[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 57 (Friday, March 22, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11913-11929]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6970]



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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-36980; File No. SR-NASD-95-63]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule 
Change by National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. Relating to 
Regulating the Conduct of Broker/Dealers Operating on the Premises of a 
Financial Institution

March 15, 1996.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 
(``1934 Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on December 28, 1995, 
the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (``NASD'' or 
``Association'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission 
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in 
Items I, II, and III below, which Items

[[Page 11914]]
have been prepared by the NASD. The filing was subsequently amended on 
January 24, January 29 and March 7, 1996.2 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\ See Letters from Elliott R. Curzon, Associate General 
Counsel, NASD, to Mark P. Barracca, Branch Chief, Division of Market 
Regulation, SEC (January 24, 1996 and March 7, 1996) and Letter from 
Suzanne E. Rothwell, Associate General Counsel, NASD, to Mark P. 
Barracca, Branch Chief, Division of Market Regulation, SEC (January 
29, 1996). This notice reflects those amendments. The text of the 
amendments may be examined in the Commission's Public Reference 
Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of 
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The NASD is proposing to add a new section specifying requirements 
for broker/dealer conduct on the premises of a financial institution. 
Below is the text of the proposed rule change.

RULES OF FAIR PRACTICE

Broker/Dealer Conduct on the Premises of Financial Institutions

    Sec. ____________.
(a) Applicability
    This section shall apply exclusively to those broker/dealer 
services conducted by members on the premises of a financial 
institution where retail deposits are taken. This section does not 
alter or abrogate members' obligations to comply with other applicable 
NASD rules, regulations, and requirements, nor those of other 
regulatory authorities that may govern members operating on the 
premises of financial institutions.
(b) Definitions
    (1) For purposes of this section, the term ``financial 
institution'' shall mean federal and state-chartered banks, savings and 
loan associations, savings banks, credit unions, and the service 
corporations required by law of such institutions.
    (2) ``Networking arrangement'' and ``brokerage affiliate 
arrangement'' shall mean a contractual arrangement between a member and 
a financial institution pursuant to which the member conducts broker/
dealer services for customers of the financial institution and the 
general public on the premises of such financial institution where 
retail deposits are taken.
    (3) ``Affiliate'' shall mean a company which controls, is 
controlled by or is under common control with a member as defined in 
Schedule E of the By-Laws.
    (4) ``Broker/dealer services'' shall mean the investment banking or 
securities business as defined in Paragraph (l) of Article I of the By-
Laws.
    (5) ``Confidential financial information'' shall not include:
    (A) customers' names, addresses, and telephone numbers, unless a 
customer specifies otherwise; or
    (B) information that can be obtained from unaffiliated credit 
bureaus or similar companies in the ordinary course of business.
(c) Standards for Member Conduct
    No member shall conduct broker/dealer services on the premises of a 
financial institution unless the member complies initially and 
continuously with the following requirements:

Setting

    (1) Wherever possible, the member's broker/dealer services shall be 
conducted in a physical location distinct from the area where the 
financial institution's retail deposits are taken. In all situations, 
members shall identify the member's broker/dealer services in a manner 
that is clearly distinguished from the financial institution's retail 
deposit-taking activities. The member's name shall be clearly displayed 
in the area in which the member conducts its broker/dealer services.

Networking and Brokerage Affiliate Agreements

    (2) Networking and brokerage affiliate arrangements between a 
member and a financial institution must be governed by a written 
agreement that sets forth the responsibilities of the parties and the 
compensation arrangements. The member must ensure the agreement 
stipulates that:
    (A) supervisory personnel of the member and representatives of the 
Securities and Exchange Commission and the Association will be 
permitted access to the financial institution's premises where the 
member conducts broker/dealer services in order to inspect the books 
and records and other relevant information maintained by the member 
with respect to its broker/dealer services;
    (B) unregistered employees of the financial institution will not 
receive any compensation, cash or non-cash, that is conditioned on 
whether a referral of a customer of the financial institution to the 
member results in a transaction; and
    (C) the member will notify the financial institution if any 
associated person of the member who is employed by the financial 
institution is terminated for cause by the member.

Compensation of Registered/Unregistered Persons

    (3) The member shall not provide cash or non-cash compensation to 
employees of the financial institution who are not registered with an 
NASD member in connection with, but not limited to, locating, 
introducing, or referring customers of the financial institution to the 
member.

Customer Disclosure and Written Acknowledgment

    (4) (A) When a customer account is opened by a broker/dealer on the 
premises of a financial institution where retail deposits are taken, 
the member shall disclose, orally and in writing, that the securities 
products purchased or sold in a transaction with the member:
    (i) are not insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 
(``FDIC'') or other applicable deposit insurance;
    (ii) are not deposits or other obligations of the financial 
institution and are not guaranteed by the financial institution; and
    (iii) are subject to investment risks, including possible loss of 
the principal invested.
    (B) For all accounts opened by a broker/dealer on the premises of a 
financial institution where retail deposits are taken, the member shall 
make reasonable efforts to obtain from each customer during the account 
opening process a written acknowledgement of the disclosures required 
by Subsections (c)(4)(A) (i) through (iii).

Use of Confidential Financial Information

    (5) The member shall not use confidential financial information 
provided by the financial institution regarding its customer unless 
prior written approval has been granted by the customer to release the 
information.

Communications With the Public

    (6) (A) All member communications regarding customers' securities 
transactions and long and short positions, including confirmations and 
account statements, must indicate clearly that the broker/dealer 
services are provided by the member. Communications that include 
information regarding non-deposit-insured transactions and positions 
with the member and deposit-insured transactions and positions or 
accounts with the financial institution should distinguish clearly 
between the two. Securities transactions conducted by the member should 
be introduced with the member's identity and, at a minimum, the member 
must disclose that

[[Page 11915]]
securities products: are not insured by the FDIC or other applicable 
deposit insurance; are not deposits or other obligations of the 
financial institution and are not guaranteed by the financial 
institution; are subject to investment risks, including possible loss 
of the principal invested.
    (B) Advertisements, sales literature, and other similar materials 
issued by the member that relate exclusively to its broker/dealer 
services will be deemed to be the materials of the member and must 
indicate prominently the identity of the member providing the broker/
dealer services. The financial institution may be referenced in a 
nonprominent manner in advertising or promotional materials for the 
purpose of identifying the location where broker/dealer services are 
available and, where appropriate, to disclose a material relationship 
between the member and the financial institution, for example, where 
the member is affiliated with a financial institution that serves as 
investment adviser to an open-end investment company (``mutual fund'').
    (C) Advertisements, sales literature, and other similar materials 
jointly issued by the member and a financial institution that discuss 
services or products offered by both entities must distinguish clearly 
the products and services offered by the financial institution from 
those offered by the member. The name of the member must be displayed 
prominently in the section of the materials that describes the broker/
dealer services offered by the member, which section will be deemed 
materials of the member.

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 NASD 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 NASD 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) Background
    In recent years, banks, savings and loan associations, credit 
unions and similar financial institutions not registered as a broker/
dealer under the 1934 Act (``financial institutions'') have expanded 
their business into retail securities sales. These institutions 
generally conduct such activities through affiliated broker/dealers or 
non-affiliated broker/dealers operating under a brokerage affiliate or 
networking arrangement. In addition, however, banks are exempt from the 
definitions of the terms ``broker'' and ``dealer'' in Sections 3(a)(4) 
and 3(a)(5), respectively, of the 1934 Act, and thus are not required 
to register as broker/dealers when selling securities.
    As these securities activities have expanded and financial 
institutions have placed securities sales facilities in their retail 
deposit taking areas, customers of the financial institutions have 
become increasingly confused about the distinction between the insured 
deposit products of the financial institution and the uninsured 
securities products of the broker/dealer operating in the same 
location.
    In order to address this customer confusion problem, the NASD has 
published several notices reminding members of their obligations under 
the federal securities laws and the NASD's rules when selling 
securities products to customers who may have little or no experience 
with uninsured, non-depository products. In Notice to Members 91-74 
(November 1991) and Notice to Members 93-87 (December 1993), the NASD 
reminded members of their obligations to customers who were reinvesting 
maturing certificates of deposit. In addition, in Notice to Members 94-
16 (March 1994) the NASD reminded members of their sales practice 
obligations in connection with mutual fund sales and noted that the 
growth of bank-affiliated and networking broker/dealers had focused 
attention on the issue. Finally, in Notice to Members 95-80 (September 
26, 1995) the NASD addressed additional concerns regarding member 
obligations and responsibilities regarding mutual fund sales practices.
    In Notice to Members 94-47 (June 1994) the NASD published the SEC's 
November 24, 1993 no-action letter to the Chubb Securities Corporation 
(the ``Chubb Letter'') concerning broker/dealer activity on the 
premises of a financial institution. The Chubb Letter set forth the 
requirements for networking broker/dealers as they related to customer 
disclosure, compensation of employees of the financial institution, 
promotional materials of the broker/dealer, location of the securities 
activities of the broker/dealer, and inspection of books and records 
with respect to financial institutions that are subject to broker/
dealer registration under Section 15(a) of the 1934 Act.
    In addition, on February 15, 1994, the various financial 
institution regulators 3 issued a joint statement titled the 
``Interagency Statement on Retail Sales of Nondeposit Investment 
Products'' (the ``Interagency Statement''). The Interagency Statement 
established guidelines for financial institutions that sell securities 
products to their customers, either directly or through networking or 
affiliated broker/dealers. It is the NASD's understanding that, to the 
extent securities are being sold by broker/dealers operating on 
financial institution premises, NASD members are observing the 
requirements of the Interagency Statement even though such broker/
dealers are not directly subject to the jurisdiction of the financial 
institution regulators.

    \3\ The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System 
(``FRB''), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of 
the Comptroller of the Currency (``OCC''), and the Office of Thrift 
Supervision (``OTS'') (``financial institution regulators'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NASD has been concerned that the activities of member firms 
operating on the premises of financial institutions and related 
customer protection issues are not adequately addressed by existing 
NASD rules and, because the Interagency Statement has no jurisdictional 
reach to broker/dealers, there is no basis for NASD disciplinary action 
against member firms that do not comply with the terms of the 
Interagency Statement. Accordingly, the NASD is proposing to add a new 
section to the Rules of Fair Practice to govern the conduct of broker/
dealers on the premises of financial institutions.
(2) Description of Proposed Rule
    Applicability. Subsection (a) of the proposed rule provides that 
the new section applies exclusively to broker/dealer services being 
conducted by NASD members on the premises of a financial institution 
where retail deposits are taken.
    Subsection (a) specifies that the proposed rule covers financial 
institutions that have an area ``where retail deposits are taken.'' The 
NASD intends that the phrase ``where retail deposits are taken'' will 
have its ordinary meaning; i.e., a financial institution with an area 
where, with minimal limitations, the public (or members, in the case of 
a credit union) can access the services of the institution. It would 
not include financial institutions that do not generally provide access 
to the public without an appointment, e.g., financial

[[Page 11916]]
institutions which solely provide trust services or private banking 
services.
    Subsection (a) also provides that the section only applies to 
situations where broker/dealer services are conducted ``on the premises 
of a financial institution where retail deposits are taken'' (emphasis 
added). The proposed rule will apply to broker/dealer services provided 
(including all accounts opened) in person by broker/dealer personnel on 
the premises of the financial institution, as well as broker/dealer 
services provided by telephone or other means of communication 
(including computer terminals) by broker/dealer personnel on the 
premises of the financial institution. The proposed rule change will 
also apply to broker/dealer services provided by a broker/dealer via 
the telephone or other means of communication to customers who are on 
the premises of a financial institution even if the broker/dealer 
personnel themselves may not be on the premises of the financial 
institution.
    If the broker/dealer is conducting business in a physically 
separate location from the retail facility of the financial institution 
and is not otherwise present on the premises of the financial 
institution via computer terminal or other electronic communication, 
the rule does not apply. For example, a broker/dealer operating in 
separate office space on another floor or in another part of the same 
building, even if the building is owned or primarily occupied by the 
financial institution, and where the entrance to the broker/dealer's 
office space is through the building lobby or an exterior entrance and 
not through the financial institution's retail facility, the broker/
dealer will be considered to be conducting its services in a physically 
separate location.
    Subsection (a) also expressly states that the proposed rule does 
not alter or abrogate the member's obligation to comply with other NASD 
rules or the rules of other financial institution regulatory 
authorities with respect to the member's operations on the premises of 
a financial institution.
(3) Definitions
    Subsection (b) of the proposed rule defines several terms used in 
the proposed rule, such as, ``financial institution,'' ``networking 
arrangement'' and ``brokerage affiliate arrangement,'' ``affiliate,'' 
``broker/dealer services,'' and ``confidential financial information.'' 
Each of the definitions are discussed below in connection with the 
provisions of the proposed rule where they are used. The definition of 
``financial institution'' applies only to the proposed rule change; not 
to other provisions of the NASD's rules.
(4) Standards for Member Conduct
    Subsection (c) of the proposed rule sets forth the specific 
requirements for members doing business on the premises of a financial 
institution as they relate to:
    1. Setting;
    2. Networking and brokerage affiliate agreements;
    3. Compensation of registered and unregistered persons;
    4. Customer disclosure and written acknowledgement;
    5. Use of confidential financial information; and
    6. Communications with the public.
    The introduction to subsection (c) provides that no member shall 
conduct broker/dealer services on the premises of a financial 
institution 4 unless the member complies initially and 
continuously with the requirements of the proposed rule.

