Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule G-34 on CUSIP Numbers, New Issue, and Market Information Requirements, 59427-59429 [2012-23767]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2012 / Notices public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. IV. Solicitation of Comments For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.15 Kevin M. O’Neill, Deputy Secretary. 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: [FR Doc. 2012–23765 Filed 9–26–12; 8:45 am] Electronic Comments [Release No. 34–67908; File No. SR–MSRB– 2012–06] • Use the Commission’s Internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/ rules/sro.shtml); or • Send an email to rulecomments@sec.gov. Please include File Number SR–BATS–2012–038 on the subject line. BILLING CODE 8011–01–P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule G–34 on CUSIP Numbers, New Issue, and Market Information Requirements erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with Paper Comments September 21, 2012. • Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR–BATS–2012–038. 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 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the 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–BATS– 2012–038 and should be submitted on or before October 18, 2012. I. Introduction VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:00 Sep 26, 2012 Jkt 226001 On June 28, 2012, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (‘‘MSRB’’) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Exchange Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule change consisting of amendments to Rule G–34 on CUSIP numbers, new issue, and market information requirements. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on July 10, 2012.3 The Commission received three comment letters regarding the proposed rule change.4 On August 23, 2012, the MSRB granted an extension of time for the Commission to act on the filing until September 14, 2012. On September 11, 2012, the MSRB granted a second extension of time until September 21, 2012. On September 17, 2012, the MSRB submitted a response to the comment letters.5 This order grants approval of the proposed rule change. 15 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 3 See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67344 (July 3, 2012), 77 FR 40668 (‘‘Notice’’). 4 See Letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, from Susan Gaffney, Director, Federal Liaison Center, Government Finance Officers Association, dated August 7, 2012 (‘‘GFOA Letter’’); and Web comments from Arthur Sinkler, dated July 8, 2012 (‘‘Sinkler Letter’’); and Shelly Frank, dated July 10, 2012 (‘‘Frank Letter’’). The comments received by the Commission are available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-msrb-2012–06/ msrb201206.shtml. 5 See Letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, from Karen Du Brul, Associate General Counsel, MSRB, dated September 17, 2002 (‘‘MSRB’s Response’’). 1 15 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 59427 II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change The MSRB proposes to add new subsection (iv) to Rule G–34(a) to prohibit any broker, dealer, or municipal securities dealer from using the term ‘‘not reoffered’’ or other comparable term or designation (e.g., ‘‘NRO’’) without also including the applicable price or yield information about the securities in any of its written communications, electronic or otherwise, sent by it or on its behalf from and after the time of initial award of a new issue of municipal securities.6 For purposes of MSRB Rule G–34(a)(iv), the ‘‘time of initial award’’ means the earlier of (A) the ‘‘Time of Formal Award’’ as defined in MSRB Rule G– 34(a)(ii)(C)(1)(a),7 or (B) if applicable, the time at which the issuer initially accepts the terms of a new issue of municipal securities subject to subsequent formal award. The prohibition would not apply to communications occurring prior to the time of initial award of a new issue of municipal securities.8 According to the MSRB, the proposed rule change will prohibit certain communications that hinder price and market transparency, as well as facilitate new issue price discovery.9 MSRB Rules G–32 and G–34 set forth the reporting requirements for new issues of municipal securities. MSRB Rule G–32 requires underwriters to submit to the MSRB’s Electronic Municipal Market Access (‘‘EMMA®’’) system certain information about the new issue, including the initial offering price or yield of all maturities, on or prior to the date of first execution.10 This information becomes available to the public on the EMMA Web site and to information vendors and other market participants through subscription services immediately upon submission 6 See Proposed MSRB Rule G–34(a)(iv). Rule G–34(a)(ii)(C)(1)(a) defines ‘‘Time of Formal Award’’ as ‘‘for competitive issues, the later of the time the issuer announces the award or the time the issuer notifies the underwriter of the award, and for negotiated issues, the later of the time the contract to purchase the securities from the issuer is executed or the time the issuer notifies the underwriter of its execution.’’ 8 See Notice, supra note 3, at 40668. The MSRB also proposes to delete existing subsection (e)(iii) of MSRB Rule G–34, which includes provisions for compliance by dealers with certain registration and testing requirements previously applicable with respect to the start-up phase in 2008 of the New Issue Information Dissemination System (‘‘NIIDS’’) operated by the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (‘‘DTCC’’). The MSRB believes this amendment will streamline Rule G–34 by eliminating language from the Rule that no longer has any effect. See id. at 40669. 