Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend MSRB Rule A-13 to Temporarily Reduce the Rate of Assessment for the MSRB's Underwriting, Transaction and Technology Fees on Brokers, Dealers and Municipal Securities Dealers, 37538-37541 [2018-16419]
Download as PDF
37538
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Notices
be minimized, including the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology?
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day
of July 2018.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
David Cullison,
NRC Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2018–16428 Filed 7–31–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–83713; File No. SR–MSRB–
2018–06]
Self-Regulatory Organizations;
Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule
Change To Amend MSRB Rule A–13 to
Temporarily Reduce the Rate of
Assessment for the MSRB’s
Underwriting, Transaction and
Technology Fees on Brokers, Dealers
and Municipal Securities Dealers
July 26, 2018.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
‘‘Act’’ or ‘‘Exchange Act’’) 1 and Rule
19b–4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby
given that on July 23, 2018 the
Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board
(the ‘‘MSRB’’ or ‘‘Board’’) 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 the MSRB. 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 MSRB filed with the Commission
a proposed rule change to amend MSRB
Rule A–13 to temporarily reduce the
rate of assessment for the MSRB’s
underwriting, transaction and
technology fees on brokers, dealers and
municipal securities dealers (‘‘dealers’’)
with respect to assessible activity that
occurs during the months of October,
November and December 2018 (the
‘‘proposed rule change’’). The MSRB has
designated the proposed rule change for
immediate effectiveness.
The text of the proposed rule change
is available on the MSRB’s website at
www.msrb.org/Rules-and1 15
2 17
U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
CFR 240.19b–4.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:07 Jul 31, 2018
Jkt 244001
Interpretations/SEC-Filings/2018Filings.aspx, at the MSRB’s principal
office, and at the Commission’s Public
Reference Room.
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
MSRB 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 MSRB 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
The purpose of the proposed rule
change is to temporarily reduce the rate
of assessment for the MSRB’s
underwriting, transaction and
technology fees for dealers under Rule
A–13, with respect to assessible activity
that occurs during the months of
October, November and December 2018.
The proposed rule change is designed to
reduce, in a carefully considered and
strategic manner, excess MSRB reserves
in a way that achieves a fair and
equitable balance of fees across
regulated entities.
The MSRB discharges its statutory
mandate under the Exchange Act
through the establishment of rules for
dealers and municipal advisors
(together with dealers, ‘‘regulated
entities’’); the collection and
dissemination of market information;
and market leadership, outreach and
education. As a self-regulatory
organization, the MSRB must maintain
sufficient reserves to discharge its
responsibilities and operate without
interruption, even in an economic
downturn. Reserves are necessary to
mitigate fluctuations in the MSRB’s
revenue stream, which is primarily
market-driven, and provide a backstop
for funding services essential to the
efficiency of the market. However, as
current reserves exceed the target
thresholds that have been established by
its Board of Directors, the MSRB is now
seeking to temporarily reduce its three
largest sources of revenue, which
collectively, make up approximately
80% of the MSRB’s FY 2018 budgeted
revenue. The proposed rule change is
projected to reduce the MSRB’s excess
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
reserves by approximately $2.6 million
and will help align reserve levels with
target levels.
Pursuant to Rule A–13, each dealer
must pay to the Board underwriting,
transaction and technology fees based
upon the rates specified in that rule.
The proposed rule change would add a
new section (h) setting forth revised
temporary assessment rates for these
three types of assessments, generally
reducing by one-third the fees for
activity that occurs during the months
of October, November and December
2018. New Rule A–13(h)(i) would
provide that the underwriting
assessment for certain primary offerings
for this time period would be .00185%
of the par value ($0.0185 per $1,000), a
reduction from .00275% of the par value
($.0275 per $1,000). New Rule A–
13(h)(ii) would provide that the
transaction assessment would be
.00067% of the par value ($0.0067 per
$1,000), a reduction from .001% ($.01
per $1,000). And, new Rule A–13(h)(iii)
would provide that the technology
assessment would be $0.67 per
transaction (a reduction from $1.00 per
transaction). Rates of assessment would
revert to current levels effective January
1, 2019.
Importantly, the temporary reduced
rates are for activity that occurs during
this three-month period. Dealers are
typically billed for these fees after the
relevant month end. Specifically, the
underwriting fee is billed immediately
after the respective month end, while
the transaction and technology fees are
billed thirty days in arrears.
Financial Reserves and the Board’s
Holistic Review of MSRB Fees
In 2010, after several years of heavy
investment in the technological
infrastructure needed to launch the
MSRB’s Electronic Municipal Market
Access (EMMA®) website, the MSRB’s
financial reserve levels had dropped
below the target of 12 months of
operating expenses excluding
depreciation expense, plus three-times
annual capital needs. As a result,
replenishing the MSRB’s reserves
became a priority. The following year,
the MSRB increased the transaction fee
under Rule A–13 and began assessing a
new technology fee for dealers under
the same rule.3 By 2014, revenue from
the technology fee had generated
sufficient resources to stabilize the
technology reserve and allowed the
MSRB to rebate $3.6 million in
technology fees to eligible dealers. The
Board’s technology fee rebate decision
3 See Release No. 34–63621 (Dec. 29, 2010), 76 FR
604 (Jan. 5, 2011) (File No. SR–MSRB–2010–10).
