[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 222 (Friday, November 18, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-28498]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: November 18, 1994]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-34955; File No. SR-MSRB-94-9]

 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Order Approving Proposed Rule 
Change by the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board Relating to Reports 
of Sales or Purchases, and Procedures for Reporting Inter-dealer 
Transactions Pursuant to Rule G-14

November 9, 1994.

I. Introduction

    On June 20, 1994, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board 
(``MSRB'' or ``Board'') filed with the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') a proposal to amend Board rule 
G-14, concerning reports of sales or purchases, and procedures for 
reporting inter-dealer transactions (collectively, ``the proposed rule 
change'').\1\ The proposed rule change states that it is the duty of 
brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers to report 
transactions in municipal securities to the Board or its designee, and 
describes procedures for reporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\In a recent letter to the Commission, the MSRB stated that it 
plans to start operation of the pilot transaction reporting system 
for trades occurring on and after January 1, 1995. This letter also 
outlines the MSRB's four-phase plan, of which the present filing 
reflects Phase I, for more contemporaneous reporting of all 
municipal securities transactions. See letter from Robert H. 
Drysdale, Chairman, MSRB, to The Honorable Arthur Levitt, Chairman, 
SEC, dated November 3, 1994 (``MSRB November 1994 letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change was published for comment in Securities 
Exchange Act Release No. 34458 (July 28, 1994), 59 FR 39803 (August 4, 
1994) (``Proposing Release''). The Commission received four comments on 
the proposal. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission has 
determined to approve the proposal.

II. Description of the Proposal

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to increase transparency 
in the municipal securities market in a cost-effective manner by 
collecting and disseminating information on inter-dealer transactions. 
Under the proposed rule change, aggregate data about market activity 
and certain volume and price information about frequently traded 
securities will be disseminated publicly to promote investor confidence 
in the market and its pricing mechanisms. In addition, all transaction 
information collected will be made available to regulatory agencies 
responsible for enforcement of Board rules as a means to assist in the 
inspection for compliance with and enforcement of Board rules.
    The proposed rule change is a first step to increase transparency 
in the municipal securities market. After gaining experience with the 
collection and dissemination of inter-dealer transactions, the Board 
plans to add institutional and retail customer information, and to move 
toward the ultimate goal of making available transaction information 
that is both comprehensive and contemporaneous.

A. The Pilot Program for Transaction Reporting

    In 1993, the Board announced its plan to undertake a pilot program 
to collect and publish information on transactions occurring in the 
inter-dealer market for municipal securities (the ``pilot program''). 
The Board has designed the pilot program to take into account the 
distinctive aspects of the municipal securities market that distinguish 
it from the exchange-listed and Nasdaq markets.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\In its filing with the Commission, the Board notes several 
distinguishing characteristics of the municipal securities market. 
First, there is a large number of outstanding municipal issues 
(approximately 1.2 million distinct, non-fungible entities), with no 
core group of frequently, consistently traded issues. Also, most 
municipal securities purchases are made by ``buy and hold'' 
investors relatively quickly after issuance, so frequent trading in 
an issue generally occurs immediately after issuance and then 
subsides within a week to 10 days. Finally, firm two-sided 
quotations exist for very few municipal securities at any given time 
due to several disincentives for market making: (1) there is only a 
small ``float'' of securities available for trading; (2) the tax 
treatment of borrowing tax-exempt securities (along with small 
floats) effectively prevents short-sales, thereby limiting risk 
management mechanisms; and (3) the traditional ``buy and hold'' 
philosophy of purchasers does not provide the incentive or create 
the need for continuous two-sided quotations traditionally offered 
by market makers in equity securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The pilot program will make information available in the form of a 
daily, public report containing volume and pricing information for the 
inter-dealer market (``daily report''). The issues that will be 
reported individually each day will be those that traded at or above a 
threshold number of times on the previous business day. Initially the 
threshold will be four trades per day. As trading in an issue 
increases, it will be reported; as an issue's trading frequency 
decreases, it will be replaced by others that are trading frequently. 
In this way, the daily report will reflect the ever-changing pattern of 
trading activity in the universe of some 1.2 million municipal 
securities. The pilot program also will make information on all inter-
dealer trades in municipal securities available to the Commission and 
other regulatory agencies to assist in the inspection for compliance 
with and the enforcement of Board rules.