9 See id. at 40669. 10 See MSRB Rule G–32(b)(vi)(C)(1)(a). 7 MSRB E:\FR\FM\27SEN1.SGM 27SEN1 59428 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2012 / Notices and typically by the end of the date of first execution.11 MSRB Rule G–34 requires underwriters, with certain exceptions, to report to NIIDS certain information about new issues of municipal securities within two hours following the Time of Formal Award,12 including the initial price or yield at which each maturity of the new issue of municipal securities was sold.13 While MSRB Rules G–32 and G–34 require underwriters to provide initial offering price or yield for all maturities, including those that are not reoffered, and prohibit underwriters from using the designation of NRO in their submissions, the rules do not prevent underwriters or other parties acting on the underwriters’ behalf from substituting the designation of NRO for the initial offering price or yield for applicable maturities when sending information regarding a new issue directly to third-party vendors.14 According to the MSRB, the proposed rule change would result in information about the initial offering prices or yields for NRO maturities being included in any communication to or from thirdparty venders from and after the time of initial award.15 III. Summary of Comments Received and the MSRB’s Response The Commission received three comment letters on the proposed rule change.16 One commenter generally supported the proposed rule change but stated that underwriters should be required to provide yield information.17 The other two commenters raised issues that were not directly on point with the subject of the proposed rule change. Accordingly, the concerns raised in erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 11 See Notice, supra note 3, at 40669. In addition, while MSRB Rule G–14 requires dealers, with limited exceptions, to report the actual prices at which municipal securities are sold to the MSRB’s Real-time Transaction Reporting System within 15 minutes of the time of trade, in many cases initial trades by syndicate or selling group members executed on the first day of trading at the published list offering price may be reported by the end of the day. See id. at 40669 n.4. 12 See supra note 7. 13 See MSRB Rule G–34(a)(ii)(C). DTCC disseminates this information to its subscribers, including market participants and information vendors, upon submission by underwriters for dissemination, typically within two hours following the Time of Formal Award. See Notice, supra note 3, at 40669. 14 See id. at 40669. Third-party vendors may then disseminate the new issue information, including the NRO designation without accompanying initial offering price or yield, to their subscribers shortly after receipt, and frequently before the complete initial offering price or yield information becomes available through NIIDS or the EMMA system. See id. 15 See id. 16 See supra note 4. 17 See GFOA Letter. VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:00 Sep 26, 2012 Jkt 226001 those comment letters are not addressed here.18 As stated above, one commenter opined that there should be mandatory reporting of yield data.19 The commenter reasoned that reporting just the maturity’s price data requires issuers and investors to calculate the corresponding yield, which makes the information less useful to issuers and investors.20 According to the commenter, the MSRB would take positive steps toward transparency and a more efficient market by requiring yield data.21 In its response, the MSRB stated that it is not requiring yield, rather than price or yield, because such a stipulation would create an inconsistency with other MSRB rules and the MSRB’s information systems.22 The MSRB stated that it would be inconsistent to require yield when underwriters voluntarily provide such information to the public but permit price or yield when underwriters provide such information pursuant to mandatory reporting requirements, including submissions to EMMA and NIIDS, in connection with new issue underwritings or on customer confirmations.23 The MSRB acknowledged the value of having both price and yield data available for investors and also stated that, in the context of the MSRB’s existing process outlined in its Long-Range Plan for Market Transparency Products (‘‘MSRB Long-Range Plan’’),24 it would consider as a potential next step whether to undertake a more universal approach to price and yield information for new issues of municipal securities.25 IV. Discussion and Commission Findings The Commission has carefully considered the proposed rule change, as well as the comment letters received and the MSRB’s response, and finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations 18 For instance, the Frank and Sinkler Letters, as well as the GFOA Letter, stated that the timeframe for submitting pricing information should be shorter. Moreover, the Frank and Sinkler Letters encouraged release of scales before the pricing of a new issue is final and for retail investors to be able to purchase municipal securities at the issue price. Although the comments are not addressed here, those comments, as well as the MSRB’s Response, are available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/srmsrb-2012-06/msrb201206.shtml. 19 See GFOA Letter. 20 See id. 21 See id. 22 See MSRB Letter at 2. 23 See id. 24 See MSRB Notice 2012–06 (February 23, 2012). 