) a debt security that
is U.S. dollar-denominated and issued or guaranteed by an ``Agency''
as defined in Rule 6710(k) or a ``Government-Sponsored Enterprise''
as defined in Rule 6710(n). Most transactions reported to TRACE are
publicly disseminated immediately upon receipt of a transaction
report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FINRA is proposing that firms identify those transactions for which
a commission or mark-up/mark-down is not reflected in a TRACE trade
report because the firm does not charge or does not know the amount of
the commission or mark-up/mark-down at the time of TRACE reporting. For
example, some firms may assess a charge that is not transaction-based,
such as in the case of a ``fee-based account'' where remuneration is
based upon assets under management (and individual commissions or mark-
ups/mark-downs are not charged).\5\ As a result, when the price of the
transaction is publicly disseminated, there currently is no indication
to the public that the price is not inclusive of a commission or mark-
up/mark-down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Another example of a fee structure that is not transaction-
based is where an ATS charges subscribers a fixed fee for unlimited
trading each month. The ATS could then execute trades either as
principal, by acting as an intermediary in all subscriber trades, or
on an agency basis, by providing the system through which
subscribers' trades are executed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By way of further example, some firms charge a commission or mark-
up/mark-down, but may not know the exact amount of that commission or
mark-up/mark-down at the time the TRACE transaction report is required
to be submitted because of their remuneration structure (e.g., a firm
may not calculate a mark-up for a transaction on a trade-by-trade
basis, but will, nonetheless, ultimately assess transaction
remuneration pursuant to a monthly volume-based schedule). As a result,
the firm will not know the commission or mark-up/mark-down at the time
of TRACE reporting.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ As a practical matter, it is difficult for firms to comply
with the current TRACE rules for these types of volume-based mark-
up/mark-down arrangements, since firms are unable to report
accurately all the required information related to the transaction
on a timely basis and would need to submit a cancel and replace to
update the pricing information. In some cases, this information may
not be known until the end of the month. Under the proposal, members
would not be required to reflect a mark-up/mark-down or commission
in a TRACE trade report where the charge is not known at the time of
the transaction, but would be required to report the proposed
identifier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FINRA therefore proposes to require firms to identify such trades,
and FINRA will flag these disseminated transactions as not being
inclusive of remuneration.\7\ As is the case now, the disseminated
TRACE feed will not explicitly distinguish between agency and principal
transactions, and the no-remuneration flag will apply to both principal
and agency transactions. FINRA believes that pricing information
disseminated today may be incomplete and, in some cases, misleading
given that disseminated prices on transactions that do not include
remuneration are not distinguished from transactions that do include a
commission or mark-up/mark-down. FINRA believes that the proposal will
provide more meaningful pricing transparency through TRACE by
identifying those transactions where no commission or mark-up/mark-down
was charged or known at the time of TRACE reporting, while not
inhibiting possible firm remuneration arrangements, particularly if
these arrangements benefit customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ In addition, if a firm does not charge any remuneration
associated with the trade (in any form), they would be required to
identify the trade as one for which no remuneration was assessed to
the transaction. FINRA notes that the MSRB has similarly proposed to
require members to report an indicator that would be disseminated to
identify transactions that do not include a dealer compensation
component. See MSRB Regulatory Notice 2014-14 (August 13, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FINRA also believes that this proposal will enhance its regulatory
audit trail
[[Page 47548]]
and surveillance patterns. With this additional level of detail,
surveillance patterns should yield fewer false positives regarding
mark-up and best execution surveillance, reduce regulatory inquiries,
and provide greater focus for FINRA's regulatory efforts. For example,
without this designation, FINRA's surveillance patterns for best
execution may generate an alert for transactions whose prices reflect a
commission or a mark-up as being outliers compared to transactions
whose prices do not reflect a charge.
FINRA discussed the proposal with advisory committees in developing
its approach. These parties were supportive of the proposal, believing
that it would improve the value of information for TRACE-Eligible
Securities that is submitted to FINRA, and, by extension, to investors
and market participants. With regards to effort involved in affecting
the change, committee members did not express any particular concerns
with respect to the operational impacts or costs of the proposal.