E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM
01AUN1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Notices
and analysis of reserve levels prompted
it in 2015 to conduct a holistic review
of fees from dealer assessments,
municipal advisors and other sources to
determine whether further changes to
the funding structure were warranted.
The Board evaluated the assessment
of MSRB fees on regulated entities with
the goal of better aligning revenue
sources with operating expenses and all
capital needs. The Board strives to
diversify funding sources among
regulated entities and other entities that
fund MSRB services in a manner that
ensures long-term sustainability, while
continuing to strike an equitable balance
in fees among regulated entities and a
fair allocation of the cost of operating
and administering the MSRB, including
regulatory activities, systems
development and operational activities.
The Board, as it has historically, strives
to continually refine its fee structure to
ensure it is balanced and fair and
provides for reasonable cost allocation.
The first outcome of the holistic
review was to substantially reduce (by
8.3%) the fee assessed on municipal
securities underwriters. At the same
time, the MSRB raised initial
registration fees (which had not been
adjusted since 1975) and annual fees
(which had not been adjusted since
2009)—fees that are paid by all
regulated entities—to better align with
the cost of administering registrants and
ensure that all registrants more fairly
contributed to defraying the costs and
expenses of operating and administering
the MSRB. With the extension of the
MSRB’s jurisdiction to regulate
municipal advisors, this class of
regulated entity began contributing to
the cost of MSRB regulation in 2014.4
To further the objective of appropriately
and equitably assessing fees across all
regulated activities, in 2018, the MSRB
introduced a new fee on underwriters of
529 plans, as underwriters to 529 plans
had not previously paid a fee in this
capacity.5
The current fees assessed on regulated
entities are:
1. Municipal advisor professional fee
(Rule A–11). $500 for each person
associated with the municipal advisor
who is qualified as a municipal advisor
representative in accordance with Rule
G–3 and for whom the municipal
advisor has on file with the SEC a Form
MA–I as of January 31 of each year;
2. Initial registration fee (Rule A–12).
$1,000 one-time registration fee to be
paid by each dealer to register with the
4 See Release No. 34–72019 (Apr. 25, 2014), 79 FR
24798 (May 1, 2014) (File No. SR–MSRB–2014–03).
5 See Release No. 34–81264 (Jul 31, 2017), 82 FR
36472 (Aug. 4, 2017) (File No. SR–MSRB–2017–05).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:07 Jul 31, 2018
Jkt 244001
MSRB before engaging in municipal
securities activities and by each
municipal advisor to register with the
MSRB before engaging in municipal
advisory activities;
3. Annual registration fee (Rule A–
12). $1,000 annual fee to be paid by
each dealer and municipal advisor
registered with the MSRB;
4. Late fee (Rule A–11 and Rule A–
12). $25 monthly late fee and a late fee
on the overdue balance (computed
according to the prime rate) until paid
on balances not paid within 30 days of
the invoice date by the dealer or
municipal advisor;
5. Underwriting fee (Rule A–13).
$.0275 per $1,000 of the par value paid
by a dealer, on all municipal securities
purchased from an issuer by or through
such dealer, whether acting as principal
or agent as part of a primary offering;
and in the case of an underwriter (as
defined in Rule G–45) of a primary
offering of certain municipal fund
securities, $.005 per $1,000 of the total
aggregate assets for the reporting period;
6. Transaction fee (Rule A–13). .001%
($.01 per $1,000) of the total par value
to be paid by a dealer, except in limited
circumstances, for inter-dealer sales and
customer sales reported to the MSRB
pursuant to Rule G–14(b), on transaction
reporting requirements;
7. Technology fee (Rule A–13). $1.00
paid by a dealer per transaction for each
inter-dealer sale and for each sale to
customers reported to the MSRB
pursuant to Rule G–14(b); and
8. Examination fee (Rule A–16). $150
test development fee assessed per
candidate for each MSRB examination.6
Notably, while all regulated entities
contribute to the MSRB’s revenue base,
the three fees that are the subject of the
proposed rule change (underwriting,
transaction and technology fees)
constitute approximately 80% of the
MSRB’s FY 2018 budgeted revenue. As
the most significant contributors to
MSRB funding, as well as being market
based and historically contributing more
than budgeted, these three fees are the
primary drivers for the excess reserves.7
While the fees generated from
municipal advisors contribute to the
MSRB’s budget, the fees charged for this
newly regulated category of
6 In addition, the MSRB charges data subscription
service fees for subscribers, including dealers and
municipal advisors, seeking direct electronic
delivery of municipal trade data and disclosure
documents associated with municipal bond issues.
