September 11, 2015
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on proposed Rule G-42 and the limited amendments thereto. Although this topic has been discussed ad nauseum, I must add my voice to those who fail to see why almost every activity that a Municipal Advisor can engage in short of fraud is considered a disclosable conflict save one: engaging in a principal transaction with an advisory client. (OK, you can't split fees with underwriters) You may represent a developer whose interests may be opposed to your client's, but that is fine as long as it is disclosed. You can even collect money from another dealer for recommending that an advisory cleint engage in principal transactions with that dealer. That is also acceptable as long it is disclosed. However, engaging in a principal transaction with an advisory client creates such a noxious conflict that mere disclosure cannot provide adequate protection, we must proscribe the activity. Really?