Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers, Major Security-Based Swap Participants, and Broker-Dealers; Capital Rule for Certain Security-Based Swap Dealers

1See Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, Public Law 111– 203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010). 2Pursuant to section 701 of the Dodd-Frank Act, Title VII may be cited as the ‘‘Wall Street Transparency and Accountability Act of 2010.’’ See Public Law 111–203, 701. The Dodd-Frank Act assigns responsibility for the oversight of the U.S. OTC derivatives markets to the Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (‘‘CFTC’’), and certain prudential regulators. The term prudential regulator is defined in section 1(a)(39) of the Commodity Exchange Act (‘‘CEA’’) (7 U.S.C. 1(a)(39)) and that definition is incorporated by reference in section 3(a)(74) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(74)). Pursuant to the definition, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (‘‘Federal Reserve’’), the Office of the Comptroller SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 17 CFR Parts 240 and 249 [Release No. 34–71958; File No. S7–05–14] RIN 3235–AL45 Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers, Major Security-Based Swap Participants, and Broker￾Dealers; Capital Rule for Certain Security-Based Swap Dealers AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Dodd￾Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (‘‘Dodd-Frank Act’’), the Securities and Exchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’), pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Exchange Act’’), is proposing recordkeeping, reporting, and notification requirements applicable to security-based swap dealers (‘‘SBSDs’’) and major security-based swap participants (‘‘MSBSPs’’), securities count requirements applicable to certain SBSDs, and additional recordkeeping requirements applicable to broker￾dealers to account for their security￾based swap and swap activities. The Commission also is proposing an additional capital charge provision that would be added to the proposed capital rule for certain SBSDs. Finally, the Commission is proposing technical amendments to the broker-dealer recordkeeping, reporting, and notification requirements. DATES: Comments should be received on or before July 1, 2014. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
Electronic Comments

• Use the Commission’s Internet
  comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ rules/proposed.shtml); or
• Send an email to rule-comments@
  sec.gov. Please include File Number S7– 05–14 on the subject line; or
• Use the Federal eRulemaking Portal
  (http://www.regulations.gov). Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Paper Comments
• Send paper comments to Kevin M.
  O’Neill, Deputy Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090. All submissions should refer to File Number S7–05–14. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission’s Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ rules/proposed.shtml). Comments also are available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission’s Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
  Michael A. Macchiaroli, Associate Director, at (202) 551–5525; Thomas K. McGowan, Associate Director, at (202) 551–5521; Randall W. Roy, Assistant Director, at (202) 551–5522; Denise Landers, Senior Special Counsel, at (202) 551–5544; Raymond A. Lombardo, Branch Chief, at (202) 551–5755; Timothy C. Fox, Special Counsel at (202) 551–5687; or Valentina Minak Deng, Special Counsel, at (202) 551– 5778, Division of Trading and Markets, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–7010. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
  Table of Contents
  I. Background
  II. Proposed Rules and Rule Amendments
  A. Recordkeeping

1. Introduction
2. Records To Be Made and Kept Current
3. Record Maintenance and Preservation
   Requirements
   B. Reporting
4. Introduction
5. Periodic Filing of Proposed Form SBS
6. Filing of Annual Audited Financial
   Reports and Other Reports
   C. Notification
7. Introduction
8. Amendments to Rule 17a–11 and
   Proposed Rule 18a–8
9. Additional Proposed Amendments to
   Rule 17a–11
   D. Quarterly Securities Count and Capital Charge for Unresolved Securities Differences
10. Introduction
11. Proposed Rule 18a–9
12. Capital Charge
    III. General Request for Comment
    IV. Paperwork Reduction Act
    A. Summary of Collections of Information Under the Proposed Rules and Proposed Rule Amendments
13. Proposed Amendments to Rule 17a–3
    and Proposed Rule 18a–5
14. Proposed Amendments to Rule 17a–4
    and Proposed Rule 18a–6
15. Proposed Amendments to Rule 17a–5
    and Proposed Rule 18a–7
16. Proposed Amendments to Rule 17a–11
    and Proposed Rule 18a–8
17. Proposed Rule 18a–9
    B. Proposed Use of Information
    C. Respondents
    D. Total Initial and Annual Recordkeeping and Reporting Burden
18. Proposed Amendments to Rule 17a–3
    and Proposed Rule 18a–5
19. Proposed Amendments to Rule 17a–4
    and Proposed Rule 18a–6
20. Proposed Amendments to Rule 17a–5
    and Proposed Rule 18a–7
21. Proposed Amendments to Rule 17a–11
    and Proposed Rule 18a–8
22. Proposed Rule 18a–9
    E. Collection of Information Is Mandatory G. Retention Period for Recordkeeping Requirements H. Request for Comment
    V. Economic Analysis
    A. Introduction
    B. Baseline of Economic Analysis
23. OTC Derivatives Market
24. OTC Derivatives Market Participants and
    Broker-Dealers
    C. Analysis of the Proposed Program and
    Alternatives
25. Overview—The Proposed
    Recordkeeping, Reporting, Notification, and Securities Count Program
26. Alternatives to the Proposed
    Recordkeeping, Reporting, Notification, and Securities Count Rules
27. Requirements To Make and Keep
    Records
28. Requirements To Preserve Records
29. Reporting
30. Notification Requirements
31. Quarterly Securities Count
    D. Impact on Efficiency, Competition, and Capital Formation E. Implementation Considerations
    VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
    VII. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
    Fairness Act
    VIII. Statutory Basis and Text of the Proposed
    Amendments and New Rules
    I. Background
    On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Act into law.1 Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act (‘‘Title VII’’) established a new regulatory framework for the over-the-counter (‘‘OTC’’) derivatives markets.2 In this

of the Currency (‘‘OCC’’), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (‘‘FDIC’’), the Farm Credit Administration, or the Federal Housing Finance Agency (collectively, the ‘‘prudential regulators’’) is the prudential regulator of an SBSD, MSBSP, swap participant, or major swap participant if the entity is directly supervised by that agency. The Commission has oversight authority with respect to a security-based swap as defined in section 3(a)(68) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(68)), including to implement a registration and oversight program for a security-based swap dealer as defined in section 3(a)(71) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(71)) and a major security-based swap participant as defined in section 3(a)(67) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(67)). The CFTC has oversight authority with respect to a swap as defined in section 1(a)(47) of the CEA (7 U.S.C. 1(a)(47)), including to implement a registration and oversight program for a swap dealer as defined in
section 1(a)(49) of the CEA (7 U.S.C. 1(a)(49)) and
a major swap participant as defined in section 1(a)(33) of the CEA (7 U.S.C. 1(a)(33)). The Commission and the CFTC jointly have adopted rules to further define, among other things, the terms swap, swap dealer, major swap participant, security-based swap, security-based swap dealer, and major security-based swap participant. See Further Definition of ‘‘Swap,’’ ‘‘Security-Based Swap,’’ and ‘‘Security-Based Swap Agreement’’; Mixed Swaps; Security-Based Swap Agreement Recordkeeping, Exchange Act Release No. 67453 (July 18, 2012), 77 FR 48208 (Aug. 13, 2012) (joint Commission/CFTC final rule); Further Definition of ‘‘Swap Dealer,’’ ‘‘Security-Based Swap Dealer,’’ ‘‘Major Swap Participant,’’ ‘‘Major Security-Based Swap Participant’’ and ‘‘Eligible Contract Participant’’, Exchange Act Release No. 66868 (Apr. 27, 2012), 77 FR 30596 (May 23, 2012) (joint Commission/CFTC final rule). 3See Public Law 111–203, 701 through 774. 4See Public Law 111–203, 764; 15 U.S.C. 78o–10. 5See 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(f)(2). 6See 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(f)(1). 7See 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(f)(1)(B)(ii). A nonbank SBSD or nonbank MSBSP could be dually registered with the Commission as a broker-dealer (respectively, a ‘‘broker-dealer SBSD’’ or ‘‘broker￾dealer MSBSP’’) or registered with the Commission only as an SBSD or MSBSP (respectively, a ‘‘stand￾alone SBSD’’ or ‘‘stand-alone MSBSP’’). Any of these registrants or a bank SBSD or bank MSBSP also could register with the CFTC as a futures commission merchant (‘‘FCM’’), swap dealer, or major swap participant. 8See 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(f)(1)(B)(i). 9See 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(g). 10See 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(i). 11While it is anticipated that some broker-dealers and banks will register as SBSDs in order to engage in security-based swap activities, it is unclear whether broker-dealers or banks will register as MSBSPs. For example, a broker-dealer or bank may be required to register as an MSBSP because of the nature of its security-based swap activities. See 15 U.S.C. 78a(c)(67) (defining the term major security￾based swap participant); Further Definition of ‘‘Swap Dealer,’’ ‘‘Security-Based Swap Dealer,’’ ‘‘Major Swap Participant,’’ ‘‘Major Security-Based Swap Participant’’ and ‘‘Eligible Contract Participant’’, 77 FR 30596 (further defining the term major security-based swap participant). In this case, the broker-dealer or bank may conclude that it is more efficient to register as an SBSD in order to engage in security-based swap activities permitted of an SBSD but not of an MSBSP. Nonetheless, because a broker-dealer or bank could register as an MSBSP, the proposed rules and the discussion in this release contemplate these categories of registrants. A broker-dealer MSBSP would be subject to all the securities laws applicable to a broker-dealer, including capital, margin, segregation, recordkeeping, reporting, notification, and securities count requirements, and to any additional requirements that would be applicable only to MSBSPs. Similarly, a bank MSBSP would
be subject to all laws and regulations applicable to a bank and to any additional requirements that would be applicable only to MSBSPs. 12The term security-based swap dealer is defined in section 3(a)(71) of the Exchange Act. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(71). The definition excludes an entity that enters into security-based swaps agreements for its own account, either individually or in a fiduciary capacity, but not as a part of a regular business. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(71)(C). Further,
section 3(a)(71)(D) provides that the Commission
shall exempt from designation as an SBSD an entity that engages in a de minimis quantity of security￾based swap dealing in connection with transactions with or on behalf of its customers and that the Commission shall promulgate regulations to establish factors with respect to the making of any determination to exempt. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(71)(D). The Commission has adopted Rule 3a71–2 to establish a de minimis exception under
section 3(a)(71)(D) of the Exchange Act. See 17 CFR
240.3a71–2; Further Definition of ‘‘Swap Dealer,’’ ‘‘Security-Based Swap Dealer,’’ ‘‘Major Swap Participant,’’ ‘‘Major Security-Based Swap Participant’’ and ‘‘Eligible Contract Participant’’, 77 FR 30635–30643. 13See 15 U.S.C. 78q(a)(1). Section 771 of the Dodd-Frank Act states that unless otherwise provided by its terms, Subtitle B of Title VII (relating to the regulation of the security-based swap markets) does not divest any appropriate Federal banking agency, the Commission, the CFTC, or any other Federal or State agency, of any authority derived from any other provision of applicable law. See Public Law 111–203, 771. 14See 17 CFR 240.17a–3 (‘‘Rule 17a–3’’); 17 CFR 240.17a–4 (‘‘Rule 17a–4’’); 17 CFR 240.17a–5 (‘‘Rule 17a–5’’); 17 CFR 240.17a–11 (‘‘Rule 17a–11’’). The Dodd-Frank Act amended the definition of security in section 3(a)(10) of the Exchange Act to include a security-based swap. See Public Law 111–203, 761(a)(2); 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(10). Therefore, the term security as used in Rules 17a–3, 17a–4, 17a–5, and 17a–11 includes a security-based swap, and any requirement in those rules relating to a security applies to a security-based swap. The Commission, however, has issued temporary exemptive relief to address the effect that the amendment to the definition of security would have on requirements in Exchange Act provisions and rules that did not otherwise apply specifically to security-based swaps prior to the amendment. See Order Granting Temporary Exemptions under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in Connection with the Pending Revision of the Definition of ‘‘Security’’ to Encompass Security-Based Swaps, and Request for Comment, Exchange Act Release No. 64795 (July 1, 2011), 76 FR 39927 (July 7, 2011) (‘‘[R]egistered broker-dealers will solely be exempt from those provisions and rules to the extent that those provisions or rules do not apply to the broker’s or Continued regard, Title VII was enacted, among other reasons, to reduce risk, increase transparency, and promote market integrity within the financial system by, among other things: (1) Providing for the registration and regulation of SBSDs and MSBSPs; (2) imposing clearing and trade execution requirements on swaps and security-based swaps, subject to certain exceptions; (3) creating recordkeeping and real-time reporting regimes; and (4) enhancing the Commission’s rulemaking and enforcement authorities with respect to all registered entities and intermediaries subject to the Commission’s oversight.3
Section 764 of the Dodd-Frank Act
added section 15F to the Exchange Act.4
Section 15F(f)(2) provides that the
Commission shall adopt rules governing reporting and recordkeeping for SBSDs and MSBSPs.5 Section 15F(f)(1)(A) provides that SBSDs and MSBSPs shall make such reports as are required by the Commission, by rule or regulation, regarding the transactions and positions and financial condition of the SBSD or MSBSP.6 Section 15F(f)(1)(B)(ii) provides that SBSDs and MSBSPs without a prudential regulator (respectively, ‘‘nonbank SBSDs’’ and ‘‘nonbank MSBSPs’’) shall keep books and records in such form and manner and for such period as may be prescribed by the Commission by rule or regulation.7 Section 15F(f)(1)(B)(i) provides that SBSDs and MSBSPs for which there is a prudential regulator (respectively, ‘‘bank SBSDs’’ and ‘‘bank MSBSPs’’) shall keep books and records of all activities related to their business as an SBSD or MSBSP in such form and manner and for such period as may be prescribed by the Commission by rule or regulation.8 Section 15F(g) of the Exchange Act requires SBSDs and MSBSPs to maintain daily trading records with respect to security-based swaps and provides that the Commission shall adopt rules governing daily trading records for SBSDs and MSBSPs.9 Finally, section 15F(i)(2) of the Exchange Act provides that the Commission shall adopt rules governing documentation standards for SBSDs and MSBSPs.10 The Commission anticipates that a number of broker-dealers will register as SBSDs (broker-dealer SBSDs) or potentially as MSBSPs (‘‘broker-dealer MSBSPs).11 Further, the Commission expects that some broker-dealers that are not registered as an SBSD or an MSBSP nonetheless will engage in security-based swap and swap activities.12 The Commission has authority under section 17(a)(1) of the Exchange Act to adopt rules requiring broker-dealers—which would include broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs—to make and keep for prescribed periods such records, furnish such copies thereof, and make and disseminate such reports as the Commission, by rule, prescribes as necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.13 The Commission also is proposing largely technical amendments to the broker￾dealer recordkeeping, reporting, and notification rules.14