    \4\ The term ``financial institution'' is defined in proposed 
subsection (b)(1) as federal and state chartered banks, savings and 
loans, savings banks, credit unions and the service corporations 
required by law of such institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Setting. Subsection (c)(1) states that, wherever possible, broker/
dealer services 5 shall be conducted in an area physically 
distinct from the retail deposit taking area of the financial 
institution. In all situations, the broker/dealer services must be 
identified in a manner that clearly distinguishes them from the 
activities of the financial institution. Finally, a member must clearly 
display its name in the area where broker/dealer services are provided.

    \5\ The term ``broker/dealer services'' is defined in proposed 
subsection (b)(4) as meaning investment banking or securities 
business as defined in paragraph (l) of Article I of the By-Laws. 
Paragraph (l) of Article I reads:
    (l) ``investment banking or securities business'' means the 
business, carried on by a broker, dealer, or municipal securities 
dealer (other than a bank or department or division of a bank), or 
government securities broker or dealer of underwriting or 
distributing issues of securities, or of purchasing securities and 
offering the same for sale as a dealer, or of purchasing and selling 
securities upon the order and for the account of others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NASD recognizes that physical limitations in the space occupied 
by some financial institutions may prevent ideal physical distinctions 
of broker/dealer activities from the retail deposit-taking area of the 
financial institution from being maintained. Accordingly, the NASD has 
qualified the physical distinction requirement in this provision by the 
phrase ``wherever possible.''
    In addition, the provision requires members to identify and clearly 
distinguish their activities from those of the financial institution, 
and to clearly display the member's name in the area where broker/
dealer services are provided. The NASD expects that the three 
requirements in this provision, working in combination, will achieve 
the desired result, that is, the elimination of confusion among 
customers of the financial institution over which entity they are doing 
business with. The NASD expects that members unable to achieve ideal 
physical distinction of their broker/dealer activities from the 
financial institution's retail deposit taking area will pay particular 
attention to the other provisions of subsection (c)(1) in order to 
eliminate customer confusion and misidentification.
    Finally, the NASD is aware of circumstances where financial 
institutions conduct business from walkup windows, kiosks or desks in 
public places, such as supermarkets or similar locations, many of which 
are operated by a single person. While the NASD cannot anticipate how 
the proposed rule would apply in all possible scenarios, the NASD 
believes it may be particularly difficult to adequately distinguish 
between the activities of the financial institution and the member as 
required by subsection (c)(1) in a setting such as a walkup window, 
kiosk or desk operated by a single person. Some of the difficulties 
with such settings could be resolved if the member exercises 
exceptional caution and adopts specific operational controls designed 
to avoid customer confusion and adequately distinguish its operations 
from those of the financial institution. However, the NASD expects 
members to be aware that there may be certain business settings of 
financial institutions where the member will not be able to comply with 
the requirements of subsection (c)(1), and may, therefore, be prevented 
from conducting business in such a location.
    Networking and Brokerage Affiliate Agreements. Subsection (c)(2) of 
the proposed rules specifies that networking 6 and brokerage 
affiliate 7

[[Page 11917]]
arrangements between a member and a financial institution must be 
governed by a written agreement that sets forth the responsibilities of 
the parties and the compensation arrangements, including: (1) Access by 
broker/dealer supervisory and regulatory persons to the financial 
institution's premises to inspect the member's books and records; (2) a 
prohibition on transaction-related cash or non-cash compensation to 
unregistered employees of the financial institution for referrals of 
financial institution customers to the member; and, (3) the member's 
obligations to notify the financial institution if any associated 
person of the member is terminated for cause. The proposed rule 
explicitly contemplates that members will not be able to conduct a 
securities business on the premises of a financial institution unless a 
written agreement that complies with subsection (c)(2) is in place.

    \6\ The terms ``networking arrangement'' and ``brokerage 
affiliate arrangement'' are defined in proposed subsection (b)(2) as 
a contractual arrangement between a member and a financial 
institution permitting the member to provide brokerage services on 
the premises of the financial institution.
    \7\ The term ``affiliate'' is defined in proposed subsection 
(b)(3) as a company which controls, is controlled by or is under 
common control with a member as defined in Schedule E of the NASD 
By-Laws. The formulation of this definition is consistent with 
definitions elsewhere in the securities laws, principally Section 20 
of the 1934 Act. The NASD is also making express reference to the 
more detailed definition of affiliate in Schedule E, Section 2(a), 
in order to provide additional guidance to members about what 
constitutes an affiliate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The requirement that the agreement provide for access by the 
member's supervisory and NASD and SEC regulatory personnel to the 
financial institution's premises is intended to ensure that the 
existing right of such persons and entities to examine the books and 
records of the member, are not affected by the fact that the member is 
located on the premises of a financial institution.
    Compensation of Registered/Unregistered Persons. Proposed 
subsection (c)(3) prohibits members from providing cash or non-cash 
compensation to employees of the financial institution who are not 
registered with an NASD member. Activities for which members may not 
compensate unregistered persons include, but are not limited to, those 
activities which, under the 1934 Act, may only be conducted by a 
registered broker/dealer or a person associated with a registered 
broker/dealer: the activities include, but are not limited to, 
locating, introducing, or referring customers of the financial 
institution to the member.
    Customer Disclosure and Written Acknowledgment. Proposed subsection 
(c)(4) specifies the disclosures that a member must make to a customer 
when the customer opens an account with the member on the premises of a 
financial institution. Members must disclose, orally and in writing, 
that securities products sold in a transaction with the member: (1) Are 
not insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (``FDIC'') or 
other applicable deposit insurance; (2) are not deposits or obligations 
of, nor are they guaranteed by, the financial institution; and (3) are 
subject to investment risks, including loss of principal invested. The 
proposed disclosures are consistent with the disclosure provisions in 
the Interagency Statement.
    The NASD is proposing these disclosure provisions to address and 
eliminate customer assumptions and confusion that the securities they 
are purchasing from broker/dealers operating on the premises of 
financial institutions are either insured or guaranteed against loss of 
principal. Such beliefs apparently arise because customers mistakenly 
assume that the same insurance and guarantees that cover the deposit-
type products of the financial institution also cover the securities 
products of the broker/dealer.
    Subsection (c)(4) also requires members to make reasonable efforts 
to obtain a written acknowledgement of the required disclosures during 
the account opening process. This provision is intended to complement 
the oral and written disclosures members are required to give to 
customers opening new accounts on the premises of a financial 
institution. At the time the account is opened the member will provide 
the disclosures, both orally and in writing, and then seek to have the 
customer acknowledge the disclosures in writing. Because some customers 
may be reluctant to provide the written acknowledgement at the time the 
account is opened (or, indeed, at any time), the NASD is not mandating 
that the acknowledgement be obtained, just that the member make 
reasonable efforts to obtain it.8

    \8\ The approach taken by the NASD in this provision is 
consistent with the approach adopted by the NASD in connection with 
obtaining suitability information under Article III, Sections 2(b) 
and 21 of the Rules of Fair Practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Use of Confidential Financial Information. Proposed subsection 
(c)(5) prohibits members conducting business on the premises of a 
financial institution from using confidential financial information 
provided by the financial institution unless prior written approval has 
been granted by the financial institution customer to release the 
information. Proposed subsection (b)(5) defines ``confidential 
financial information'' 9 in terms of what it is not: i.e., it is 
not lists of customer names, addresses and telephone numbers, unless 
the customer has specified otherwise; and it is not information that 
could be obtained from unaffiliated credit bureaus 10 or similar 
companies in the ordinary course of business. Therefore, information 
concerning a customer that a member obtains from a financial 
institution with which it has a networking or brokerage affiliate 
arrangement (other than the name, address, and telephone numbers of the 
customer, or that the member could obtain on its own from an 
unaffiliated credit bureau) may not be used unless the customer has 
granted prior written approval to the financial institution to release 
the information. Moreover, a member must satisfy itself that the 
customer has granted permission to release the information, either by 
obtaining copies of the written release from the financial institution, 
or by obtaining approval directly from the customer to release the 
information, before the member is permitted to use such information. In 
accordance with the intent of this provision, a member may not, for 
example, use a customer list sorted by the financial institution 
according to a field of information that would be confidential if 
released as individual customer information; e.g., lists of customers 
with expiring Certificates of Deposits or net worth in excess of 
$100,000.

    \9\ The NASD states that the definition of ``confidential 
information'' is based on the language of HR 1062 pending in the 
U.S. House of Representatives and the ``credit bureau'' exception is 
intended to except from the provision information regarding a 
customer that the member can obtain in the ordinary course of its 
business.
    \10\ NASD staff believes that standard information maintained by 
a credit bureau relates to credit history events, such as liens, 
loans outstanding, lines of credit, and credit cards, as opposed to 
net worth information that would include the value of customer 
assets, such as property, depository accounts, certificates of 
deposit, securities, and other investments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Communications With the Public. Proposed subsection (c)(6) sets 
forth requirements for all communications with customers of members 
operating on the premises of a financial institution, including, 
account statements, confirmations, advertisements and sales literature. 
Paragraph (c)(6)(A) requires that all communications regarding the 
securities transactions of customers of members doing business on the 
premises of a financial institution clearly indicate that the broker/
dealer services are provided by the member. Moreover, communications 
that include information about non-deposit-insured transactions and 
positions with the member and deposit-insured transactions and 
positions or accounts with the financial institution should be clearly 
distinguished from each other. The NASD also notes that if members 
issue account statements jointly with a financial institution, the 
member must

[[Page 11918]]
ensure that the account statement complies with Article III, Section 45 
of the Rules of Fair Practice, which requires members to periodically 
send account statements to their customers, as well as with the 
proposed new provision.
    Finally, communications about securities transactions conducted by 
the member should be introduced to the customer in such communications 
with the identity of the member, and disclose to the customer that 
securities products are not insured by the FDIC or other applicable 
deposit insurance, are not deposits or obligations of the financial 
institution, are not guaranteed by the financial institution, and are 
subject to investment risks, including possible loss of principal 
invested. This provision is intended to provide the same disclosures in 
all communications with the customer as are provided when the account 
is opened.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(6)(B) provides that advertisements, sales 
literature and other similar materials issued by the member which 
relate exclusively to its broker/dealer services will be deemed the 
materials of the member and must indicate prominently the identity of 
the member providing the services. The material may include non-
prominent references to the financial institution where the broker/
dealer is conducting business in order to identify the location where 
broker/dealer services are available. In addition, such a non-prominent 
reference to the financial institution may be included to disclose a 
material relationship between the member and financial institution, 
such as that of an investment adviser to an investment company.
    Proposed paragraph (c)(6)(C) provides that advertisements, sales 
literature and other similar materials jointly issued by the member and 
a financial institution that discuss services or products offered by 
both entities must clearly distinguish the products and services 
offered by the broker/dealer from those offered by the financial 
institution. The member's name must appear prominently in the portion 
of the materials that describes the broker/dealer services and products 
offered by the member. That section of the materials will be deemed to 
be the materials of the member. In addition, the NASD intends to review 
the entire contents of all joint advertisements, sales literature and 
similar material to determine if the context within which the member's 
material appears complies with the NASD's advertising rules. For 
example, if a member's joint advertising material with a financial 
institution, when read in the context of the joint advertisement, fails 
to comply with the NASD's rules, the NASD may ask the member to seek 
modification of any part of the joint advertisement or require that the 
member not participate in the joint advertisement. In the event the 
member is unable to or chooses not to modify the joint advertisement, 
the member may, nevertheless, publish its portion of the advertisement 
separately (provided the advertisement complies with the NASD's rules).
    The intent of subsection (c)(6) in general, and of paragraphs 
(c)(6)(B) and (c)(6)(C) in particular, is to prevent investor confusion 
between the products and services offered by the broker/dealer and the 
products and services offered by the financial institution, as well as 
to establish that advertising and sales literature promoting the 
products and services of the member conducting business on the premises 
of a financial institution are subject to the regulatory oversight of 
the NASD. With respect to such materials, the member must comply with 
all provisions of the NASD's rules including, but not limited to, the 
NASD's advertising rules, Article III, Section 35 of the Rules of Fair 
Practice.