However, as to facilitate planning and scheduling, firms specifically
requested that sufficient lead-time be provided when determining the
effective date of the rule. Further discussions with firms that would
be directly impacted by the proposal also indicated that the proposal
would be beneficial to market participants, and that the necessary
technological changes would not be unduly burdensome given an adequate
implementation timeframe.
If the Commission approves the proposed rule change, the proposed
rule change shall be effective upon Commission approval. The
implementation date will be May 23, 2016.
2. Statutory Basis
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\8\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest, and Section 15A(b)(9) of the Act,\9\ which requires
that FINRA rules not impose any burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
\9\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FINRA believes that this proposal is consistent with the Act
because the additional identifier will enhance its regulatory audit
trail and surveillance patterns. With this additional level of detail,
surveillance patterns should yield fewer false positives regarding
mark-up and best execution surveillance, reduce regulatory inquiries,
and provide greater focus for FINRA's regulatory efforts. For example,
without this designation, FINRA's surveillance patterns for best
execution may generate an alert for transactions whose prices reflect a
commission or a mark-up as being outliers compared to transactions
whose prices do not reflect a charge. FINRA also believes that the
proposal will improve the information value of TRACE reports as
investors and other market participants will receive additional
information regarding pricing information for TRACE-Eligible
Securities. Finally, FINRA believes that this proposal would permit
firms additional flexibility in structuring their fee arrangements with
investors, which may provide cost benefits to such investors.
B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. FINRA notes that the proposed
rule change is designed to assist FINRA in meeting its regulatory
obligations by enhancing its audit trail and surveillance patterns.
While this proposal will require members to meet the proposed reporting
obligation, ensure that they can properly ascertain transactions that
require the new identifier, and update their compliance procedures and
reporting protocols accordingly, FINRA notes that this proposal will
apply uniformly to firms that report transactions in TRACE-Eligible
Securities. FINRA also believes that this proposal will allow firms
more flexibility in designing their fee structures.
As set forth above, FINRA has undertaken an economic impact
assessment to further analyze, among other things, the need for the
proposed rulemaking and the economic impacts of the proposed
rulemaking. As discussed above, FINRA does not believe that the
compliance costs associated with the proposal would be unduly
burdensome given an adequate implementation timeframe.
Economic Impact Assessment
FINRA has undertaken an economic impact assessment, as set forth
below, to further analyze the need for the proposed rulemaking, the
regulatory objective of the rulemaking, the economic baseline of
analysis, and the economic impacts.
(a) Need for the Rule
FINRA believes that pricing information disseminated today may be
incomplete and, in some cases, misleading given that disseminated
prices on transactions that do not include remuneration are not
distinguished from transactions that do include a commission or mark-
up/mark-down.
(b) Regulatory Objective
FINRA believes that the proposal will provide more meaningful
pricing transparency through TRACE by identifying those transactions
where no commission or mark-up/mark-down was charged or known at the
time of TRACE reporting, while not inhibiting possible firm fee
remuneration arrangements, particularly if these fee arrangements
benefit customers. FINRA also believes that the additional identifier
will enhance its regulatory audit trail and surveillance patterns,
because it will require the firm to affirmatively report this
information related to the commission or mark-up/mark-down and will
enable FINRA to more efficiently separate out no-remuneration trades
for purposes of surveillance, analysis, and dissemination.
(c) Economic Baseline
The staff analyzed corporate bond transactions reported to TRACE in
Q3 2013.\10\ Transactions where the broker-dealer acts in an agency
capacity are reported to TRACE with a separate field for commission.
FINRA can therefore accurately identify agency-capacity transactions
reported without a commission.\11\ In contrast, for transactions where
the broker-dealer acts in a principal capacity, the mark-up or mark-
down is included in the reported price. It was necessary for the staff
to pair a broker-dealer's buy and
[[Page 47549]]
sell principal-capacity transactions of equal sizes in a given security
on a given day to estimate the mark-ups or mark-downs on the customer
transactions.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ For purposes of this analysis, FINRA used data reported to
TRACE (not the TRACE-disseminated data). Although the TRACE-
disseminated data includes a flag (Y or blank) that identifies
whether a commission is included in the disseminated price, the data
does not specify in what capacity the dealer acted in the
transaction. As such, an agency transaction without a commission,
e.g., the commission flag is blank, would look the same on the
TRACE-disseminated data as a principal transaction with or without a
mark-up/mark-down.
