Search results

This paper aims to measure the trade price impact of a recent regulatory disclosure intervention in municipal securities secondary markets, which required broker-dealers to disclose securities trading information on a near-real-time and continuing basis.

The author analyzes trade price outcomes in the preintervention and postintervention regimes using a suite of time series estimations that give heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors (Prais–Winsten and Cochrain–Orcutt), accommodate higher-order lag structure in the error term (autoregressive integrated moving average) and account for volatility clustering in the time series (generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity).

Results show that regulatory disclosure intervention significantly improved trade price efficiency in municipal securities secondary markets as daily trade price differential and volatility both declined market-wide after the disclosure intervention.

The sample consists of trades in State of California general obligation bonds; therefore, empirical findings may not be generalizable to other states, local governments and different types of bonds.

The findings highlight voluntary information disclosure as a practical and effective mechanism in disclosure regulation of municipal securities secondary markets.

Only a small body of work exists that examines information disclosure regulation in municipal securities secondary markets; therefore, this paper expands knowledge on the topic and should provide renewed impetus for regulatory efforts aimed at improving the efficiency of municipal capital markets.

To explain the new Municipal Advisor Rule that will take effect on July 1, 2014, which regulates persons and firms that provide advice to municipal issuers and obligated parties regarding municipal financial products or the issuance of municipal securities or that engage in certain solicitation of municipalities or obligors on behalf of third parties.

Explains who is treated as a Municipal Advisor, the standards applicable to Municipal Advisors, how the Rule may affect municipal securities issuers and obligated persons (collectively referred to as “Borrowers”) as well as other market participants, describes the exceptions and exemption s to the requirements of the Rule, and concludes with suggestions as to how Borrowers and other market participants may promote the flow of information.

The Rule will carry out a requirement of the Dodd-Frank Act, which provides that any party that provides advice to a Borrower regarding municipal financial products or the issuance of municipal securities must register with the SEC and the MSRB as a Municipal Advisor, unless such party qualifies for an exception or exemption under the Rule. Practical Implications: The Rule will change how information flows in the municipal securities market. Some consequences of the Rule may disadvantage Borrowers and other market participants. The Rule may restrict the flow of information provided to Borrowers by participants in the municipal securities marketplace that are not Municipal Advisors.

Practical guidance from experienced financial services lawyers.

To analyze the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board’s new rule outlining the standards of conduct and fiduciary duties applicable to municipal advisors.

This article contains a summary of new MSRB Rule G-42 and identifies key areas where the final version of MSRB Rule G-42 differs from the initial proposal.

New MSRB Rule G-42 represents another significant milestone in the MSRB’s development of a comprehensive regulatory framework for municipal advisors mandated under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and imposes significant requirements on municipal advisors.

Practical guidance from experienced securities and financial services lawyers.

In response to the financial crisis that began in 2007, United States President Barack Obama signed H.R. 4173, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, into law on July 21, 2010. “Dodd-Frank” is intended to correct certain problems in financial markets by federally regulating the activities of independent municipal financial advisors and comprehensively expanding regulatory oversight over credit rating agencies. This article reviews the legislation and its financial management rationale, and discusses its actual and potential impact on the future operations of the municipal securities market and its participants.

To describe the status of municipal advisor rulemaking by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB), and regulatory compliance approaches, under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act).

Examines the posture of the SEC, MSRB and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) upon completion of the MSRB’s core regulatory framework for municipal advisors. Explores threshold issues in determining municipal advisor status, approaches for preparing for and responding to initial regulatory compliance examinations by the SEC and FINRA, and key considerations in reviewing municipal advisor policies, procedures and business practices in light of the evolving regulatory and marketplace landscape.

SEC and FINRA compliance examiner feedback points to the expectation that municipal advisor policies, procedures, processes and records must be fully consistent with the firm’s business activities and must address each material aspect of all applicable MSRB and SEC rules, as well as the fiduciary duty of municipal advisors to their municipal entity clients under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Practical guidance from experienced securities and public finance attorney that provides a consolidated outline of key municipal advisor regulatory compliance obligations under the Dodd-Frank Act.

The purpose of this summary is to provide excerpts of selected Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) Regulatory Notices and Disciplinary Actions issued from April to June 2009 and a sample of disciplinary actions during that period.

The paper provides excerpts from Regulatory Notice 09‐22, Personal Securities Transactions; 09‐25, Suitability and “Know Your Customer”; 09‐27, Member Public Offerings; 09‐30, Credit Default Swaps; 09‐34, Investment Company Securities; 09‐35, Municipal Securities.

Notice 09‐22: Sound supervisory practices require that a member firm monitor personal securities transactions outside of the firm by or for its associated persons. Notice 09‐25: Suitability obligations and know‐your customer obligations are critical to protecting investors. Notice 09‐27: The offering of securities by a member firm or a control entity of the firm in a private placement raises conflicts of interest and has been an area of regulatory concern in recent years. Notice 09‐30: Regulatory authorities are adopting measures to address system risk arising from credit default swaps (CDS), including risks to the financial system arising from the lack of a central clearing counterparty to clear and settle CDS; the SEC has approved a rule establishing an interim pilot program on margin requirements for CDS transactions. Notice 09‐34: As part of the process to develop a new consolidated rulebook, FINRA is requesting comment on a proposed rule regarding the distribution and sale of investment company securities. Notice 09‐35: FINRA recommends that firms engaged in municipal securities business review and, if necessary, modify their policies and procedures in light of changes to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board's (MSRB) Electronic Municipal Market Access system (EMMA) that take effect July 1, 2009, and changes to MSRB rules that went into effect June 1, 2009. FINRA also encourages firms to review the overall adequacy and effectiveness of their current policies and procedures for municipal securities activities generally, particularly those relating to the disclosure of material information, the suitability of recommendations to retail customers, and the general supervision of their municipal securities activities.