dealer’s security-based swap positions or activities as of July 15, 2011—the day before the effectiveness of the change to the ‘‘security’’ definition. In other words, during the exemptive period the application of current law will remain unchanged, and those particular Exchange Act requirements will continue to apply to registered broker-dealers’ security-based swap activities and positions to the same extent they apply currently. This approach is intended to help avoid undue market disruptions resulting from the change to the ‘‘security’’ definition, while at the same time preserving the current application of those particular provisions or rules to security￾based swap activity by registered broker-dealers. Thus, under this approach of preserving the status quo, no exemption will be provided in connection with the [requirements in Exchange Act sections 17(a) and 17(b) and Rules 17a–3, 17a–4, 17a–5, 17a– 8, and 17a–13] under the Exchange Act to the extent that those requirements currently apply to registered broker-dealer activities or positions involving instruments that will be security-based swaps (but registered broker-dealers will be exempted in connection with those requirements to the extent that the requirements do not already apply to activities or positions involving those instruments.’’); Order Extending Temporary Exemptions under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in Connection with the Revision of the Definition of ‘‘Security’’ to Encompass Security￾Based Swaps, and Request for Comment, Exchange Act Release No. 68864 (Feb. 7, 2013), 78 FR 10218 (Feb. 13, 2013) (extending exemptive relief through February 11, 2014); Order Extending Temporary Exemptions under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in Connection with the Revision of the Definition of ‘‘Security’’ to Encompass Security￾Based Swaps, and Request for Comment, Exchange Release No. 71485 (Feb. 5, 2014) (extending exemptive relief with respect to Rules 17a–3, 17a– 4, 17a–5, 17a–11, and 17a–13 until the earliest compliance date set forth in any final rules regarding recordkeeping and reporting requirements for SBSDs and MSBSPs). The Commission expects that the adoption of the amendments contemplated herein would eliminate the need for temporary exemptive relief from section 17(a) and section 17(b) of the Exchange Act and Rules 17a–3, 17a– 4, 17a–5, 17a–11, and 17a–13 thereunder. 15The Commission has proposed new Rules 18a– 1 through 18a–4 to establish capital and margin requirements for SBSDs and MSBSPs, segregation requirements for SBSDs, and notification requirements with respect to segregation for SBSDs and MSBSPs. See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, Exchange Act Release No. 68071 (Oct. 18, 2012), 77 FR 70213 (Nov. 23, 2012). 16The Commission is not proposing securities count requirements for stand-alone MSBSPs or bank SBSDs. Broker-dealer
SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs would be subject to the existing securities count rule applicable to broker-dealers—Rule 17a–
13. 17 CFR 240.17a–13. The Commission is not
proposing amendments to Rule 17a–13. While in this release Rule 17a–11 is referred to as a notification rule and Rule 17a–13 is referred to as a securities count rule, Rule 17a–11 can be viewed as a reporting rule and Rule 17a–13 can be viewed as a recordkeeping rule. See Prompt Notice of Net Capital or Recordkeeping Violations, Exchange Act Release No. 9268 (July 29, 1971), 36 FR 14725 (Aug. 11, 1971) (adopting Rule 17a–11, in part, under
section 17(a) of Exchange Act, which, as discussed
above, requires a broker-dealer to make and keep for prescribed periods such records, furnish such copies thereof, and make and disseminate such reports as the Commission, by rule, prescribes as necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the Exchange Act); Quarterly Securities Counts by Certain Exchange Members, Brokers and Dealers, Exchange Act Release No. 9376 (Oct. 29, 1971), 36 FR 21178 (Nov. 4, 1971) (similarly adopting Rule 17a–13, in part, under
section 17(a) of Exchange Act).
17A broker-dealer must file the FOCUS Report
Part II, Part IIA, Part IIB, or Part II CSE depending
on the type of broker-dealer. A more detailed discussion of the FOCUS Report appears below in
section II.B.2. of this release.
18Compare proposed Rule 18a–5, with 17 CFR 240.17a–3; compare proposed Rule 18a–6, with 17 CFR 240.17a–4. 19Compare proposed Rule 18a–7, with 17 CFR 240.17a–5; compare proposed Form SBS, with the FOCUS Report. 20Compare proposed Rule 18a–8, with 17 CFR 240.17a–11. 21Compare proposed Rule 18a–9, with 17 CFR 240.17a–13. 22See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70216 (stating a similar rationale for basing the proposed capital, margin, and segregation requirements for SBSDs on the broker-dealer capital, margin, and segregation requirements). 23See, e.g., Commission Guidance to Broker￾Dealers on the Use of Electronic Storage Media Under the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act of 2000 With Respect to Rule 17a–4(f), Exchange Act Release No. 44238 (May 1, 2001), 66 FR 22916 (May 7, 2001). 24Although a broker-dealer SBSD would be able to offer customers a broader range of securities￾based services than a bank SBSD, bank SBSDs are not expected to register as broker-dealers because of the regulatory burden associated with complying with the requirements applicable to all three types of entities. Pursuant to sections 15F and 17(a) of the Exchange Act, the Commission is proposing to amend Rules 17a–3, 17a– 4, 17a–5, and 17a–11 to establish a recordkeeping, reporting, and notification program for broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs. The amendments to Rules 17a–3 and 17a–4 would establish additional recordkeeping requirements applicable to broker-dealers that are not dually registered as an SBSD or MSBSP to the extent they engage in security-based swap or swap activities. Pursuant to section 15F of the Exchange Act, the Commission is proposing new Rules 18a–5 through 18a–9.15 These new rules would establish a recordkeeping, reporting, and notification program for stand-alone SBSDs, stand-alone MSBSPs, bank SBSDs, and bank MSBSPs, and securities count requirements for stand￾alone SBSDs.16 In addition, pursuant to sections 15F and 17(a) of the Exchange Act, the Commission is proposing new FOCUS Report Form SBS (‘‘Form SBS’’) that would be used by all types of SBSDs and MSBSPs to report financial and operational information and, in the case of broker-dealer SBSDs and broker￾dealer MSBSPs, replace their use of Part II, Part IIA, Part IIB, or Part II CSE of the Financial and Operational Combined Uniform Single Report (‘‘FOCUS Report’’).17 The proposed new rules are modeled on broker-dealer Rules 17a–3, 17a–4, 17a–5, 17a–11, and 17a–13, and on the FOCUS Report. Specifically: (1) Proposed Rules 18a–5 and 18a–6 (the new recordkeeping rules) are modeled on Rules 17a–3 and 17a–4, respectively (the broker-dealer recordkeeping rules); 18 (2) proposed Rule 18a–7 and proposed Form SBS (the new reporting rules) are modeled on Rule 17a–5 and on the FOCUS Report, respectively (the broker-dealer reporting rules);
19 (3) proposed Rule 18a–8 (the new notification rule) is modeled on Rule 17a–11 (the broker-dealer notification rule); 20 and (4) proposed Rule 18a–9 (the new securities count rule) is modeled on the Rule 17a–13 (the broker-dealer securities count rule).21 The broker-dealer recordkeeping, reporting, notification, and security count requirements served as the model for the proposals because SBSDs and MSBSPs are expected to operate in financial markets and effect financial transactions that are similar to the financial markets in which broker￾dealers operate and the financial transactions that broker-dealers effect.22 In addition, as discussed below, the objectives of these broker-dealer requirements are similar to the objectives underlying the proposals regarding security-based swaps. Moreover, the broker-dealer requirements have existed for many years and have established a system of recordkeeping for securities transactions that reflect and support prudent business practices and accountability of broker-dealers and have facilitated the ability of securities regulators to review and monitor compliance with securities laws.23 Consequently, the Commission preliminarily believes the broker-dealer requirements provide an appropriate template on which to model a recordkeeping, reporting, and notification program for SBSDs and MSBSPs and a securities count program for SBSDs. Furthermore, as discussed above, it is expected that some nonbank SBSDs will dually register as broker￾dealers in order to be able to offer customers a broader range of securities￾based services than would be permitted of a nonbank SBSD.24 Therefore, establishing consistent requirements could avoid potential competitive disparities between stand-alone SBSDs and broker-dealer SBSDs with respect to their security-based swap business. Additionally, in accordance with Title VII, the Commission recently proposed, among other things, capital and margin

25See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70213. 26 Id. See also 17 CFR 240.15c3–1 (the broker￾dealer capital rule); FINRA Rules 4210 through 4240 (certain broker-dealer margin rules); 17 CFR 240.15c3–3 (the broker-dealer segregation rule). 27See 17 CFR 240.3a40–1. 28Compare 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(f)(1)(B)(i), with 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(f)(1)(B)(ii) and 15 U.S.C. 78q(a). As noted above, section 15F(f)(1)(B)(i) of the Exchange Act provides that each bank SBSD and bank MSBSP shall keep books and records of all activities related to the business as an SBSD or MSBSP in such form and manner and for such period as may be prescribed by the Commission by rule or regulation (emphasis added). See 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(f)(1)(B)(i). Whereas, section 15F(f)(1)(B)(ii) of the Exchange Act provides that each nonbank SBSD and nonbank MSBSP shall keep books and records in such form and manner and for such period as may be prescribed by the Commission by rule or regulation. See 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(f)(1)(B)(ii). Further, section 17(a) of the Exchange Act provides that broker￾dealers shall make and keep for prescribed periods such records, furnish such copies thereof, and make and disseminate such reports as the Commission, by rule, prescribes as necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. See 15 U.S.C. 78q(a). 29Section 15F(e)(1)(A) of the Exchange Act provides that the prudential regulators shall prescribe capital and margin requirements for bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs, and section 4s(e)(1)(A) of the CEA provides that the prudential regulators shall prescribe capital and margin requirements for swap dealers and major swap participants for which there is a prudential regulator (‘‘bank swap dealers’’ and ‘‘bank swap participants’’). See 15 U.S.C. 78o– 10(e)(1)(A); 7 U.S.C. 6s(e)(1)(A). The prudential regulators have proposed capital and margin requirements for bank swap dealers, bank SBSDs, bank swap participants, and bank MSBSPs. See Margin and Capital Requirements for Covered Swap Entities, 76 FR 27564 (May 11, 2011). 30See section II.A. of this release. 31See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70213. 32This proposal is discussed below in greater detail in section II.D.3. of this release. requirements applicable to nonbank SBSDs and nonbank MSBSPs, and segregation requirements applicable to SBSDs.25 The capital, margin, and segregation proposals that would be applicable to SBSDs were modeled on the capital, margin, and segregation requirements that are applicable to broker-dealers.26 The broker-dealer capital, margin, segregation, recordkeeping, reporting, notification, and securities count requirements are known
collectively as the broker-dealer financial responsibility rules.27 The financial responsibility rules collectively establish a comprehensive regulatory program designed to promote the prudent operation of broker-dealers and the safeguarding of customer securities and funds held by broker￾dealers. The recordkeeping, reporting, notification, and securities count requirements applicable to broker￾dealers are an integral part of the financial responsibility rules as they are designed to provide transparency into the business activities of broker-dealers and to assist the Commission and other securities regulators in reviewing and monitoring compliance with the capital, margin, and segregation requirements. Similarly, the proposed recordkeeping, reporting, notification, and securities count requirements applicable to SBSDs and MSBSPs along with the proposed capital, margin, and segregation requirements for these registrants are designed to establish a comprehensive financial responsibility program for SBSDs and MSBSPs. Like the broker￾dealer rules, the proposed recordkeeping, reporting, notification, and securities count requirements applicable to SBSDs and MSBSPs are designed to provide transparency into the business activities of SBSDs and MSBSPs and assist the Commission in reviewing and monitoring compliance with the proposed capital, margin, and segregation requirements applicable to SBSDs and MSBSPs. While the proposed recordkeeping, reporting, notification, and securities count rules are modeled on the broker￾dealer rules, stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs will not engage in the same range of activities permitted of broker-dealers. For example, broker￾dealers are permitted to act as dealers with respect to all types of securities, whereas stand-alone SBSDs would be permitted to act as dealers only with respect to security-based swaps and stand-alone MSBSPs would not be permitted to act as dealers with respect to any types of securities. Consequently, the proposed requirements in the new rules applicable to stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs reflect these differences and are narrower in scope than those applicable to broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs. Further, the proposed requirements applicable to bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs are narrower in scope than those applicable to stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs for three reasons. First, as noted above, the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs—unlike those for nonbank SBSDs and nonbank MSBSPs—must be related to their business as an SBSD or MSBSP.28 Second, as banks, these registrants are subject to existing recordkeeping and reporting requirements administered by the prudential regulators and therefore to avoid potentially duplicative or conflicting requirements, the Commission has proposed fewer requirements for these entities. Third, the prudential regulators—rather than the Commission—will administer the capital, margin, and other
prudential requirements applicable to bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs and, as noted above, one of the purposes of the proposed recordkeeping requirements is to assist the Commission in reviewing and monitoring compliance with the proposed capital and margin rules applicable to nonbank SBSDs and nonbank MSBSPs, which the Commission will administer.29 The Commission recognizes that there may be alternative recordkeeping, reporting, notification, and securities count programs that could be used as a model to design a recordkeeping, reporting, notification, and securities count program for SBSDs and MSBSPs. Accordingly, in response to the requests for comment in this release, interested parties are encouraged to consider whether alternative approaches would be appropriate for SBSDs and MSBSPs generally as well as for each type of potential registrant—broker-dealer SBSD, broker-dealer MSBSP, stand￾alone SBSD, stand-alone MSBSP, bank SBSD, and bank MSBSP—taking into account the unique characteristics and activities of each type of potential registrant. Some of the current rules that are proposed to be amended and the proposed new rules prescribe recordkeeping or reporting requirements based on requirements in other rules that have been proposed but not yet adopted. For example, Rules 17a–3 and 17a–4, as proposed to be amended, and proposed Rules 18a–5 and 18a–6 would directly or indirectly cross-reference requirements in proposed Rule 901 of Regulation SBSR and proposed Rules 15Fh–1 through 15Fh–6 and proposed Rule 15Fk–1.30 Similarly, Rules 17a–3, 17a–4, 17a–5, and 17a–11, as proposed to be amended, and proposed Rules 18a–5, 18a–6, 18a–7, and 18a–8 cross￾reference requirements in the proposed capital, margin, and segregation requirements for SBSDs and MSBSPs.31 If a cross-referenced rule is modified from the proposal when adopted, the Commission intends to make any necessary corresponding modifications to the rules proposed in this release when they are adopted. Finally, the Commission also is proposing to add a capital charge provision to proposed Rule 18a–1.32 Proposed Rule 18a–1 would establish net capital requirements for stand-alone SBSDs and is modeled on Rule 15c3–1

33See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70217–70257. 34See Public Law 111–203, 712(a)(2). The CFTC has adopted recordkeeping and reporting rules for swap dealers and major swap participants. See Swap Dealer and Major Swap Participant Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Duties Rules; Futures Commission Merchant and Introducing Broker Conflicts of Interest Rules; and Chief Compliance Officer Rules for Swap Dealers, Major Swap Participants, and Futures Commission Merchants, 77 FR 20128 (Apr. 3, 2012). 35See Further Definition of ‘‘Swap Dealer,’’ ‘‘Security-Based Swap Dealer,’’ ‘‘Major Swap Participant,’’ ‘‘Major Security-Based Swap Participant’’ and ‘‘Eligible Contract Participant’’, 77 FR 30689. 36 Id. 37See Cross-Border Security-Based Swap Activities; Re-Proposal of Regulation SBSR and Certain Rules and Forms Relating to the Registration of Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants, Exchange Act Release No. 69490 (May 1, 2013), 78 FR 30968, 31034 (May 23, 2013). 38The Commission preliminarily believes that the proposed reporting and notification requirements that would be applicable to MSBSPs are not transaction-focused and, therefore, the MSBSP could not delegate operation compliance with respect to these requirements to other entities. under the Exchange Act (the broker￾dealer net capital rule) (‘‘Rule 15c3– 1’’).33 The capital charge provision that would be added to proposed Rule 18a– 1, which is modeled on a provision in Rule 15c3–1, was inadvertently omitted from proposed Rule 18a–1 when originally proposed. The Commission preliminarily believes that proposed Rule 18a–1 should include a provision that parallels the capital charge in Rule 15c3–1. The Commission staff consulted with staff from the prudential regulators and the CFTC in drafting the proposals discussed in this release.34 In addition, the proposals of the CFTC were considered in developing the Commission’s proposed recordkeeping, reporting, notification and securities count rules for SBSDs and MSBSPs. Request for Comment The Commission requests comment on the general approach that would require SBSDs and MSBSPs to comply with recordkeeping, reporting, notification, and securities count rules modeled on the broker-dealer recordkeeping, reporting, notification, and securities count rules. In addition, the Commission requests comment, including empirical data in support of comments, in response to the following questions:

1. Will the entities that register as
   nonbank SBSDs engage in a securities business with respect to security-based swaps that is similar to the securities business conducted by broker-dealers? If not, describe how the securities activities of nonbank SBSDs will differ from the securities activities of broker￾dealers.
2. Will the entities that register as
   bank SBSDs engage in a securities business with respect to security-based swaps that is similar to the securities business conducted by broker-dealers? If not, describe how the securities activities of bank SBSDs will differ from the securities activities of broker￾dealers.
3. How many broker-dealers will
   register as SBSDs? Describe the types of broker-dealers that will register as SBSDs and the types of activities these broker-dealers currently engage in? How many banks will register as SBSDs? Describe the types of banks that will register as SBSDs and the types of activities these banks currently engage in?
4. How many entities will register as
   MSBSPs? What types of entities? How many broker-dealers will register as MSBSPs? How many banks will register as MSBSPs?
5. Are there requirements in these
   proposed rules applicable to broker￾dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs but currently not applicable to stand-alone SBSDs or stand-alone MSBSPs that should be applicable to standalone SBSDs or stand-alone MSBSPs, or vice versa?
6. Are there requirements in these
   proposed rules applicable to broker￾dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs but currently not applicable to bank SBSDs or bank MSBSPs that should be applicable to bank SBSDs or bank MSBSPs, or vice versa?
7. Are there provisions in the rules
   that the CFTC adopted governing recordkeeping and reporting obligations of swap dealers and major swap participants that the Commission should consider incorporating into the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for SBSDs and MSBSPs? If so, please identify the specific provision and explain why the Commission should incorporate it.
8. In the release adopting a further
   definition of major security-based swap participant, the Commission stated that an entity’s security-based swap positions in general would be attributed to a parent, other affiliate, or guarantor for purposes of the MSBSP analysis to the extent that the counterparties to those positions would have recourse to that other entity in connection with the position.35 The Commission further stated that an entity that becomes an MSBSP by virtue of security-based swaps directly entered into by others must be responsible for compliance with all applicable requirements with respect to those security-based swaps (and must be liable for failures to comply), but may delegate operational compliance with transaction-focused requirements to entities that directly are party to the transactions.36 The Commission stated its preliminary belief that the same approach should apply in the cross-border context when the guarantor and the guaranteed persons are located in different jurisdictions.37 The Commission preliminarily believes that certain of the recordkeeping requirements that would be applicable to MSBSPs under the proposed amendments are transaction-focused and, therefore, that an MSBSP may delegate operational compliance with them to the entities that are directly a party to the transaction.38 For example, the Commission preliminarily believes that the proposed requirements discussed below in section II.A.2. of this release under which MSBSPs would need to make and keep current memoranda of proprietary orders, confirmations, accountholder information, and records relating to certain business conduct standards are transaction-focused. Similarly, the proposed requirements to retain communications relating to the MSBSP’s ‘‘business as such’’ are transaction-focused. On the other hand, the Commission preliminarily believes that other recordkeeping requirements proposed for MSBSPs are entity-level requirements and, therefore an MSBSP would not be permitted to delegate operational compliance with respect to these requirements to other entities. For example, the Commission preliminarily believes that the proposed requirement that an MSBSP make and keep current a general ledger (or other records) reflecting all assets and liabilities, income and expense, and capital accounts is an entity-level requirement. Commenters are asked to identify which of the recordkeeping requirements applicable to MSBSPs in proposed new Rules 18a–5 and 18a–6 that they believe are transaction-focused and to explain their reasons for identifying them as such. Commenters also are asked to identify any operational compliance challenges with respect to the proposed recordkeeping requirements raised by attributing guaranteed security-based swap positions to an MSBSP.