However, this information is available without
direct electronic delivery on the EMMA website
without charge.
7 Reserves also grew due to fine revenue, a new
revenue source first provided in 2010 under the
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act. See 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(c)(9).
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
37539
professionals remain relatively modest
and do not yet meet target revenues.8
Accordingly, the Board determined that
these three fees exclusively should be
temporarily reduced for the designated
period.
Since the initiation of the Board’s
holistic review of fees, MSRB reserves
continued to grow due to strong revenue
results compared to budget, as well as
expense savings, and bolstered reserve
levels to the point where another rebate
was warranted in 2016. That year, the
MSRB rebated $5.5 million of excess
reserves to dealers who were assessed
underwriting, transaction and
technology fees during the first nine
months of the fiscal year. In total, $9.1
million was returned to dealers in fee
rebates since 2014. However, the fee
rebates were not without their
operational challenges. Industry
feedback suggested that underwriting
fee rebates can be problematic due to
inherent complications of processing
and potentially redistributing pro rata
shares to syndicate members. Moreover,
the MSRB believes that the approach
taken in the proposed rule change (i.e.,
a temporary reduction in dealer fees)
would be fairer than another alternative
approach, such as a fee holiday. For a
fee holiday, the MSRB would forego
charging fees for one month—but,
because of the difficulties in selecting a
single month that is representative of
dealer activity for all dealers subject to
the relevant fees, the MSRB believes
that a temporary fee reduction that
occurs over the course of several months
is more likely to lead to a fair and
equitable fee reduction across dealers.
Accordingly, the Board has determined
that a temporary three-month fee
reduction, rather than a fee rebate or fee
holiday, is a preferable mode of
reducing its reserves.
The Board strives to be fiscally
responsible. Since approximately 80%
of the Board’s revenue sources are
market based, which is inherently
unpredictable and largely has exceeded
budget, and the Board has a historical
track record of managing expenses to
below budget, reserves continue to
grow. The Board seeks to strike the right
balance in fee assessments to maintain
sufficient reserves to ensure fiscal
sustainability, while providing relief to
regulated entities that have contributed
8 See Release No. 34–81841 (Oct. 10, 2017), 82 FR
48135, 48138 (Oct. 16, 2017) (File No. SR–MSRB–
2017–07) (noting that the target revenue to be
generated from the municipal advisor fee under
Rule A–11 was approximately $2 million, or
approximately 5% of the total MSRB revenues). At
present, the municipal advisor professional fee
generates approximately $1.5 million, or 4% of the
MSRB’s Fiscal Year 2018 budgeted revenues.
E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM
01AUN1
37540
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Notices
to the excess reserves position. The
temporary three-month fee reduction
continues these ongoing efforts.
2. Statutory Basis
The MSRB believes that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section
15B(b)(2)(J) of the Act 9 which states that
the MSRB’s rules shall:
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
provide that each municipal securities
broker, municipal securities dealer, and
municipal advisor shall pay to the Board
such reasonable fees and charges as may be
necessary or appropriate to defray the costs
and expenses of operating and administering
the Board. Such rules shall specify the
amount of such fees and charges, which may
include charges for failure to submit to the
Board, or to any information system operated
by the Board, within the prescribed
timeframes, any items of information or
documents required to be submitted under
any rule issued by the Board.
The MSRB believes that its rules
provide for reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among regulated entities.
The MSRB believes that the proposed
rule change is necessary and
appropriate to fund the operation and
administration of the Board and satisfies
the requirements of Section
15B(b)(2)(J),10 achieving a more
equitable balance of fees among
regulated entities and a fairer allocation
of the expenses of the regulatory
activities, system development, and
operational activities undertaken by the
MSRB because it temporarily decreases
fees for the regulated entities that
financially contribute the greatest to the
cost of MSRB activities.
As described above, current reserve
levels exceed targets, but looking
forward to FY 2020, the MSRB’s pro
formas project reserves to fall modestly
below targeted levels with the
temporary fee reduction. As a result, the
MSRB believes that it is preferable to
temporarily reduce fees rather than take
an alternative approach, such as a
permanent fee reduction. Also, the
MSRB believes a temporary fee
reduction is preferable to a fee rebate
because it would be operationally easier
for dealers as dealers would be able to
incorporate temporarily reduced fee
rates into their business processes in
advance rather than receive a rebate
associated with past activity that may
need to be redistributed through or
across organizations. Finally, the MSRB
believes that the proposed rule change
would achieve a more equitable balance
among regulated entities and a fairer
allocation of the MSRB’s expenses
because the three fees that are the
subject of the proposed rule change,
9 15
U.S.C. 78o–4(b)(2)(J).
