[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