39See 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(f)(2).
40See 15 U.S.C. 78q(a)(1).
41See 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(f)(1)(B)(i).
42See 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(f)(1)(B)(ii).
43See 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(g).
44See 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(g)(1).
45See 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(g)(2).
46See 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(g)(3).
47See 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(g)(4).
48See 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(g)(5).
49See 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(i)(1).
50See 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(i)(2). Pursuant to section 15F(i) of the Exchange Act, the Commission has proposed Rule 15Fi–1 that would prescribe standards related to timely and accurate confirmation and documentation of security-based swaps. See Trade Acknowledgment and Verification of Security-Based Swap Transactions, Exchange Act Release No. 63727 (Jan. 14, 2011), 76 FR 3859 (Jan. 21, 2011). 51See 17 CFR 240.17a–3; 17 CFR 240.17a–4. 52See 17 CFR 240.17a–3; 17 CFR 240.17a–4. 53See 17 CFR 240.17a–3. 54 Id. As noted above in section I. of this release, the Dodd-Frank Act amended the definition of security in section 3(a)(10) of the Exchange Act to include a security-based swap. See Public Law 111– 203, 761(a)(2); 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(10). Therefore, each reference in Rules 17a–3 and 17a–4 to a security includes a security-based swap. The Commission, however, has issued temporary exemptive relief excluding security-based swaps from the definition of security to the extent Commission rules did not otherwise apply specifically to security-based swaps prior to the amendment. See Order Granting Temporary Exemptions under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in Connection with the Pending Revision of the Definition of ‘‘Security’’ to Encompass Security-Based Swaps, and Request for Comment, 76 FR 39927. 55See 17 CFR 240.17a–4. 56 Id. 57 Id. 58See, e.g., See Commission Guidance to Broker￾Dealers on the Use of Electronic Storage Media under the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act of 2000 with Respect to Rule 17a–4(f), 66 FR 22916; Books and Records Requirements for Brokers and Dealers Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Exchange Act Release No. 44992 (Oct. 26, 2001), 66 FR 55818 (Nov. 2, 2001) (‘‘The Commission has required that broker-dealers create and maintain certain records so that, among other things, the Commission, [SROs], and State Securities Regulators . . . may conduct effective examinations of broker-dealers.’’) (footnote omitted). 59See Commission Guidance to Broker-Dealers on the Use of Electronic Storage Media under the Continued
II. Proposed Rules and Rule
Amendments
A. Recordkeeping

1. Introduction
   As discussed above in section I. of this release, section 15F(f)(2) of the Exchange Act provides that the Commission shall adopt rules governing recordkeeping for SBSDs and MSBSPs.39 The Commission also has concurrent authority under section 17(a)(1) of the Exchange Act to prescribe recordkeeping requirements for broker￾dealers.40 Further, section 15F(f)(1)(B)(i) of the Exchange Act provides that each bank SBSD and bank MSBSP shall keep books and records of all activities related to its business as an SBSD or MSBSP in such form and manner and for such period as may be prescribed by the Commission by rule or regulation.41
   Section 15F(f)(1)(B)(ii) provides that
   each nonbank SBSD and nonbank MSBSP shall keep books and records in such form and manner and for such period as may be prescribed by the Commission by rule or regulation.42
   Section 15F(g) of the Exchange Act
   prescribes statutory recordkeeping requirements applicable to SBSDs and MSBSPs and requires the Commission to adopt rules with respect to these statutory requirements.43 In particular,
   section 15F(g)(1) provides that each
   registered SBSD and MSBSP shall maintain daily trading records of the security-based swaps of the registered SBSD and MSBSP and all related records (including related cash or forward transactions) and recorded communications, including electronic mail, instant messages, and recordings of telephone calls, for such period as may be required by the Commission by rule or regulation.44 Section 15F(g)(2) provides that the daily trading records shall include such information as the Commission shall require by rule or regulation.45 Section 15F(g)(3) provides that each registered SBSD and MSBSP shall maintain daily trading records for each counterparty in a manner and form that is identifiable with each security￾based swap transaction.46 Section 15F(g)(4) provides that each registered SBSD and MSBSP shall maintain a complete audit trail for conducting comprehensive and accurate trade reconstructions.47 Finally, section 15F(g)(5) provides that the Commission shall adopt rules governing daily trading records for SBSDs and MSBSPs.48
   Section 15F(i)(1) of the Exchange Act
   provides that each registered SBSD and MSBSP shall conform with such standards as may be prescribed by the Commission, by rule or regulation, that relate to timely and accurate confirmation, processing, netting, documentation, and valuation of all security-based swaps.49 Section 15F(i)(2) provides that the Commission shall adopt rules governing documentation standards for SBSDs and MSBSPs.50 After considering the anticipated business activities of SBSDs and MSBSPs, the Commission is proposing to establish a recordkeeping program for these registrants under sections 15F and 17(a) of the Exchange Act that is modeled on the recordkeeping program for broker-dealers codified in Rules 17a– 3 and 17a–4.51 Rules 17a–3 and 17a–4 specify requirements with respect to the records that a broker-dealer must make and keep current, as well as how long and, the manner in which, these records and other records relating to a broker￾dealer’s business must be maintained and preserved.52 In particular, Rule 17a–3 requires a broker-dealer to make and keep current certain books and records.53 The required records include, among other records: Blotters containing an itemized daily record of all purchases and sales of securities; ledgers reflecting all assets and liabilities, income and expense, and capital accounts; a securities record or ledger reflecting separately for each security as of the clearance dates all ‘‘long’’ or ‘‘short’’ positions; a memorandum of each brokerage order; a memorandum of each purchase or sale of a security for the account of the broker-dealer; and copies of confirmations.54 Rule 17a–4 requires a broker-dealer to preserve additional records if the broker-dealer makes or receives the type of record.55 The categories of records include, among other records, check books, bank statements, bills receivable or payable, communications relating to the broker-dealer’s business as such, and written agreements.56 The rule also establishes retention periods for all records required to be made and kept current under Rule 17a–3 and preserved under Rule 17a–4, and prescribes, among other things, how the records must be retained, including requirements for firms that preserve their records electronically.57 The recordkeeping program codified in Rules 17a–3 and 17a–4 is designed, among other things, to promote the prudent operation of broker-dealers and assist the Commission, self-regulatory organizations (‘‘SROs’’), and state securities regulators in conducting effective examinations of broker￾dealers.58 As the Commission has stated, In combination, Rules 17a–3 and 17a–4 require broker-dealers to create, and preserve in an accessible manner, a comprehensive record of each securities transaction they effect and of their securities business in general. These rules impose minimum recordkeeping requirements that are based on standards a prudent broker-dealer should follow in the normal course of business. The requirements are an integral part of the investor
   protection function of the Commission, and other securities regulators, in that the preserved records are the primary means of monitoring compliance with applicable securities laws, including antifraud provisions and financial responsibility standards.59

Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act of 2000 with Respect to Rule 17a– 4(f), 66 FR 22917. 60See 17 CFR 240.17a–3; 17 CFR 240.17a–4. 61As discussed in more detail below, the Commission also is proposing additional largely technical amendments to Rules 17a–3 and 17a–4. 62As discussed below in section II.B.2. of this release, the Commission is proposing that bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs be subject to a limited reporting program of general information about their overall financial condition based on discrete elements of the reporting program the prudential regulators have established for banks. 63See 17 CFR 240.17a–3. 64Broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs would be required to make and keep current all the records required of broker-dealers under Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended, plus the additional records required specifically of an SBSD or MSBSP. 65The proposed technical amendments are discussed below in section II.A.2.b. of this release. 66See proposed Rule 18a–5. 67The Commission is not proposing to include in proposed Rule 18a–5 requirements that would parallel requirements in paragraphs (a)(4), (a)(13), (a)(14), (a)(15), and (a)(16) of Rule 17a–3. These paragraphs require broker-dealers to make and keep current records with respect to activities that stand￾alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs would not be expected or permitted to engage in or would not relate to a bank’s business as an SBSD or MSBSP, or relate to rules that would not apply to stand￾alone SBSDs, stand-alone MSBSPs, bank SBSDs, and bank MSBSPs. Further, the Commission is not proposing to include in proposed Rule 18a–5 requirements that would parallel requirements in paragraphs (a)(17), (a)(18), (a)(19), and (a)(20) of Rule 17a–3. These requirements are designed to enhance the ability of regulators, particularly State securities regulators, to conduct effective and efficient sales practice examinations. See Books and Records Requirements for Brokers and Dealers Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 66 FR
55818. By adopting these requirements, the
Commission enabled States to adopt and enforce similar rules on the State level under the National Securities Market Improvement Act of 1996. See National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996, Public Law 104–290, 110 Stat. 3416 (1996). As discussed below, the Commission has proposed external business conduct rules for SBSDs and MSBSPs and, as discussed below, the Commission is proposing recordkeeping requirements to support examinations for compliance with these proposed external business conduct rules. 68Compare paragraph (a), with paragraph (b) of proposed new Rule 18a–5. 69See 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(g)(1), (3), and (4). 70See 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(g)(2). 71See paragraph (a)(1) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended; paragraphs (a)(1) and (b)(1) of proposed Rule 18a–5. 72See paragraph (a)(3) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended; paragraphs (a)(3) and (b)(2) of proposed Rule 18a–5. 73See paragraph (a)(5)(ii) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended; paragraphs (a)(4)(ii) and (b)(3)(ii) of proposed Rule 18a–5. 74See paragraph (a)(6)(ii) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended; paragraph (b)(4) of proposed Rule 18a–5. 75See paragraph (a)(7)(ii) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended; paragraphs (a)(5) and (b)(5) of proposed Rule 18a–5. 76See Regulation SBSR—Reporting and Dissemination of Security-Based Swap Information, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63346 (Nov. 19, 2010), 75 FR 75207 (Dec. 2, 2010). See also Cross-Border Security-Based Swap Activities; Re￾Proposal of Regulation SBSR and Certain Rules and Forms Relating to the Registration of Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants, 78 FR 30968 (re-proposing certain aspects of Regulation SBSR). Under the proposed recordkeeping program for SBSDs and MSBSPs, broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs—as broker-dealers—would be subject to Rules 17a–3 and 17a–4.60 The Commission is proposing amendments to these rules to account for the security-based swap and swap activities of broker-dealers, including broker￾dealers registered as SBSDs and MSBSPs, as well as to implement the specific recordkeeping requirements mandated under the Dodd-Frank Act.61 Stand-alone SBSDs, stand-alone MSBSPs, bank SBSDs, and bank MSBSPs would be subject to proposed Rules 18a–5 and 18a–6, which are modeled on Rules 17a–3 and 17a–4, respectively, as these rules are proposed to be amended. Proposed Rules 18a–5 and 18a–6 would not include a parallel requirement for every requirement in Rules 17a–3 and 17a–4 because some of the requirements in Rules 17a–3 and 17a–4 relate to activities that are not expected or permitted of SBSDs and MSBSPs. Further, the proposed recordkeeping requirements that would be applicable to bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs are more limited in scope because, as discussed above in section
I. of this release: (1) The Commission’s
authority under section 15F(f)(1)(B)(i) of the Exchange Act is tied to activities related to the conduct of business as an SBSD or MSBSP; (2) bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs are subject to recordkeeping requirements applicable to banks; and (3) the prudential regulators—rather than the Commission—are responsible for capital, margin, and other prudential requirements applicable to bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs. For these reasons, the proposed recordkeeping requirements that would be applicable to bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs are designed to be tailored more specifically to their security-based swap activities as an SBSD or an MSBSP.62
2. Records To Be Made and Kept
Current
As discussed above, Rule 17a–3 requires a broker-dealer to make and keep current certain records.63 The Commission is proposing to amend this rule to account for the security-based swap and swap activities of broker￾dealers, including broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs.64 The Commission also is proposing additional largely technical amendments to Rule 17a–3.65 With respect to stand-alone SBSDs, stand￾alone MSBSPs, bank SBSDs, and bank MSBSPs, the Commission is proposing new Rule 18a–5—which is modeled on Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended—to require these registrants to make and keep current certain records.66 For the reasons discussed above, proposed Rule 18a–5 does not include a parallel requirement for every requirement in Rule 17a–3.67 In addition, paragraph (a) of proposed Rule 18a–5 contains one set of recordkeeping requirements applicable to stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs and paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 18a–5 contains a separate set of recordkeeping requirements applicable to bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs that are more limited in scope.68 As discussed above, section 15F(g) of the Exchange Act provides, among other things, that each registered SBSD and MSBSP shall maintain: (1) Daily trading records of the security-based swaps of the registered SBSD and MSBSP; (2) daily trading records for each counterparty in a manner and form that is identifiable with each security-based swap transaction; and (3) a complete audit trail for conducting comprehensive and accurate trade reconstructions.69 Further, section 15F(g)(2) provides that the daily trading records shall include such information as the Commission shall require by rule or regulation.70 To implement section 15F(g) of the Exchange Act, Rule 17a– 3, as proposed to be amended, and proposed Rule 18a–5 include provisions that, among other things, are designed to require information that would facilitate a comprehensive and accurate trade reconstruction for each security-based swap transaction. In this regard, the amendments to Rule 17a–3 and proposed Rule 18a–5 would require broker-dealers, SBSDs, and MSBSPs to make and keep current daily trading records,71 ledger accounts,72 a securities record,73 memoranda of brokerage orders,74 and/ or memoranda of proprietary trades 75 with respect to security-based swap activity. The Commission has proposed Rule 901 of Regulation SBSR, which would require market participants, including broker-dealers, SBSDs, and MSBSPs, to report certain data elements to security-based swap data repositories.76 The following data elements that would be required to be reported under proposed Rule 901 also would need to be documented in the daily trading records, ledger accounts, memoranda of brokerage orders, and/or memoranda of

77Regulation SBSR—Reporting and Dissemination of Security-Based Swap Information, 75 FR 75213 (discussing the requirement in paragraph (c)(1) of proposed Rule 901 to report the asset class of the security-based swap). 78See id. at 75214 (discussing the requirement in paragraph (c)(2) of proposed Rule 901 to report the specific assets or issuers of any securities upon which the security-based swap is based). 79See id. at 75213 (discussing the requirement in paragraph (c)(4) of proposed Rule 901 to report the time and date of execution of the security-based swap). 80See id. at 75214 (discussing the requirement in paragraph (c)(5) of proposed Rule 901 to report the effective date of the security-based swap). 81See id. at 75214 (discussing the requirement in paragraph (c)(6) to of proposed Rule 901 to report the scheduled termination date of the security￾based swap). 82See id. at 75214 (discussing the requirement in paragraph (c)(3) of proposed Rule 901 to report the notional amount of the security-based swap). 83See id. at 75221 (discussing the requirement in paragraph (g) of proposed Rule 901 to report the unique transaction identifier for the security-based swap). 84See id. at 75217–75218, 75221–75222 (discussing the requirement in paragraph (d) of proposed Rule 901 to report the unique identifier of the counterparty to the security-swap transaction). 85See id. at 75214 (discussing the requirement in paragraph (c)(2) of proposed Rule 901 to report the specific assets or issuers of any securities upon which the security-based swap is based). 86See id. at 75221 (discussing the requirement in paragraph (g) of proposed Rule 901 to report the unique transaction identifier for the security-based swap). 87See id. at 75217–75218, 75221–75222 (discussing the requirement in paragraph (d)(1)(i) of proposed Rule 901 to report the participant ID of the counterparty to the security-swap transaction). 88See id. at 75214 (discussing the requirement in paragraph (c)(9) of proposed Rule 901 to report the whether or not the security-based swap will be cleared by a clearing agency). 89See id. at 75218 (discussing the requirement in paragraph (d)(1)(vi) of proposed Rule 901 to report the name of the clearing agency if the security￾based swap will be cleared). 90Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–3(a)(5), with paragraph (a)(5)(ii) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended, and paragraphs (a)(4)(ii) and (b)(3)(ii) of proposed Rule 18a–5. 91Proposed Rule 901 may be modified when adopted, which could include changing or eliminating certain data elements required to be reported under the rule. Any such modifications to the data elements could change the Commission’s preliminary view on the comparability of the information to be recorded in the daily trading records and the information to be reported pursuant to proposed Rule 901. 92See undesignated introductory paragraph of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended. 93 Id. 94See undesignated introductory paragraph of proposed Rule 18a–5.
95 Id. 96See 17 CFR 240.17a–3(a)(1). 97See paragraph (a)(1) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended; paragraphs (a)(1) and (b)(1) of proposed Rule 18a–5. 98See paragraph (a)(1) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended. 99See id. 100Compare paragraph (a)(1) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended, with paragraph (a)(1) of proposed Rule 18a–5. 101See paragraph (b)(1) of proposed Rule 18a–5. proprietary trades of security-based swap transactions required under the proposed amendments to Rule 17a–3 and proposed Rule 18a–5: (1) The type of security-based swap; 77 (2) the reference security, index, or obligor; 78 (3) the date and time of execution; 79 (4) the effective date; 80 (5) the termination or maturity date; 81 (6) the notional amount; 82 (7) the unique transaction identifier; 83 and (8) the unique counterparty identifier.84 The following data elements that would be required to be reported under proposed Rule 901 would also need to be documented in the securities record of security-based swap transactions required under the proposed amendments to Rule 17a–3 and proposed Rule 18a–5: (1) The reference security, index, or obligor; 85 (2) the unique transaction identifier; 86 (3) the unique counterparty identifier; 87 (4) whether the security-based swap is cleared or not cleared; 88 and (5) if cleared, identification of the clearing agency where the security-based swap is cleared.89 In addition, the securities record for security-based swaps would parallel the securities record for securities by requiring a record of whether the security-based swap is a ‘‘long’’ or ‘‘short’’ position.90 Where a data element that would need to be documented in the daily trading records of security-based swap transactions under the proposed amendments to Rule 17a–3 or proposed Rule 18a–5 is substantively the same as a data element that would need to be reported under proposed Rule 901, the Commission preliminarily believes that the type of information that would need to be documented in the daily trading records could be the same data element reported under proposed Rule 901.91 a. Amendments to Rule 17a–3 and Proposed Rule 18a–5 Undesignated Introductory Paragraph Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended, would contain an undesignated introductory paragraph explaining that the rule applies to a broker-dealer, including a broker-dealer dually registered with the Commission as an SBSD or MSBSP.92 The note further explains that an SBSD or MSBSP that is not dually registered as a broker￾dealer (i.e., a stand-alone SBSD, stand￾alone MSBSP, bank SBSD, or bank MSBSP) is subject to the books and records requirements under proposed Rule 18a–5.93 Similarly, proposed Rule 18a–5 would contain an undesignated introductory paragraph explaining that the rule applies to an SBSD or an MSBSP that is not dually registered as a broker-dealer.94 The note further explains that a broker-dealer that is dually registered as an SBSD or MSBSP is subject to the books and records requirements
under Rule 17a–3.95 Trade Blotters Paragraph (a)(1) of Rule 17a–3 requires broker-dealers to make and keep current trade blotters (or other records of original entry) containing an itemized daily record of all transactions in securities, all receipts and deliveries of securities, all receipts and disbursements of cash, and all other debits and credits.96 The Commission is proposing to amend paragraph (a)(1) of Rule 17a–3 to require that the blotters specifically account for security-based swaps, and proposing to include parallel blotter requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and (b)(1) of proposed Rule 18a–5 that are modeled on paragraph (a)(1) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended.97 In particular, paragraph (a)(1) of Rule 17a– 3, as proposed to be amended, would require broker-dealers, including broker￾dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs, to make and keep current blotters containing an itemized daily record of all transactions in securities, including security-based swaps, all receipts and deliveries of securities, all receipts and disbursements of cash, and all other debits and credits.98 In order to document the attributes of security￾based swaps, the proposed amendments also would require that such records show the contract price of the security￾based swap, and include for each purchase and sale, the following information: (1) The type of security￾based swap; (2) the reference security, index, or obligor; (3) the date and time of execution; (4) the effective date; (5) the termination or maturity date; (6) the notional amount; (7) the unique transaction identifier; and (8) the unique counterparty identifier.99 Paragraph (a)(1) of proposed Rule 18a–5 mirrors paragraph (a)(1) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended, and therefore, stand-alone SBSDs and stand￾alone MSBSPs would be required to make and keep current the same types of blotters as broker-dealers.100 Paragraph (b)(1) of proposed Rule 18a– 5 similarly would require bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs to make and keep current the same types of blotters but only with respect to their security-based swap activities.101 General Ledger Paragraph (a)(2) of Rule 17a–3 requires broker-dealers to make and