B. Requirement to Report

    While there is an existing requirement for dealers to report their 
inter-dealer trades for comparison, there is no existing affirmative 
requirement for public reporting of municipal securities transactions. 
Currently, the Board's rule G-14 does not require the reporting of 
transactions in municipal securities, but does require that any such 
report represent a legitimate trade. The rule requires a dealer that 
distributes or publishes a report of a transaction in a municipal 
security to know or have reason to believe that the transaction was 
actually effected and to have no reason to believe that the transaction 
was fictitious or in furtherance of any fraudulent, misleading or 
deceptive purpose.
    The proposed rule change would amend rule G-14 to impose a duty 
upon dealers to report inter-dealer transaction information to the 
Board or its designee. The proposal states that such information would 
be used to make public reports and would be provided to the Commission, 
the NASD, and bank regulatory organizations charged with enforcing 
Board rules, i.e., the Comptroller of the Currency in the case of 
national banks, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in 
the case of state member banks of the Federal Reserve System, and the 
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (``FDIC'') in the case of other 
banks insured by the FDIC.

C. Reporting Procedures

    Brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers will report 
transactions under Rule G-14 Transaction Reporting Procedures, which 
are also part of the proposed rule change. The transaction reporting 
procedures designate the National Securities Clearing Corporation 
(``NSCC'') as the Board's agent to receive transaction information.\3\ 
Thus, the Board will receive information under the proposed procedures 
through NSCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\NSCC is a clearing agency registered with the Commission 
under Section 17A of the Act and is the central facility for 
automated comparison processing for inter-dealer municipal 
securities transactions. Automated comparison is the process by 
which each party to an inter-dealer trade ensures that its contra-
party knows the terms of the trade and will be ready to settle, on 
those terms, on settlement date. In general, the automated 
comparison process requires each dealer in a transaction to submit 
information on a trade (e.g., price, quantity, contra-party) to a 
comparison system operated by a clearing agency registered with the 
Commission. This information is then matched (``compared'') by 
computer in the comparison system and the results are reported back 
to each dealer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, pursuant to the Board's rule G-12(f)(i), dealers must 
use the facilities of a registered clearing agency to compare all 
inter-dealer transactions in securities with CUSIP numbers. Since NSCC 
and all other registered clearing agencies offering municipal 
securities comparison services are linked by automated interfaces, 
transactions may be submitted to NSCC by submitting them to any 
registered clearing agency. Accordingly, the proposed procedures state 
that dealers may provide transaction information to NSCC or to any 
other registered clearing agency linked with NSCC for the purpose of 
automated comparison. Dealers may submit transaction information 
directly or through an agent that is a member of the registered 
clearing agency. These proposed procedures are essentially the same as 
those existing under Board rule G-12(f)(i). Thus, under the proposed 
program, dealers will not have to submit transaction data to a separate 
reporting system and should not incur additional operational costs. 
Also under the proposed procedures, dealers must report the requisite 
transactions within certain time frames so that they compare for next 
day comparison.
    Pursuant to existing Board rule G-12(f)(i) for the comparison of 
transactions, and under the present proposal, the following data must 
be furnished to a registered clearing agency in connection with any 
inter-dealer municipal securities transaction:

Identification of seller
Identification of buyer
Trade date
CUSIP number of security traded
Trade type (e.g., syndicate takedown, new issue, or regular way)
Par value (quantity) traded
Settlement date, if not ``regular way''
Price, in one of the following formats:
    Dollar price of security;
    ``Final money'' (total dollar amount of the transaction);
    Yield or basis and concession, if any.\4\

    \4\Currently, accrued interest is an optical data element for 
the purpose of the automated comparison process. However, accrued 
interest will be a mandatory submission for the purpose of 
transaction reporting pursuant to the Rule G-14 Transaction 
Reporting Procedures. This requirement is necessary for accurate 
computation of dollar price in certain circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With one exception, NSCC automated comparison procedures require 
both the purchasing and selling dealers to submit information about the 
trade. Thus, the proposed reporting procedures require transaction 
information to be submitted by both parties. For transactions involving 
the distribution of new issue securities from a syndicate manager to 
syndicate members, however, NSCC comparison procedures require only a 
submission from the syndicate manager. The proposed procedures allow 
for the same ``one-sided'' submission of information for public 
reporting.