Effective Date

    The NASD will announce the effective date of the proposed rule 
change in a Notice to Members to be published no later than 60 days 
following Commission approval. The effective date will be no more than 
60 days following the publication of the Notice to Members announcing 
Commission approval.
    The NASD believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with 
the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act 11 in that 
regulating the conduct of broker/dealers on the premises of financial 
institutions will alleviate customer confusion in dealing with such 
entities and provide a regulatory framework for regulating such broker/
dealer activities with the result that investors will be able to make 
more informed investment decisions with a better understanding of the 
distinctions between the securities industry and other segments of the 
financial services industry, in furtherance of the requirement that the 
Association's rules promote just and equitable principles of trade, 
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, and protect 
investors and the public interest.

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    In response to NASD Notice to Members 94-94, a number of 
commentators 12 noted that the proposed rule language in that 
Notice required members to disclose to customers that securities 
products purchased or sold by the member are not insured by the 
Securities Investor Protection Corporation (``SIPC'').13 The 
commentators noted that because such disclosures would apply only to 
broker/dealers operating on the premises of a financial institution, it 
would unnecessarily discriminate among broker/dealers when customers of 
all broker/dealers are subject to the same potential confusion about 
the nature of SIPC insurance.14 The commentators argued that if 
there was going to be such a requirement at all, the disclosures should 
apply to all member firms whether they operate on the premises of a 
financial institution or not. Moreover, the commentators argued that 
limiting SIPC disclosure to financial institution broker/dealers is not 
only anti-competitive but misleading because customers who are already 
susceptible to confusion about the nature of SIPC insurance would have 
their attention drawn to SIPC without a requirement that SIPC insurance 
be explained to eliminate customer misperceptions.

    \12\ Copies of comment letters received by the NASD on this 
previous proposal are available for inspection and copying at the 
NASD and in the Commission's Public Reference Room.
    \13\ See, Notice to Members 94-94 (December 1994), proposed 
subsection (c)(9)(D).
    \14\ See, comment letters 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 17, 18, 22, 23, 25, 27, 
37, 40, 47, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 63, 64, 77, 81, 84, 88, 92, 94, 99, 
100, 104, 107, 109, 110, 115, 119, 121, 122, 123, 129, 130, 140, 
142, 147, 153, 155, 167, 168, 169, 174, 177, 184, 186, 189, 190, 
193, 197, 204, 207, 208, 212, 216, 225, 226, 227, 230, 236, 239, 
240, 242, 256, 258, 266, 269, 270, 271 and 279.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the commentators, the NASD has determined to 
eliminate the SIPC disclosure requirement from the proposed rule 
change, and rely instead on the disclosures that remain in the proposed 
rule change which are consistent with provisions contained in the 
Interagency Statement issued by the four bank regulators. The 
provisions that remain in the proposed rule change require members to 
disclose to customers that securities products sold by the member (1) 
Are not deposit insured, (2) are not deposits of or other obligations 
of the financial institution and are not guaranteed by the financial 
institution, and (3) are subject to investment risks, including 
possible loss of principal invested.
    Some commentators have argued that the other disclosure 
requirements that were contained in the proposed rules that were 
published in Notice to Members 94-94 (that remain in the proposed rule 
change) are

[[Page 11919]]
discriminatory and burdensome on the class of broker/dealers that 
conduct broker/dealer activities on the premises of a financial 
institution. The NASD believes that the provisions of the proposed rule 
change as revised are necessary to address a specific problem (customer 
confusion) that the NASD has identified in connection with the 
activities of members conducted on the premises of a financial 
institution and has, in general, narrowly tailored the proposed rule 
change to address the problem.
    Therefore, the NASD does not believe that these provisions or any 
other provisions of 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 amended.

(C) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the 
Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The proposed rule change was published for comment in Notice to 
Members 94-94 (December 1994) (hereinafter referred to as ``original 
proposed rule change'' or ``original proposed rules''). 284 comments 
were received in response thereto. Of the 284 comment letters received, 
54 were in favor of the proposed rule change, 51 of which requested 
modifications, 209 were opposed, and 21 were neither in favor nor 
opposed.
I. General Comments
    A. Jurisdiction of the NASD in the Proposed Rules. Several 
commentators, including the American Bankers Association (``ABA''), the 
Bank Securities Association (``BSA''), and the Consumer Bankers 
Association (``CBA''), expressed their belief that certain provisions 
of the original proposed rules would subject the activities of banks to 
NASD regulation.15 The commentators stated that by subjecting 
banks to regulation as broker/dealers, the proposed rules fail to 
recognize the exemption from broker/dealer registration that is 
afforded to banks under Section 3(a)(6) of the 1934 Act. The 
commentators maintained that the proposed rules also ignore the well-
settled authority of banks to provide securities brokerage services 
directly to their customers under the Glass-Steagall Act, and cited 
American Bankers Association v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 804 
F.2d 739 (D.C. Cir. 1986) in support.

    \15\ See, comment letters 1, 5, 7, 8, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 27, 
28, 30, 37, 40, 48, 51, 54, 56, 62, 63, 65, 67, 77, 80, 84, 90, 92, 
99, 102, 107, 108, 111, 115, 118, 122, 123, 126, 127, 129, 131, 138, 
141, 147, 148, 156, 158, 173, 179, 186, 188, 189, 190, 192, 195, 
204, 207, 208, 209, 212, 214, 216, 225, 226, 227, 229, 233, 234, 
236, 242, 266, 269, 270 and 271.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In considering the NASD's jurisdictional reach, the ABA, BSA, CBA, 
and several other commentators also argued that the NASD has 
incorrectly interpreted the Securities and Exchange Commission's no-
action letter to Chubb Securities Corporation (the ``Chubb Letter''). 
Because the Chubb Letter was intended to govern thrift institutions 
that are not exempt from broker/dealer registration under the 1934 Act, 
the commentators stated that it is inappropriate to extend the 
requirements of the Chubb Letter to banks which are otherwise exempt 
from broker/dealer registration by means of the device of the proposed 
rule change.16 Because the Chubb Letter is neither legislation nor 
regulation, the commentators stated that it does not give the NASD the 
authority to disregard the bank exemption in the 1934 Act in order to 
regulate banks.

    \16\ See, comment letters 1, 8, 17, 19, 27, 80, 84, 89, 103, 
115, 122, 123, 134, 138, 180, 209, 210 and 242.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NASD never intended to, and the proposed rule change does not, 
extend its jurisdictional reach to banks and other financial 
institutions that are not members of the Association, nor to their 
employees. Accordingly, the NASD has amended subsection (a) to clarify 
that the proposed rule change applies only to NASD members providing 
broker/dealer services on the premises of a financial institution.
    Comments about the jurisdictional reach of specific provisions of 
the original proposed rules are addressed in more detail below.
    B. Regulatory Duplication. Several commentators said that the 
proposed rule change duplicates existing regulations. One group of 
commentators argued that the Interagency Statement issued by the 
financial institution regulators on February 15, 1994, and other 
existing financial institution regulations adequately address the 
activity governed by the proposed rule change.17 In general, these 
commentators maintained that the activity addressed by the original 
proposed rules should be governed by financial institution regulations, 
as opposed to rules promulgated by the SEC or the NASD. In addition, 
another group of commentators, which included the ABA, BSA, and CBA, 
argued that some of the provisions of the original proposed rules were 
redundant of existing NASD, SEC and financial institution regulations. 
With respect to NASD rules, the commentators referenced existing branch 
office registration requirements, supervisory requirements, and 
personnel registration/associated persons provisions of the NASD rules. 
While these commentators recognized that additional regulation of 
financial institution broker/dealer 18 activities are appropriate, 
they argued that additional regulations are already in place in the 
form of the Interagency Statement and financial institution 
regulations, the Chubb Letter and existing NASD rules. The commentators 
believed that these guidelines, interpretations and rules adequately 
address the activities that would be governed by the proposed 
rules.19

    \17\ See, comment letters 1, 5, 8, 18, 21, 22, 31, 37, 38, 40, 
47, 53, 54, 56, 58, 62, 65, 70, 75, 78, 91, 94, 99, 100, 101, 107, 
108, 111, 126, 127, 130, 133, 138, 141, 145, 147, 151, 158, 169, 
170, 179, 184, 186, 188, 190, 196, 211, 216, 218, 220, 225, 226, 
227, 229, 230, 232, 236, 238, 241, 242, 245, 255, 266, 268, 269, 
270, 271, 275 and 282.
    \18\ As used in this rule filing, the term ``financial 
institution broker/dealer'' refers to broker/dealers affiliated with 
financial institutions (as defined in the proposed rule the term 
``financial institution'' means ``federal and state-chartered banks, 
savings and loan associations, savings banks, credit unions, and the 
service corporations required by law of such institutions'') or 
conducting business with financial institutions under networking 
arrangements. The term ``non-financial institution broker/dealer'' 
refers to broker/dealers not affiliated with, or conducting business 
under a networking arrangement with, financial institutions.
    \19\ See, comment letters 2, 7, 9, 10, 11, 17, 19, 23, 24, 25, 
27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 48, 49, 
52, 53, 55, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 74, 76, 77, 82, 
84, 87, 90, 92, 97, 102, 105, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 
121, 122, 124, 128, 129, 131, 132, 148, 149, 153, 156, 157, 160, 
161, 162, 163, 165, 166, 168, 169, 172, 173, 174, 175, 177, 178, 
184, 189, 194, 195, 197, 201, 204, 207, 208, 209, 224, 225, 228, 
231, 235, 242, 243, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 257, 258, 259, 261, 
262, 263, 273, 279, 280, 281 and 283.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NASD agrees that some of the provisions of the original 
proposed rules duplicated existing NASD rules. Accordingly, the NASD 
has amended the proposed rules to eliminate such duplication as 
described in more detail below. With respect to arguments that the 
proposed rules duplicate the rules of other regulatory entities (e.g., 
the Interagency Statement), the NASD notes that many of the rules, 
policies and guidelines of other agencies do not directly or indirectly 
apply to NASD members. The NASD believes it is imperative to adopt a 
set of rules that establishes clear standards of conduct governing the 
practices of member firms operating on the premises of financial 
institutions that are enforceable by the NASD.
    C. Discriminatory Impact and Anti-Competitive Effects. The ABA, 
BSA, CBA and many other commentators believe that it is inappropriate 
to establish separate regulations to govern

[[Page 11920]]
broker/dealers operating on financial institution premises than those 
in existence for other NASD members.20 In general, these 
commentators believe that the proposed rules unfairly discriminate 
against a class of broker/dealers in violation of Section 15A(b)(6) of 
the 1934 Act. The commentators argued that the 1934 Act provides no 
basis for a classification of broker/dealers based on location.