102See 17 CFR 240.17a–3(a)(2).
103Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–3(a)(2), with paragraph (a)(2) of proposed Rule 18a–5. 104See paragraph (a)(2) of proposed Rule 18a–5. 105See 17 CFR 240.17a–3(a)(3). 106See paragraph (a)(3) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended; paragraphs (a)(3) and (b)(2) of proposed Rule 18a–5. 107See paragraph (a)(3) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended. 108Compare paragraph (a)(3) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended, with paragraph (a)(3) of proposed Rule 18a–5. 109See id. 110See paragraph (b)(2) of proposed Rule 18a–5. The Commission has proposed a definition of security-based swap customer for the purposes of proposed Rule 18a–4. See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker￾Dealers, 77 FR 70278. Proposed Rule 18a–4—which is modeled on Rule 15c3–3—would establish segregation requirements for SBSDs with respect to their security-based swap customers. Id. at 70274–
70288. The term security-based swap customer
would be defined in proposed Rule 18a–4 to mean any person from whom or on whose behalf the SBSD has received or acquired or holds funds or other property for the account of the person with respect to a cleared or non-cleared security-based swap transaction. Id. at 70278. The definition would exclude a person to the extent that person has a claim for funds or other property which by contract, agreement or understanding, or by operation of law, is part of the capital of the SBSD or is subordinated to all claims of security-based swap customers of the SBSD. Id. 111See 17 CFR 240.17a–3(a)(5). 112See paragraph (a)(5) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended; paragraphs (a)(4) and (b)(3) of proposed Rule 18a–5. 113See paragraphs (a)(5)(i)–(ii) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended. 114Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–3(a)(5), with paragraph (a)(5)(i) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended. 115See paragraph (a)(5)(ii) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended. 116See id. 117Compare paragraph (a)(5) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended, with paragraph (a)(4) of proposed Rule 18a–5. 118See paragraph (b)(3) of proposed Rule 18a–5. 119See 17 CFR 240.17a–3(a)(6). keep current ledgers (or other records) reflecting all assets and liabilities, income and expense, and capital accounts.102 These records reflect the overall financial condition of the broker￾dealer and in the Commission’s view can incorporate security-based swap activities without the need for a clarifying amendment. Because the overall financial condition of stand￾alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs is a matter of regulatory concern for the Commission, the Commission is proposing to include a parallel provision in paragraph (a)(2) of proposed Rule 18a–5 that mirrors paragraph (a)(2) of Rule 17a–3.103 Consequently, stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs would be required to make and keep current the same types of general ledgers.104 Ledgers for Customer and Non￾Customer Accounts Paragraph (a)(3) of Rule 17a–3 requires broker-dealers to make and keep current certain ledger accounts (or other records) relating to securities and commodities transactions in customer and non-customer cash and margin accounts.105 The Commission is proposing to amend paragraph (a)(3) of Rule 17a–3 to require that the ledgers (or other records) specifically account for security-based swaps, and to include parallel ledger requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of proposed Rule 18a–5 that are modeled on paragraph (a)(3) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended.106 In particular, paragraph (a)(3) of Rule 17a–3 would be amended to include a requirement that broker￾dealers, including broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs, make and keep current ledger accounts (or other records) itemizing separately as to each security-based swap: (1) The type of security-based swap; (2) the reference security, index, or obligor; (3) date and time of execution; (4) the effective date; (5) the termination or maturity date; (6) the notional
amount; (7) the unique transaction identifier; and (8) the unique counterparty identifier.107 Paragraph (a)(3) of Rule 18a–5 is modeled on paragraph (a)(3) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended, and therefore, stand-alone SBSDs and stand￾alone MSBSPs would be required to make and keep current the same types of ledgers (or other records).108 Unlike paragraph (a)(3) of Rule 17a–3, paragraph (a)(3) of proposed Rule 18a– 5 would not refer to ‘‘cash and margin accounts’’ as these types of accounts involve activities that would not be permitted of stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs because they are not registered as broker-dealers.109 Paragraph (b)(2) of proposed Rule 18a– 5 similarly would require bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs to make and keep current ledger accounts (or other records) relating to securities and commodity transactions but only with respect to their security-based swap customers and non-customers.110 Stock Record Paragraph (a)(5) of Rule 17a–3 requires broker-dealers to make and keep current a securities record (also referred to as a ‘‘stock record’’).111 This is a record of the broker-dealer’s custody and movement of securities. The ‘‘long’’ side of the record accounts for the broker-dealer’s responsibility as a custodian of securities and shows, for example, the securities the firm has received from customers and securities owned by the broker-dealer. The ‘‘short’’ side of the record shows where the securities are located such as at a securities depository. The Commission is proposing to amend paragraph (a)(5) of Rule 17a–3 to require that the securities record specifically account for security-based swaps, and to include parallel securities record requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of proposed Rule 18a–5 that are modeled on paragraph (a)(5) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended.112 Paragraph (a)(5) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended, would contain separate provisions: One for securities other than security-based swaps and one for security-based swaps.113 Specifically, paragraph (a)(5)(i) would apply to securities other than security￾based swaps and largely mirror the current text of paragraph (a)(5) of Rule 17a–3.114 Paragraph (a)(5)(ii) would apply to security-based swaps.115 This paragraph would require a broker￾dealer, including a broker-dealer SBSD and broker-dealer MSBSP, to make and keep current a securities record or ledger reflecting separately for each security-based swap: (1) The reference security, index, or obligor; (2) the unique transaction identifier; (3) the unique counterparty identifier; (4) whether it is a ‘‘long’’ or ‘‘short’’ position in the security-based swap; (5) whether the security-based swap is cleared or not cleared; and (6) if cleared, identification of the clearing agency where the security-based swap is cleared.116 Paragraph (a)(4) of proposed Rule 18a–5 mirrors paragraph (a)(5) of Rule 17a–3 as proposed to be amended, and therefore, stand-alone SBSDs and stand￾alone MSBSPs would be
required to make and keep current the same type of securities record.117 Paragraph (b)(3) of proposed Rule 18a–5 similarly would require bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs to make and keep current a securities record of the firm’s securities positions but only with respect to positions related to their business as an SBSD or MSBSP.118 Memoranda of Brokerage Orders Paragraph (a)(6) of Rule 17a–3 requires broker-dealers to make and keep current a memorandum of each brokerage order, and of any other instruction, given or received for the purchase or sale of a security. The memorandum must show the terms and conditions of each brokerage order.119 The Commission is proposing to amend paragraph (a)(6) of Rule 17a–3 to require

120See paragraph (a)(6) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended. 121 Generally, persons engaged in brokerage activities are required to register as brokers under
section 15(b) of the Exchange Act. See 15 U.S.C.
78o(b). Banks are permitted to engage in certain limited securities brokerage activities. Specifically,
section 3(a)(4) of the Exchange Act provides eleven
exceptions to broker-dealer registration for banks. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(4). In addition, the Commission and the Federal Reserve promulgated joint rules establishing further exemptions permitting banks to engage in certain securities brokerage activities without registering as a broker￾dealer. See Definitions of Terms and Exemptions Relating to the ‘‘Broker’’ Exceptions for Banks, Exchange Act Release No. 56501 (Sept. 24, 2007), 72 FR 56514 (Oct. 3, 2007); 17 CFR 247.100–781. These exceptions and exemptions permit a bank to act as a broker or agent in securities transactions provided they satisfy certain conditions. Section 716 of the Dodd-Frank Act (‘‘Swap Push-Out Provision’’) generally prohibits providing certain types of federal assistance, including FDIC insurance, to SBSDs and MSBSPs with respect to any swap, security-based swap, or other activity of the SBSD or MSBSP. See Public Law 111–203, 716. The Swap Push-Out Provision excludes MSBSPs that are insured depository institutions. See Public Law 111–203, 716(b)(2)(B). Further, SBSDs that are insured depository institutions are permitted to engage in certain swap and security-based swap activities under certain conditions and still qualify for federal assistance. See Public Law 111–203, 716(d) through (f). Thus, a bank SBSD or bank MSBSP may act as a broker or agent in a security￾based swap transaction. In such instances, the brokerage order record requirements of paragraph (b)(4) of proposed Rule 18a–5 would apply. 122See paragraph (b)(4) of proposed Rule 18a–5. 123See paragraph (a)(6) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended. Rule 17a–3 currently contains paragraphs (a)(6)(i) and (ii). See 17 CFR 240.17a–3(a)(6)(i) and (ii). Under the amendments, paragraph (a)(6)(i) of Rule 17a–3 would be redesignated as paragraph (a)(6)(i)(A) and paragraph (a)(6)(ii) would be redesignated as paragraph (a)(6)(i)(B). The new requirement to make and keep current a memorandum of each security-based swap brokerage order would be contained in paragraph (a)(6)(ii) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended. 124Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–3(a)(6)(i) and (ii), with paragraphs (a)(6)(i)(A) and (B) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended. 125See paragraph (a)(6)(ii) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended. 126Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–3(a)(6)(i), with paragraph (a)(6)(ii) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended. 127See paragraph (a)(6)(ii) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended. 128See paragraph (b)(4) of proposed Rule 18a–5. 129See id. 130Compare paragraph (a)(6)(ii) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended, with paragraph (b)(4) of proposed Rule 18a–5. 131See 17 CFR 240.17a–3(a)(7). 132See paragraph (a)(7) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended; paragraphs (a)(5) and (b)(5) of proposed Rule 18a–5. 133See paragraphs (a)(7)(i) and (ii) of Rule 17a– 3, as proposed to be amended. 134Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–3(a)(7), with paragraph (a)(7)(i) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended. 135See paragraph (a)(7)(ii) of Rule
17a–3, as proposed to be amended. 136Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–3(a)(7), with paragraph (a)(7)(ii) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended. 137See paragraph (a)(7)(ii) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended. 138See paragraph (a)(5) of proposed Rule 18a–5. broker-dealers, including broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs, to make and keep current a memorandum of each brokerage order, given or received for the purchase or sale of a security-based swap.120 The Commission is not proposing to include a parallel provision in paragraph (a) of proposed Rule 18a–5 applicable to stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs because these registrants would not be permitted to engage in the business of effecting brokerage orders in security-based swaps without registering as a broker-dealer or a bank.121 The Commission is proposing to include a parallel provision that would be applicable to bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs in paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 18a–5 that is modeled on paragraph (a)(6) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended.122 Paragraph (a)(6) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended, would contain separate provisions: One for brokerage orders involving securities other than security-based swaps and one for brokerage orders involving security￾based swaps.123 Specifically, proposed paragraphs (a)(6)(i)(A) and (B) would apply to securities other than security￾based swaps and largely mirror the current text of paragraph (a)(6) of Rule 17a–3.124 Proposed paragraph (a)(6)(ii) would apply to brokerage orders involving security-based swaps.125 This paragraph would require a broker￾dealer, including a broker-dealer SBSD and broker-dealer MSBSP, to make and keep current a memorandum of each brokerage order, and of any other instruction, given or received for the purchase or sale of a security-based swap, whether executed or unexecuted. The memorandum would need to include information that is similar to the information currently required under Rule 17a–3 for brokerage orders.126 In addition, to account for the attributes of security-based swaps, the memorandum would need to include:
(1) The type of security-based swap; (2) the reference security, index, or obligor; (3) the date and time of execution; (4) the effective date; (5) the termination or maturity date; (6) the notional amount; (7) the unique transaction identifier; and (8) the unique counterparty identifier.127 Paragraph (b)(4) of proposed Rule 18a–5 similarly would require bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs to document key terms of brokerage orders but only with respect to security-based swaps.128 Consequently, proposed paragraph (b)(4) would not contain a provision for securities that are not security-based swaps.129 Instead, the entire paragraph mirrors paragraph (a)(6)(ii) of Rule 17a– 3, as proposed to be amended, which, as discussed above, relates solely to security-based swaps.130 Memoranda of Proprietary Orders Paragraph (a)(7) of Rule 17a–3 requires broker-dealers to make and keep current a memorandum of each purchase and sale for the account of the broker-dealer.131 Generally, paragraph (a)(7) of Rule 17a–3 requires broker￾dealers to document the terms of securities transactions where they are acting as a dealer or otherwise trading for their own account. The Commission is proposing to amend paragraph (a)(7) of Rule 17a–3 to require the terms of security-based swap transactions to be documented, and to include parallel memorandum requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of proposed Rule 18a–5 that are modeled on paragraph (a)(7) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended.132 Paragraph (a)(7) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended, would contain two separate provisions:
One for securities other than security￾based swaps and one for security-based swaps.133 Specifically, proposed paragraph (a)(7)(i) would apply to securities other than security-based swaps and largely would mirror the current text of paragraph (a)(7) of Rule 17a–3.134 Paragraph (a)(7)(ii) would apply to security-based swaps.135 This paragraph would require broker-dealers, including broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs, to make and keep current a memorandum documenting each security-based swap transaction for the account of the broker-dealer. The memorandum would need to include certain information regarding the purchase or sale of a security-based swap for the account of the broker-dealer that is similar to the information currently required under paragraph (a)(7) of Rule 17a–3.136 In addition, to account for the attributes of security-based swaps, the memorandum would need to include: (1) The type of security-based swap; (2) the reference security, index, or obligor; (3) the date and time of execution; (4) the effective date; (5) the termination or maturity date; (6) the notional amount; (7) the unique transaction identifier; and (8) the unique counterparty identifier.137 Paragraph (a)(5) of proposed Rule 18a–5 would require stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs to make memoranda of proprietary transactions but only with respect to security-based swaps.138 This is because a stand-alone SBSD or a stand-alone MSBSP would need to be registered as a broker-dealer