D. Timing

    In the current comparison cycle, dealers submit required 
information to a registered clearing agency by the evening of trade 
date (``T''). NSCC, as the central facilities provider for the 
comparison system, accepts this submitted data, compares the 
submissions of the parties on the right of T and reports the results 
back to the dealers on T+1. Trades that are successfully compared on T 
will be the basis of the daily report produced by the Board's proposed 
program. Accordingly, trades that are not successfully compared on the 
night of the trade will not be subject to reporting on T+1.\5\ As an 
indication of the reliability of the data in the daily report, the 
percentage of submissions that were successfully compared (``comparison 
rate'') will be shown in each day's report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\The Board determined to use data for compared trades rather 
than data for both compared and uncompared trades because compared 
data is more reliable than uncompared data. Reported uncompared data 
might cause the daily report to include erroneous prices or to 
duplicate trades. Uncompared submissions eventually are resolved as 
trades or mistakes. Those that are resolved as trades will be 
entered in the transaction reporting database after T+1 and thus 
will be made available to the enforcement agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. The Daily Report

    The daily report will be provided to subscribers for public use by 
approximately 6:00 a.m. on T+1. This will make the data available prior 
to the beginning of trading activity. The daily report will be 
available both as a computer-readable file and as a printed report. The 
computer-readable file will be electronically disseminated by an 
automated interface between Board computers and those of subscribers or 
by magnetic tape delivered by a courier service.
    The daily report will include aggregate information for each day of 
trade, as follows:

    (i) total par value traded;
    (ii) total number of compared transactions; and
    (iii) total number of issues traded (i.e., the number of 
different CUSIP numbers that were involved in compared transactions 
on that day).

    In addition to the aggregate data, the daily report will contain 
price and volume information about certain municipal securities that 
were ``frequently traded'' on that day. The Board believes that it 
would be appropriate to report issue-specific information only if four 
or more transactions in the issue are reported as compared on a given 
day. Using this threshold and based on recent levels of market 
activity, the Board anticipates that the daily list of frequently 
traded issues normally will range between 80 to 350 issues, with an 
average of about 180 issues each day. The size and composition of the 
list obviously would vary from day to day, depending upon market 
activity in specific cases.
    The information in the daily report about each ``frequently 
traded'' security will include:

    (i) the CUSIP number and security's description;
    (ii) the total number of transactions in the security and total 
volume traded;
    (iii) the highest and lowest prices of transactions in the 
security; and
    (iv) ``average price'' information, i.e., the number of 
transactions in the security involving par values between $100,000 
and $1,000,000 inclusive, and the average price of those 
transactions.

    The Board will provide a statement to be included in the report 
pointing out that (a) the daily report represents only those inter-
dealer transactions that have been submitted for comparison and that 
actually were compared on the previous day and (b) reported prices are 
affected by various factors such as transaction size. This statement is 
intended to ensure that readers unfamiliar with the municipal 
securities market do not misinterpret the daily report.

F. Price Computation

    Municipal securities transactions are sometimes executed on a 
dollar price basis and sometimes executed on a yield basis. The Board 
has chosen to use dollar price as the uniform expression of ``price'' 
in the daily report to simplify reporting procedures. In cases where 
dollar price is submitted for comparison, that dollar price, as 
compared by the comparison system, will be used in the daily report. In 
certain cases the security ``price'' for the daily report will need to 
be computed from other data that has been submitted. For example, 
current procedures required for automated comparison allow the 
submission of par value and ``final money'' (total dollar amount of the 
transaction) to achieve comparison. The proposed Rule G-14 Transaction 
Reporting Procedures provide that the dealers will submit the amount of 
accrued interest in the trade to allow for computation of dollar price 
in these cases. The following formula will be used:

Dollar price=(Final money-Accrued interest) / Par value

    For ``when, as and if issued'' trades submitted for comparison on a 
yield basis, final money will be computed and a dollar price similarly 
derived if a settlement date is known. For yield transactions whose 
settlement date is not known, an assumed settlement date will be used. 
The assumed settlement date will be 20 business days from the first 
trade date on which that issue is submitted for comparison. On the 
daily report, a note will be added to the trade information stating 
that an assumed settlement date was used to compute the dollar price in 
the trade and showing the date used. Once the actual settlement date is 
known to NSCC, it will be used and noted as such when the issue is next 
included on a daily report.