25 See MSRB Letter at 2, 3. PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 thereunder applicable to the MSRB.26 In particular, the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act, which provides that the MSRB’s rules shall be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in municipal securities and municipal financial products, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market in municipal securities and municipal financial products, and, in general, to protect investors, municipal entities, obligated persons, and the public interest.27 The Commission believes that the proposed rule change is reasonably designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market in municipal securities by prohibiting certain communications that hinder price and market transparency and by facilitating new issue price discovery. The proposed rule change would require underwriters to include the initial offering price or yield in any written communication it sends to any party from and after the time of initial award, including for those maturities that are not reoffered. Although MSRB Rules G–32 and G–34 require the initial offering price or yield for all maturities, including those that are not reoffered, and prohibit underwriters from using the designation of NRO in their submissions, this information may not be readily available until the end of the date of first execution. Accordingly, the Commission believes the proposed rule change should cause issuers, investors, and other market participants to receive more timely information about initial offering prices or yields (i.e., prior to the submission deadlines of MSRB Rules G– 32 and G–34). This should aid issuers in pricing their own same-day transactions and benefit investors and other market participants seeking more contemporaneous price information. The Commission also believes the proposed rule change could reduce pricing inefficiencies in the municipal securities market by providing timelier price or yield information to a larger universe of market participants. Currently, market participants have different levels of access to price or 26 In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule’s impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 27 15 U.S.C. 78o–4(b)(2)(C). E:\FR\FM\27SEN1.SGM 27SEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2012 / Notices yield information about new issues of municipal securities, which could contribute to differences in prices for similar securities. The Commission believes price transparency is vital for assuring that markets are fair and efficient, and that the proposed rule change should help enhance price transparency and lead to greater price discovery in the primary market.28 With respect to the comment that reporting of yield data should be mandatory, the Commission recognizes that other MSRB rules do not require reporting of yield, but rather allow reporting of yield or price, and that requiring yield in the context of voluntary submissions in the instant proposed rule change would be inconsistent with existing mandatory reporting requirements under other MSRB rules. The Commission, however, notes that the MSRB has acknowledged the value of having both price and yield data available to investors and understands that, in connection with the MSRB’s Long-Range Plan, it would consider a more universal approach to reporting of price and yield information for new issues of municipal securities.29 V. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the MSRB and, in particular, Section 15B(b)(2)(C) 30 of the Exchange Act. The proposal will become effective on the first calendar day of the next succeeding month beginning at least twenty-eight calendar days after the date of the Commission’s order approving the proposed rule change. It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,31 that the proposed rule change (SR– MSRB–2012–06) is approved. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.32 Kevin M. O’Neill, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. 2012–23767 Filed 9–26–12; 8:45 am] erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 28 The Commission also believes that the MSRB’s proposal to delete existing subsection (e)(iii) of MSRB Rule G–34 is consistent with the Act as it would eliminate language from the Rule that no longer has any effect. 29 See Notice, supra note 3, at 20670. See also MSRB’s Response at 2, 3. 30 15 U.S.C. 78o–4(b)(2)(C). 31 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 32 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:00 Sep 26, 2012 Jkt 226001 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34–67910; File No. SR–EDGX– 2012–42] Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend EDGX Rule 13.9 September 21, 2012. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on September 19, 2012, EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ‘‘Exchange’’ or ‘‘EDGX’’) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which items have been prepared by the Exchange. 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 The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change to amend Rule 13.9, which provides a new market data product to Members 3 and non-Members of the Exchange. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange’s Web site at www.directedge.com, at the Exchange’s principal office, and at the Public Reference Room of the Commission. II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange 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. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). CFR 240.19b–4. 