    \20\ See, comment letters 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 17, 19, 21, 23, 
24, 25, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 43, 48, 49, 52, 54, 55, 
56, 59, 61, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 74, 76, 77, 82, 84, 86, 87, 
88, 89, 91, 92, 97, 98, 102, 104, 105, 107, 108, 115, 116, 118, 119, 
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 131, 132, 139, 141, 
142, 147, 149, 157, 159, 162, 163, 164, 165, 168, 173, 175, 178, 
179, 184, 189, 194, 195, 197, 204, 208, 209, 213, 219, 218, 220, 
225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 236, 235, 240, 243, 242, 244, 249, 
250, 257, 258, 259, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 273, 276, 279, 280, 281 
and 283.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NASD has identified circumstances associated with conducting 
broker/dealer services on the premises of a financial institution that 
are unique to that location and that require rules which specifically 
address the conduct of members engaging in such business. The principal 
circumstance noted is the enhanced likelihood that customers of the 
financial institution may not be aware of the differences between the 
insured depository products of the financial institution and the 
uninsured securities products of the broker/dealer operating in the 
same location. Accordingly, the NASD has determined that it is in the 
public interest to propose rules to address these unique circumstances. 
The NASD believes, therefore, that it is acting in furtherance of the 
1934 Act in proposing rules to regulate the activities of broker/
dealers on the premises of financial institutions in order to address 
on-going problems of customer confusion and the adequacy of the 
disclosures made.
    These commentators also asserted their view that the NASD has not 
provided statistical data to support its contention that financial 
institution broker/dealers should be subject to a ``higher standard of 
regulation.'' These commentators believe that the proposed rules are 
anti-competitive because, in their view, they create an uneven 
regulatory scheme favoring non-financial institution broker/dealers 
over financial institution broker/dealers. The NASD does not believe 
that the proposed rule change is anti-competitive in that the revised 
rule filed herein is, in general, narrowly structured to address its 
concern of customer confusion and investor protection.
    In addition, two commentators speculated that the proposed rules 
are a reflection of the NASD's on-going battle with the financial 
institution regulators.21 One commentator expressed its belief 
that the proposed rules are a reflection of competitive pressures from 
NASD members who fear financial institution incursions into the 
securities industry.22 Finally, one commentator expressed the 
opinion that the rules are punitive of members who are seeking to do 
business with financial institutions.23

    \21\ See, comment letters 127 and 258.
    \22\ See, comment letter 235.
    \23\ See, comment letter 66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NASD regrets that any commentators believe that there is a non-
regulatory motivation to the proposed rules, but there is no basis for 
such comments. The NASD has responded to commentators by modifying the 
rules to clarify their jurisdictional reach, provide for greater 
flexibility of compliance in certain cases, and narrow the provisions 
to those most clearly applicable to addressing the potential for 
customer confusion in connection with the conduct of broker/dealer 
services on the premises of a financial institution.
    D. Conflicting Banking and NASD Regulations. The ICI, the OCC, the 
FRB, the ABA, BSA, CBA, and other commentators expressed concern about 
requiring financial institution broker/dealers to comply with 
potentially conflicting requirements of the NASD and financial 
institution regulators.24 The ICI stated that in the absence of 
functional regulation of securities activities of various entities, the 
financial institution broker/dealer regulations of the various 
regulators must be coordinated and harmonized in order to reduce 
burdens on industry participants. These commentators cited 
inconsistencies between the proposed rule change and the Interagency 
Statement as an example. To the extent that the proposed rule change 
differs from the Interagency Statement, these commentators asserted 
that member firm compliance will be both challenging and expensive. In 
addition, a few commentators requested that the proposed rule change be 
amended to provide a regulatory conflict resolution process.25

    \24\ See, comment letters 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 
17, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30, 32, 47, 48, 63, 64, 65, 81, 82, 83, 84, 89, 
92, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110, 113, 115, 119, 
120, 123, 129, 133, 135, 145, 147, 151, 153, 154, 156, 163, 166, 
167, 172, 173, 180, 182, 183, 184, 188, 190, 191, 192, 196, 208, 
209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 215, 216, 224, 230, 234, 237, 239, 252, 
266, 236, 269, 270, 271, 272, 275, 279 and 282.
    \25\ See, comment letters 135, 146, 156 and 239.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To resolve these concerns, the NASD has amended the original 
proposed rules to eliminate, to the degree possible, inconsistencies 
and conflicts between the proposed rules and existing rules and 
guidelines of financial institution regulators, as discussed in more 
detail below. Unless regulatory conflicts arise, which the NASD is not 
currently aware of, it is unnecessary to institute a conflict 
resolution process. The NASD agrees that the regulations of various 
regulators must be consistent and intends to continue communications 
with the financial institution regulators in order to coordinate 
interpretations and application of common provisions to avoid such 
problems before they develop.
    E. Rationale for the New Rules. Some commentators questioned the 
rationale for the proposed rule change: The need to address issues of 
investor confusion and to provide clear guidance through rules or 
regulations addressing the activities of financial institution-
affiliated and networking broker/dealers operating on the premises of 
financial institutions.26

    \26\ See, comment letters 53, 66, 67, 115, 127, 150, 185, 190, 
214, 235 and 258.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the NASD has business practice and investor 
protection concerns that it believes justify the adoption of the 
proposed rules. The NASD believes the proposed rule change is a 
measured response to the concerns that have been identified and the 
unique circumstances present with respect to broker/dealers operating 
on the premises of a financial institution.
    F. Disparate Treatment of Investors. Some commentators argued that 
financial institution customers should not be treated as a separate 
class of investors for purposes of customer protection.27 These 
commentators said that such disparate treatment suggests that financial 
institution customers are less sophisticated than those who deal with 
separate, full service, broker/dealers.

    \27\ See, comment letters 10, 53, 78, 102, 115, 136, 204, 207 
and 258.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NASD disagrees that the proposed rule change suggests that 
financial institution customers are less sophisticated than customers 
of full service broker/dealers. As discussed above, the NASD has 
identified circumstances associated with conducting broker/dealer 
services on the premises of a financial institution that appear to be 
unique to that location. The principal circumstance noted is the 
enhanced likelihood that customers of

[[Page 11921]]
the financial institution may not be aware of the differences between 
the insured depository products of the financial institution and the 
uninsured securities products of the broker/dealer operating in the 
same location. Accordingly, the NASD has determined that it is the 
public interest to propose rules to address these unique circumstances.
II. Specific Comments
    A. Applicability. Subsection (a) of the original proposed rules 
provided that the section would apply exclusively to the activities of 
members that conduct broker/dealer services on the premises of a 
financial institution where retail deposits are taken.
    The ICI, BSA, CBA, and a number of other commentators asked that 
the NASD amend subsection (a) of the proposed rules to clarify that the 
rules apply only to financial institution sales activities that could 
confuse retail customers about the uninsured nature of the securities 
products that are being offered.28 The commentators noted that the 
Interagency Statement only applies to retail sales of non-deposit 
investment products. The NASD believes that the proposed rules are 
generally consistent with the Interagency Statement in that they apply 
to all non-deposit investment products sold by a member that is 
conducting business on the premises of a retail deposit-taking 
institution.

    \28\ See, comment letters 11, 27, 29, 75, 84, 94, 121, 159, 167, 
172, 186, 208, 210, 211 and 274.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ICI, BSA, CBA, and several other commentators also requested 
that the NASD clarify the phrase ``on the premises'' in subsection (a) 
to enable members to determine the applicability of the rules under 
various scenarios, such as, where a member is located within a 
financial institution building but on a separate floor.29 
Commentators also asked whether the proposed rules apply where a member 
leases space in a building owned by a financial institution, but the 
member is not in a networking arrangement with the financial 
institution nor is the member a financial institution affiliate.

    \29\ See, comment letters 17, 21, 27, 29, 52, 63, 84, 106, 110, 
115, 121, 129, 148, 167, 172, 177, 186, 192, 207, 208, 242, 245 and 
260.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsection (a) has been clarified to specify that the provisions 
apply only to ``those broker/dealer services being conducted by NASD 
members on the premises of a financial institution where retail 
deposits are taken.'' It is intended that, generally, broker/dealer 
services will be considered separate from the retail deposit taking 
area of a financial institution if the broker/dealer's facilities can 
be entered without going through the retail facility of the financial 
institution. Thus, the proposed rules would not apply where the member 
and the financial institution are located in physically separate and 
separately identified offices.
    Finally, the BSA recommended that subsection (a) be amended to 
include within the coverage of the proposed rule non-financial 
institution broker/dealers that offer deposit-insured financial 
institution products directly. The BSA expressed the opinion that such 
an amendment was warranted because the investor protection concerns 
addressed by the proposed rule change are equally as relevant with 
respect to non-financial institution broker/dealers that sell financial 
institution products.
    The NASD does not agree and has no evidence that similar investor 
protection concerns are present with respect to customers of non-
financial institution broker/dealers that sell financial institution 
products. The NASD believes that if such broker/dealer customers are 
confused about the nature and risks of securities products they are 
likely to believe that none of the products they purchase are insured 
when, in fact, the customer may acquire an insured product. Thus, any 
customer confusion would appear to have benign results. The NASD will, 
however, continue to monitor this area.
    B. Definitions. Subsection (b) of the original proposed rules 
included definitions of the terms ``financial institution,'' 
``networking arrangement,'' ``brokerage affiliate of a financial 
institution,'' ``dual employees,'' and ``broker/dealer services.'' The 
definitions of ``financial institution'' and ``broker/dealer services'' 
are retained in the revised rule and discussed below. The definitions 
of ``networking arrangement'' (which has been amended to add 
``brokerage affiliate arrangement'') and ``brokerage affiliate of a 
financial institution'' (which has been amended to, simply, 
``affiliate'') did not generate any comments and are, therefore, 
discussed later in connection with the provisions where the terms 
appear. The term ``dual employees'' was deleted from the proposed rule 
change in connection with the NASD's revision of the original proposed 
rules, but not in response to a particular comment. Therefore, it is 
not discussed here. Finally, a definition of the term ``confidential 
financial information'' was added to subsection (b). That term is 
discussed below in connection with the provision where it occurs.
    1. ``Financial Institution.'' The BSA, CBA, the FRB, and First 
Fidelity expressed the concern that the definition of the term 
``financial institution'' set forth in paragraph (b)(1) of the original 
proposed rule change inappropriately combines financial institutions 
and non-financial institution entities such as savings associations and 
credit unions within the same defined term.30 These commentators 
also expressed their view that it is inappropriate to include service 
corporations within the definition of financial institution because 
service corporations themselves may be registered as broker/dealers. 
The NASD notes that the language of this definition is drawn from the 
Chubb Letter and is necessary for the proper operation and application 
of the proposed rule. The NASD has, however, amended the definition to 
ensure that it applies only to the proposed rule and not to any other 
NASD rule.

    \30\ See, comment letters 27, 84, 103 and 199.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FRB also suggested that the NASD consider expanding the 
definition of financial institution to include foreign financial 
institutions given that a number of foreign financial institutions have 
established branches in the United States, and several of these 
institutions have broker/dealer affiliates. The NASD believes that it 
is not appropriate to include within the scope of the rule foreign 
financial institutions not required to register as a bank, savings and 
loan or credit union.
    2. ``Broker/dealer Services.'' The ABA, BSA, CBA , and several 
commentators expressed concerns about the scope of the term ``broker/
dealer services'' as defined in paragraph (b)(4) of the original 
proposed rule change.31 The commentators stated that the proposed 
definition improperly limits the activities of unregistered financial 
institution employees. Accordingly, the commentators have recommended 
that the definition be amended to state that nothing in the proposed 
rules is intended to limit the ability of financial institutions and 
their employees to engage in securities transactions pursuant to the 
exemption from broker/dealer registration that is granted to banks by 
Section 3(a)(6) of the 1934 Act.