139See paragraph (b)(5) of proposed Rule 18a–5. 140See 17 CFR 240.17a–3(a)(8). See also 17 CFR 240.10b–10 (a requirement that broker-dealers disclose specified information to customers at or before completion of a securities transaction). 141See paragraph (a)(8) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended; paragraphs (a)(6) and (b)(6) of proposed Rule 18a–5. 142See paragraphs (a)(8)(i) and (a)(8)(ii) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended. 143Compare paragraph (a)(8)(i) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended, with 17 CFR 240.17a– 3(a)(8). 144See paragraph (a)(8)(ii) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended. 145See 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(i)(2). 146See Trade Acknowledgment and Verification of Security-Based Swap Transactions, 76 FR 3859. 147 Id. 148See paragraph (a)(8)(ii) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended. 149See paragraph (a)(6) of proposed Rule 18a–5. 150 Id. 151See paragraph (b)(6) of proposed Rule 18a–5. 152 Id. 153See 17 CFR 240.17a–3(a)(9). 154See paragraph (a)(9) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended; paragraphs (a)(7) and (b)(7) of proposed Rule 18a–5. 155See paragraph (a)(9)(iv) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended. 156 Id. 157Compare paragraph (a)(9)(iv) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended, with paragraphs (a)(7) and (b)(7) of proposed Rule 18a–5. 158See 17 CFR 240.17a–3(a)(10). 159As discussed below in section II.A.2.b. of this release, the Commission is proposing technical amendments to paragraph (a)(10) of Rule 17a–3. 160See paragraph (a)(8) of proposed Rule 18a–5. The second sentence of paragraph (a)(10) of Rule 17a–3 applies only to a special class of broker￾dealers that limit their activities to dealing in OTC derivatives (‘‘OTC derivatives dealers’’). See 17 CFR 240.17a–3(a)(10); OTC Derivatives Dealers, Exchange Act Release No. 40594 (Oct. 23, 1998), 63 (and therefore would be subject to Rule 17a–3) (or, in certain circumstances, a bank) to deal in securities other than security-based swaps. Paragraph (b)(5) of proposed Rule 18a–5 would require bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs to make memoranda of proprietary transactions but also only with respect to security￾based swaps.139 Confirmations Paragraph (a)(8) of Rule 17a–3 requires broker-dealers to make and keep current copies of confirmations of purchases and sales of securities.140 The Commission is proposing to amend paragraph (a)(8) to require that confirmations of security-based swaps be documented, and to include analogous confirmation requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of proposed Rule 18a–5 that are modeled on paragraph (a)(8) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended.141 Paragraph (a)(8) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended, would contain separate provisions: One for securities other than security-based swaps and one for security-based swaps.142 Specifically, proposed paragraph (a)(8)(i) would apply to confirmations of securities transactions other than security-based swap transactions and largely mirror the current text of paragraph (a)(8) of Rule 17a–3.143
Proposed paragraph (a)(8)(ii) would apply to confirmations of security-based swap transactions.144 As discussed above, section 15F(i)(2) of the Exchange Act provides that the Commission shall adopt rules governing documentation standards for SBSDs and MSBSPs.145 Pursuant to section 15F(i)(2), the Commission proposed Rule 15Fi–1 under the Exchange Act (‘‘Rule 15Fi–1’’) to prescribe standards related to timely and accurate confirmation and documentation of security-based swaps.146 Under this proposed rule, SBSDs and MSBSPs would be required to acknowledge and, thereafter, verify security-based swap transactions.147 Consequently, paragraph (a)(8)(ii) of Rule 17a–3 would require broker-dealers, including broker￾dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs, to make and keep current copies of the security-based swap trade acknowledgments and verifications made pursuant to proposed Rule 15Fi– 1.148 Paragraph (a)(6) of proposed Rule 18a–5 would require stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs to make and keep current copies of confirmations of all purchases or sales of securities, which would include securities other than security-based swaps.149 Paragraph (a)(6) also would specify that, for security-based swap transactions, stand￾alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs would need to make and keep current copies of the security-based swap trade acknowledgments and verifications made pursuant to proposed Rule 15Fi–
1.150 Paragraph (b)(6) would require
bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs to make and keep current copies of all confirmations of purchases and sales of securities but only if related to their business as an SBSD or MSBSP.151 This would require a bank SBSD or bank MSBSP to make and keep current copies of confirmations relating to transactions in securities, other than security-based swaps, if the transaction was related to their business as an SBSD or MSBSP. For example, this requirement would apply if the bank SBSD or bank MSBSP entered into a transaction in the security underlying a security-based swap to hedge the risk of the security-based swap. Paragraph (b)(6) also would specify that, for security-based swap transactions, bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs would need to make and keep current copies of the security-based swap trade acknowledgments and verifications made pursuant to proposed Rule 15Fi–1.152 Accountholder Information Paragraph (a)(9) of Rule 17a–3 requires broker-dealers to make and keep current certain information with respect to each securities accountholder.153 The Commission is proposing to amend paragraph (a)(9) to require certain information with respect to security-based swap accountholders, and to include similar requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of proposed Rule 18a–5.154 The amendments to Rule 17a– 3 would add a new paragraph (a)(9)(iv).155 This paragraph would require broker-dealers, including broker￾dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs, to make and keep current, in the case of a security-based swap account: (1) A record of the unique counterparty identifier of the accountholder; (2) the name and address of accountholder; and (3) the signature of each person authorized to transact business in the security-based swap account.156 Consequently, in the case of accounts of legal entities (e.g., a corporation, partnership, or trust), signatures would be required from persons authorized by the entity to transact business in the account. Paragraphs (a)(7) and (b)(7) of proposed Rule 18a–5 mirror paragraph (a)(9)(iv) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended.157 Consequently, stand￾alone SBSDs, stand-alone MSBSPs, bank SBSDs, and bank MSBSPs would be required to make and keep current the same types of records with respect to security-based swap accountholders. Options Positions Paragraph (a)(10) of Rule 17a–3 requires broker-dealers to make and keep current a record of all options positions.158 The Commission is not proposing to amend paragraph (a)(10) of Rule 17a–3 to account for security-based swaps.159 In addition, because the records required under this paragraph are not specific to security-based swaps, the Commission is not proposing to include an analogous provision in paragraph (b) applicable to bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs. However, in order to facilitate the monitoring of the financial condition of stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs, the Commission is proposing to include a parallel provision in paragraph (a)(8) of proposed Rule 18a–5 applicable to stand-alone
SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs.160 Consequently, under the

FR 59362 (Nov. 3, 1998). Consequently, it is not included in paragraph (a)(8) of proposed Rule 18a– 5. 161See paragraph (a)(8) of proposed Rule 18a–5. 162See 17 CFR 240.17a–3(a)(11). 163See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70217–70257. As discussed below in section II.A.2.b. of this release, the Commission is proposing technical amendments to paragraph (a)(11) of Rule 17a–3. 164See paragraph (a)(9) of proposed Rule 18a–5. 165See id. See also Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker￾Dealers, 77 FR 70213 (proposing Rule 18a–1 applicable to stand-alone SBSDs and Rule 18a–2 applicable to nonbank MSBSPs that would establish capital standards for these registrants). 166The proposed requirements to file Form SBS are discussed below in section II.B.2. of this release. 167See 17 CFR 240.17a–3(a)(12). 168As discussed below in section II.A.2.b. of this release, the Commission is proposing technical amendments to paragraph (a)(12) of Rule 17a–3. 169Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–3(a)(12), with paragraphs (a)(10) and (b)(8) of proposed Rule 18a– 5. 170See paragraph (a)(10) and (b)(8) of proposed Rule 18a–5. Unlike paragraph (a)(12) of Rule 17a– 3, paragraphs (a)(10) and (b)(8) do not permit applications of registration made by the associated person to an SRO to satisfy the requirements because the Dodd-Frank Act did not establish SROs for SBSDs and MSBSPs. Compare 17 CFR 240.17a– 3(a)(12), with paragraph (a)(10) and (b)(8) of proposed Rule 18a–5. 171See paragraph (f)(4) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended; 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(70). 172See Public Law 111–203, 761; 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(70). 173See paragraph (c)(1) of proposed Rule 18a–5. 174See paragraph (c)(2) of proposed Rule 18a–5. 175See Joint Forum, Bank for International Settlements, The management of liquidity risk in financial groups, 1 n.1 (May 2006), available at http://www.bis.org/publ/joint16.pdf. See also Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, Bank for International Settlements, Principles for Sound Liquidity Risk Management and Supervision, n.2 (Sept. 2008), available at http://www.bis.org/publ/ bcbs144.pdf (‘‘Funding liquidity risk is the risk that the firm will not be able to meet efficiently both expected and unexpected current and future cash flow and collateral needs without affecting either daily operations or the financial condition of the firm. Market liquidity risk is the risk that a firm cannot easily offset or eliminate a position at the market price because of inadequate market depth or market disruption.’’); Amendments to Financial Responsibility Rules for Broker-Dealers, Exchange Continued proposed rule, these registrants would be required to make and keep current the same type of records broker-dealers must keep: A record of all puts, calls,
spreads, straddles, and other options in which the stand-alone SBSD or stand￾alone MSBSP has any direct or indirect interest or which the stand-alone SBSD or stand-alone MSBSP has granted or guaranteed, containing, at a minimum, an identification of the security and the number of units involved.161 Trial Balances and Computation of Net Capital Paragraph (a)(11) of Rule 17a–3 requires broker-dealers to make and keep current a record of the proof of money balances of all ledger accounts in the form of trial balances and certain records relating to the computation of aggregate indebtedness and net capital under Rule 15c3–1.162 The Commission is not proposing to amend paragraph (a)(11) to account for security-based swaps because the impact of security￾based swaps on those computations is reflected in the amendments to the capital rules that have been proposed by the Commission to apply to broker￾dealer SBSDs and stand-alone SBSDs.163 In addition, because the records required under the rule are not specific to security-based swaps and because bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs will be subject to capital requirements administered by the prudential regulators, the Commission is not proposing to include a parallel provision in paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 18a–5 applicable to these types of registrants. The Commission, however, is proposing to include a parallel requirement in paragraph (a)(9) of proposed Rule 18a–5 applicable to stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs because the types of records required under paragraph (a)(11) of Rule 17a–3 would facilitate the review and monitoring of the financial condition and regulatory capital of stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs. As noted above, the Commission will administer the capital rules applicable to stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs.164 Under Paragraph (a)(9) of proposed Rule 18a–5, stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs would be required to make and keep current similar records to those required under paragraph (a)(11) of Rule 17a–3 but in relation to the proposed capital rules for these entities: (1) Proposed Rule 18a–1 in the case of stand-alone SBSDs; and (2) proposed Rule 18a–2 in the case of stand-alone MSBSPs.165 Specifically, paragraph (a)(9) would require stand￾alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs to make and keep current a record of the proof of money balances of all ledger accounts in the form of trial balances, and a record as of the trial balance date of the computation of net capital pursuant to proposed Rule 18a–1 or the computation of tangible net worth pursuant to proposed Rule 18a–2. The trial balances and computations would need to be prepared at least once a month in relation to the financial reporting on Form SBS that the Commission is proposing for these registrants under proposed Rule 18a– 7.166 Associated Persons Paragraph (a)(12) of Rule 17a–3 requires broker-dealers to make and keep current records of information about associated persons of the broker￾dealer.167 This
requirement will apply to broker-dealer SBSDs and broker￾dealer MSBSPs and, therefore, the Commission is not proposing to amend paragraph (a)(12) to account for security-based swaps.168 The Commission, however, is proposing to include parallel provisions in paragraphs (a) and (b) of proposed Rule 18a–5.169 Consequently, stand-alone SBSDs, stand-alone MSBSPs, bank SBSDs, and bank MSBSPs would be required to make and keep current a questionnaire or application for employment for each associated person, which must include the associated person’s identifying information, business affiliations for the past ten years, relevant disciplinary history, relevant criminal record, and place of business, among other things.170 Further, the Commission is proposing to amend the definition of associated person in Rule 17a–3 to include in the definition a person associated with an SBSD or MSBSP as defined under
section 3(a)(70) of the Exchange Act.171
Section 761 of the Dodd-Frank Act
added section 3(a)(70) to the Exchange Act to define the terms person associated with a security-based swap dealer or major security-based swap participant and associated person of a security-based swap dealer or major security-based swap participant.172 Paragraph (c)(1) of proposed Rule 18a– 5 similarly would provide that the term associated person means for the purposes of proposed Rule 18a–5 a person associated with an SBSD or MSBSP as defined under section 3(a)(70) of the Exchange Act.173 Paragraph (c)(2) of proposed Rule 18a– 5 would limit the definition of the term associated person for purposes of the rule and with respect to bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs to persons whose activities relate to the conduct of business as an SBSD or MSBSP.174 Liquidity Stress Test Funding liquidity risk has been defined as the risk that a firm will not be able to efficiently meet both expected and unexpected current and future cash flow and collateral needs without adversely impacting either the daily operations or the financial condition of the firm.175 The financial crisis of 2008

Act Release No. 55432 (Mar. 9, 2007), 72 FR 12862, 12870 n.72 (Mar. 19, 2007) (‘‘Liquidity risk includes the risk that a firm will not be able to unwind or hedge a position or meet cash demands as they become due.’’); Enhanced Prudential Standards and Early Remediation Requirements for Covered Companies, Federal Reserve, 77 FR 594 (Jan. 5,
2012) (proposing a rule to require certain large
financial institutions to conduct liquidity stress testing at least monthly). 176See Senior Supervisors Group, Risk Management Lessons from the Global Bank Crisis of 2008, (Oct. 21, 2009), available at http:// www.sec.gov/news/press/2009/report102109.pdf. 177 Id. at 14 (‘‘Market conditions and the deteriorating financial state of firms exposed weaknesses in firms’ approaches to liquidity stress testing, particularly with respect to secured borrowing and contingent funding needs. These deteriorating conditions underscored the need for greater consideration of the overlap between systemic and firm-specific events and longer time horizons, and the connection between stress tests and business-as-usual liquidity management.’’). 178 Id. at 15 (‘‘Interviewed firms typically calculated and maintained a measurable funding cushion, such as ‘months of coverage,’ which is conceptually similar to rating agencies’ twelve￾month liquidity alternatives analyses. Some institutions were required to maintain a liquidity cushion that could withstand the loss of unsecured funding for one year. Many institutions found that this metric did not capture important elements of stress that the organizations faced, such as the loss of secured funding and demands for collateral to support clearing and settlement activity and to mitigate the risks of accepting novations.’’) (emphasis in the original). 179See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70252–70254 (proposing funding liquidity stress test requirements). 180 Id. Rule 15c3–1 requires that a broker-dealer perform two calculations: (1) A computation of the minimum amount of net capital the firm must maintain; and (2) a computation of the amount of net capital the firm is maintaining. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1. In computing net capital, a broker￾dealer must, among other things, make certain adjustments to net worth such as deducting illiquid assets and taking other capital charges and adding qualifying subordinated loans. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(i) through (xiii). The amount remaining after these deductions is defined as tentative net capital. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(15). The final step in computing net capital is to take prescribed percentage deductions (‘‘standardized haircuts’’) from the mark-to-market value of the proprietary positions (e.g., securities, money market instruments, and commodities) that are included in tentative net capital. See 17 CFR 240.15c3– 1(c)(2)(vi). The standardized haircuts are designed to account for the market risk inherent in these positions and to create a buffer of liquidity to protect against other risks associated with the securities business. ANC broker-dealers and OTC derivatives dealers are permitted, with Commission approval, to calculate net capital using internal models as the basis for taking market risk and credit risk charges in lieu of the
standardized haircuts for classes of positions for which they have been approved to use models. See 17 CFR 240.15c3– 1(a)(5) and (a)(7); 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e; 17 CFR 240.15c3–1f. Broker-dealer SBSDs that seek to use internal models to calculate market and credit risk charges when computing net capital would need to be approved to operate as ANC broker-dealers. See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security￾Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70217–70256. Theoretically, a broker-dealer MSBSP could be authorized to operate as an ANC broker-dealer, in which case it would be subject to the liquidity stress test requirement. 181See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70252–70254. 182See paragraph (a)(24) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended. 183Compare paragraph (a)(24) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended, with paragraph (a)(11) of proposed Rule 18a–5. 184See paragraph (a)(11) of proposed Rule 18a– 5. 185See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70257–70274. 186 Id. at 70260–70262. 187 Id. at 70262–70263. 188See paragraph (a)(25) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended; paragraph (a)(12) of proposed Rule 18a–5. See also Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker￾Dealers, 77 FR 70257–70274. demonstrated that the funding liquidity risk management practices of certain individual financial institutions were not sufficient to handle a liquidity stress event of that magnitude.176 In particular, it has been observed that the stress tests utilized at the time by financial institutions had weaknesses 177 and the amount of contingent liquidity they maintained to replace external sources of funding was insufficient to cover the institutions’ liquidity needs.178 The Commission has proposed that certain broker-dealers, including broker￾dealer SBSDs, and certain stand-alone SBSDs be subject to liquidity stress test requirements.179 In particular, the Commission has proposed amendments to Rule 15c3–1 that would establish liquidity stress test requirements for broker-dealers that have been approved to use internal models to calculate market and credit risk charges when computing net capital (‘‘ANC broker￾dealers’’), which would include broker￾dealer SBSDs approved to use internal models for this purpose (‘‘ANC broker￾dealer SBSDS’’).180 The Commission has proposed identical liquidity stress test requirements for stand-alone SBSDs that are approved to use internal models to calculate market and credit risk charges when computing net capital under proposed Rule 18a–1 (‘‘stand-alone ANC
SBSDs’’).181 Under the proposed liquidity stress test requirements, ANC broker-dealers and stand-alone ANC SBSDs would be required, among other things, to conduct a liquidity stress test at least monthly that takes into account certain assumed conditions lasting for thirty consecutive days and to establish a written contingency funding plan. To promote compliance with these proposed requirements and the risk management practices of ANC broker￾dealers, the Commission is proposing to amend Rule 17a–3 to add a requirement that ANC broker-dealers, including ANC broker-dealer SBSDs, make and keep current a report of the results of the monthly liquidity stress test, a record of the assumptions underlying the liquidity stress test, and the liquidity funding plan required under the proposed amendments to Rule 15c3–
1.182 The Commission is not proposing
to include a similar provision in paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 18a–5 applicable to bank SBSDs because these registrants would not be subject to the Commission’s capital requirements, including the funding liquidity stress test requirement. However, the Commission is proposing to include a parallel provision applicable to stand￾alone SBSDs in paragraph (a) of proposed Rule 18a–5 that is modeled on the requirement that would be added to Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended.183 Consequently, stand-alone ANC SBSDs would be required to make and keep current a report of the results of the monthly liquidity stress test, a record of the assumptions underlying the liquidity stress test, and the liquidity funding plan.184 Account Equity and Margin Calculations Under Proposed Rule 18a–3 The Commission has proposed Rule 18a–3, which would establish margin requirements with respect to non￾cleared security-based swaps applicable to nonbank SBSDs and nonbank MSBSPs.185 Proposed Rule 18a–3 would require nonbank SBSDs, among other things, to perform two daily calculations for each security-based swap account:
The amount of equity in the account and a margin amount for the account.186 Nonbank MSBSPs would be required to calculate only the equity in the account.187 The Commission is proposing to require that nonbank SBSDs and nonbank MSBSPs make and keep current a record of the daily calculations that would be required under Rule 18a–3 by amending Rule 17a–3 and including a parallel provision in paragraph (a) of proposed Rule 18a–
5.188 The objective of these
requirements is to promote compliance with proposed Rule 18a–3, to require records to assist nonbank SBSDs and nonbank MSBSPs in managing their credit risk to security-based swap counterparties, and to assist Commission examiners in reviewing