10 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:07 Jul 31, 2018
Jkt 244001
representing approximately 80% of the
MSRB’s FY 2018 revenue budget, have
contributed most to funding operations
of the MSRB and concurrently
contributed the most to the current
reserve levels.
While the MSRB has progressively
budgeted for municipal advisor fees to
defray a greater portion of the cost of the
MSRB’s municipal advisor-related
activity,11 municipal advisor fees have
comprised a very small portion of the
MSRB’s revenues and have not
contributed to the MSRB’s excess
reserves position. For these same
reasons, the beneficiaries of the
proposed rule change are generally the
same group of regulated entities that
received the fee rebates in 2014 and
2016, as described above.
B. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement on Burden on Competition
Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act 12
requires that MSRB rules not be
designed to impose any burden on
competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
The Board’s policy on the use of
economic analysis limits its
applications regarding those rules for
which the Board seeks immediate
effectiveness.13 However, an internal
analysis is still conducted to gauge the
economic impact, with an emphasis on
the burden on competition involving
regulated entities.
In this regard, the Board believes the
proposed rule change is necessary and
appropriate to promote fairness in
funding the operation and
administration of the Board and would
achieve a more equitable balance among
regulated entities and a more balanced
allocation of the expenses of the
regulatory activities, system
development, and operational activities
undertaken by the MSRB. Because the
three fees that are the subject of the
proposed rule change (underwriting,
supra n. 8.
U.S.C. 78o–4(b)(2)(C).
13 The scope of the Board’s policy on the use of
economic analysis in rulemaking provides that:
[t]his Policy addresses rulemaking activities of
the MSRB that culminate, or are expected to
culminate, in a filing of a proposed rule change
with the SEC under Section 19(b) of the Exchange
Act, other than a proposed rule change that the
MSRB reasonably believes would qualify for
immediate effectiveness under Section 19(b)(3)(A)
of the Exchange Act if filed as such or as otherwise
provided under the exception process of this Policy.
Policy on the Use of Economic Analysis in MSRB
Rulemaking, available at https://msrb.org/Rules-andInterpretations/Economic-Analysis-Policy.aspx. For
those rule changes which the MSRB seeks
immediate effectiveness, the MSRB usually focuses
exclusively its examination on the burden of
competition on regulated entities.
PO 00000
11 See
12 15
Frm 00082
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
transaction and technology fees) are the
primary drivers for the MSRB’s excess
reserves, the Board believes that it is
appropriate to temporarily reduce these
fees for the designated period.
The MSRB 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, as it would
temporarily decrease by the same
percentage the underwriting, transaction
and technology fees for all dealers
subject to these fees.
The MSRB believes that the proposed
rule change would not impose an
unnecessary or inappropriate regulatory
burden on small regulated entities, as
smaller dealers would benefit from the
temporary fee reduction in the same
proportion as larger dealers in relation
to the assessible activity during the
relevant three-month period.
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
The foregoing proposed rule change
has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 14 and
Rule 19b–4(f)(2)15 thereunder. At any
time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission
summarily may temporarily suspend
such rule change if it appears to the
Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors,
or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
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–MSRB-2018–06 on the subject line.
14 15
15 17
E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM
U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
CFR 240.19b–4(f)(2).
01AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 148 / Wednesday, August 1, 2018 / Notices
Paper Comments
• Send paper comments in triplicate
to Secretary, Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549.
All submissions should refer to File
Number SR–MSRB–2018–06. 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 website (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 website 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 the MSRB. All comments
received will be posted without change.
Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit
personal identifying information from
comment submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish
to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File
Number SR–MSRB–2018–06 and should
be submitted on or before August 22,
2018.
For the Commission, pursuant to delegated
authority.16
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018–16419 Filed 7–31–18; 8:45 am]
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
16 17
CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:07 Jul 31, 2018
Jkt 244001
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–83712; File No. SR–DTC–
2018–004]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; The
Depository Trust Company; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
Proposed Rule Change To Make
Clarifying Changes and Updates to the
DTC Underwriting Service Guide
July 26, 2018.
37541
consistency with respect to processes
and requirements described in other
Procedures that are related to those set
forth in the Underwriting Guide, (ii)
make clarifying and technical changes
and (iii) provide enhanced readability
and transparency for users of DTC’s
underwriting service (‘‘Underwriting
Service’’), as described below.
II. Clearing Agency’s Statement of the
Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the
Proposed Rule Change
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,
2018, The Depository Trust Company
(‘‘DTC’’) 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 the clearing
agency. DTC filed the proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
of the Act 3 and Rule 19b–4(f)(4)
thereunder.4 The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
In its filing with the Commission, the
clearing agency 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
clearing agency has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant
aspects of such statements.