    \31\ See, comment letters 4, 8, 17, 19, 21, 25, 27, 28, 29, 54, 
62, 63, 80, 84, 106, 115, 121, 131, 129, 192, 173, 186, 207, 208, 
242, 267, 260, and 281.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the ABA and BSA raised the concern that it was unclear 
whether or not the proposed rule is intended to reach investment 
banking services offered by bank trust departments where services are 
offered by individuals who hold NASD licenses. Because the term 
``investment banking and securities business'' has a settled meaning 
within the broker/dealer industry, the BSA

[[Page 11922]]
recommends that the NASD adopt the ``investment banking'' definition in 
paragraph (h) of Article I of the NASD By-Laws to address the problems 
raised with regard to the proposed broker/dealer services definition.
    In this regard, it was never the intent of the NASD to extend its 
jurisdictional reach to banks and other financial institutions. In 
response to these comments, the NASD sought to clarify its intent by 
amending the definition of ``broker/dealer services,'' to reference the 
definition of ``investment banking and securities business'' contained 
in Article I, Paragraph (l) of the NASD By-Laws. The definition in 
Article I of the By-Laws excludes investment banking and securities 
activities carried on by banks, including bank trust departments. In 
addition, as discussed above, the NASD has amended subsection (a) to 
clarify that the proposed rule change applies only to broker/dealer 
services conducted on the premises of a retail-deposit-taking financial 
institution. The NASD believes that these changes clarify that the 
proposed rule change does not seek to regulate the securities 
activities of banks that are exempt from broker/dealer registration.
    C. Specific Provisions Relating to Activities of Members Operating 
on the Premises of a Financial Institution. 1. Physical Location. 
Subsection (c)(1) of the original proposed rules provided that a 
member's broker/dealer services shall be conducted in a physical 
location distinct from the area where the financial institution's 
retail deposits are taken. Several commentators requested clarification 
about the definition of ``where retail deposits are taken'' in 
subsection (c)(i) and to the term ``deposit-taking area'' 32 used 
in other provisions (i.e., is it the teller area of a financial 
institution?)

    \32\ See, comment letters 6, 8, 12, 16, 17, 27, 29, 30, 52, 58, 
63, 64, 77, 80, 83, 86, 110, 129, 153, 155, 167, 177, 186, 193, 207, 
208, 213, 239, 244, 260 and 282.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many commentators criticized subsection (c)(i) as not providing 
adequate flexibility for financial institution locations with severe 
physical constraints.33 These commentators asked the NASD to 
address the problem by adopting the Interagency Statement standard 
which, in relevant part states, ``in the limited situation where 
physical considerations prevent sales of non-deposit products from 
being conducted in a distinct area, the institution has a heightened 
responsibility to ensure appropriate measures are in place to minimize 
customer confusion.'' 34

    \33\ See, comment letters 1, 4, 8, 11, 16, 17, 19, 21, 25, 26, 
27, 29, 30, 31, 47, 54, 76, 84, 88, 90, 94, 103, 107, 112, 118, 119, 
121, 123, 127, 129, 130, 131, 140, 153, 154, 156, 166, 167, 176, 
181, 182, 184, 189, 192, 193, 196, 204, 208, 210, 212, 215, 230, 
233, 234, 237, 242, 244, 255, 267, 276, 279 and 282.
    \34\ See, comment letters 27, 40, 86, 96, 181, 208, 239, 245, 
256 and 283.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the BSA and four other commentators asked whether dual 
employees would be required to have two separate offices for conducting 
activities on behalf of the financial institution and the broker/
dealer.35 These commentators maintained that customers could be 
confused if a dual employee were required to lead customers back and 
forth between two locations within the financial institution. To 
address this potential for customer confusion, the BSA suggested that 
the proposed rule change be amended to permit the use of one desk for 
deposit and non-deposit activities. Indeed, the BSA expressed the view 
that appropriately qualified dual employees should be permitted to 
offer customers a ``menu'' of retail financial products, including 
insured deposits and uninsured investment products, from the same 
location.

    \35\ See comment letters 27, 110, 182, 193, 207 and 233.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the commentators, subsection (c)(1) of the proposed 
rule change was revised to require the member to operate in a distinct 
area ``wherever possible,'' consistent with the Interagency Statement. 
In addition, the proposed rule change has been amended to require that 
the member ``distinguish'' its broker/dealer services from the services 
of the financial institution as opposed to ``segregating'' its services 
as required by the original proposed rule change.
    With regard to the commentators' concerns regarding consistency in 
regulation, the NASD has amended the physical location and signage 
requirements and the proposed risk disclosures to ensure consistency 
with the Interagency Statement's standards for these matters. (See, new 
paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(4), respectively.) These amendments are also 
discussed in greater detail below.
    2. Signage. Subsection (c)(2) of the original proposed rule change 
stated, ``in no event shall signs regarding the broker/dealer services 
appear in the deposit-taking area.'' Many commentators, including the 
ABA, ICI, BSA, and CBA, asked whether the proposed rules would prohibit 
signage in the teller window or the lobby areas.36 The 
commentators argued that this requirement could interfere with 
directional signage pointing toward the location of the broker/dealer, 
ordinary brochure stands, mounted lists of affiliated companies, and 
other signage relating to the general availability of products and 
services of the broker/dealer. Rather than create confusion, the BSA 
argued that directional signs can help avoid customer confusion by 
clarifying that a deposit-taking area, such as a teller window, is not 
the place to obtain securities products. These commentators asserted 
that broker/dealer signage with appropriate disclosures should be 
permitted to appear anywhere on the financial institution's premises.

    \36\ See, comment letters 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 17, 21, 23, 25, 27, 
28, 30, 48, 59, 81, 83, 84, 104, 115, 119, 120, 121, 123, 129, 134, 
140, 154, 156, 167, 170, 192, 204, 207, 208, 213, 232, 233, 236, 
242, 244, 245, 276, 279 and 281.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other commentators expressed concerns about the potential impact of 
the signage requirements in the case of small financial 
institutions.37 These commentators noted that signage restrictions 
are particularly difficult for small financial institutions and small 
branch offices to deal with because practically all public areas could 
be regarded as deposit-taking areas. Further, the commentators noted 
that small branches may not reserve one desk solely for investment 
services thus preventing the segregation desired by the original 
proposed rules. The commentators also observed that signage 
restrictions, when combined with the physical location requirements, 
would prevent one-desk branch locations. Accordingly, these 
commentators recommended that the proposed rules be amended to permit 
signage that would facilitate dual usage of a service desk by broker/
dealer and financial institution employees.

    \37\ See, comment letters 4, 12, 21, 29, 40, 47, 52, 54, 107, 
113, 133, 156, 167, 181, 184, 196, 198, 210, 234, 242, 255, 256, 279 
and 282.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commentator stated that, in its view, the proposed signage 
restrictions would interfere with the financial institution's 
commercial speech which is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. 
Constitution.38 This commentator also stated that this 
interference with the financial institution's rights resulted in the 
NASD's assertion of jurisdiction over the financial institution.

    \38\ See, comment letter 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NASD disagrees and does not believe that the proposed rule 
change infringes on the limited First Amendment protection on 
commercial speech because the U. S. Constitution acts as a restraint on 
governmental action and the First Amendment's free speech guarantee is 
a limitation on Congress' ability to enact laws abridging

[[Page 11923]]
freedom of speech. The NASD's actions as a private, non-governmental, 
securities industry, self-regulatory organization (actions that include 
adopting rules or enforcing standards of business conduct) are not 
governmental actions subject to Constitutional restraint. Nevertheless, 
the NASD applies a standard of fundamental fairness in its dealings 
with its members and its rules, including the rule change proposed 
herein, are narrowly tailored to achieve legitimate regulatory 
purposes. The NASD also notes that even if the NASD's regulatory 
proposals were constrained by the Constitutional protection on 
commercial speech, those protections are limited to the extent that 
reasonable regulations of commercial speech are necessary to protect 
the public interest and the proposed rule change is a reasonable 
regulation of commercial speech.
    Nevertheless, in response to the commentators, the NASD has amended 
the proposed rule change to delete the separate provision relating to 
signage, including the provisions prohibiting signs regarding broker/
dealer services in the financial institution's deposit-taking area. The 
requirement in the deleted provision that a member clearly display its 
name in the area where brokerage services are being conducted has been 
consolidated with Subsection (c)(1) of the proposed rules. Thus, as 
long as signage meets the other requirements of the proposed rule 
change, as well as existing NASD rules requiring accurate information 
that is not misleading under the circumstances in which it is used, 
there are no other limitations.
    3. Branch Office Registration Requirements. Subsection (c)(3) of 
the original proposed rules restated an already existing NASD rule 
requirement that the member must register as a branch office any of its 
offices which operates on the premises of a financial institution. Most 
commentators, including, among others, the ICI, ABA, BSA, and CBA, 
asked that the provision be amended to exempt from branch registration 
requirements locations where a broker/dealer meets a client in a 
financial institution office for purposes of customer convenience, but 
where the financial institution office is not permanently staffed by 
the NASD member, nor is the location held out as a branch of the NASD 
member.39 These commentators expressed significant concerns 
regarding the cost of registering locations serviced by so-called 
``circuit riders'' if the NASD does not amend the rule to provide an 
exception for meetings between a member's registered representative and 
financial institution customers that occur on an appointment basis at 
financial institutions.

    \39\ See, comment letters 3, 7, 8, 14, 15, 19, 23, 27, 28, 29, 
30, 32, 37, 39, 40, 48, 54, 63, 75, 82, 84, 91, 96, 101, 104, 108, 
109, 110, 115, 119, 121, 125, 127, 129, 140, 144, 145, 166, 167, 
173, 177, 181, 189, 192, 204, 205, 207, 208, 213, 215, 230, 236, 
239, 244, 251, 256, 264 and 267.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the BSA expressed the opinion that, if the NASD has 
determined to publish an interpretation of what is a ``branch office'' 
under Section 27(g)(2) of the Rules of Fair Practice, it should be done 
in a uniform manner applicable to all NASD members and not as a formal 
NASD rule applicable only to financial institution broker/dealers. The 
ABA and the CBA also argued that there was no justification for 
treating financial institution branches any differently than other 
retail outlets for purposes of branch office registration.
    Further, commentators observed that requiring registration of every 
location at which a representative meets with a customer could limit 
the ability of members to service customers where states do not permit 
a registered representative to work out of more than one registered 
location.40

    \40\ See, comment letters 23, 108 and 236.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Independent Bankers Association of America (``IBAA'') 
and two other commentators argued that the branch office registration 
requirements would result in compliance problems with respect to the 
books and records maintained at the financial institution 
location.41 To address this concern, the IBAA asked that the rules 
be amended to provide limited relief to allow financial institution 
broker/dealers to maintain books and records at a more central 
location, for example, the main office of the financial institution.

    \41\ See, comment letters 101, 122 and 154.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NASD appreciates the concerns expressed by these commentators 
and, accordingly, has amended the proposed rules to delete the branch 
office registration requirements and, instead, rely on the branch 
office registration requirements currently in effect under existing 
NASD rules. Therefore, members doing business on the premises of a 
financial institution will be expected to comply with the branch office 
requirements in the NASD's rules that currently apply to all other 
members.
    4. Networking and Brokerage Affiliate Agreements. Subsection (c)(4) 
of the original proposed rules provided that relationships between 
financial institutions and members (whether network or affiliate) be 
governed by an agreement that sets forth the responsibilities of the 
parties.
    Regulatory Access--Paragraph (c)(4)(A) provided that the written 
agreement between the broker/dealer and the financial institution, 
among other things, specify that the SEC and the NASD must be granted 
access to the financial institution premises to inspect the books and 
records of the broker/dealer and other relevant information maintained 
by the member with respect to its broker/dealer services. With respect 
to this requirement, the North American Securities Administrators 
Association Inc. (``NASAA'') and the State of Iowa urged the NASD to 
amend the provision to grant such access to state regulators. 42 
The NASD formulated this provision to be consistent with the Chubb 
Letter. It is believed that state regulators currently have appropriate 
authority to have access to the premises of financial institutions to 
inspect the books and records of broker/dealers. The BSA stated that 
the SEC will use this right of access provision to indirectly regulate 
any desired activity of a financial institution.43 The NASD 
believes that the concerns of the BSA are more appropriately directed 
to the SEC.

    \42\ See, comment letters 203 and 254.
    \43\ See, comment letter 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Periodic Reviews--Paragraph (c)(2)(C) of the original proposed 
rules required that the financial institution agree to permit the 
member to conduct periodic reviews to assure that the financial 
institution and its unregistered employees comply with the limits on 
their activities with respect to securities transactions and non-
deposit broker/dealer services. One commentator stated that the 
provision could be interpreted to require that an unaffiliated network 
member be granted access to the books and records of its partner 
financial institution for periodic reviews.44 This commentator 
also stated that, if the financial institution and the networking 
member compete in several lines of business, the requirement would have 
had the net effect of discouraging a financial institution's 
participation in networking arrangements in order to avoid disclosing 
confidential business information.