189As discussed above in section I. of this release,
section 15F(e)(1)(A) of the Exchange Act provides
that the prudential regulators shall prescribe capital and margin requirements for bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs. See 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(e)(1)(A). 190See 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(d). The term fully paid securities includes all securities carried for the account of a customer in a special cash account as defined in Regulation T promulgated by the Federal Reserve, as well as margin equity securities within the meaning of Regulation T which are carried for the account of a customer in a general account or any special account under Regulation T during any period when section 8 of Regulation T (12 CFR 220.8) specifies that margin equity securities shall have no loan value in a general account or special convertible debt security account, and all such margin equity securities in such account if they are fully paid: provided, however, that the term fully paid securities shall not apply to any securities which are purchased in transactions for which the customer has not made full payment. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(a)(3). The term margin securities means those securities carried for the account of a customer in a general account as defined in Regulation T, as well as securities carried in any special account other than the securities referred to in paragraph (a)(3) of Rule 15c3–3. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(a)(4). The term excess margin securities means those securities referred to in paragraph (a)(4) of Rule 15c3–3 carried for the account of a customer having a market value in excess of 140% of the total of the debit balances in the customer’s account or accounts encompassed by paragraph (a)(4) of Rule 15c3–3 which the broker-dealer identifies as not constituting margin securities. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(a)(5). 191See 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(c). Customer securities held by the carrying broker-dealer are not assets of the firm. Rather, the carrying broker-dealer holds them in a custodial capacity and the possession or control requirement is designed to ensure that the carrying broker-dealer treats them in a manner that allows for their prompt return. 192 Id. 193See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70274–70288. As broker-dealers, broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs would be subject to Rule 15c3–3 with respect to customers that are not security-based swap customers and, in the case of a broker-dealer SBSD, Rule 18a–4 with respect to security-based swap customers. Id. at 70277 (‘‘A broker-dealer SBSD would need to treat security￾based swap accounts separately from other securities accounts and, consequently, would need to perform separate possession or control and reserve account computations for security-based swap accounts and other securities accounts. The former would be subject to the possession or control and reserve account requirements in proposed new Rule 18a–4 and the latter would continue to be subject to the analogous
requirements in Rule 15c3–
3. This would keep separate the segregated
customer property related to security-based swaps from customer property related to other securities, including property of retail securities customers.’’). 194Under proposed Rule 18a–4, the term excess securities collateral would be defined to mean securities and money market instruments carried for the account of a security-based swap customer that have a market value in excess of the current exposure of the SBSD to the customer, excluding, under certain specified conditions, securities or money market instruments used to meet a margin requirement of a registered security-based swap clearing agency or of another SBSD. See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security￾Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70279. As noted above, the term security-based swap customer would be defined to mean any person from whom or on whose behalf the SBSD has received or acquired or holds funds or other property for the account of the person with respect to a cleared or non-cleared security-based swap transaction. Id. at 70278. The definition would exclude a person to the extent that person has a claim for funds or other property which by contract, agreement or understanding, or by operation of law, is part of the capital of the SBSD or is subordinated to all claims of security￾based swap customers of the SBSD. Id. 195See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70278. 196 Id. at 70280–70281. 197 Id. at 70281–70282. 198 Id. at 70281. 199See paragraph (a)(26) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended; paragraphs (a)(13) and (b)(9) of proposed Rule 18a–5. 200See id. 201See 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(e). The term qualified security is defined in Rule 15c3–3 to mean a security issued by the U.S. or a security in respect of which the principal and interest are guaranteed by the U.S. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(a)(6). 202See 17 CFR 240.15c3–3a. 203See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70282–70287. As noted above, broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs would be subject to Rule 15c3–3 with respect to customers that are not security-based swap customers and, in the case of a broker-dealer SBSD, Rule 18a–4 with respect to security-based swap customers. compliance with those rule requirements.189 Possession or Control Requirements Under Proposed Rule 18a–4 Rule 15c3–3 under the Exchange Act (‘‘Rule 15c3–3’’) requires a broker-dealer that carries customer securities or cash (a ‘‘carrying broker-dealer’’) to maintain physical possession or control over customers’ fully paid and excess margin securities.190 Physical possession or control means the carrying broker-dealer must hold these securities in one of several locations specified in
Rule 15c3–3 and free of liens or any other interest that could be exercised by a third party to secure an obligation of the broker-dealer.191 Permissible locations include a bank, as defined in section 3(a)(6) of the Exchange Act, and a clearing agency.192 The Commission has proposed Rule 18a–4 to establish security-based swap customer protection requirements that are modeled on the requirements in Rule 15c3–3.193 Paragraph (b)(1) of proposed Rule 18a–4 would require an SBSD to promptly obtain and thereafter maintain physical possession or control of all excess securities collateral carried for the accounts of security-based swap customers.194 The physical possession or control requirement of paragraph (b)(1) of proposed Rule 18a–4 would prohibit SBSDs from lending or hypothecating excess securities collateral of security-based swap customers, and would require SBSDs to either physically hold excess securities collateral or to custody the collateral in a satisfactory control location.195 Paragraph (b)(2) of proposed new Rule 18a–4 would identify five satisfactory control locations for excess securities collateral.196 Paragraph (b)(3) of Rule 18a–4 would require that each business day the SBSD must determine from its books and records the quantity of excess securities collateral that the firm had in its possession or control as of the close of the previous business day and the quantity of excess securities collateral the firm did not have in its possession or control on that day.197 The paragraph would provide further that the SBSD must take steps to retrieve excess securities collateral from certain specifically identified non-control locations if securities and money market instruments of the same issue and class are at these locations.198 The Commission is proposing to require that all SBSDs make and keep current a record of compliance with the possession or control requirement under proposed Rule 18a–4 by amending Rule 17a–3 to add this new requirement and including parallel requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of proposed Rule 18a–5.199 Consequently, this new recordkeeping requirement would apply to broker-dealer SBSDs, stand-alone SBSDs, and bank SBSDs.200 The records required under this proposal would need to document that each business day the firm took the steps required under paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 18a–3 described above. The objective of this new recordkeeping requirement would be to promote compliance with the possession or control requirements of proposed Rule 18a–4 and to assist Commission examiners in reviewing compliance. Customer Reserve Requirements Under Proposed Rule 18a–4 Rule 15c3–3 requires a carrying broker-dealer to maintain a reserve of funds or qualified securities in an account at a bank that is at least equal in value to the net cash owed to customers.201 The amount of net cash owed to customers is computed pursuant to a formula set forth in Exhibit A to Rule 15c3–3.202 The Commission has proposed a parallel
requirement in proposed Rule 18a–4.203 Proposed Rule 18a–4 would require an SBSD, among other things, to maintain a security-based swap customer reserve

204 Id. 205 Id. 206See paragraph (a)(27) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended; paragraphs (a)(14) and (b)(10) of proposed Rule 18a–5. 207See Trade Acknowledgment and Verification of Security-Based Swap Transactions, 76 FR 3860. 208 Id. at 3861. 209 Id. at 3861–3867. 210See paragraph (a)(28) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended; paragraphs (a)(15) and (b)(11) of proposed Rule 18a–5. 211See Trade Acknowledgment and Verification of Security-Based Swap Transactions, 76 FR 3866. 212Proposed Rule 15Fi–1 requires registered entities to verify the terms of security-based swap transactions with the counterparty. However, a party that is not a registered entity is not required to verify a security-based swap transaction. Registered entities must have procedures to verify security-based swap transactions with unregistered entities. Id. at 3866–3867. 213See Business Conduct Standards for Security￾Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants, Exchange Act Release No. 64766 (June 29, 2011), 76 FR 42396 (July 18, 2011). 214See paragraphs (a)(29) and (a)(30) of Rule 17a– 3, as proposed to be amended; paragraphs (a)(16), (a)(17), (b)(12) and (b)(13) of proposed Rule 18a–5. 215See paragraph (a)(29) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended; paragraphs (a)(16) and (b)(12) of proposed Rule 18a–5. 216See paragraph (a)(30) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended; paragraphs (a)(17) and (b)(13) of proposed Rule 18a–5. Paragraph (b)(2) of proposed Rule 15Fk–1 would require chief compliance officers of SBSDs and MSBSPs to establish, maintain and review written policies and procedures reasonably designed to achieve compliance with section 15F of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, by the SBSDs and MSBSPs. 217See paragraph (a)(14) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended; paragraphs (b)(1)(xii) and (b)(2)(vii) of proposed Rule 18a–6. account at an unaffiliated bank separate from any other bank account of the SBSD.204 Further, it would provide that the SBSD must at all times maintain in the security-based swap customer reserve account cash and/or qualified securities in amounts computed daily in accordance with Exhibit A to proposed Rule 18a–4.205 The Commission is proposing to require that all types of SBSDs make and keep current a record of their reserve computations under proposed Rule 18a–4 by amending Rule 17a–3 to add the requirement and to include parallel requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of proposed Rule 18a–5.206 The objective of this requirement would be to promote SBSD compliance with the customer reserve computation requirement and to assist Commission examiners in reviewing compliance. Unverified Transactions Prudent practice requires counterparties to promptly confirm the terms of executed OTC derivatives transactions.207 Consequently, the Commission proposed Rule 15Fi–1 to promote the efficient operation of the security-based swap market and to facilitate market participants’ management of the risk of trading in
security-based swaps.208 Among other things, proposed Rule 15Fi–1 would require broker-dealers, SBSDs, and MSBSPs to provide trade acknowledgments containing the details of a security-based swap transaction within prescribed timeframes and to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to obtain prompt verification of the terms of the trade acknowledgments.209 To promote compliance with proposed Rule 15Fi–1 and the risk management practices of broker-dealers, SBSDs, and MSBSPs, the Commission is proposing to amend Rule 17a–3 to add a requirement to make a record of each security-based swap trade acknowledgment that is not verified within five business days of execution and to include parallel provisions in paragraphs (a) and (b) of proposed Rule 18a–5.210 Consequently, all types of SBSDs and MSBSPs would be required to make and keep current these records. While the Commission did not prescribe a timeframe in proposed Rule 15Fi–1 within which security-based swap trade acknowledgements would need to be verified, the proposed rule does require procedures reasonably designed to obtain ‘‘prompt verification.’’ 211 The proposed requirement to make a record of security-based swap trade acknowledgments that are not verified within five business days is not intended to establish a maximum timeframe within which verification should be obtained under proposed Rule 15Fi–1. The five business day threshold is designed to require SBSDs and MSBSPs to make a record of transactions that have gone unverified for a significant length of time.212 This could indicate a deficiency in the controls established to verify transactions or the existence of a disagreement with the counterparty as to the terms of the transaction. Records Relating to Business Conduct Standards The Commission has proposed Rules 15Fh–1 through 15Fh–6 and Rule 15Fk– 1 to establish external business conduct requirements for SBSDs and MSBSPs.213 As currently proposed, the requirements in these rules, would address (among other things):

• Verification of the status of the
  counterparty;
• Certain disclosures related to the
  daily mark and its calculation;
• Disclosures regarding material
  incentives, conflicts of interest, material risks, and characteristics of the security￾based swap, and certain clearing rights;
• Certain ‘‘know your counterparty’’
  and suitability obligations for SBSDs;
• Supervisory requirements including
  written policies and procedures;
• Certain requirements regarding
  interactions with special entities;
• Provisions intended to prevent
  SBSDs and independent representatives of special entities from engaging in certain ‘‘pay to play’’ activities; and
• Certain minimum requirements
  relating to chief compliance officers. To promote compliance with these external business conduct standards, the Commission is proposing amendments to Rule 17a–3 and to include parallel provisions in paragraphs (a) and (b) of proposed Rule 18a–5.214 First, the Commission is proposing that all types of SBSDs be required to make and keep current a record that demonstrates their compliance with proposed Rule 15Fh– 6 (regarding political contributions by certain security-based swap dealers).215 Second, the Commission is proposing that all types of SBSDs and MSBSPs be required to make and keep current a record that demonstrates their compliance with proposed Rules 15Fh– 1 through 15Fh–5 and Rule 15Fk–1, as applicable.216 These paragraphs would require covered firms to keep supporting documents evidencing their compliance with the business conduct standards; a mere attestation of compliance would not be sufficient. To the extent that the rules require providing or receiving written disclosures or written representations, the SBSD or MSBSP would be required to retain a copy of such disclosure or representation.217 Request for Comment The Commission generally requests comment on the proposals to require broker-dealers, SBSDs, and MSBSPs to make and keep current certain types of records. In addition, the Commission requests comment, including empirical data in support of comments, in response to the following questions:

1. Are the provisions in Rule 17a–3
   that would be included as parallel provisions in paragraph (a) of proposed Rule 18a–5 appropriate for stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs? If not, explain why not. Are there alternative provisions the Commission should consider? If so, describe them. Are there provisions in Rule 17a–3 that are not being included as parallel provisions in paragraph (a) of proposed Rule 18a–5 that would be appropriate for stand￾alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs? If so, explain why.

218See Financial Responsibility Rules for Broker￾Dealers, 78 FR 51907. 219The proposed amendments would delete the word ‘‘member’’ from the title and from the following paragraphs of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to Continued
2. Are the provisions in Rule 17a–3
that would be included as parallel provisions in paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 18a–5 appropriate for bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs? If not, explain why not. Are there alternative provisions the Commission should consider? If so, describe them. Are there provisions in Rule 17a–3 that are not being included as parallel provisions in paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 18a–5 that would be appropriate for bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs? If so, explain why.
3. Are the recordkeeping provisions
that would be added to paragraph (a) of Rule 17a–3 appropriate for broker￾dealers, including broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs? If not, explain why not. Are there alternative provisions the Commission should consider? If so, describe them.
4. Paragraph (a)(23) of Rule 17a–3, as
recently amended, requires certain broker-dealers to make and keep current a record documenting the broker￾dealer’s credit, market, and liquidity risk management controls.218 Should an analogous requirement be added to Rule 18a–5? Explain why or why not.
5. Is the five business day time frame
for triggering the unverified transaction record requirement an appropriate length of time? Should the time frame be shorter (e.g., three days)? Should the time frame be longer (e.g., seven or ten days)?
6. How do the types of records that
would need to be made under Rule 17a– 3, as proposed to be amended, and proposed Rule 18a–5 align with the types of records that an FCM or a swap dealer would be required to make? Commenters are asked to identify and explain requirements that they believe would result in a dually registered entity (e.g., a broker-dealer/FCM or an SBSD/swap dealer) needing to make two sets of records that address the same matter or information as opposed to a single record that includes information that would satisfy requirements of both recordkeeping programs.
7. As noted above, certain data
elements that would need to be documented under the proposed amendments to Rule 17a–3 or proposed Rule 18a–5 are substantively the same as certain data elements that would need to be reported under proposed Rule 901. Should any additional data elements required to be reported under proposed Rule 901 be required to be recorded in the daily trading records under the proposed amendments to Rule 17a–3 or proposed Rule 18a–5? Are any of the data elements that would be required to be recorded in the daily trading records not appropriate for such records? If so, identify them and explain why. Are there any data elements that should be required to be recorded even though they are not required by proposed Rule 901? If so, identify them and explain why.
8. Can the data elements with respect
to security-based swaps that would be required to be recorded in the daily trading records under the proposed amendments to Rule 17a–3 and proposed Rule 18a–5 be stored in, and retrieved from, a single database in order to generate the various types of records that would need to be made (e.g., ledger accounts, securities record, memoranda of brokerage orders, and memoranda of proprietary trades)? If not, explain why not. If so, describe any system changes that would need to be made and identify, estimate, and quantify the burden(s) associated with such system changes.
9. Paragraph (a)(29) of Rule 17a–3, as
proposed to be amended, and paragraphs (a)(16) and (b)(12) of proposed Rule 18a–5 require broker￾dealer SBSDs, stand-alone SBSDs, and bank SBSDs, respectively, to make and keep a record that demonstrates they complied with the business conduct standards required under proposed Rule 15Fh–6. Should these paragraphs also require these entities to make and keep specified records pertaining to proposed Rule 15Fh–6 to help in evaluating compliance? Explain why or why not. For example, based on the provisions of proposed Rule 15Fh–6, should the following rule text be used in paragraphs (a)(29) and (a)(30) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended (and in paragraphs (a)(16) and (a)(17), and paragraphs (b)(12) and (b)(13) of proposed Rule 18a–5):
‘‘(29) A record with respect to § 240.15Fh–6 [as proposed at 76 FR 42396, July 18, 2011] containing the following information:
(i) The names, titles, and business and residence addresses of all covered associates of the broker or dealer; (ii) All municipal entities to which a broker or dealer has provided services in connection with the solicitation or entry into security-based swaps or trading strategies involving security￾based swaps in the past five years, but not before six months prior to the effective date of § 240.15Fh–6 [as proposed at 76 FR 42396, July 18, 2011]; and (iii) In chronological order, all direct or indirect contributions made by the broker or dealer or any of its covered associates (including contributions made up to six months prior to becoming a covered associate) to an official of a municipal entity, or direct or indirect payments to a political party of a state or political subdivision thereof, or to a political action committee, including:
(A) The name and title of each contributor; (B) The name and title, including the city, county, state, or other political subdivision, of each recipient of a contribution or payment; (C) Whether the contributor was entitled to vote for the recipient at the time of the contribution; (D) The amount and date of each contribution and payment; and (E) Whether any such contribution was the subject of the exception for certain returned contributions pursuant to § 240.15Fh–6(d) or (e) [as proposed at 76 FR 42396, July 18, 2011]; and (iv) The name and business address of each municipal advisor to whom the broker or dealer provides or agrees to provide, directly or indirectly, payment to solicit a municipal entity for services on its behalf; and, for purposes of this paragraph, the terms contribution, covered associates, municipal entity, official of municipal entity, payment and solicit will have the same meaning as set forth in § 240.15Fh–6(a) [as proposed at 76 FR 42396, July 18, 2011]. (30) A record that demonstrates the broker or dealer has complied with the business conduct standards as required under § 240.15Fh–1 through § 240.15Fh–6 and § 240.15Fk–1 [as proposed at 76 FR 42396, July 18, 2011].’’? If this rule text should be used, explain why. If this rule text should not be used, explain why not. Is there alternative rule text that should be used? If so, explain why alternative rule text should be used? b. Additional Proposed Amendments to Rule 17a–3 The Commission is proposing several amendments to Rule 17a–3 to eliminate obsolete text, improve readability, and modernize terminology. Reference is made throughout Rule 17a–3 to ‘‘members’’ of a national securities exchange as a distinct class of registrant in addition to ‘‘brokers’’ and ‘‘dealers’’. The Commission is proposing to remove these references to ‘‘members’’ given that the rule applies to brokers-dealers, which would include members of a national securities exchange that are brokers-dealers.219 The Commission is