I. Clearing Agency’s Statement of the
Terms of Substance of the Proposed
Rule Change
The proposed rule change consists of
proposed modifications to the
Underwriting Guide to (i) promote
consistency with respect to processes
and requirements described in other
Procedures that are related to those set
forth in the Underwriting Guide, (ii)
make clarifying and technical changes
and (iii) provide enhanced readability
and transparency for users of DTC’s
Underwriting Service, as described
below.
The proposed rule change of DTC 5
consists of modifications to the DTC
Underwriting Service Guide
(‘‘Underwriting Guide’’) 6 to (i) promote
U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
CFR 240.19b–4.
3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
4 17 CFR 240.19b–4(f)(4).
5 Capitalized terms not defined herein are defined
in the Rules, By-Laws and Organization Certificate
of DTC (the ‘‘Rules’’), available at www.dtcc.com/
∼/media/Files/Downloads/legal/rules/dtc_rules.pdf,
and the DTC Operational Arrangements for
Securities to Become and Remain Eligible for DTC
Services (‘‘OA’’), available at https://www.dtcc.com/
∼/media/Files/Downloads/legal/issue-eligibility/
eligibility/operational-arrangements.pdf.
6 Available at https://www.dtcc.com/∼/media/
Files/Downloads/legal/service-guides/UnderwritingService-Guide.pdf. The Underwriting Guide and the
OA constitute Procedures of DTC. Pursuant to the
Rules, the term ‘‘Procedures’’ means the
Procedures, service guides, and regulations of DTC
adopted pursuant to Rule 27, as amended from time
to time. See Rule 1, Section 1, supra note 5. DTC’s
Procedures are filed with the Commission. They are
binding on DTC and each Participant in the same
manner as they are bound by the Rules. See Rule
27, supra note 5. The OA is also binding on each
Issuer and Agent of an Eligible Security. See OA at
5, supra note 5. DTC also maintains service guides
that constitute Procedures relating to other services
it offers, including the ‘‘Canadian-Link Service
Guide,’’ ‘‘Custody Service Guide’’ (defined below as
‘‘Custody Guide’’), ‘‘Deposits Service Guide,’’
‘‘Distributions Service Guide,’’ ‘‘Redemptions
Service Guide,’’ ‘‘Reorganizations Service Guide’’
and ‘‘Settlement Service Guide.’’ Available at
https://www.dtcc.com/legal/rules-andprocedures?subsidiary=DTC&pgs=1.
PO 00000
1 15
2 17
Frm 00083
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(A) Clearing Agency’s Statement of the
Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the
Proposed Rule Change
1. Purpose
Background
Eligible Securities 7 may be
introduced into DTC as new issuances
(‘‘New Issues’’) through the
Underwriting Service, in connection
with a Participant, or a correspondent
working though a Participant’s Account,
submitting an eligibility request.8 In
addition to the process for New Issues,
there are separate eligibility processes
for (i) older issues (‘‘Older Issues’’), i.e.,
those already available in the market but
not previously made eligible for deposit
at DTC 9 and (ii) Eligible Securities in
7 Generally, Eligible Securities must have been
issued in a transaction: (i) Registered with the
Commission pursuant to the Securities Act; (ii)
exempt from registration pursuant to a Securities
Act exemption without transfer or ownership
restrictions; or (iii) pursuant to Rule 144A, 17 CFR
230.144A, or Regulation S, 17 CFR 230.901–
230.905, under the Securities Act. See OA, supra
note 5 at 2–3.
8 See OA, supra note 5 at 1–2.
9 Id.
E:\FR\FM\01AUN1.SGM
01AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 148 (Wednesday, August 1, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37538-37541]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16419]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-83713; File No. SR-MSRB-2018-06]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule
Change To Amend MSRB Rule A-13 to Temporarily Reduce the Rate of
Assessment for the MSRB's Underwriting, Transaction and Technology Fees
on Brokers, Dealers and Municipal Securities Dealers
July 26, 2018.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'' or ``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\
notice is hereby given that on July 23, 2018 the Municipal Securities
Rulemaking Board (the ``MSRB'' or ``Board'') 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 the MSRB. 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
The MSRB filed with the Commission a proposed rule change to amend
MSRB Rule A-13 to temporarily reduce the rate of assessment for the
MSRB's underwriting, transaction and technology fees on brokers,
dealers and municipal securities dealers (``dealers'') with respect to
assessible activity that occurs during the months of October, November
and December 2018 (the ``proposed rule change''). The MSRB has
designated the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's
website at www.msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/SEC-Filings/2018-Filings.aspx, at the MSRB's principal office, and at the Commission's
Public Reference Room.
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 MSRB 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 MSRB 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
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to temporarily reduce
the rate of assessment for the MSRB's underwriting, transaction and
technology fees for dealers under Rule A-13, with respect to assessible
activity that occurs during the months of October, November and
December 2018. The proposed rule change is designed to reduce, in a
carefully considered and strategic manner, excess MSRB reserves in a
way that achieves a fair and equitable balance of fees across regulated
entities.