    \44\ See, comment letter 211.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, with regard to a member conducting periodic reviews to 
assure that the financial institution and its unregistered employees 
comply with the limits on their activities, the ICI, BSA, CBA, and 
several other commentators argued that it is inappropriate for an NASD 
member to serve in the role of an auditor. They

[[Page 11924]]
argued that this responsibility is more appropriately handled by the 
financial institution.45 The commentators also asserted that the 
financial institution should be responsible for conducting its own 
supervision, training, investigations, and compliance as it relates to 
the activities of its own employees who are not registered with a 
broker/dealer. The commentators stated that it is impractical for a 
small number of broker/dealer employees to monitor the activities of 
all unregistered financial institution employees.

    \45\ See, comment letters 1, 4, 10, 17, 21, 23, 27, 28, 30, 37, 
48, 59, 62, 63, 77, 80, 84, 104, 107, 121, 128, 134, 140, 142, 148, 
153, 156, 181, 186, 207, 208, 234, 236, 242, 274, 281 and 282.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, one commentator asked what actions a member could 
take against a financial institution if it believes the financial 
institution has not complied with the limits on its activities with 
respect to securities transactions and non-deposit broker/dealer 
services.46 Another commentator argued that the contractual 
obligations of proposed Paragraph (c)(4)(C) would create broker/dealer 
liability for financial institution employees over whom the broker/
dealer has no control. 47

    \46\ See, comment letter 59.
    \47\ See, comment letter 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ICI urged the NASD to revise the paragraph to require that 
members only obtain a commitment from the financial institution such 
that the financial institution agrees that it will promulgate and 
implement procedures reasonably designed to ensure compliance with the 
limits on the activities of unregistered financial institution 
employees rendered in connection with the member's broker/dealer 
services.
    In response to the foregoing comments, the NASD has amended the 
proposed rule change to delete paragraph (c)(4)(C).
    Dual Employees--Paragraph (c)(4)(D) of the original proposed rules 
provided that the written networking or brokerage affiliate agreement 
must require that any dual employee who is suspended from association 
with the member, or who the SEC, the NASD, or any other regulatory or 
self-regulatory organization bars or suspends from association with the 
member or any other broker/dealer, will be terminated or suspended, 
respectively, from all securities activities conducted directly by the 
financial institution. Many commentators strongly objected to the 
jurisdictional reach of this provision.48 The commentators stated 
that financial institutions must retain the discretion to determine 
what situations justify an employee's termination or suspension.

    \48\ See, comment letters 1, 4, 10, 17, 21, 23, 27, 28, 30, 37, 
48, 59, 62, 63, 77, 80, 84, 104, 107, 121, 128, 134, 140, 142, 148, 
153, 156, 181, 186, 207, 208, 234, 236, 242, 274, 281 and 282.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commentator stated that there may be a multitude of NASD, SEC 
or other regulatory reasons for which an employee may be suspended. The 
commentator maintained that some of these reasons may by regulation 
require a financial institution to suspend or terminate the employee's 
activities. However, the financial institution may not in the exercise 
of its independent judgment consider certain other reasons as 
justification for barring the employee from engaging in securities 
activities conducted by the financial institution.49

    \49\ See, comment letter 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, one commentator stated that requiring the financial 
institution to agree to terminate or suspend employees would result in 
the creation of a ``black list'' of employees that could potentially 
expose the financial institution to lawsuits by such black-listed 
employees.50 Rather than adopting the proposed contractual 
agreement of the financial institution to terminate or suspend 
employees, one commentator proposed that financial institutions be 
provided access to the Form U-5 for terminated employees.51

    \50\ See, comment letter 128.
    \51\ See, comment letter 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the foregoing comments, the NASD has amended the 
proposed rule change to delete paragraph (c)(4)(D).
    Competition--Paragraph (C)(4)(E) of the original proposed rules 
required that a contractual agreement with the financial institution 
provide that ``unregistered employees of the financial institution will 
not receive any compensation, cash or non-cash, that is based on the 
effectiveness or success of referrals * * * . `` Many commentators, 
including the ABA, BSA and OCC, urged the NASD to define the terms 
``success'' and ``effectiveness of referrals'' arguing that a 
prohibition based on the effectiveness of sales rather than a 
transactional nexus is too ambiguous.52 The commentators asked how 
the provision would apply where the financial institution provides 
payment for referrals that result in an appointment with a broker/
dealer rather than a transaction.

    \52\ See, comment letters 7, 16, 19, 23, 27, 28, 37, 48, 59, 84, 
86, 104, 107, 108, 110, 115, 129, 140, 142, 173, 181, 183, 186, 192, 
236, 240, 244, 260, 274 and 282.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ABA also stated that a standard based on the success or 
effectiveness of referrals is stricter than existing NASD and financial 
institution standards that permit a referral payment where it is not 
tied to the success of a sale or opening of a broker/dealer 
account.53

    \53\ See, comment letter 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other commentators, including the ABA and the BSA, challenged the 
NASD's authority to regulate the compensation paid by a financial 
institution to its employees through contractual obligations of an NASD 
member.54 These commentators stated that, as a general matter, 
financial institution regulations provide adequate investor protection 
safeguards with regard to the financial institution's payment of 
referral fees and, accordingly, NASD regulation of such payments was 
not required.

    \54\ See, comment letters 1, 11, 17, 19, 28, 62, 63, 64, 83, 84, 
104, 115, 121, 128, 131, 138, 153, 192, 202, 208, 216, 224, 233, 
251, 281 and 282.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the foregoing comments, the NASD has amended this 
provision to prohibit compensation that is conditioned on whether a 
referral results in a transaction, which is consistent with comparable 
provisions of the Interagency Statement. See, paragraph (c)(2)(B) of 
the proposed rule change.
    Notification--Paragraph (c)(5) of the original proposed rules 
provided that the networking or brokerage affiliate agreement must 
require that the member notify the financial institution if any dual 
employee who is associated with the member is terminated for cause by 
the member. Three commentators asserted that the provision would lead 
to civil penalties because the disclosure of the reasons for a 
suspension and/or termination raises privacy issues which, absent 
permission from the associated person, may subject the broker/dealer to 
civil liabilities.55 One commentator suggested that should the 
NASD determine to address the civil liability issues, it would be more 
appropriate to require the broker/dealer to notify the financial 
institution that it would no longer utilize the services of a financial 
institution employee and, thereafter, direct the financial institution 
to review the employee's Form U-5.56

    \55\ See, comment letters 28, 40 and 177.
    \56\ See, comment letters 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NASD has determined to retain this provision as paragraph 
(c)(2)(C) substantially unchanged. The NASD believes the financial 
institution should have this information in order for it to review and 
determine its own regulatory obligations with respect to the terminated 
individual.
    5. Personnel Registration/Associated Person. Subsection (c)(6) of 
the original proposed rule change provided that broker/dealer services 
offered by the member could be provided only by

[[Page 11925]]
persons associated with the member, except that unregistered dual 
employees of the member and financial institution could provide 
``clerical and ministerial assistance.'' Several commentators requested 
clarification of the phrase ``clerical and ministerial assistance,'' 
57 and observed that limiting employees activities to ``clerical 
and ministerial'' duties could be viewed as ignoring the exemption from 
broker/dealer registration afforded banks under Section (3)(a)(6) of 
the 1934 Act. In addition, the commentators asked that subsection 
(c)(6) be clarified to focus on the participation of unregistered 
financial institution employees in a member's sales activities, rather 
than participation of unregistered financial institution employees in a 
financial institution's direct sales efforts.

    \57\ See, comment letters 6, 16, 27, 64, 84, 104, 110, 119, 130, 
142, 172, 192, 206, 208, 213, and 233.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the comments, the NASD has determined that 
subsection (c)(6) is redundant of other provisions of the securities 
laws and, therefore, is unnecessary. Bank employees may engage in 
direct securities activities pursuant to the exemption from broker/
dealer registration contained in Section 3(a)(6) of the 1934 Act, 
subject only to the restrictions on bank securities activities in 
federal banking law. To the extent the employees of all other types of 
financial institutions engage in securities activities, they must be 
registered as associated persons of a registered broker/dealer. 
Accordingly, the NASD has amended the proposed rule change to delete 
subsection (c)(6).
    6. Compensation of Registered/Unregistered Personnel.
    Paragraph (c)(7)(A) of the original proposed rules provided that 
transaction-related compensation of a member's registered 
representatives, including dual employees, must be determined solely by 
the member. In response, the BSA, CBA, and several other commentators 
have advised the NASD that this requirement conflicts with existing 
financial institution regulations that require the financial 
institution to ensure that compensation does not influence sales of 
unsuitable products.58 In addition, commentators maintained that 
this provision would compromise the ability of a financial institution 
to meet its overall company goals.

    \58\ See, comment letters 7, 10, 11, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 
27, 28, 37, 47, 48, 88, 94, 100, 107, 108, 110, 112, 121, 122, 123, 
129, 134, 135, 140, 147, 153, 154, 166, 186, 188, 190, 192, 207, 
233, 234, 236, 237, 239, 240, 242, 260, 266, 269, 270, 271 and 282.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (c)(7)(B) of the original proposed rule provided that 
employees of the financial institution who are not registered with the 
NASD member may not receive any compensation from the member, cash or 
non-cash, in connection with, but not limited to, the referral of 
customers of the financial institution to the member. Many 
commentators, including the ICI, BSA, CBA, and the FRB, argued that the 
provision is inappropriate and unwarranted because referral fees 
provide an appropriate incentive to increase customer awareness of all 
types of deposit and non-deposit products that are available to 
financial institution customers.59 Moreover, commentators argued 
that banning such referral payments would create a competitive 
disadvantage for financial institution broker/dealers because members 
who do not operate on the premises of a financial institution have more 
leeway under SEC no-action letters and enforcement decisions in 
providing compensation to unregistered persons.

    \59\ See, comment letters 1, 3, 7, 8, 16, 18, 21, 22, 23, 25, 
26, 27, 28, 29, 40, 44, 46, 59, 63, 75, 84, 88, 92, 93, 95, 98, 99, 
100, 108, 111, 112, 115, 121, 123, 127, 129, 130, 135, 142, 143, 
147, 153, 156, 166, 167, 168, 172, 188, 189, 191, 193, 204, 207, 
210, 212, 213, 214, 230, 232, 235, 236, 239, 240, 244, 252, 255, 
256, 265, 266, 269, 270, 272, 277, 279 and 284.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commentators also argued that the referral fees prohibition is 
inconsistent with the Interagency Statement and the Chubb No-action 
Letter, among others. Finally, the commentators stated that the 
prohibitions regarding referral fees are inconsistent with the NASD's 
long-standing position that ``one-time fees not tied to the completion 
of a transaction or the opening of an account'' are permitted.60 
Several commentators were also confused about whether the financial 
institution and the broker/dealer were both prohibited from paying 
referral fees to unregistered employees.61

    \60\ In support of its argument that paying referral fees is 
acceptable and consistent with the NASD's long-standing position, 
the ICI cites NASD Notice to Members 89-3 (January 1993), in which 
the NASD proposed, but never adopted, a rule to restrict the payment 
of referral fees. The rule change proposed in NTM 89-3 would have 
permitted the payment by a member of a small fixed fee for a 
referral where the payment is occasional, not part of a practice of 
such payments to the recipient, not determined by the outcome of the 
referral, and where the recipient does not regularly engage in 
activity that might reasonably be expected to result in continued 
referrals.
    The NASD believes the ICI is incorrect in its assertion that 
paying referral fees is acceptable and consistent with the NASD's 
longstanding position. Quite to the contrary, the rule change 
proposed herein is consistent with that position. The rule proposed 
in NTM 89-3 was a codification of the NASD's position that the 
payment of referral fees is not permitted, except in very narrow 
circumstances. Permitting the payment of referral fees for activity 
described in this proposed rule change would not have met the 
exception proposed in NTM 89-3.
    \61\ See, comment letters 4, 9, 14, 15, 16, 18, 21, 27, 29, 30, 
39, 50, 64, 77, 80, 83, 84, 85, 86, 92, 94, 107, 108, 109, 122, 125, 
144, 145, 152, 154, 155, 187, 203, 204, 205, 207, 213, 215, 220, 
221, 222, 223, 237, 242, 258, 267, 275 and 277.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (c)(7)(B) previously published for comment referred only 
to compensation paid by an NASD member. It would not have regulated the 
compensation a financial institution may provide to its own employees. 
The NASD's longstanding position regarding referral fees has been that 
if one-time payments by a member to an unregistered individual occur on 
a regular, on-going basis, the recipient is required to register as an 
associated person.62 In addition, an NASD member may not do 
indirectly what it is prohibited from doing directly, i.e., an NASD 
member may not compensate employees of the financial institution for 
referrals through payments made directly to the employee or by payments 
directed in the first instance to the financial institution.