G. Fees and Costs

    Subscription fees, estimated production costs for the daily report, 
and further technical details of the pilot program will be provided in 
a subsequent filing prior to beginning operation of the facility.

H. Surveillance and Enforcement Uses of Pilot Program Information

    In addition to public reporting, the proposed rule change would 
make transaction data available to the regulatory organizations charged 
with enforcing Board rules. The transaction reporting pilot program 
will result in a centralized data base of trade information that should 
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of inspection for compliance 
with and enforcement of Board rules. All compared trades will be made 
available to these regulatory organizations, including those that 
compare after trade date and those not frequently traded. Comprehensive 
information will be made available, including identification of parties 
to each trade and the prices of all securities traded.
    The information to be made available through the pilot program 
should enable enforcement agencies to identify transaction patterns to 
detect market manipulation and other anomalies, and should assist 
regulators in determining the market value of securities as they assess 
compliance with the Board's rule G-30 on fair and reasonable prices and 
commissions. The Proposing Release states that the Board is working 
with the NASD and the banking regulatory organizations to ensure that 
the pilot system's outputs will meet their requirements for 
surveillance of the municipal securities market and enforcement of the 
Board's rules.
    As stated in the Proposing Release, the Board plans to evaluate 
expansion of the pilot program as experience is gained and comments on 
program operations are received from information users and the 
industry. The Board's first consideration will be how the daily report 
and surveillance mechanisms could be improved by including 
institutional customer transaction data and information on the time of 
trade. During this evaluation, the Board's goal will be not only to 
enhance the information contained in the daily report, but also to find 
cost-effective methods for providing even greater levels of 
transparency to the market, particularly with respect to customer 
transactions and the dissemination of transaction price information on 
a more contemporaneous basis.