The MSRB discharges its statutory mandate under the Exchange Act
through the establishment of rules for dealers and municipal advisors
(together with dealers, ``regulated entities''); the collection and
dissemination of market information; and market leadership, outreach
and education. As a self-regulatory organization, the MSRB must
maintain sufficient reserves to discharge its responsibilities and
operate without interruption, even in an economic downturn. Reserves
are necessary to mitigate fluctuations in the MSRB's revenue stream,
which is primarily market-driven, and provide a backstop for funding
services essential to the efficiency of the market. However, as current
reserves exceed the target thresholds that have been established by its
Board of Directors, the MSRB is now seeking to temporarily reduce its
three largest sources of revenue, which collectively, make up
approximately 80% of the MSRB's FY 2018 budgeted revenue. The proposed
rule change is projected to reduce the MSRB's excess reserves by
approximately $2.6 million and will help align reserve levels with
target levels.
Pursuant to Rule A-13, each dealer must pay to the Board
underwriting, transaction and technology fees based upon the rates
specified in that rule. The proposed rule change would add a new
section (h) setting forth revised temporary assessment rates for these
three types of assessments, generally reducing by one-third the fees
for activity that occurs during the months of October, November and
December 2018. New Rule A-13(h)(i) would provide that the underwriting
assessment for certain primary offerings for this time period would be
.00185% of the par value ($0.0185 per $1,000), a reduction from .00275%
of the par value ($.0275 per $1,000). New Rule A-13(h)(ii) would
provide that the transaction assessment would be .00067% of the par
value ($0.0067 per $1,000), a reduction from .001% ($.01 per $1,000).
And, new Rule A-13(h)(iii) would provide that the technology assessment
would be $0.67 per transaction (a reduction from $1.00 per
transaction). Rates of assessment would revert to current levels
effective January 1, 2019.
Importantly, the temporary reduced rates are for activity that
occurs during this three-month period. Dealers are typically billed for
these fees after the relevant month end. Specifically, the underwriting
fee is billed immediately after the respective month end, while the
transaction and technology fees are billed thirty days in arrears.
Financial Reserves and the Board's Holistic Review of MSRB Fees
In 2010, after several years of heavy investment in the
technological infrastructure needed to launch the MSRB's Electronic
Municipal Market Access (EMMA[supreg]) website, the MSRB's financial
reserve levels had dropped below the target of 12 months of operating
expenses excluding depreciation expense, plus three-times annual
capital needs. As a result, replenishing the MSRB's reserves became a
priority. The following year, the MSRB increased the transaction fee
under Rule A-13 and began assessing a new technology fee for dealers
under the same rule.\3\ By 2014, revenue from the technology fee had
generated sufficient resources to stabilize the technology reserve and
allowed the MSRB to rebate $3.6 million in technology fees to eligible
dealers. The Board's technology fee rebate decision
[[Page 37539]]
and analysis of reserve levels prompted it in 2015 to conduct a
holistic review of fees from dealer assessments, municipal advisors and
other sources to determine whether further changes to the funding
structure were warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Release No. 34-63621 (Dec. 29, 2010), 76 FR 604 (Jan. 5,
2011) (File No. SR-MSRB-2010-10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Board evaluated the assessment of MSRB fees on regulated
entities with the goal of better aligning revenue sources with
operating expenses and all capital needs. The Board strives to
diversify funding sources among regulated entities and other entities
that fund MSRB services in a manner that ensures long-term
sustainability, while continuing to strike an equitable balance in fees
among regulated entities and a fair allocation of the cost of operating
and administering the MSRB, including regulatory activities, systems
development and operational activities. The Board, as it has
historically, strives to continually refine its fee structure to ensure
it is balanced and fair and provides for reasonable cost allocation.
The first outcome of the holistic review was to substantially
reduce (by 8.3%) the fee assessed on municipal securities underwriters.
At the same time, the MSRB raised initial registration fees (which had
not been adjusted since 1975) and annual fees (which had not been
adjusted since 2009)--fees that are paid by all regulated entities--to
better align with the cost of administering registrants and ensure that
all registrants more fairly contributed to defraying the costs and
expenses of operating and administering the MSRB. With the extension of
the MSRB's jurisdiction to regulate municipal advisors, this class of
regulated entity began contributing to the cost of MSRB regulation in
2014.\4\ To further the objective of appropriately and equitably
assessing fees across all regulated activities, in 2018, the MSRB
introduced a new fee on underwriters of 529 plans, as underwriters to
529 plans had not previously paid a fee in this capacity.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Release No. 34-72019 (Apr. 25, 2014), 79 FR 24798 (May
1, 2014) (File No. SR-MSRB-2014-03).
\5\ See Release No. 34-81264 (Jul 31, 2017), 82 FR 36472 (Aug.