    \62\ See, NASD Guide to Rule Interpretations, 1994 Net Capital 
and Customer Protections Rules, p. 108.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NASD also believes the commentators misunderstand the meaning 
of the ``one-time payment exception'' that has previously been the 
policy of the NASD and was reflected in the provision published for 
comment. As stated above, the exception does not permit a series of 
``one-time payments'' because such a series of payments would become 
part of the employee's regular course of business, a circumstance that 
would require registration. To meet the requirements of the exception 
that has previously been the policy of the NASD, a payment must be a 
singularly unusual event; i.e., so infrequent that it cannot be 
regarded as part of the regular business or activity of the employee.
    In response to the comments received, however, the NASD has 
substantively amended the provisions of the original proposed rule 
change by clarifying and consolidating them into a single provision, 
subsection (c)(3), that prohibits a member from providing compensation 
to the employees of a financial institution who are not registered as 
associated persons of a member in connection with, but not limited to, 
locating, introducing, or referring customers of the financial 
institution to the member.
    7. Supervision and Responsibility. Paragraph (c)(8)(A) of the 
original proposed rules provided that a designated principal of the 
member shall supervise registered personnel at the member's location at 
the financial

[[Page 11926]]
institution. Several commentators urged the NASD to amend this 
provision to clarify that the designated principal deemed to be 
responsible for supervising registered personnel at the member's 
location at the financial institution is not required to be physically 
present at the financial institution location.63 Further, 
commentators argued that the provision duplicates existing supervisory 
requirements applicable to all NASD members, as set forth in Article 
III, Section 27 of the Rules of Fair Practice.

    \63\ See, comment letters 17, 21, 27, 28, 64, 77, 121, 129, 138, 
140, 156, 177, 181, 192, 234, 242, 245, 267, and 276.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ICI argued that the NASD should delete paragraph (c)(8)(C) of 
the original proposed rules which required a member to supply financial 
institutions with written procedures that specify the limits of the 
permissible activities of unregistered persons.64

    \64\ See, comment letter 167.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the commentators, the NASD has determined to delete 
paragraph (c)(8) of the original proposed rules in its entirety as 
generally redundant of the member's obligations under already existing 
NASD rules.
    8. Customer Disclosure and Written Acknowledgment. Subsection 
(c)(9) of the original proposed rules required a member to obtain a 
separate written acknowledgment at the time an account is opened that 
the securities products purchased or sold by the member through offices 
located on the premises of a financial institution: (1) Are not insured 
by the FDIC; (2) are not deposits or other obligations of the financial 
institution and are not guaranteed by the financial institution; (3) 
are subject to investment risks, including possible loss of the 
principal invested; and, (4) are not insured by the Securities Investor 
Protection Corporation (``SIPC'') as to the loss of principal amounts 
invested.
    Several commentators argued that the disclosures required in the 
proposed separate written acknowledgment should be made by all broker/
dealers because, as the BSA asserted, investors who purchase securities 
through non-financial institution broker/dealers would benefit equally 
from these required disclosures, especially non-financial institution 
broker/dealers offering insured products.65

    \65\ See, comment letters 1, 6, 17, 21, 27, 61, 94, 104, 136, 
173, 189, 217, 219 and 230.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other commentators stated that a requirement to obtain written 
acknowledgment of the disclosures prior to conducting business with a 
customer who opens an account by telephone would have an adverse impact 
on members that service the financial institution's customers because 
many of these accounts are opened by telephone and written 
documentation is usually sent to the customer by the broker/dealer 
after the account is opened. These commentators proposed that the rule 
be amended to permit a member's registered representative to state the 
disclosure over the telephone and subsequently forward the written 
documentation for execution.66

    \66\ See, comment letters 17, 172 and 242.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commentators, including the CBA and BSA, opposed the concept 
of requiring a ``separate'' written acknowledgment of the required 
disclosures based on their belief that the Interagency Statement 
permits these disclosures to appear in the customer agreement or 
account application.67 Accordingly, the BSA, the CBA, and other 
commentators proposed that the disclosures be a part of a new account 
form/account application.68

    \67\ See, comment letters 10, 27, 84, 101, 102, 104, 115, 166, 
172, 173, 192, 207, 212, 239, 250, 279 and 282.
    \68\ See, comment letters 10, 27, 84, 101, 192 and 239.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A number of the commentators, including the OCC, expressed concerns 
about competing disclosures of the NASD and financial institution 
regulators, especially when the expenses associated with printing 
disclosure documents are considered.69 One commentator, Citicorp 
Investment Services, noted that compliance costs for the Interagency 
disclosures were in excess of one million dollars, yet the proposed 
rule change would require existing materials to be reprinted.70 
The commentators urged the NASD to coordinate with financial 
institution regulators to adopt one standard disclosure.

    \69\ See, comment letters 3, 4, 11, 28, 40, 50, 63, 64, 67, 75, 
81, 104, 115, 120, 121, 128, 129, 130, 180, 208, 213, 234, 237, 252 
and 279.
    \70\ See, comment letter 67.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many commentators, including the ICI, OCC, and the FRB, said that 
the proposed SIPC disclosure would cause greater confusion than 
existing disclosure requirements.71 The commentators argued that 
the SIPC disclosure is confusing because it stands alone with no 
explanation of SIPC. The OCC and a number of other commentators 
recommended that, in the alternative, the NASD should amend the 
proposed rule change to require the SIPC disclosure only where sales 
activities include representations regarding SIPC. A number of 
commentators also expressed their view that the proposed SIPC 
disclosure is technically incorrect because the loss of principal 
amounts invested is protected where a broker/dealer becomes 
insolvent.72 One commentator suggested that the SIPC disclosure be 
amended to state that ``losses due to market fluctuation are not 
protected by SIPC.'' 73

    \71\ See, comment letters 1, 7, 9, 11, 12, 16, 19, 30, 37, 50, 
54, 75, 76, 80, 81, 84, 90, 92, 93, 103, 107, 112, 113, 115, 121, 
122, 123, 129, 137, 140, 143, 167, 172, 173, 177, 183, 204, 207, 
210, 211, 224, 230, 234, 236, 244, 252 and 282.
    \72\ See, comment letters 20, 21, 22, 25, 27, 75, 76, 85, 94, 
99, 104, 133, 137, 142, 147, 148, 156, 167, 168, 170, 178, 183, 186, 
188, 190, 196, 210, 211, 216, 233, 266, 269, 270, 271 and 272.
    \73\ See, comment letter 233.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A large number of commentators also noted that the proposed SIPC 
disclosures discriminate among broker/dealers. They argued that if the 
SIPC disclosure requirement is to be adopted at all, the disclosures 
should apply to all member firms whether operating on financial 
institution premises or not; limiting SIPC disclosure to financial 
institution broker/ dealers is not only anti-competitive but 
misleading.74

    \74\ See, comment letters 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 17, 18, 22, 23, 25, 27, 
37, 40, 47, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 63, 64, 77, 81, 84, 88, 92, 94, 99, 
100, 104, 107, 109, 110, 115, 119, 121, 122, 123, 129, 130, 140, 
142, 147, 153, 155, 167, 168, 169, 174, 177, 184, 186, 189, 190, 
193, 197, 204, 207, 208, 212, 216, 225, 226, 227, 230, 236, 239, 
240, 242, 256, 258, 266, 269, 270, 271 and 279.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to these comments, the NASD has determined to delete 
the proposed SIPC disclosure in paragraph (c)(9)(D). The required 
disclosure set forth in subsection (c)(4) of the proposed rule change 
is now substantively identical to that contained in the Interagency 
Statement.
    9. Solicitation. Subsection (c)(10) of the original proposed rules 
prohibited members from using confidential financial information 
maintained by the financial institution to solicit customers for its 
broker/dealer services.75 Many of the commentators argued that, to 
the extent there are special concerns when a financial institution 
provides confidential financial information, the concerns are properly 
the subject of financial institution regulation and existing federal 
privacy laws, not NASD rulemaking.

    \75\ See, comment letters 1, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 
19, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 37, 40, 41, 44, 46, 52, 59, 60, 
61, 62, 63, 64, 67, 72, 73, 75, 76, 82, 83, 84, 86, 88, 90, 91, 92, 
95, 99, 100, 102, 104, 106, 110, 111, 112, 113, 115, 119, 121, 122, 
123, 127, 129, 130, 131, 133, 136, 137, 138, 141, 142, 145, 147, 
153, 154, 156, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 172, 173, 174, 176, 177, 
178, 180, 183, 184, 186, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 197, 202, 204, 
208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 216, 220, 224, 225, 226, 227, 230, 232, 
233, 234, 236, 237, 239, 240, 242, 244, 255, 256, 258, 265, 266, 
272, 274, 278, 281, 282 and 294.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commentators who opposed the limitations advised the NASD that

[[Page 11927]]
prohibitions on a member's use of confidential financial information 
should apply equally to all broker/dealers. The commentators argued 
that there is no public policy reason why customer information 
possessed by affiliates of non-financial institution broker/dealers on 
real estate holdings, consumer finance loans, insurance, or other 
financial matters should be treated differently than customer 
information provided by a financial institution.
    The commentators asked, however, if the NASD determines to retain 
this aspect of the proposed rule change, that the provision be amended 
to allow a member's use of confidential financial information where a 
customer has approved of such use. In addition, the OCC recommended 
that the provision be amended to require members to establish policies 
and procedures regarding the use of confidential financial information 
instead of banning the use of such information. Many commentators asked 
that the term ``confidential financial information'' be defined, if the 
NASD retains the provision in the proposed rule change.76

    \76\ See, comment letters 13, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24, 26, 29, 
31, 32, 37, 38, 39, 45, 47, 54, 56, 72, 74, 79, 80, 81, 85, 108, 
110, 111, 112, 118, 119, 121, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 135, 
138, 144, 146, 147, 148, 151, 157, 165, 169, 182, 183, 187, 188, 
189, 190, 192, 193, 194, 198, 201, 205, 206, 216, 220, 221, 224, 
231, 239, 240, 241, 243, 246, 251, 259, 263, 271, 276 and 280.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, some commentators asked how a member could restrict the 
use of confidential information where dual employees have access to the 
information.77 Another commentator asked that the rule be amended 
to permit the financial institution to control abusive use of 
confidential financial information where a wholly-owned broker/dealer 
subsidiary is involved.78 Another commentator also urged that 
sharing confidential information should be permitted where the 
financial institution and the broker/dealer are affiliates.79

    \77\ See, comment letters 6, 10, 59, 193 and 244.
    \78\ See, comment letter 138.
    \79\ See, comment letter 94.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the comments, the proposed rule change has been 
amended in subsection (c)(5) under a new heading entitled ``Use of 
Confidential Information'' to allow the use of confidential financial 
information with the prior written approval of the customer. In 
addition, a definition of the term ``confidential financial 
information'' has been added to the proposed rule change which provides 
that information will not be regarded as confidential if it can be 
obtained from unaffiliated credit bureaus or similar companies in the 
ordinary course of business.80 Further, a customer's name, address 
and telephone number are not confidential information unless the 
customer specifies otherwise.