3 A Member is any registered broker or dealer that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange. 2 17 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 59429 A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose In SR–EDGX–2012–37 (the ‘‘Filing’’),4 the Exchange introduced a new market data product, Edge Routed Liquidity Report (‘‘Edge Routed Liquidity Report’’ or the ‘‘Service’’) to Members and nonMembers of the Exchange (collectively referred to as ‘‘Subscribers’’). The Edge Routed Liquidity Report is a data feed that contains historical order information for orders routed to away destinations by the Exchange. The Filing stated that Edge Routed Liquidity Report is offered as either a standard report (the ‘‘Standard Report’’) or a premium report (the ‘‘Premium Report’’) (the Standard Report and the Premium Report shall be collectively referred to as the ‘‘Reports’’). The purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend Rule 13.9 to provide additional information regarding the features of the Standard Report and the Premium Report. The Filing noted that both the Standard Report and the Premium Report provide a view of all marketable orders that are routed to away destinations by the Exchange. The Reports are available to the Subscribers on the morning of the following trading day (T + 1) and include limit price, routed quantity, symbol, side (bid/offer), time of routing, and the National Best Bid and Offer (NBBO) at the time of routing. However, [the] Premium Report also identifies various categories of routing destinations. First, the Premium Report identifies whether the routing destination is either directed to a destination that is not an exchange (‘‘Non-Exchange Destination’’) or directed to another exchange. If the order is routed to a Non-Exchange Destination, the Premium Report will then also specify one of the following Non-Exchange Destination categories: Regular, Fast, Superfast and Midpoint (collectively, the ‘‘Categories’’). The Category is determined by the applicable routing strategy associated with the relevant order, based on responsiveness of the destination (i.e. latency), number of destinations, and/or type of execution (i.e. midpoint). For example, a routing strategy that leverages many dark pools for low-cost, low impact executions, which takes a greater amount of time to fill an order may be categorized as ‘‘Regular’’ in the 4 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67766 (August 31, 2012), 77 FR 55251 (September 7, 2012) (SR–EDGX–2012–37). E:\FR\FM\27SEN1.SGM 27SEN1

Agencies

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 188 (Thursday, September 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59427-59429]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23767]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67908; File No. SR-MSRB-2012-06]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking 
Board; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 
G-34 on CUSIP Numbers, New Issue, and Market Information Requirements

September 21, 2012.

I. Introduction

    On June 28, 2012, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board 
(``MSRB'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission 
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities 
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change consisting of amendments to Rule 
G-34 on CUSIP numbers, new issue, and market information requirements. 
The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal 
Register on July 10, 2012.\3\ The Commission received three comment 
letters regarding the proposed rule change.\4\ On August 23, 2012, the 
MSRB granted an extension of time for the Commission to act on the 
filing until September 14, 2012. On September 11, 2012, the MSRB 
granted a second extension of time until September 21, 2012. On 
September 17, 2012, the MSRB submitted a response to the comment 
letters.\5\ This order grants approval of the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67344 (July 3, 
2012), 77 FR 40668 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, 
from Susan Gaffney, Director, Federal Liaison Center, Government 
Finance Officers Association, dated August 7, 2012 (``GFOA 
Letter''); and Web comments from Arthur Sinkler, dated July 8, 2012 
(``Sinkler Letter''); and Shelly Frank, dated July 10, 2012 (``Frank 
Letter''). The comments received by the Commission are available at 
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-msrb-2012-06/msrb201206.shtml.
    \5\ See Letter to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Commission, 
from Karen Du Brul, Associate General Counsel, MSRB, dated September 
17, 2002 (``MSRB's Response'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The MSRB proposes to add new subsection (iv) to Rule G-34(a) to 
prohibit any broker, dealer, or municipal securities dealer from using 
the term ``not reoffered'' or other comparable term or designation 
(e.g., ``NRO'') without also including the applicable price or yield 
information about the securities in any of its written communications, 
electronic or otherwise, sent by it or on its behalf from and after the 
time of initial award of a new issue of municipal securities.\6\ For 
purposes of MSRB Rule G-34(a)(iv), the ``time of initial award'' means 
the earlier of (A) the ``Time of Formal Award'' as defined in MSRB Rule 
G-34(a)(ii)(C)(1)(a),\7\ or (B) if applicable, the time at which the 
issuer initially accepts the terms of a new issue of municipal 
securities subject to subsequent formal award. The prohibition would 
not apply to communications occurring prior to the time of initial 
award of a new issue of municipal securities.\8\ According to the MSRB, 
the proposed rule change will prohibit certain communications that 
hinder price and market transparency, as well as facilitate new issue 
price discovery.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Proposed MSRB Rule G-34(a)(iv).
    \7\ MSRB Rule G-34(a)(ii)(C)(1)(a) defines ``Time of Formal 
Award'' as ``for competitive issues, the later of the time the 
issuer announces the award or the time the issuer notifies the 
underwriter of the award, and for negotiated issues, the later of 
the time the contract to purchase the securities from the issuer is 
executed or the time the issuer notifies the underwriter of its 
execution.''
