Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: May 31, 2017
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comIn November 2016 the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved a rule proposal of FINRA that requires disclosure for transactions conducted by FINRA members with non-institutional customers. Dealers have to disclose on retail customer confirmations their mark-ups and mark-downs on most municipal and corporate bond transactions, calculated from the bond’s prevailing market price (PMP).
The amendment will become effective on May 14, 2018. The already existing Rules 2232 (a) and (b) will remain the same. Additionally to those, the amendment will introduce Rules 2232 (c), (d) and (e).
Through these amendments FINRA member firms then have to disclose additional transaction-related information to retail customers for trades in certain fixed income securities. The disclosure requirement is limited to certain principle transactions with non-institutional customers in corporate debt or agency debt securities.
FINRA and the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) adopted these rules, which have to be followed by their members. Working closely together, they developed similar rules to the existing rules concerning the transaction cost information when acting as principal with customers for equity trades. The amendment is supposed to ensure consistent disclosures to customers across debt securities and shall reduce the operational burdens for the firms that trade multiple fixed income securities.
The new mark-up disclosure requirements of rule 2232 (c) require members to disclose to a non-institutional customer the amount of mark-up or mark-down the customer paid for a trade in a corporate or agency debt security, if the member also executes one or more offsetting principal trades in the same security on the same trading day which in the aggregate meet or exceed the size of the customer trade.
To illustrate the concept of the new rules, both FINRA and MSRB provided the following example:
If a dealer purchased 100 bonds at 09:30 am and then satisfied three customer orders for 50 bonds each in the same security on the same day without purchasing any more of the bonds, the proposal would require mark-up disclosure on two of the three trades, since one of the trades would have been satisfied by selling out of the member’s inventory rather than through an offsetting principal transaction by the member.
Two exceptions from Rule 2232 (c) are made by Rule 2232 (d):
Dealers have to calculate their mark-ups and mark-downs in accordance with the PMP guidance contained in FINRA Rule 2121 and have to express them both as dollar amount and a percentage of PMP.
The calculation of the mark-ups made by the members may be based on the information they have available as a result of reasonable diligence at the time they input relevant transaction information into systems to generate confirmations. Amended rule 2232 does not prevent members from maintaining real-time, intra-day confirmation generation processes. Third-party service providers can be engaged to facilitate mark-up disclosure consistent with rule 2232.
The new Rule 2232 (e) requires members to provide a reference and if necessary a hyperlink to a web page hosted by FINRA that contains TRACE publicly available trading data for the specific security that was traded, along with a brief description of the type of information available on that page.
Therefore FINRA provided a short Uniform Resource Locator (URL): https://bondfacts.finra.org/
This URL has to be either attached in print form in case of paper confirmations, or as a hyperlink to the web page in case of electronic confirmations.
Besides the obligation of providing a reference, Rule 2232 (e) further requires members to disclose the time of execution for all non-institutional customer trades in corporate and agency debt securities. Trade time disclosure is required even in cases where mark-up disclosure is not triggered.
Conclusion:
Paul Lieberman has more than three decades of experience preparing and revising policies and procedures, developing effective supervision structures, leading and coordinating internal investigations and defending regulatory enforcement proceedings before the SEC, FINRA and state securities departments/commissions.
Laura K. Kues assisted in the preparation of these Alerts. Laura graduated from Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz (Germany) in June 2015 (First State Exam) with the priority area in Competition Law Intern at Eaton & Van Winkle, LLP (USA) during the 2017 German legal clerkship at the district court of Mainz (Germany).
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services vitiating the so-called “background circumstances” test required by half of federal circuit courts.1 The background circumstances test required majority group plaintiffs pleading discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to meet a heightened pleading standard […]
Author: Matthew F. Mimnaugh
Special purpose acquisition companies (better known as SPACs) appear to be making a comeback. SPAC offerings for 2025 have already nearly surpassed last year’s totals, with additional transactions in the pipeline. SPACs last experienced a boom between 2020–2021, with approximately 600 U.S. companies raising a record $163 billion in 2021. Notable companies that went public […]
Author: Dan Brecher
Merging two companies is a complex legal and business transaction. A short form merger, in which an acquiring company merges with a subsidiary corporation, offers a more streamlined process that involves important corporate governance considerations. A short form merger, in which an acquiring company merges with a subsidiary corporation, offers a more streamlined process. However, […]
Author: Dan Brecher
The Trump Administration’s new tariffs are having an oversized impact on small businesses, which already tend to operate on razor thin margins. Many businesses have been forced to raise prices, find new suppliers, lay off staff, and delay growth plans. For businesses facing even more dire financial circumstances, there are additional tariff response options, including […]
Author: Brian D. Spector
Business partnerships, much like marriages, function exceptionally well when partners are aligned but can become challenging when disagreements arise. Partnership disputes often stem from conflicts over business strategy, financial management, and unclear role definitions among partners. Understanding Business Partnership Conflicts Partnership conflicts place significant stress on businesses, making proactive measures essential. Partnerships should establish detailed […]
Author: Christopher D. Warren
*** The original article was featured on Bloomberg Tax, April 28, 2025 — As a tax attorney who spends much of my time helping people and companies who have large, unresolved issues with the IRS or one or more state tax departments, it often occurs to me that the best service that I can provide […]
Author: Scott H. Novak
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!