    \80\ The NASD has indicated that credit bureaus obtain and 
report information concerning the creditworthiness of individuals 
such as loan payment histories, checking and savings account 
activity, available credit, and total debt information. Similarly, 
the NASD staff has stated its belief that credit bureaus do not 
maintain net worth information including the value of the customer 
assets such as property, depository accounts, certificates of 
deposits, securities and other investments. See Letters from Elliott 
R. Curzon and Suzanne E. Rothwell, Assistant General Counsel, NASD, 
to Mark Barracca, Branch Chief, SEC, note 2, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. Communications with the Public. Paragraph (c)(11)(B) of the 
original proposed rule change required that all communications 
regarding securities transactions and long and short positions, 
including confirmations and account statements, must clearly indicate 
that the broker/dealer services are provided by the member and not by 
the financial institution, and must be sent directly to the customer by 
the member. Commentators, including the ICI, ABA, BSA, CBA, FRB, and 
the OCC, asked that this provision be amended to permit combined 
account statements of a broker/dealer and a financial institution as a 
customer service.\81\ These commentators argued that requiring a 
separate statement would increase costs, reduce efficiencies and 
frustrate consumers. These commentators also noted that the prohibition 
is particularly problematic with respect to ``sweep accounts'' and 
individual retirement accounts at financial institutions which allow 
for investments in securities products offered through an NASD member.

    \81\ See, comment letters 15, 23, 26, 28, 30, 31, 35, 39, 40, 
42, 43, 46, 47, 48, 53, 54, 56, 58, 69, 71, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 83, 
86, 110, 115, 116, 117, 119, 122, 123, 124, 126, 127, 128, 129, 131, 
135, 136, 140, 143, 145, 146, 148, 152, 156, 158, 159, 162, 163, 
167, 184, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 192, 194, 199, 200, 201, 205, 
207, 224, 233, 239, 241, 243, 245, 246, 248, 251, 276, 279, 280 and 
281.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (c)(11)(B) of the original proposed rule change also 
required that all communications sent by the member to a customer must 
clearly indicate that the broker/dealer services are provided by the 
member and not by the financial institution. Several commentators 
asserted that requiring the member to disclose that the financial 
institution is not the broker/dealer may lead to customer 
confusion.\82\ These commentators also asked whether the requirement 
that the communication ``clearly indicate that the broker/dealer 
services are provided by the member'' requires an affirmative statement 
to that effect. Finally, one commentator argued that identifying a 
specific financial institution in the disclosure is burdensome where a 
member is networking with more than one financial institution.\83\

    \82\ See, comment letters 7, 23, 37, 75, 107, 108, 115, 137, 
142, 155, 167, 208, 212, 213, 236, 267 and 279.
    \83\ See, comment letter 213.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, paragraph (c)(11)(B) of the original proposed rules also 
required the member to ensure that any documentation regarding 
securities transactions sent directly to a member's customer by an 
issuer, transfer agent, or principal underwriter is in compliance with 
the federal securities laws and NASD rules. Several commentators argued 
that the member should not be responsible for correspondence from the 
issuer, transfer agent, or underwriter, particularly in the absence of 
SEC rules requiring these entities to submit such communications to the 
NASD member firm for review prior to dissemination.\84\

    \84\ See, comment letters 7, 17, 21, 25, 27, 63, 64, 84, 110, 
121, 129, 140, 156, 181, 207, 234, 242, 276 and 282.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commentator also argued that smaller members may not have the 
economic clout to require the issuer, underwriter, and others to submit 
such documentation to the member in order to ensure that they comply 
with the rules.\85\ Another commentator asserted that ensuring that 
documents sent by third parties comply with SEC and NASD rules would 
impose strict liability upon members for matters that are often beyond 
their knowledge or control.\86\ Another commentator stated that the 
rule would make the member liable for misrepresentations appearing in 
prospectuses and offering circulars about which the member has no 
knowledge.\87\

    \85\ See, comment letter 7.
    \86\ See, comment letter 25.
    \87\ See, comment letter 63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the comments received, the proposed rule change has 
been amended to permit a joint account statement where the member's 
securities products are clearly distinguished from FDIC-insured 
products of the financial institution, which is included as paragraph 
(c)(6)(A) of the proposed rule change. In addition, the provision has 
been amended to delete the requirement for members to ensure the 
accuracy of communications sent by third parties.
    Paragraph (c)(11)(C) of the original proposed rules provided that 
any advertisement or sales literature, as defined in Article III, 
Section 35 of the NASD Rules of Fair Practice, used to describe or 
promote the availability of broker/dealer services of the member on the 
premises of a financial institution

[[Page 11928]]
must be approved by the member prior to distribution, in compliance 
with Article III, Section 35(b)(1) and, where required, filed with the 
NASD Advertising Regulation Department. Several commentators asserted 
that this provision would expand the filing requirements of members 
because it would require that all advertisements issued by a financial 
institution that mention the member be filed with the NASD.88 The 
FRB asserted that the NASD does not need to review financial 
institution advertisements that describe products and services offered 
by an NASD member because such materials are reviewed by financial 
institution regulators to ensure that the materials are accurate and 
not misleading.89

    \88\ See, comment letters 30, 115, 129 and 211.
    \89\ See, comment letter 103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the comments received, the NASD has deleted this 
provision and substituted more general requirements in paragraphs 
(c)(6)(B) and (C) to require that the financial institution may only be 
referenced by a member in a non-prominent manner in advertisements, 
sales literature or similar materials, and that such material, if 
jointly issued by the member and the financial institution, must 
distinguish clearly between the products and services offered by the 
member and the financial institution.
    Paragraph (c)(11)(D) of the original proposed rule provided that 
advertisements and sales materials issued by the member which relate 
exclusively to its broker/dealer services must indicate prominently 
that the broker/dealer services are being provided by the member and 
not the financial institution; that the financial institution is not a 
registered broker or dealer; and whether the member is or is not 
affiliated with the financial institution. The ICI and other 
commentators asserted that requiring a member to reference the 
financial institution for the sole purpose of complying with this 
provision, although the financial institution is not otherwise 
affirmatively mentioned, may lead to customer confusion.90 The BSA 
and other commentators also argued that stating that the bank is not a 
broker/dealer ignores the fact that the bank may be operating as a 
broker/dealer exempt from registration under of the 1934 Act. Indeed, 
one commentator suggested that stating that the bank is not a broker/
dealer connotes inferiority and misleads the public by implying that 
the bank is required to be registered.91 Another commentator noted 
that stating that the bank is not a broker/dealer would be inaccurate 
with respect to its particular arrangement because the financial 
institution in its case operates a bond department which is in fact a 
registered broker/dealer.92

    \90\ See, comment letters 7, 23, 37, 75, 107, 108, 115, 137, 
142, 154, 167, 208, 212 and 279.
    \91\ See, comment letter 121.
    \92\ See, comment letter 90.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commentators, including the ABA and CBA, stated that no 
disclosures should be required beyond what is presently required by the 
Interagency Statement (i.e., deposits are not FDIC insured, obligations 
of the financial institution or guaranteed by the financial 
institution, and involve risks.) 93

    \93\ See, comment letters 3, 7, 40, 92, 94, 166, 184, 204 and 
239.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the commentators, the NASD has amended this 
provision, now set forth in paragraph (c)(6)(B), to delete the 
requirements that members disclose that the financial institution is 
not a registered broker/dealer, and whether the member is or is not 
affiliated with the financial institution. The provision now requires 
disclosure of any material relationship between the member and the 
financial institution.
    Paragraph (c)(11)(D) of the original proposed rules also permits 
advertisements and sales literature issued by the member which relate 
exclusively to its broker/dealer services to reference the financial 
institution in a non-prominent manner solely for the purpose of 
identifying the location where broker/dealer services are available. 
The ICI, BSA, CBA, and the FRB said that restrictions on references to 
the financial institution may be misleading where the financial 
institution acts as an investment adviser to proprietary funds.94 
These commentators believe that the restrictions on references to the 
financial institution may prevent truthful advertising of the 
affiliation between the financial institution and the broker/dealer. 
The NASD has modified this requirement, which is now set forth in 
paragraph (c)(6)(B) of the proposed rule change, consistent with the 
provisions of the Chubb Letter.

    \94\ See, comment letters 19, 25, 27, 29, 52, 67, 68, 81, 84, 
104, 114, 115, 119, 129, 172, 192, 196, 212 and 245.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other commentators stated that the limitations on references to the 
financial institution set forth in paragraph (c)(11)(D) are 
inconsistent with Article III, Section 35, which allows a member to use 
a ``generic name,'' provided that the identity of the member firm and 
its relationship to the name are conspicuously set forth.95 The 
NASD does not intend for the proposed rule change to modify the ability 
of members to rely on Article III, subsection 35(f)(3)(B) to use a 
generic name.

    \95\ See, comment letters 17, 21 and 242.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (c)(11)(E) of the original proposed rule change permitted 
jointly issued material if the name of the member is displayed 
prominently in the section of the materials that describes the broker/
dealer services offered by the member, which section will be deemed 
material of the member. This concept of segregated advertising, 
according to the ICI, the FRB, and other commentators, will prove to be 
problematic in practice because it is difficult to physically separate 
the discussion of broker/dealer services when the product offered 
includes services from both the depository institution and the broker/
dealer.96 In response to these comments, the NASD has amended the 
provision set forth in paragraph (c)(6)(C) of the proposed rule change 
to require that joint sales materials ``distinguish'' the products of 
the member from those of the financial institution.

    \96\ See, comment letters 63, 80, 103, 104, 115, 233, 279 and 
167.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commentators suggested that the NASD amend paragraph 
(c)(11)(E) to provide for introductory letters permitting the financial 
institution to introduce financial institution customers to the broker/
dealer.97 The NASD has determined not to amend the proposed rule 
change as requested, because it does not believe the proposed rules 
currently prohibit such letters.

    \97\ See, comment letters 9, 154, 180 and 213.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, paragraph (c)(11)(D) of the original proposed rules 
provided that the financial institution must appear in a non-prominent 
manner in advertising relating exclusively to broker/dealer services, 
while paragraph (c)(11)(E) of the original proposed rules states that 
the name of the member must be displayed prominently in the section of 
jointly issued material that describes broker/dealer services offered 
by the member. Some commentators asked that the term ``prominently'' be 
defined.98 Further, some of these commentators maintained that the 
provisions are inherently inconsistent with one another in that they 
require the financial institution to appear in a non-prominent manner, 
while also requiring the member to disclose that the financial 
institution is not a broker/dealer and broker/dealer services are not 
offered by the financial institution.99 The NASD has amended these 
provisions which are set forth in paragraph (c)(6)(B) and (C)

[[Page 11929]]
by eliminating the provisions which create the apparent inconsistency.

    \98\ See, comment letters 80, 135, 140, 181, 213 and 215.
    \99\ See, comment letters 1, 27, 84 and 208.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commentators asserted that communications with the public 
should be uniform among all broker/dealers if eliminating customer 
confusion is truly the NASD's goal.100 The NASD agrees and 
believes the proposed rule change advances that goal.

    \100\ See, comment letters 48, 63, 66, 84, 129 and 208.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    D. Financial Institution Logos. While the proposed rule change does 
not specifically address the issue of the use of financial institution 
logos in advertisements and sales literature, several commentators, 
including the FRB, asked the NASD to clarify its position on the use on 
financial institution logos by NASD members to dispel any confusion 
about the permissibility of using financial institution holding company 
family logos. The FRB urged the NASD to permit the broker/dealer to use 
an affiliated financial institution logo to advertise its 
services.101 Subsequent to the publication of Notice to Members 
94-94, the NASD issued Notice to Members 95-49 to clarify its previous 
statements on the use of logos of financial institutions in 
advertisements and sales literature of members in a manner consistent 
with the Chubb Letter. The Notice stated that the logo of a non-member 
(representative only of the non-member) may only be used in member 
communications to identify the non-member entity.

    \101\ See, comment letters 11, 85, 103, 121, 140, 184, 189, 191, 
216, 234, and 282.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing 
for Commission Action

    The NASD consents to an extension of the time for Commission action 
to 30 days from the end of the comment period specified in Item IV 
below. At such time, the Commission will:
    A. By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule 
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and 
arguments concerning the foregoing. Persons making written submissions 
should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and 
Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549. 
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 inspection and copying in the 
Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing will also be 
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the 
NASD. All submissions should refer to the file number in the caption 
above and should be submitted by May 21, 1996.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, 
pursuant to delegated authority.102

    \102\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-6970 Filed 3-21-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P