The balance of regulatory compliance and financial sustainability within the municipal securities sector is increasingly under scrutiny. One of the pressing concerns raised by dealer groups to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) involves the issue of fee levies on municipal advisors. While some industry professionals believe adjustments in fee assessments are necessary to create a fairer financial ecosystem, others argue that such changes could destabilize the current structure. This article will dissect the issues surrounding the MSRB’s fee assessment processes, revealing the tensions between dealer groups and municipal advisors, with a broader consideration of how these fees affect the overall market.
The bond dealers, represented by organizations such as the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), the Bond Dealers of America (BDA), and the American Securities Association (ASA), have voiced a collective need for the MSRB to rethink its current approach to assessing fees. These associations have claimed that the existing fee structure unfairly burdens deal-makers, particularly as it heavily leans on dealer-related fees. They propose a shift to a system where fees levied on municipal advisors are based on their market activity rather than fixed assessments based on headcount. This shift aims to create a broader base for fee generation while allowing for a more equal distribution of regulatory costs among the various entities in the municipal market.
However, varying responses from the National Association of Municipal Advisors (NAMA) introduce a contrasting perspective. NAMA’s Executive Director, Susan Gaffney, highlights that the wide range of business models among municipal advisors complicates the establishment of a fair fee structure. Their advocacy centers on maintaining the traditional model of assessing fees based on the number of professionals within an advisory firm, arguing that any deviation could discourage smaller firms from operating in the sector and ultimately harm the protection of issuers—one of the core missions of the MSRB.
The discussions surrounding municipal advisor fees evoke broader questions about the financial viability and long-term health of the municipal advisory profession. The assertion that imposing a more extensive fee structure based on market activity may disadvantage smaller firms sheds light on potential economic pressure points within the industry. If fees increase without a corresponding increase in business or opportunities, some smaller advisors may opt to exit the market entirely, effectively reducing competition and resources for issuers looking for guidance.
Concerns regarding fee distribution have also been reinforced by statistics outlined in BDA’s communications, showing an overwhelming reliance on dealer-related fees. In FY 2024, municipal advisor-related fees accounted for a mere 6% of total revenues collected by the MSRB from regulated entities. There exists a significant disparity in contribution levels; dealers are paying the lion’s share of fees while advisors benefit from the same regulatory system without equivalently shouldering the financial burden. This discrepancy raises questions about fairness and sustainability, putting pressure on the MSRB to ensure a more balanced fee structure.
Due to ongoing discussions, the MSRB has decided to postpone its rate card filing for 2025, opting instead to assess feedback from the RFI (Request for Information) issued last year. Through this gesture, the board appears to acknowledge the complexities and competing interests at play. The commitment to leverage stakeholder input reflects an understanding that the regulatory environment for municipal markets must adapt to the evolving demands of its participants.
Moreover, the BDA’s recommendation for adjustments to the fee rate change policy—suggesting moving away from allowing 25% maximum increases to a 10% cap—illustrates the need for stability and predictability in fee assessments. Such changes could enhance confidence among dealers in navigating the market landscape while ensuring that expenses remain manageable for advisors.
As the dialogue surrounding municipal advisor fees and dealer burdens continues, it is clear that both sides of the argument present legitimate concerns. Fundamental to resolving these disparities is the recognition of the need for both fairness and sustainability in the municipal securities space. While the MSRB must tread carefully to consider the diverse structures of municipal advisory firms, it cannot overlook the imperative to evolve its fee structure in a way that fairly distributes regulatory responsibilities across the board. Ultimately, a balanced solution will not only uphold the integrity of regulatory practices but also foster a competitive and equitable environment for all participants in the municipal securities market. The future depends on how effectively these entities can collaborate to find a common ground that serves the interests of both advisors and dealers.
Leave a Reply