4, 2017) (File No. SR-MSRB-2017-05).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current fees assessed on regulated entities are:
1. Municipal advisor professional fee (Rule A-11). $500 for each
person associated with the municipal advisor who is qualified as a
municipal advisor representative in accordance with Rule G-3 and for
whom the municipal advisor has on file with the SEC a Form MA-I as of
January 31 of each year;
2. Initial registration fee (Rule A-12). $1,000 one-time
registration fee to be paid by each dealer to register with the MSRB
before engaging in municipal securities activities and by each
municipal advisor to register with the MSRB before engaging in
municipal advisory activities;
3. Annual registration fee (Rule A-12). $1,000 annual fee to be
paid by each dealer and municipal advisor registered with the MSRB;
4. Late fee (Rule A-11 and Rule A-12). $25 monthly late fee and a
late fee on the overdue balance (computed according to the prime rate)
until paid on balances not paid within 30 days of the invoice date by
the dealer or municipal advisor;
5. Underwriting fee (Rule A-13). $.0275 per $1,000 of the par value
paid by a dealer, on all municipal securities purchased from an issuer
by or through such dealer, whether acting as principal or agent as part
of a primary offering; and in the case of an underwriter (as defined in
Rule G-45) of a primary offering of certain municipal fund securities,
$.005 per $1,000 of the total aggregate assets for the reporting
period;
6. Transaction fee (Rule A-13). .001% ($.01 per $1,000) of the
total par value to be paid by a dealer, except in limited
circumstances, for inter-dealer sales and customer sales reported to
the MSRB pursuant to Rule G-14(b), on transaction reporting
requirements;
7. Technology fee (Rule A-13). $1.00 paid by a dealer per
transaction for each inter-dealer sale and for each sale to customers
reported to the MSRB pursuant to Rule G-14(b); and
8. Examination fee (Rule A-16). $150 test development fee assessed
per candidate for each MSRB examination.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ In addition, the MSRB charges data subscription service fees
for subscribers, including dealers and municipal advisors, seeking
direct electronic delivery of municipal trade data and disclosure
documents associated with municipal bond issues. However, this
information is available without direct electronic delivery on the
EMMA website without charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notably, while all regulated entities contribute to the MSRB's
revenue base, the three fees that are the subject of the proposed rule
change (underwriting, transaction and technology fees) constitute
approximately 80% of the MSRB's FY 2018 budgeted revenue. As the most
significant contributors to MSRB funding, as well as being market based
and historically contributing more than budgeted, these three fees are
the primary drivers for the excess reserves.\7\ While the fees
generated from municipal advisors contribute to the MSRB's budget, the
fees charged for this newly regulated category of professionals remain
relatively modest and do not yet meet target revenues.\8\ Accordingly,
the Board determined that these three fees exclusively should be
temporarily reduced for the designated period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Reserves also grew due to fine revenue, a new revenue source
first provided in 2010 under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act. See 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(c)(9).
\8\ See Release No. 34-81841 (Oct. 10, 2017), 82 FR 48135, 48138
(Oct. 16, 2017) (File No. SR-MSRB-2017-07) (noting that the target
revenue to be generated from the municipal advisor fee under Rule A-
11 was approximately $2 million, or approximately 5% of the total
MSRB revenues). At present, the municipal advisor professional fee
generates approximately $1.5 million, or 4% of the MSRB's Fiscal
Year 2018 budgeted revenues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the initiation of the Board's holistic review of fees, MSRB
reserves continued to grow due to strong revenue results compared to
budget, as well as expense savings, and bolstered reserve levels to the
point where another rebate was warranted in 2016. That year, the MSRB
rebated $5.5 million of excess reserves to dealers who were assessed
underwriting, transaction and technology fees during the first nine
months of the fiscal year. In total, $9.1 million was returned to
dealers in fee rebates since 2014. However, the fee rebates were not
without their operational challenges. Industry feedback suggested that
underwriting fee rebates can be problematic due to inherent
complications of processing and potentially redistributing pro rata
shares to syndicate members. Moreover, the MSRB believes that the
approach taken in the proposed rule change (i.e., a temporary reduction
in dealer fees) would be fairer than another alternative approach, such
as a fee holiday. For a fee holiday, the MSRB would forego charging
fees for one month--but, because of the difficulties in selecting a
single month that is representative of dealer activity for all dealers
subject to the relevant fees, the MSRB believes that a temporary fee
reduction that occurs over the course of several months is more likely
to lead to a fair and equitable fee reduction across dealers.
Accordingly, the Board has determined that a temporary three-month fee
reduction, rather than a fee rebate or fee holiday, is a preferable
mode of reducing its reserves.
The Board strives to be fiscally responsible. Since approximately
80% of the Board's revenue sources are market based, which is
inherently unpredictable and largely has exceeded budget, and the Board
has a historical track record of managing expenses to below budget,
reserves continue to grow. The Board seeks to strike the right balance
in fee assessments to maintain sufficient reserves to ensure fiscal
sustainability, while providing relief to regulated entities that have
contributed
[[Page 37540]]
to the excess reserves position. The temporary three-month fee
reduction continues these ongoing efforts.