be amended: (a), (a)(3), (a)(5)(i), (a)(6)(i), (a)(7)(i), (a)(8)(i), (a)(9), (a)(10), (a)(11), (a)(12), (a)(17)(i), (a)(18), (a)(19), (a)(20), (a)(22), (b), (e), (f)(2), and (f)(4). See Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended. 220The proposed amendments would replace the word ‘‘shall’’ with the word ‘‘must’’ or ‘‘will’’ in the following paragraphs of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended: (a), (a)(6)(i)(A), (a)(7)(i), (a)(10), (a)(11), (a)(12)(i), (a)(16)(ii), (a)(17)(i), (a)(18)(i), (a)(19)(i), (b), (d), (e), and (f)(4). See Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended. 221The proposed amendments would replace the phrase ‘‘shall mean’’ with the word ‘‘means’’ in the following paragraphs of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended: (a)(6)(i)(A), (a)(16)(ii)(A), and (a)(16)(ii)(B). See Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended. 222The Commission proposes the following stylistic and corrective changes to Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended: (1) Adding to paragraph (a)(1) the phrase ‘‘such securities were’’; (2) adding to paragraph (a)(4)(vi) the word ‘‘and’’ after the semicolon; (3) replacing the word ‘‘of’’ with the word ‘‘or’’ in paragraph (a)(5), resulting in the phrase ‘‘for its account or for the account of its customers or partners’’; (4) replacing the phrase ‘‘purchase or sale of securities’’ with the phrase ‘‘purchase or sale of a security’’ in the first sentence of paragraph (a)(6)(i); (5) replacing the word ‘‘and’’ with the word ‘‘or’’ in paragraph (a)(7), resulting in the phrase ‘‘A memorandum of each purchase or sale’’; (6) replacing the phrase ‘‘in respect of’’ to with the phrase ‘‘with respect to’’ in paragraph (a)(9); (7) adding the phrase ‘‘, as applicable:’’ after the word ‘‘indicating’’ in paragraph (a)(9); (8) including the word ‘‘and’’ between the second-to￾last and last subparagraphs of paragraph (a)(9) (instead of after every subparagraph); (9) replacing cross-reference in paragraph (a)(12) to ‘‘paragraph (h)(4)’’ with a cross-reference to ‘‘paragraph (f)(4)’’ due to the proposed deletion of two paragraphs; (10) amending paragraph (a)(12)(i)(G) to refer to a ‘‘broker or dealer’’ instead of a ‘‘broker-dealer’’; and (11) replacing the superfluous ‘‘or’’ with a comma in the phrase ‘‘wrongful taking of property or bribery’’ in paragraph (a)(12)(i)(G). 223See undesignated introductory paragraph of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended. 224See paragraph (a)(11) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended. 225 Id. 226See paragraph (a)(12) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended. 227Paragraph (b) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended, would read as follows: ‘‘A broker or dealer registered pursuant to section 15 of the Act, that introduces accounts on a fully-disclosed basis, is not required to make or keep such records of transactions cleared for such broker or dealer as are made and kept by a clearing broker or dealer pursuant to the requirements of § 240.17a–3 and § 240.17a–4. Nothing herein will be deemed to relieve such broker or dealer from
the responsibility that such books and records be accurately maintained and preserved as specified in § 240.17a– 3 and § 240.17a–4.’’ 228The Defense Savings Bond initiated by the U.S. Treasury and the U.S. Defense Savings Stamps introduced by the U.S. Postal Service were measures to finance the U.S. effort in World Wars I and II. The bonds matured in 10 years from the date of issuance. The Defense Savings Bonds were replaced by Series E savings bonds, which ceased to be issued as of June 1980. Today, these instruments are not widely held and are valued more as collectibles than for their face value. See information available at www.Treasurydirect.gov. 229See Preservation of Records and Reports of Certain Stabilizing Activities, 18 FR 2879 (May 19,
1953) (‘‘It has been pointed out to the Commission
that the accounting entries appropriate in the case of the usual securities transaction are unnecessarily burdensome and expensive as to these rights transactions because of the small sums involved and because in many cases there is no continuing relationship between the customer and the firm’’). proposing a second global change that would replace the word ‘‘shall’’ in the rule with the word ‘‘must’’ or ‘‘will’’ where appropriate.220 Similarly, when defining terms, the Commission is proposing to replace the phrase ‘‘shall mean’’ with the word ‘‘means’’.221 The Commission also proposes to make certain stylistic, corrective, and punctuation amendments to improve the rule’s readability.222 The Commission is proposing to simplify the text in paragraph (a) of Rule 17a–3 to state that Rule 17a–3 applies to ‘‘every broker or dealer’’, since the undesignated introductory paragraph already provides sufficient detail as to the types of registrants to which the rule applies.223 In recognition of the fact that broker￾dealers may execute orders for non￾customers, the Commission is proposing to amend paragraph (a)(6) of Rule 17a– 3 to specify that a broker-dealer must maintain a copy of the customer’s or non-customer’s subscription agreement. The Commission is proposing to restructure paragraph (a)(11) of Rule 17a–3 to eliminate paragraphs (a)(11)(i)– (ii).224 Under these amendments, the text of paragraph (a)(11)(i) of Rule 17a– 3 would be set forth in the second sentence of paragraph (a)(11) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended, and the text of paragraph (a)(11)(ii) would be deleted from the rule.225 The Commission is proposing to amend the ‘‘Provided, however’’ paragraph in paragraph (a)(12) of Rule 17a–3 that follows paragraph (a)(12)(i)(H) by replacing the list of SROs and exchanges with the term ‘‘a self-regulatory organization.’’ 226 Thus, rather than naming specific SROs, the paragraph would use the generic term ‘‘a self-regulatory organization.’’ The Commission also is proposing amendments to paragraph (b) of Rule 17a–3. Paragraph (b)(1) is designed to avoid duplication and prevent an introducing broker-dealer from having to make and keep current the same records that would customarily be made by the firm’s clearing broker-dealer. However, the language in paragraph (b)(1) beginning with the phrase ‘‘Provided, That’’ is outdated insofar is it references a capital standard that has been superseded. In revising paragraph (b)(1), the intent of the provision—to avoid the duplicative creation of records related to transactions introduced by one broker or dealer and cleared by a different broker or dealer—remains the same. However, the Commission is proposing to clarify the provision and eliminate the outdated capital standard reference.227 The Commission also is proposing to delete paragraph (b)(2) as it would be redundant of paragraph (b) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended. The Commission is proposing to remove paragraphs (c) and (d) of Rule
17a–3. Paragraph (c) is outdated and references instruments such as U.S. Defense Savings Stamps and U.S. Defense Savings Bonds that are no longer widely circulated and thus a specific carve-out for these instruments from the general rule set forth in paragraph (a) of Rule 17a–3 is antiquated.228 Paragraph (d) provides a de minimis exception from paragraph (a) of Rule 17a–3 for any cash transaction of $100 or less involving only subscription rights or warrants which by their terms expire within 90 days after the issuance thereof. This exemption was adopted in 1953 to reduce the burden and expense of making accounting entries for these rights transactions. The Commission preliminarily believes that the burden associated with these accounting entries is no longer significant in light of the technological advances in recordkeeping systems since 1953.229 In addition, the Commission preliminarily believes the removal of this exemption would affect a small number of transactions. As a consequence of the proposed removal of current paragraphs (c) and (d) from Rule 17a–3, current paragraphs (e), (f), (g), and (h) would be redesignated as paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (f), respectively. Current paragraph (e) references Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (‘‘MSRB’’) Rule G–8 and states that compliance with such rule will be deemed to be compliance with this
section. The proposed amendments
would add the phrase ‘‘or any successor rule’’ to the reference to Rule G–8 so that the cross-reference does not become superseded over time. Request for Comment The Commission generally requests comment on these additional proposed amendments to Rule 17a–3, including comment on whether any of the proposed amendments would result in substantive changes to the requirements applicable to broker-dealers. In addition, the Commission requests comment, including empirical data in support of comments, in response to the following questions:

1. Paragraphs (a)(12)(i)(E) through (G)
   of Rule 17a–3 currently require broker￾dealers to retain certain records with

230Broker-Dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs would be subject to all the record maintenance and preservation requirements applicable to broker-dealers under Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended, plus the additional requirements specifically applicable only to SBSDs and MSBSPs. 231The Commission is not proposing to include in proposed Rule 18a–6 requirements that would parallel the requirements in paragraphs (b)(11), (g), (h), (k), and (l) of Rule 17a–4. These requirements relate to activities that the Commission preliminarily believes would not be relevant to stand-alone SBSDs or stand-alone MSBSPs. Other requirements in Rule 17a–4 that would not be included as parallel requirements in proposed Rule 18a–6 are discussed below. 232See undesignated introductory paragraph of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended. 233 Id. 234See undesignated introductory paragraph of proposed Rule 18a–6. 235 Id. 236See 17 CFR 240.17a–4(a). 237 Id. As discussed below in section II.A.3.b. of this release, the Commission is proposing technical amendments to paragraph (a) of Rule 17a–4. 238See paragraph (a) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended. 239See paragraph (a) of proposed Rule 18a–6. 240 Id. 241See paragraph (a)(1) of proposed Rule 18a–6 (providing that it applies to SBSDs and MSBSPs subject to paragraph (a) of proposed Rule 18a–5). regard to certain actions taken against their associated persons when they were associated with a broker-dealer. Should these requirements be expanded to include actions taken when they were associated with other types of entities (e.g., SBSDs, MSBSPs, FCMs, investment advisers)? If so, which entities should be covered? Please explain. Also identify, estimate, and quantify any associated burdens with expanding these requirements to include actions taken when broker￾dealers are associated with these other types of entities.
2. Do broker-dealers still rely on the
exemptions provided in paragraphs (b)(2), (c), and/or (d) of Rule 17a–3? If so, quantify the extent to which these exemptions are relied on, and the burden associated with the Commission’s proposal to eliminate these exemptions. In addition, would any system changes be needed if the exemptions provided in paragraphs (b)(2), (c), and/or (d) of Rule 17a–3 were eliminated? If so, identify, estimate, and quantify the burden(s) associated with such system changes.
3. Record Maintenance and Preservation
Requirements
As discussed above, Rule 17a–4 requires a broker-dealer to preserve certain types of records if it makes or receives them. The rule also prescribes the period of time these records and the records required to be made and kept current under Rule 17a–3 must be preserved and the manner in which they must be preserved. The Commission is proposing amendments to Rule 17a–4 that are designed to account for the security-based swap activities of broker￾dealers, including broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs.230 The Commission also is proposing additional largely technical amendments to Rule 17a–4. With respect to stand-alone SBSDs, stand￾alone MSBSPs, bank SBSDs, and bank MSBSPs, the Commission is proposing new Rule 18a–6—which is modeled on Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended—to establish record maintenance and preservation requirements for these types of registrants. For the reasons discussed above in sections I. and II.A.1. of this release, proposed Rule 18a–6 does not include a parallel requirement for every requirement in Rule 17a–4.231 In addition, for the reasons described in
section I. of this release, the
recordkeeping requirements in proposed Rule 18a–6 applicable to bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs are more limited in scope than the requirements in the rule applicable to stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs. The proposed amendments to Rule 17a–4 and proposed Rule 18a–6 are discussed in more detail below. a. Amendments to Rule 17a–4 and Proposed Rule 18a–6 Undesignated Introductory Paragraph Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended, would contain an undesignated introductory paragraph explaining that the rule applies to a broker-dealer, including a broker-dealer dually registered with the Commission as an SBSD or MSBSP.232 The note further explains that an SBSD or MSBSP that is not dually registered as a broker￾dealer (i.e., a stand-alone SBSD, stand￾alone MSBSP, bank SBSD, or bank MSBSP) is subject to the record maintenance and preservation requirements under proposed Rule 18a– 6.233 Similarly, proposed Rule 18a–6 would contain an undesignated introductory paragraph explaining that the rule applies to an SBSD or MSBSP that is not registered as a broker￾dealer.234 The note further explains that a broker-dealer that is dually registered as an SBSD or MSBSP is subject to the record maintenance and preservation requirements under Rule 17a–4.235 Six Year Preservation Requirement for Certain Rule 17a–3 and Rule 18a–5 Records Paragraph (a) of Rule 17a–4 provides that brokers-dealers subject to Rule 17a– 3 must preserve for a period of not less than six years, the first two years in an easily accessible place, certain categories of records required to be made and kept current under Rule 17a– 3 (the ‘‘six year preservation requirement’’).236 Specifically, the six year preservation requirement applies to records required under the following paragraphs of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended: Paragraph (a)(1) (trade blotters); paragraph (a)(2) (general ledgers); paragraph (a)(3) (ledgers of customer and non-customer accounts); paragraph (a)(5) (stock record); paragraph (a)(21) (person who can explain records at each office); paragraph (a)(22) (principal responsible for establishing compliance procedures); and paragraph (d) (security future product records).237 Consequently, broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs would be required to preserve for six years the same categories of records as broker-dealers not registered as SBSDs or MSBSPs.238 As discussed above in section II.A.2.a. of this release, paragraphs (a) and (b) of proposed Rule 18a–5 would contain certain recordkeeping requirements that are parallel to existing requirements in Rule 17a–3. Under these parallel requirements, stand-alone SBSDs, stand￾alone MSBSPs, bank SBSDs, and bank MSBSPs would need to make and keep current certain categories of records that broker-dealers must maintain under the six year preservation requirement in Rule 17a–4. Consequently, paragraph (a) of proposed Rule 18a–6 similarly would require that these categories of records must be preserved for a period of not less
than six years, the first two years in an easily accessible place.239 Further, similar to paragraphs (a) and (b) of proposed Rule 18a–5, paragraph (a) of proposed Rule 18a–6 contains one set of six year preservation requirements applicable to stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs and a separate set applicable to bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs.240 In particular, paragraph (a)(1) of proposed Rule 18a–6 would apply to stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs.241 These registrants would be required to preserve for at least six years, the first two years in an easily accessible place, the records required to be made and kept current under the following paragraphs of proposed Rule 18a–5: Paragraph (a)(1) (trade blotters); paragraph (a)(2) (general ledgers); paragraph (a)(3) (ledgers of customer

242See paragraph (a)(1) of proposed Rule 18a–6. 243See paragraph (a)(2) of proposed Rule 18a–6 (providing that it applies to SBSDs and MSBSPs subject to paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 18a–5). 244See paragraph (a)(2) of proposed Rule 18a–6. 245See 17 CFR 240.17a–4(b). 246 Id. Currently, Rule 17a–4 does not cross￾reference paragraph (a)(11) of Rule 17a–3 (trial balances and computation of net capital). See 17 CFR 240.17a–3(a)(11); 17 CFR 240.17a–4. The Commission is proposing to correct this omission by adding a cross reference to paragraph (a)(11) of Rule 17a–3 in paragraph (b)(1) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended. This would require broker-dealers to preserve these records for three years, the first two years in an easily accessible place. Based on staff experience, the Commission believes that broker-dealers have been preserving these records in a manner consistent with this proposed requirement. 247See paragraph (b)(1) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended. 248 Id. 249See paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 18a–6. 250 Id. 251See paragraph (b)(1)(i) of proposed Rule 18a– 6 (providing that it applies to SBSDs and MSBSPs subject to paragraph (a) of proposed Rule 18a–5). 252See paragraph (b)(1)(i) of proposed Rule 18a– 6. 253See paragraph (b)(2) of proposed Rule 18a–6 (providing that it applies to SBSDs and MSBSPs subject to paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 18a–5). 254See paragraph (b)(2)(i) of proposed Rule 18a– 6. 255See 17 CFR 240.17a–4(b)(2) through (12). and non-customer accounts); and paragraph (a)(4) (stock record).242 Paragraph (a)(2) of proposed Rule 18a– 6 would apply to bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs.243 These registrants would be required to preserve for at least six years, the first two years in an easily accessible place, the records required under the following paragraphs of proposed Rule 18a–5: Paragraph (b)(1) (trade blotters); paragraph (b)(2) (ledgers of security-based swap customers and non-customers); and paragraph (b)(3) (stock record).244 Three Year Preservation Requirement for Certain Rule 17a–3 and Rule 18a–5 Records Paragraph (b) of Rule 17a–4 provides that broker-dealers subject to Rule 17a– 3 must preserve for at least three years, the first two years in an easily accessible place, certain records required to be made and kept current under Rule 17a– 3 (the ‘‘three year preservation requirement’’).245 Specifically, paragraph (b)(1) of Rule 17a–4 imposes the three year preservation requirement on the records required to be made and kept current under the following paragraphs of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended: Paragraph (a)(4) (certain ledgers); paragraph (a)(6) (memoranda of brokerage orders); paragraph (a)(7) (memoranda of proprietary orders); paragraph (a)(8) (confirmations); paragraph (a)(9) (accountholder information); paragraph (a)(10) (options positions); paragraph (a)(16) (internal broker-dealer system); paragraph (a)(18) (associated person complaints); paragraph (a)(19) (associated person compensation);
paragraph (a)(20) (advertisement and sales literature compliance); and paragraph (e) (records of each broker-dealer office).246 The Commission is not proposing to amend or change any of the existing cross-references to Rule 17a–3 in paragraph (b)(1) of Rule 17a–4.247 The Commission is, however, proposing to add cross-references to certain new paragraphs that would be added to Rule 17a–3 to address security-based swap activities of broker-dealers, including broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs. Specifically, paragraph (b)(1) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended, would apply the three year preservation requirement to the records required under the following paragraphs of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended: Paragraph (a)(24) (liquidity stress test); paragraph (a)(25) (proposed Rule 18a–3 calculations); paragraph (a)(26) (compliance with proposed Rule 18a–4 possession or control requirements); paragraph (a)(27) (proposed Rule 18a–4 reserve account computations); paragraph (a)(28) (unverified transactions); paragraph (a)(29) (political contributions); and paragraph (a)(30) (compliance with external business conduct requirements).248 As discussed above in section II.A.2.a. of this release, paragraphs (a) and (b) of proposed Rule 18a–5 would require stand-alone SBSDs, stand-alone MSBSPs, bank SBSDs, and bank MSBSPs to make and keep current certain categories of records that broker￾dealers are required to make and keep current under Rule 17a–3 and certain categories of records the Commission is proposing broker-dealers be required to make and keep current under amendments to Rule 17a–3. Under these parallel requirements, stand-alone SBSDs, stand-alone MSBSPs, bank SBSDs, and bank MSBSPs would need to make and keep current certain categories of records that currently are subject to the three year preservation requirement in Rule 17a–4 or, with respect to the new categories of records, are proposed to be subject to the three year preservation requirement. Consequently, paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 18a–6 would similarly require that these categories of records be preserved for a period of not less than three years, the first two years in an easily accessible place.249 Further, similar to paragraph (a) of proposed Rule 18a–6, paragraph (b) would contain two sets of provisions.250 Paragraph (b)(1)(i) of proposed Rule 18a–6 would apply to stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs.251 These registrants would be required to preserve for a period of not less than three years, the first two years in an easily accessible place, the records required to be made and kept current under the following paragraphs of proposed Rule 18a–5, as applicable:
Paragraph (a)(5) (memoranda of proprietary orders); paragraph (a)(6) (confirmations); paragraph (a)(7) (accountholder information); paragraph (a)(8) (options positions); paragraph (a)(9) (trial balances and computation of net capital or tangible net worth); paragraph (a)(11) (liquidity stress test); paragraph (a)(12) (proposed Rule 18a–3 calculations); paragraph (a)(13) (compliance with proposed Rule 18a–4 possession or control requirements); paragraph (a)(14) (proposed Rule 18a–4 reserve account computations); paragraph (a)(15) (unverified transactions); paragraph (a)(16) (political contributions); and paragraph (a)(17) (compliance with external business conduct requirements).252 Paragraph (b)(2) of proposed Rule 18a–6 would apply to bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs.253 These registrants would be required to preserve for a period of not less than three years, the first two years in an easily accessible place, the records required to be made and kept current under the following paragraphs of proposed Rule 18a–5, as applicable: Paragraph (b)(4) (memoranda of brokerage orders); paragraph (b)(5) (memoranda of proprietary orders); paragraph (b)(6) (confirmations); paragraph (b)(7) (accountholder information); paragraph (b)(9) (compliance with proposed Rule 18a–4 possession or control requirements); paragraph (b)(10) (proposed Rule 18a–4 reserve account computations); paragraph (b)(11) (unverified transactions); paragraph (b)(12) (political contributions); and paragraph (b)(13) (compliance with external business conduct requirements).254 Three Year Preservation Requirement for Certain Other Records Paragraph (b) of Rule 17a–4 also provides that a broker-dealer subject to Rule 17a–3 must preserve for a period of not less than three years, the first two years in an easily accessible place, other categories of records if the broker-dealer makes or receives the record.255 These are not categories of records a broker￾dealer is required to make and keep

