February 22, 2011Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary
RE: File Number S7-45-10
Dear Elizabeth Murphy:
Thank you for the opportunity to voice my concerns on the proposed rulemaking by the SEC on the registration of municipal advisors. We are a small, locally owned bank, and have municipal customers that would be affected by this rule.
At the heart of this proposal is the term ?advice?. This term is not defined anywhere in the statute or the proposed regulation. We have no way of knowing in advance what this term would mean. The proposal seems to mean that anyone who provides deposit services to any municipality would have costs and red tape to deal with in order to fulfill the continuing education requirements to keep up with the rules of conduct that are required for registrants. If this rule applies to us, we would have to register and be examined by the SEC, and will be subjected to another regulatory examination.
The services we provide for our customers are to accept their deposits, and pledge securities when the deposits exceed FDIC Insurance limits. We aren?t offering them any type of advice, but without knowing the definition of the term ?advice? in this rule, we assume the rule could apply to us. Small financial institutions will deal with the costs of this rule by passing the costs on to the municipal customers, or by discontinuing services to municipal customers.This rule will have an adverse affect on our bank and on the customers we serve. We ask that you remove banks from the definition of municipal advisor. Sincerely,