.png){kind=logo}
Congress should pass the bipartisan MSRB Reform Act, sponsored by Senator Kennedy, to benefit consumers and ensure Congress and the SEC have appropriate oversight.
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT
6.8.2020
By Sarah Wynn
Dealers are not pleased with what they perceive as a lack of proper representation under the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board’s proposed changes to its board of directors, saying the MSRB “missed the mark.”
The reaction followed the MSRB's action last week, when it filed for approval from the Securities and Exchange Commission to make several changes to its governing board. The changes would shrink the board to 15 from 21 members and tighten the independence standard for members representing the public, among other tweaks. Dealers objected that the filing did not include a proposal that would have allowed municipal advisors associated with dealers to fill one of the two seats to be allotted to MAs, so long as that dealer was not an underwriter of municipal securities.
"SIFMA is disappointed the views of the industry are not reflected in the version of this rule which was sent to the SEC today,” wrote Leslie Norwood, a managing director, associate general counsel, head of munis at the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association.
Norwood objected specifically to the proposals to mandate two non-dealer muni advisors be on the board, extend to five years the "cooling off" period for dealers or MAs seeking to fill seats as public members, and to cap MSRB board membership at six years.
“The MSRB’s decision to mandate an overweighted number of non-dealer municipal advisor representatives, increase the required separation of a board member from a regulated entity from two to five years, and institute a six year cap on service is short-sighted,” Norwood said.
Norwood added that the rule amendments “miss the mark’ and reduce the “value proposition of the MSRB as an independent regulator.”
The board is broadly separated into two categories — public and regulated, and must be majority public under federal law. Under current rules, at least one regulated board member must be associated with a dealer that is a bank, at least one be associated with a dealer that is not a bank, and at least one but not less than 30% of the regulated representatives must be associated with a non-dealer MA.
The board has typically had 10 regulated members on its 21 member board, meaning that in practice the rules require three MAs.
The MSRB’s proposal says that MAs associated with dealers would remain ineligible to hold MA board seats, though draft amendments released in January would have allowed one seat to be filled by a dealer MA so long as that dealer was not an underwriter of municipal securities.
Bond Dealers of America supported the MSRB reducing its board size, but said dealers fund most of the MSRB’s budget.
“While dealers continue to fund 80% of the MSRB’s budget, the tremendous funding discrepancy between dealers and non-dealer MAs remains a problem in both appearance and in hard dollars and cents,” wrote Mike Nicholas, BDA CEO, in a statement. “The BDA will continue to raise this issue with the MSRB, the SEC, and Congress.”
The American Securities Association welcomed the MSRB’s changes, but said more reforms to increase accountability and transparency are needed. The group said Congress should pass Sen. John Kennedy’s, R-La., MSRB Reform Act of 2019, which was introduced last year. Kennedy’s bill is similar to changes the MSRB plans to make such as decreasing its board size and the five-year cooling-off period.
The board’s current public membership requirements state that individuals may not be “associated” with a regulated firm for at least two years or “employed by” a regulated firm for at least three years.
“Congress should pass the bipartisan MSRB Reform Act, sponsored by Senator Kennedy, to benefit consumers and ensure Congress and the SEC have appropriate oversight,” wrote Chris Iacovella, ASA CEO, in a statement.
. . .
To view the full article at The Bond Buyer, click here.