III. Comment Letters Received

    The Commission received four comment letters on the proposed rule 
change.\6\ As discussed more fully below, two commenters voiced support 
for the MSRB initiative, one commenter recommended specific format 
elements for the information to be disseminated without voicing support 
or opposition to the overall proposal, and one commenter stated that it 
is very interested in participating in the MSRB pilot project, yet is 
concerned about the manner in which certain trades are to be 
counted.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\Of these letters, three were submitted directly to the 
Commission. See letters from Douglas L. Kelly, Director--Law 
Compliance Division, A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., to Office of the 
Secretary, SEC, dated August 22, 1994 (``A.G. Edwards letter''); 
from Thomas W. Masterson, Chairman, Masterson Moreland Sauer 
Whisman, Inc., to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, SEC, dated August 24, 
1994 (``Masterson letter''); and from R. Fenn Putnam, Chairman, 
Public Securities Association, to Secretary, SEC, dated September 9, 
1994 (``PSA letter''). The fourth letter was submitted to the MSRB 
and forwarded to the Commission along with the Board's response. See 
letters from Peter C. Byram, Senior Vice President, Executive 
Director of Trading, J.J. Kenny Drake, Inc., to Mr. Christopher A. 
Taylor, Executive Director, MSRB, dated September 15, 1994 (``J.J. 
Kenny Drake Letter''); and from Christopher A. Taylor, Executive 
Director, MSRB, to Mr. Peter C. Byram, Senior Vice President, 
Executive Director of Trading, J.J. Kenny Drake, Inc., dated 
September 28, 1994 (``MSRB response letter'').
    \7\In its filing with the Commission, the MSRB discussed comment 
letters it had received in response to a May 1993 MSRB notice 
published in the June 1993 MSRB Reports, concerning the plan to 
increase transparency in the municipal securities market. For a 
detailed discussion of the letters received by the MSRB prior to 
filing the present proposed rule change with the Commission, see 
Proposing Release, 59 FR 39803.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter voiced its full support of the MSRB's Pilot Program 
concerning inter-dealer transactions in municipal securities, and 
stated that it looks forward to working with the Board and the 
Commission in examining the ramifications of the next phases of the 
MSRB's transparency plans (i.e., the creation of cost effective methods 
for providing greater transparency of customer transactions and the 
dissemination of transaction price information on a more 
contemporaneous basis).\8\ Another commenter voiced its strong support 
for the MSRB initiative, and stated that it also would support any 
technically feasible acceleration of the timetable for subsequent 
phases of the MSRB's transparency plans.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\See PSA letter, supra note 6.
    \9\See Masterson letter, supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters made recommendations regarding particular elements 
of the proposal. First, one commenter believes it is important at this 
early stage of the MSRB initiative to ensure that securities listed on 
the NSCC's transaction reports will be identified in a way that is 
readable to the public (i.e. by using standardized securities 
descriptions, by sorting the reported information by state, and by 
displaying the information in plain text).\10\ The commenter also 
suggested that a separate field for each security be reserved to 
identify whether a security is insured.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\See A.G. Edwards letter, supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fourth commenter stated that any transaction occurring through 
a ``brokers' broker'' should be counted as one trade for the purposes 
of transaction reporting. The commenter believes that brokers' broker 
transactions are the same as dealer-to-dealer transactions for the 
purposes of transaction counting because in both cases there has been 
one decision to commit capital at the transaction price.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\See J.J. Kenny Drake letter, supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its response to the above letter, the MSRB first noted that 
brokers' brokers function in the market by executing ``riskless'' 
transactions between dealers.\12\ The MSRB also confirmed that, when a 
brokers' broker arranges an exchange of securities at a given price 
between two dealers, the pilot system will count the exchange as two 
trades. Moreover, if two exchanges occur, the pilot system will reflect 
four trades, thereby meeting the four-trade threshold that triggers 
dissemination in the daily report. The MSRB stated that previously it 
had voiced concern that reporting transactions in issues that trade 
below the four-trade threshold might not provide a reliable indicator 
of market price. The letter stated that the Board, however, is not 
aware of any reason that the ultimate goal of reporting reliable market 
price indicators would be affected by reporting transactions that might 
not have been reported if effected directly between dealers. The Board 
further stated that, in many respects, it might be argued that 
transactions occurring through brokers' brokers represent particularly 
reliable indicators of inter-dealer prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\See MSRB response letter, supra note 6. In this letter, the 
MSRB also describes typical brokers' broker activity:
    [A] brokers' broker may buy a security from one or more dealers 
and sell that same security to one or more dealers on a given day; 
however, the brokers' broker takes care to do this in a way that 
ensures all securities purchased are also sold on that same day. In 
a typical transaction, a brokers' broker might work with a dealer 
who wishes to sell a quantity of securities. The brokers' broker 
would disseminate a request for bids on this issue to the market. If 
the selling dealer desires to execute the sale at the highest bid to 
the brokers' broker, the sale will take place, with the brokers' 
broker accepting the high bid, buying the position from the selling 
dealer and selling the position to the purchasing dealer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Board noted that the transaction reporting project is 
a pilot program and that it is likely to be changed or expanded as 
market participants gain experience with reporting a limited number of 
inter-dealer transactions. According to the MSRB response letter, 
during the pilot period, the Board will consider whether the threshold 
is at its best setting and will be sensitive to any anomalies that 
might be discovered involving brokers' brokers.

IV. Discussion

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent 
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations 
thereunder applicable to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board and, 
in particular, with the requirements of Section 15B.\13\ Specifically, 
the Commission believes the proposal is consistent with the 
requirements of Section 15B(b)(2)(C) that the Board's rules be 
designed, among other things, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative 
acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, 
to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open 
market in municipal securities, and, in general, to protect investors 
and the public interest.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\15 U.S.C. Sec. 78f(b) (1988).
    \14\15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding transparency in the municipal securities markets, a 1993 
Staff Report by the Commission's Division of Market Regulation stated:

    The Staff believes that the degree of transparency in the 
municipal securities market is not adequate, and should be increased 
to better inform investors in their dealings with broker-dealers and 
to make the market more efficient. . . .[T]he Staff believes that 
the Commission or the MSRB should take steps to increase the 
availability of real-time municipal information, to the fullest 
extent practicable, taking into account the cost of providing such 
information and its relative usefulness.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\SEC, Division of Market Regulation, Staff Report on the 
Municipal Securities Market (September 1993) (``Staff Report''), at 
36.

