December 16, 2015
Dear Mr. Fields --
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed Amendment Number 2 to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board ("MSRB") Proposed Rule G-42.
In attempting to provide a limited safe harbor to broker-dealers that also serve as municipal advisors, the MSRB has unfortunately created additional confusion with regard to investment activities by governmental entities.
With regard to the ban on acting as "principal" in transactions with governmental entities, the resultant disclosures developed by the industry (primarily through SIFMA) create a facade of compliance enabling the broker-dealer to do business with the governmental entity. These so-called "consent" or "negative consent" letters and the resultant mini-RFP activities in order to create a safe harbor for buyers and sellers to interact without creating a conflict are simply a way to get around poor rulemaking.
Further, I feel that a ban on offering so called money-market securities will adversely affect governments and limit their investment choices.
Relying on interpretive FAQ's provided by the SEC is a poor way to providing guidance for an important sector of the investing world. Reducing government's options with regard to investment activities - away from those activities which directly are related to bond proceeds - causes those entities to invest in lower-yielding alternatives, an unnecessary penalty on their activities.
I urge you to reject the proposed amendment so that it can be re-worked by the MSRB into a form which addresses these important issues.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment.
Spencer Wright
Santa Fe, NM 87505