    \8\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 40668. The MSRB also proposes 
to delete existing subsection (e)(iii) of MSRB Rule G-34, which 
includes provisions for compliance by dealers with certain 
registration and testing requirements previously applicable with 
respect to the start-up phase in 2008 of the New Issue Information 
Dissemination System (``NIIDS'') operated by the Depository Trust 
and Clearing Corporation (``DTCC''). The MSRB believes this 
amendment will streamline Rule G-34 by eliminating language from the 
Rule that no longer has any effect. See id. at 40669.
    \9\ See id. at 40669.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MSRB Rules G-32 and G-34 set forth the reporting requirements for 
new issues of municipal securities. MSRB Rule G-32 requires 
underwriters to submit to the MSRB's Electronic Municipal Market Access 
(``EMMA[supreg]'') system certain information about the new issue, 
including the initial offering price or yield of all maturities, on or 
prior to the date of first execution.\10\ This information becomes 
available to the public on the EMMA Web site and to information vendors 
and other market participants through subscription services immediately 
upon submission

[[Page 59428]]

and typically by the end of the date of first execution.\11\ MSRB Rule 
G-34 requires underwriters, with certain exceptions, to report to NIIDS 
certain information about new issues of municipal securities within two 
hours following the Time of Formal Award,\12\ including the initial 
price or yield at which each maturity of the new issue of municipal 
securities was sold.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See MSRB Rule G-32(b)(vi)(C)(1)(a).
    \11\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 40669. In addition, while MSRB 
Rule G-14 requires dealers, with limited exceptions, to report the 
actual prices at which municipal securities are sold to the MSRB's 
Real-time Transaction Reporting System within 15 minutes of the time 
of trade, in many cases initial trades by syndicate or selling group 
members executed on the first day of trading at the published list 
offering price may be reported by the end of the day. See id. at 
40669 n.4.
    \12\ See supra note 7.
    \13\ See MSRB Rule G-34(a)(ii)(C). DTCC disseminates this 
information to its subscribers, including market participants and 
information vendors, upon submission by underwriters for 
dissemination, typically within two hours following the Time of 
Formal Award. See Notice, supra note 3, at 40669.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While MSRB Rules G-32 and G-34 require underwriters to provide 
initial offering price or yield for all maturities, including those 
that are not reoffered, and prohibit underwriters from using the 
designation of NRO in their submissions, the rules do not prevent 
underwriters or other parties acting on the underwriters' behalf from 
substituting the designation of NRO for the initial offering price or 
yield for applicable maturities when sending information regarding a 
new issue directly to third-party vendors.\14\ According to the MSRB, 
the proposed rule change would result in information about the initial 
offering prices or yields for NRO maturities being included in any 
communication to or from third-party venders from and after the time of 
initial award.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See id. at 40669. Third-party vendors may then disseminate 
the new issue information, including the NRO designation without 
accompanying initial offering price or yield, to their subscribers 
shortly after receipt, and frequently before the complete initial 
offering price or yield information becomes available through NIIDS 
or the EMMA system. See id.
    \15\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Comments Received and the MSRB's Response

    The Commission received three comment letters on the proposed rule 
change.\16\ One commenter generally supported the proposed rule change 
but stated that underwriters should be required to provide yield 
information.\17\ The other two commenters raised issues that were not 
directly on point with the subject of the proposed rule change. 
Accordingly, the concerns raised in those comment letters are not 
addressed here.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See supra note 4.
    \17\ See GFOA Letter.
    \18\ For instance, the Frank and Sinkler Letters, as well as the 
GFOA Letter, stated that the timeframe for submitting pricing 
information should be shorter. Moreover, the Frank and Sinkler 
Letters encouraged release of scales before the pricing of a new 
issue is final and for retail investors to be able to purchase 
municipal securities at the issue price. Although the comments are 
not addressed here, those comments, as well as the MSRB's Response, 
are available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-msrb-2012-06/msrb201206.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated above, one commenter opined that there should be 
mandatory reporting of yield data.\19\ The commenter reasoned that 
reporting just the maturity's price data requires issuers and investors 
to calculate the corresponding yield, which makes the information less 
useful to issuers and investors.\20\ According to the commenter, the 
MSRB would take positive steps toward transparency and a more efficient 
market by requiring yield data.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See GFOA Letter.