Corporate bond transactions represented approximately 73% of all
transactions reported to TRACE in 2013.
\11\ Although FINRA is currently able to accurately identify
agency-capacity transactions that are reported without a commission,
this process requires FINRA to match trades where the commission
field is blank with trades where the dealer acted as agent. With the
no-remuneration flag, the firm will be required to affirmatively
report this information related to the commission or mark-up/mark-
down, and FINRA will be able to more efficiently identify such
trades.
\12\ FINRA recognizes that any pairing methodology adopted
requires assumptions as part of that methodology. Further, there is
not a unique set of assumptions that reasonable parties might all
choose to adopt if they were to go through a similar exercise. As a
result, FINRA provides results of this methodology as part of the
baseline in order to inform the discussion of potential regulatory
impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During Q3 2013, the daily average number of agency-capacity
transactions in corporate bonds was 9,100.\13\ Approximately 55% of
agency-capacity transactions in corporate bonds were customer
transactions. Based on the data, the staff estimated that approximately
85% of Investment Grade corporate bond customer transactions where the
broker-dealer acted in an agency capacity were reported without a
commission. For Non-Investment Grade and unrated corporate bonds, the
proportions were 74% and 92%, respectively. Such transactions may have
been executed for fee-based accounts or other accounts where firm
remuneration was not determined on a per-transaction basis. For the
agency-capacity customer transactions reported with commissions, the
table below summarizes the average commission charged for agency-
capacity customer buy and customer sell transactions in Investment
Grade, Non-Investment Grade and Unrated securities over the quarter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ This excludes List or Fixed Offering Price Transactions, as
defined in FINRA Rule 6710(q), and Takedown Transactions as defined
in FINRA Rule 6710(r).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average commission (in basis points)
--------------------------------------------------------
Non-Investment
Investment grade grade Unrated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Customer Buy........................................... 18 21 21
Customer Sell.......................................... 21 20 32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During Q3 2013, the daily average number of principal-capacity
transactions in corporate bonds was just under 48,000.\14\
Approximately 45% of principal-capacity transactions in corporate bonds
were customer transactions. Using the previously described pairing
methodology, the staff estimated that 19% of these customer
transactions were reported to have been executed without a mark-up or
mark-down. For the principal-capacity customer transactions estimated
to include mark-ups or mark-downs, the table below summarizes the
estimated average remuneration charged for principal-capacity customer
buy and customer sell transactions in Investment Grade, Non-Investment
Grade and Unrated securities in the quarter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ This excludes List or Fixed Offering Price Transactions, as
defined in FINRA Rule 6710(q), and Takedown Transactions as defined
in FINRA Rule 6710(r).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average mark-up/mark-down (in basis points)
--------------------------------------------------------
Non-investment
Investment grade grade Unrated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Customer Buy........................................... 75 66 73
Customer Sell.......................................... 50 78 60
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) Economic Impacts
FINRA believes that the proposal will enable market participants,
including investors relying on TRACE for valuation information, to
better understand the prevailing market prices by being able to
distinguish between transactions that include remuneration and those
that do not. As discussed above, FINRA further believes that the
additional identifier will enhance its regulatory audit trail and
surveillance patterns. With this additional level of detail,
surveillance patterns should yield fewer false positives regarding
mark-up and best execution surveillance, reduce regulatory inquiries,
and provide greater focus for FINRA's regulatory efforts. For example,
without this designation, FINRA's surveillance patterns for best
execution may generate an alert for transactions whose prices reflect a
commission or a mark-up as being outliers compared to transactions
whose prices do not reflect a charge.
The proposal will require member firms to meet the proposed
reporting obligation, ensure that they can properly ascertain
transactions that require the new identifier, and update their
compliance procedures and reporting protocols accordingly. Member firms
would also need to make technological changes to their systems to
include the identifier. Based on discussions with advisory committees
and member firms, FINRA does not believe that the compliance costs
associated with the proposal would be unduly burdensome given an
adequate implementation timeframe.
C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
(A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.
IV. Solicitation of Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act.
[[Page 47550]]
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
Electronic Comments
Use the Commission's Internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
Send an email to rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2015-026 on the subject line.
Paper Comments
Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2015-026. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2015-026 and should be
submitted on or before August 28, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-19381 Filed 8-6-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