    The Commission believes the proposal is an important first step in 
reaching these objectives.\16\ The Commission also believes the MSRB 
should continue to work toward increased transparency to better inform 
investors in their dealings with broker-dealers and to make the 
municipal securities market more efficient. Finally, the Commission 
believes that, as the MSRB completes each of the four phases of its 
plan for increased transparency, including the first phase proposed in 
the present filing, the increased information available to oversight 
organizations and to the market participants as a whole should serve to 
better meet the objectives set forth in Section 15B(b)(2)(C) cited 
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\As noted above, the proposed rule change is intended to be a 
first step to increase transparency in the municipal securities 
market. After gaining experience with the collection and 
dissemination of inter-dealer transactions, the Board plans to 
continue implementing its four-phase initiative to add institutional 
and retail customer information, and to move toward the ultimate 
goal of making available transaction information that is both 
comprehensive and contemporaneous. The specific steps planned by the 
MSRB, along with a tentative schedule for the enhancements, are 
described in the MSRB November 1994 letter, supra note 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes the comment letters received both by the 
Commission and by the MSRB on the proposed pilot program evidence one 
of the several ways in which the proposed procedures should serve to a 
benefit the municipal securities markets. Specifically, publication of 
the proposal seems to have activated an important dialogue among market 
participants and the MSRB which should lead to beneficial evaluations 
of the types and forms of transaction information that may prove most 
useful to the public. Thus, the Commission believes the MSRB should 
continue to consider carefully all existing and future comments 
recommending changes in the types and formats of information to be 
disseminated. Comments on elements of the program that identify 
transaction information to be disseminated, including the threshold 
number of trades and the average price calculation band that trigger 
inclusion in the daily report, along with concerns regarding double-
counting of brokers' brokers trades, should continue to be evaluated by 
the MSRB. This evaluation process should continue to prove useful as 
the MSRB initiates future phases of the transparency plans.
    In considering comments on this and future transparency 
initiatives, the MSRB should continue to work toward publicly 
disseminating the maximum level of useful information to the public 
while ensuring that the information and manner in which it is presented 
is not misleading. In this regard, the Commission believes the MSRB 
should continue to consider all recommendations for standardized 
disclosures to be included in the daily report so that the disseminated 
information may be used most effectively by the public. Moreover, as 
increased transaction information becomes available to municipal 
securities information vendors, the Commission believes levels of 
demand for information, including demand by academics, should assist in 
formulating beneficial formats for its dissemination. Finally, the 
Commission expects the MSRB to consider all requests for accelerated 
initiation of future phases for market transparency.
    The Commission believes the proposed distribution of municipal 
securities transaction information to oversight authorities also 
furthers the above cited Section 15B(b)(2)(C) objectives.\17\ The 
creation of an integrated audit trail should provide valuable 
information for market surveillance and inspection purposes to the 
MSRB, the Commission, the NASD, and the relevant banking agencies. 
Specifically, the Commission believes that, as more market participants 
become subject to mandatory trade reporting requirements, the resulting 
integrated audit trail should be useful in municipal securities market 
surveillance efforts to detect and prevent fraudulent and manipulative 
acts and practices, and generally to protect investors and the public 
interest.\18\ Finally, the Commission believes the proposed method of 
collecting and using information already made available to NSCC by 
market participants should be a particularly cost-effective method of 
achieving these goals during the first phase of the pilot system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\The Commission, however, is issuing this order provided 
that, before January 1, 1995, the MSRB provides the Commission with 
data concerning the hardware platform and software development to be 
used to produce the audit trail (and any necessary systems to 
produce the daily report or related public dissemination of 
information), along with assurances that the system has been tested 
adequately and has adequate capacity.
    \18\The Commission staff previously has urged municipal 
securities regulators to work to create a cost-effective trade 
reporting system to provide the regulators with an integrated audit 
trail of municipal securities transactions, particularly because the 
audit trail would increase the NASD's ability to examine and enforce 
the existing customer protection rules of the Commission and the 
NASD. See Staff Report, supra note 15, at 37. In this regard, the 
Commission expects the Board to continue working with the NASD and 
the banking regulatory organizations to ensure that the pilot 
system's outputs will meet their requirements for surveillance of 
the municipal securities market and enforcement of the Board's 
rules. The Commission also believes the NASD should be the primary 
entity responsible for conducting market surveillance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the 
Act,\19\ that the proposed rule change (SR-MSRB-94-09) is approved.

    \19\15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2) (1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12) (1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 94-28498 Filed 11-17-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M