These are direct excerpts designed to provide a useful digest for the reader and an indication of regulatory trends. The FINRA staff is aware of this summary but has neither reviewed nor edited it. For further detail as well as other useful information, the reader should visit www.finra.org

To summarize the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board’s 2017 Compliance Advisory for brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers.

Summarizes several Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) rules that the Compliance Advisory highlights as presenting key compliance risks for brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers. Discusses the factors included in the Compliance Advisory that dealers should consider when evaluating compliance procedures and controls.

By highlighting some key compliance risks and providing considerations tailored to those risks, the Compliance Advisory can be used as a tool to aid dealers in developing and assessing effective compliance programs.

Dealers should consider reviewing their firm’s existing compliance policies and procedures in light of the considerations discussed in the Compliance Advisory.

Practical guidance from experienced securities and financial services regulatory lawyers.

The purpose of the paper is to summarize and discuss selected investor‐protection and other related enhancements to federal securities regulation contained in the Dodd‐Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

The paper discusses the following investor protections and related enhancements: enhanced whistleblower incentives and protections; expanded SEC investor‐protection administrative functions including the establishment of an Office of the Investor Advocate, the appointment of an Ombudsman, and the establishment on a permanent basis of an Investor Advisory Committee; expanded enforcement authority against aiders and abettors of securities violations; evaluation of the existing standards of care employed by broker‐dealers and investment advisers; a narrowing of exemptions from registration under the Securities Act, including by directing the SEC to enact rules to disqualify “bad actors” from relying on Rule 506 of Regulation D and adjusting the definition of “accredited investor” for purposes of the SEC's rules under the Securities Act; an exemption for certain small companies from the auditor attestation requirements of Sarbanes‐Oxley; provisions to increase the oversight and accountability of credit rating agencies; and steps to bolster the regulatory oversight of the municipal securities market, including by creating a new class of regulated intermediaries – “municipal advisors”

The Dodd‐Frank Act leaves many critical issues to be fleshed out through further SEC rulemaking and in the implementation phase, including: procedures regarding whistleblower information submitted to the SEC; the actual role of the Office of the Investor Advocate; whether the SEC will adopt a broker‐dealer fiduciary‐duty standard of care; additional texture on rules disqualifying bad actors from relying on Rule 506 of Regulation D; adjustments to net worth requirements related to accredited investor status; rules on disclosure of credit ratings in registration statements; and qualification standards for municipal advisors.

Public companies and other persons affected by the Dodd‐Frank Act should: keep abreast of key developments in the rulemaking phase; possibly participate in the rulemaking process: develop realistic strategies to respond to the proposed rules; develop compliance action plans; and review whistleblower‐related compliance policies and procedures.

The paper provides expert guidance from experienced securities and financial services lawyers.

The purpose of this paper is to explain two recent actions by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), a “Settlement Order” and a National Examination Risk Alert, that highlight the importance of compliance controls with respect to political contributions and other political activities.

The paper explains Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board Rule G‐37, one of the earliest pay‐to‐play rules; the Settlement Order and how it addresses in‐kind campaign contributions, solicitation activities, and a municipal dealer's compliance failures; and the Risk Alert, including SEC staff observations and concerns based on examinations of the compliance programs of brokers and dealers engaged in the municipal securities business, practices the SEC staff has found problematic and in violation of Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board Rule G‐37, and certain practices firms have incorporated into their pay‐to‐play compliance programs.

The Settlement Order and Risk Alert provide an important reminder for investment advisers and municipal underwriters that are subject to pay‐to‐play restrictions, particularly highlighting issues relating to “in‐kind” contributions and solicitation activities, but also, beyond the municipal financing arena, may be of interest to investment advisers who have less guidance from the SEC on the application of Advisers Act Rule 206(4)‐5.

Because of the harsh consequences for not complying with the law, firms and their employees should be keenly aware of political activity that may cause violations of applicable pay‐to‐play restrictions.

The paper provides practical guidance from experienced financial services lawyers.

This paper analyzes the impact of increased federal regulatory enforcement from the SEC's Municipalities Continuing Disclosure Cooperation (MCDC) initiative on municipal debt issuers continuing disclosure practices.

We analyze the changes in continuing disclosure practices by estimating a series of difference-in-differences regressions based on variables representing issuers' changes in regulatory risk after the MCDC. The continuing disclosure data are hand-collected for 827 cities over a seven-year period.

The empirical findings indicate that increased regulatory enforcement has a significant impact on continuing disclosure compliance. We find increased enforcement has no impact on issuers that already have a higher probability of being monitored by federal regulators. We also find that an increase in continuing disclosure compliance does not automatically increase continuing disclosure timeliness.

The MCDC lacks monetary penalties for noncompliant bond issuers and no direct regulatory consequences exist for untimely disclosure. Our findings suggest that regulatory enforcement should be followed by adequate sanctions to emphasize the credibility of the enforcement threat and the SEC should consider requiring bond issuers to commit to the timely disclosure of significant information in offering documents.

This paper extends prior studies by analyzing regulatory risk in the market, and the ability of regulation to reduce disclosure compliance deficiencies in the municipal market. By focusing on the MCDC, this study is able to disentangle the impact of regulatory enforcement from the changes in accounting regulation.