2. Statutory Basis
The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 15B(b)(2)(J) of the Act \9\ which states that the MSRB's rules
shall:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(J).
provide that each municipal securities broker, municipal securities
dealer, and municipal advisor shall pay to the Board such reasonable
fees and charges as may be necessary or appropriate to defray the
costs and expenses of operating and administering the Board. Such
rules shall specify the amount of such fees and charges, which may
include charges for failure to submit to the Board, or to any
information system operated by the Board, within the prescribed
timeframes, any items of information or documents required to be
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
submitted under any rule issued by the Board.
The MSRB believes that its rules provide for reasonable dues, fees,
and other charges among regulated entities. The MSRB believes that the
proposed rule change is necessary and appropriate to fund the operation
and administration of the Board and satisfies the requirements of
Section 15B(b)(2)(J),\10\ achieving a more equitable balance of fees
among regulated entities and a fairer allocation of the expenses of the
regulatory activities, system development, and operational activities
undertaken by the MSRB because it temporarily decreases fees for the
regulated entities that financially contribute the greatest to the cost
of MSRB activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described above, current reserve levels exceed targets, but
looking forward to FY 2020, the MSRB's pro formas project reserves to
fall modestly below targeted levels with the temporary fee reduction.
As a result, the MSRB believes that it is preferable to temporarily
reduce fees rather than take an alternative approach, such as a
permanent fee reduction. Also, the MSRB believes a temporary fee
reduction is preferable to a fee rebate because it would be
operationally easier for dealers as dealers would be able to
incorporate temporarily reduced fee rates into their business processes
in advance rather than receive a rebate associated with past activity
that may need to be redistributed through or across organizations.
Finally, the MSRB believes that the proposed rule change would achieve
a more equitable balance among regulated entities and a fairer
allocation of the MSRB's expenses because the three fees that are the
subject of the proposed rule change, representing approximately 80% of
the MSRB's FY 2018 revenue budget, have contributed most to funding
operations of the MSRB and concurrently contributed the most to the
current reserve levels.
While the MSRB has progressively budgeted for municipal advisor
fees to defray a greater portion of the cost of the MSRB's municipal
advisor-related activity,\11\ municipal advisor fees have comprised a
very small portion of the MSRB's revenues and have not contributed to
the MSRB's excess reserves position. For these same reasons, the
beneficiaries of the proposed rule change are generally the same group
of regulated entities that received the fee rebates in 2014 and 2016,
as described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See supra n. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition
Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act \12\ requires that MSRB rules not
be designed to impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Board's policy on the use of economic analysis limits its
applications regarding those rules for which the Board seeks immediate
effectiveness.\13\ However, an internal analysis is still conducted to
gauge the economic impact, with an emphasis on the burden on
competition involving regulated entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The scope of the Board's policy on the use of economic
analysis in rulemaking provides that:
[t]his Policy addresses rulemaking activities of the MSRB that
culminate, or are expected to culminate, in a filing of a proposed
rule change with the SEC under Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act,
other than a proposed rule change that the MSRB reasonably believes
would qualify for immediate effectiveness under Section 19(b)(3)(A)
of the Exchange Act if filed as such or as otherwise provided under
the exception process of this Policy.
Policy on the Use of Economic Analysis in MSRB Rulemaking,
available at https://msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/Economic-Analysis-Policy.aspx. For those rule changes which the MSRB seeks
immediate effectiveness, the MSRB usually focuses exclusively its
examination on the burden of competition on regulated entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this regard, the Board believes the proposed rule change is
necessary and appropriate to promote fairness in funding the operation
and administration of the Board and would achieve a more equitable
balance among regulated entities and a more balanced allocation of the
expenses of the regulatory activities, system development, and
operational activities undertaken by the MSRB. Because the three fees
that are the subject of the proposed rule change (underwriting,
transaction and technology fees) are the primary drivers for the MSRB's
excess reserves, the Board believes that it is appropriate to
temporarily reduce these fees for the designated period.
The MSRB 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, as it would temporarily
decrease by the same percentage the underwriting, transaction and
technology fees for all dealers subject to these fees.
The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change would not impose an
unnecessary or inappropriate regulatory burden on small regulated
entities, as smaller dealers would benefit from the temporary fee
reduction in the same proportion as larger dealers in relation to the
assessible activity during the relevant three-month period.
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
The foregoing proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \14\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)\15\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
\15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 [email protected]. Please
include File Number SR-MSRB-2018-06 on the subject line.
[[Page 37541]]
Paper Comments
Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2018-06. 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 website (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 website 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 the MSRB. All comments received
will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2018-06 and should be submitted on
or before August 22, 2018.
For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-16419 Filed 7-31-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P