    \20\ See id.
    \21\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its response, the MSRB stated that it is not requiring yield, 
rather than price or yield, because such a stipulation would create an 
inconsistency with other MSRB rules and the MSRB's information 
systems.\22\ The MSRB stated that it would be inconsistent to require 
yield when underwriters voluntarily provide such information to the 
public but permit price or yield when underwriters provide such 
information pursuant to mandatory reporting requirements, including 
submissions to EMMA and NIIDS, in connection with new issue 
underwritings or on customer confirmations.\23\ The MSRB acknowledged 
the value of having both price and yield data available for investors 
and also stated that, in the context of the MSRB's existing process 
outlined in its Long-Range Plan for Market Transparency Products 
(``MSRB Long-Range Plan''),\24\ it would consider as a potential next 
step whether to undertake a more universal approach to price and yield 
information for new issues of municipal securities.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See MSRB Letter at 2.
    \23\ See id.
    \24\ See MSRB Notice 2012-06 (February 23, 2012).
    \25\ See MSRB Letter at 2, 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission has carefully considered the proposed rule change, 
as well as the comment letters received and the MSRB's response, and 
finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements 
of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable 
to the MSRB.\26\ In particular, the proposed rule change is consistent 
with Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act, which provides that the 
MSRB's rules shall be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative 
acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, 
to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in 
regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, 
and facilitating transactions in municipal securities and municipal 
financial products, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism 
of a free and open market in municipal securities and municipal 
financial products, and, in general, to protect investors, municipal 
entities, obligated persons, and the public interest.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission has 
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, 
and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposed rule change is reasonably 
designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free 
and open market in municipal securities by prohibiting certain 
communications that hinder price and market transparency and by 
facilitating new issue price discovery. The proposed rule change would 
require underwriters to include the initial offering price or yield in 
any written communication it sends to any party from and after the time 
of initial award, including for those maturities that are not 
reoffered. Although MSRB Rules G-32 and G-34 require the initial 
offering price or yield for all maturities, including those that are 
not reoffered, and prohibit underwriters from using the designation of 
NRO in their submissions, this information may not be readily available 
until the end of the date of first execution. Accordingly, the 
Commission believes the proposed rule change should cause issuers, 
investors, and other market participants to receive more timely 
information about initial offering prices or yields (i.e., prior to the 
submission deadlines of MSRB Rules G-32 and G-34). This should aid 
issuers in pricing their own same-day transactions and benefit 
investors and other market participants seeking more contemporaneous 
price information.
    The Commission also believes the proposed rule change could reduce 
pricing inefficiencies in the municipal securities market by providing 
timelier price or yield information to a larger universe of market 
participants. Currently, market participants have different levels of 
access to price or

[[Page 59429]]

yield information about new issues of municipal securities, which could 
contribute to differences in prices for similar securities. The 
Commission believes price transparency is vital for assuring that 
markets are fair and efficient, and that the proposed rule change 
should help enhance price transparency and lead to greater price 
discovery in the primary market.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ The Commission also believes that the MSRB's proposal to 
delete existing subsection (e)(iii) of MSRB Rule G-34 is consistent 
with the Act as it would eliminate language from the Rule that no 
longer has any effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the comment that reporting of yield data should be 
mandatory, the Commission recognizes that other MSRB rules do not 
require reporting of yield, but rather allow reporting of yield or 
price, and that requiring yield in the context of voluntary submissions 
in the instant proposed rule change would be inconsistent with existing 
mandatory reporting requirements under other MSRB rules. The 
Commission, however, notes that the MSRB has acknowledged the value of 
having both price and yield data available to investors and understands 
that, in connection with the MSRB's Long-Range Plan, it would consider 
a more universal approach to reporting of price and yield information 
for new issues of municipal securities.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 20670. See also MSRB's 
Response at 2, 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed 
rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and 
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the MSRB and, in 
particular, Section 15B(b)(2)(C) \30\ of the Exchange Act. The proposal 
will become effective on the first calendar day of the next succeeding 
month beginning at least twenty-eight calendar days after the date of 
the Commission's order approving the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the 
Exchange Act,\31\ that the proposed rule change (SR-MSRB-2012-06) is 
approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-23767 Filed 9-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.