256 Id.
257See 17 CFR 240.17a–4(b)(3) through (5) and (b)(7). 258See paragraph (m)(5) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended. 259See 17 CFR 240.17a–4(b)(2). 260Compare paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of proposed Rule 18a–6, with 17 CFR 240.17a–4(b)(2). 261See paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of proposed Rule 18a– 6. 262See 17 CFR 240.17a–4(b)(3). 263Compare paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of proposed Rule 18a–6, with 17 CFR 240.17a–4(b)(3). 264See paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of proposed Rule 18a– 6. 265See 17 CFR 240.17a–4(b)(4). Paragraph (b)(4) of Rule 17a–4 further provides the term communications as used in the paragraph includes sales scripts. Id. 266Compare paragraphs (b)(1)(iv) and (b)(2)(ii) of proposed Rule 18a–6, with paragraph (b)(4) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended. 267See 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(g)(1). 268 Id. 269See, e.g., Use of Electronic Media by Broker￾Dealers, Transfer Agents, and Investment Advisers for Delivery of Information; Additional Examples Under the Securities Act of 1933, Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Investment Company Act of 1940, Exchange Act Release No. 37182 (May 9, 1996), 61 FR 24644 (May 15, 1996), at n. 32 (‘‘Broker-dealers also are subject to recordkeeping requirements that would be applicable to all electronic communications received and sent by the firm relating to its business’’); Reporting Requirements for Brokers or Dealers Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Exchange Act Release No. 38245 (Feb. 5, 1997), 62 FR 6469 (Feb. 12, 1997); Books and Records Requirements for Brokers and Dealers Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 66 FR 55818, 55825 (‘‘Paragraph (b)(4) of Rule 17a–4 previously required that each broker￾dealer keep originals of all communications received and copies of all communications sent by the firm relating to its business as a broker-dealer, including inter-office memoranda and communications. With respect to memoranda, including email messages, the Commission has stated that the content and audience of the message determine whether a copy must be preserved, regardless of whether the message was sent on paper or sent electronically’’). 270See paragraph (b)(4) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended. 271See 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(g)(1). current under Rule 17a–3 but rather types of records that a broker-dealer may make or receive in the ordinary course of business.256 As discussed in detail below, the Commission is proposing amendments to these provisions in paragraph (b) of Rule 17a–4 to account for security-based swaps, and is proposing amendments requiring that broker-dealers, including broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs, preserve certain additional records related to security-based swap activities. Further, the Commission is proposing in paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 18a–6 that stand-alone SBSDs, stand-alone MSBSPs, bank SBSDs, and bank MSBSPs be required to preserve similar records. In addition, paragraphs (b)(3), (b)(4), (b)(5), and (b)(7) of Rule 17a–4 require the preservation of certain types of
records if they relate to the broker￾dealer’s business as such (i.e., as a broker-dealer).257 Security-based swap activities of a broker-dealer that is not registered as an SBSD or MSBSP would be part of the broker-dealer’s business as such for the purposes of Rule 17a–4 just like activities relating to other types of securities. In the case of a broker-dealer SBSD or broker-dealer MSBSP, the Commission is proposing to amend paragraph (m) of Rule 17a–4 to make clear that the business as such of a broker-dealer dually registered as an SBSD or MSBSP would include the firm’s business as an SBSD or MSBSP.258 The following is a discussion of the proposed amendments to Rule 17a–4 with respect to certain other records that would be subject to the three year preservation requirement and parallel provisions that would be included in proposed Rule 18a–6. Bank Records. Paragraph (b)(2) of Rule 17a–4 requires broker-dealers to preserve all check books, bank statements, cancelled checks, and cash reconciliations.259 The Commission is not proposing to amend paragraph (b)(2) of Rule 17a–4 to specifically account for security-based swaps. However, the Commission is proposing to include a parallel requirement in paragraph (b)(1) of Rule 18a–6 that would mirror paragraph (b)(2) of Rule 17a–4.260 In particular, paragraph (b)(1)(ii) would require stand-alone SBSDs and stand￾alone MSBSPs to preserve these types of bank records.261 Bills. Paragraph (b)(3) of Rule 17a–4 requires broker-dealers, which would include broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs, to preserve all bills receivable or payable, paid or unpaid, relating to the business of the member, broker, or dealer.262 The Commission is proposing to include a parallel requirement in paragraph (b)(1) of proposed Rule 18a–6 that would mirror paragraph (b)(3) of Rule 17a–4.263 In particular, paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of proposed Rule 18a–6 would require stand-alone SBSDs and stand￾alone MSBSPs to preserve these types of bills.264 Communications. Paragraph (b)(4) of Rule 17a–4 requires broker-dealers to preserve originals of all communications received and copies of all communications sent (and any approvals thereof) by the broker-dealer (including inter-office memoranda and communications) relating to its business as such, including all communications which are subject to rules of an SRO of which the broker-dealer is a member regarding communications with the public.265 The Commission is proposing amendments to paragraph (b)(4) to account for security-based swap activities and to include parallel requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of proposed Rule 18a–6 that are modeled on paragraph (b)(4) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended.266 The proposed amendments to paragraph (b)(4) of Rule 17a–4 also would implement section 15F(g)(1) of the Exchange Act.267 Section 15F(g)(1) provides that each registered SBSD and MSBSP shall maintain daily trading records of the security-based swaps of the registered SBSD and
MSBSP and all related records (including related cash or forward transactions) and recorded communications, including electronic mail, instant messages, and recordings of telephone calls, for such period as may be required by the Commission by rule or regulation.268 The term communications, as used in paragraph (b)(4) of Rule 17a–4, includes all electronic communications (e.g., emails and instant messages).269 Moreover, communications related to daily trading of security-based swaps would be communications relating to the business as such of a broker-dealer, including a broker-dealer SBSD and broker-dealer MSBSP. Consequently, the Commission need not amend paragraph (b)(4) of Rule 17a–4 to establish a retention period applicable to broker-dealers, including broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs, with respect to electronic mail and instant messages relating to their trading in security-based swaps. However, the Commission has not previously interpreted the term communications to include telephonic communications. Therefore, to implement section 15F(g)(1) of the Exchange Act, the Commission is proposing to amend the preservation requirement in paragraph (b)(4) of Rule 17a–4 to include ‘‘recordings of telephone calls required to be maintained pursuant to section 15F(g)(1) of the Exchange Act.’’ 270 Under this proposed requirement, a broker-dealer SBSD or a broker-dealer MSBSP would be required to preserve for three years telephone calls that it chooses to record to the extent the calls are required to be maintained pursuant to section 15F(g)(1) of the Exchange Act.271 The Commission is proposing to include parallel communication preservation requirements for stand￾alone SBSDs, stand-alone MSBSPs, bank SBSDs, and bank MSBSPs modeled on paragraph (b)(4) of Rule 17a–4, as

272Compare paragraphs (b)(1)(iv) and (b)(2)(ii) of proposed Rule 18a–6, with paragraph (b)(4) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended. 273See paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of proposed Rule 18a–
6. 274See 17 CFR 240.17a–4(b)(5). As discussed
below in section II.A.3.b. of this release, the Commission is proposing technical amendments to paragraph (b)(5) of proposed Rule 18a–6. 275Compare paragraph (b)(1)(v) of proposed Rule 18a–6, with 17 CFR 240.17a–4(b)(5). 276See paragraph (b)(1)(v) of proposed Rule 18a– 6. 277See paragraph (b)(1)(v) of proposed Rule 18a–
6. See also Capital, Margin, and Segregation
Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70217–70256. 278See paragraph (b)(1)(v) of proposed Rule 18a–
6. See also Capital, Margin, and Segregation
Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70256–70257 (proposing a tangible net worth capital standard for nonbank MSBSPs). A broker￾dealer MSBSP would be subject to the net capital requirements in Rule 15c3–1. 279See 17 CFR 240.17a–4(b)(6). 280Compare paragraphs (b)(1)(vi) and (b)(2)(iii) of proposed Rule 18a–6, with 17 CFR 240.17a–4(b)(6). 281See paragraphs (b)(1)(vi) and (b)(2)(iii) of proposed Rule 18a–6. 282See 17 CFR 240.17a–4(b)(7). 283Compare paragraphs (b)(1)(vii) and (b)(2)(iv) of proposed Rule 18a–6, with paragraph (b)(7) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended. 284See paragraph (b)(7) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended. 285See paragraphs (b)(1)(vii) and (b)(2)(iv) of proposed Rule 18a–6. 286See paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of proposed Rule 18a– 6. 287See 17 CFR 240.17a–4(b)(8); 17 CFR 240.17a– 5; 17 CFR 240.17a–12. Rule 17a–12 prescribes reporting requirements for OTC derivatives dealers that are similar to the reporting requirements in Rule 17a–5 applicable to broker-dealers. Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–12, with 17 CFR 240.17a–5. 288See 17 CFR 240.17a–4(b)(8)(i) through (xv). 289Compare paragraph (b)(1)(viii) of proposed Rule 18a–6, with paragraph (b)(8) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended. 290See paragraph (b)(8) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended. 291See paragraphs (b)(8)(v) through (viii) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended. proposed to be amended.272 The provision applicable to bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs would limit the requirement to communications that relate to the business of an SBSD or MSBSP.273 Trial balances. Paragraph (b)(5) of Rule 17a–4 requires broker-dealers, which would include broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs, to preserve all trial balances, computations of aggregate indebtedness and net capital (and working papers in connection therewith), financial statements, branch office reconciliations, and internal audit working papers, relating to the firm’s business as a broker-dealer.274 The Commission is proposing to include a parallel requirement in paragraph (b)(1) of proposed Rule 18a–6 applicable to stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs that is modeled on paragraph (b)(5) of Rule 17a–4.275 In particular, paragraph (b)(1)(v) of proposed Rule 18a–6 would require stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs to preserve similar types of records.276 In contrast to paragraph (b)(5) of Rule 17a–4, the provision would not refer to computations of ‘‘aggregate indebtedness’’ because this type of computation would not be part of the capital rule for stand-alone SBSDs or stand-alone MSBSPs.277 Further, to account for the proposed capital standard for stand-alone MSBSPs, the paragraph would refer to tangible net worth.278 Account Documents. Paragraph (b)(6) of Rule 17a–4 requires broker-dealers, which would include broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs, to preserve all guarantees of accounts and all powers
of attorney and other evidence of the granting of any discretionary authority given in respect of any account, and copies of resolutions empowering an agent to act on behalf of a corporation.279 The Commission is proposing to include parallel requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of proposed Rule 18a– 6 modeled on paragraph (b)(6) of Rule 17a–4.280 In particular, paragraphs (b)(1)(vi) and (b)(2)(iii) of proposed Rule 18a–6 would require stand-alone SBSDs, stand-alone MSBSPs, bank SBSDs, and bank MSBSPs, respectively, to preserve similar types of records, but only with respect to security-based swap accounts.281 For example, under the proposal, bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs would not be required to maintain these records with respect to accounts involving exclusively banking related services. Written Agreements. Paragraph (b)(7) of Rule 17a–4 requires a broker-dealer to preserve all written agreements (or copies thereof) entered into by such broker-dealer relating to its business as such, including agreements with respect to any account.282 The Commission is proposing amendments to paragraph (b)(7) of Rule 17a–4 to account for security-based swaps and to include parallel requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of proposed Rule 18a– 6 modeled on paragraph (b)(7) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended.283 The amendments to paragraph (b)(7) of Rule 17a–4 would establish a preservation requirement that written agreements with respect to a security￾based swap customer or non-customer, including governing documents or any document establishing the terms and conditions of such person’s securities￾based swaps, must be maintained with such person’s account records.284 This provision is designed to facilitate the examination of the broker-dealer by requiring it to maintain these records together. The parallel requirements in proposed Rule 18a–6 would require stand-alone SBSDs, stand-alone MSBSPs, bank SBSDs, and bank MSBSPs to preserve similar types of records and include the same preservation requirement.285 The provision applicable to bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs would limit the preservation requirement to written agreements relating to the registrant’s business as an SBSD or MSBSP.286 Information Supporting Financial Reports. Paragraph (b)(8) of Rule 17a–4 requires a broker-dealer to preserve records containing various types of information that support amounts included in the broker-dealer’s FOCUS Report prepared as of the broker-dealer’s audit date and amounts in the annual audited financial statements the broker￾dealer is required to file under Rule 17a–5 or Rule 17a–12, as applicable.287 The paragraph specifically identifies the types of supporting information that needs to be preserved, including money balances, securities positions, futures positions, commodity positions, and options positions, among other things.288 The Commission is proposing amendments to paragraph (b)(8) of Rule 17a–4 to account for swap and security￾based swap
activities of broker-dealers, including broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs, and to include parallel requirements applicable to stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs in paragraph (b)(1) of proposed Rule 18a–6 modeled on paragraph (b)(8) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended.289 The amendments to paragraph (b)(8) of Rule 17a–4 would add a reference to proposed Form SBS in the introductory text after references to certain parts of the FOCUS Report.290 Thus, broker￾dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs—which would file proposed Form SBS rather than the FOCUS Report—would need to preserve information in support of proposed Form SBS. Further, the amendments to paragraph (b)(8) of Rule 17a–4 would add the phrase ‘‘or swaps’’ after the phrase ‘‘commodity contracts’’ and the phrase ‘‘and swap’’ after the term ‘‘commodity’’ wherever they appear in the paragraph.291 This would require broker-dealers, including broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs, to preserve the same type of supporting information with respect to swap

292See 17 CFR 240.17a–4(b)(8)(xiii).
293See 17 CFR 240.15c3–3.
294See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70278–70282. 295Compare paragraph (b)(8)(xiii) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended, with 17 CFR 240.17a– 4(b)(8)(xiii). 296See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70221–70229. The fixed-dollar amount applicable to nonbank SBSDs, other than ANC broker-dealer SBSDs, would be $20 million. The fixed dollar amount applicable to ANC broker-dealer SBSDs would be $1 billion. Id. In addition, stand-alone ANC SBSDs would be subject to a $100 million minimum tentative net capital requirement and ANC broker-dealer SBSDs would be subject to a $5 billion minimum tentative net capital requirement. Id. 297 Id. Rule 15c3–1 prescribes two financial ratio requirements. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a)(1). The first financial ratio requirement provides that a broker-dealer must not permit its aggregate indebtedness to all other persons to exceed 1500% of its net capital (i.e., a 15-to-1 aggregate indebtedness to net capital requirement). See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a)(1)(i). Stated another way, the broker-dealer must maintain, at a minimum, an amount of net capital equal to 1/15th (or 6.67%) of its aggregate indebtedness. This financial ratio generally is used by smaller broker-dealers that do not hold customer securities and cash and is the default financial ratio requirement that all broker￾dealers must apply unless they affirmatively elect to be subject to the second financial ratio requirement by notifying their designated examining authority (‘‘DEA’’) of the election. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a)(1)(i) and (ii). The second financial ratio requirement provides that a broker￾dealer must not permit its net capital to be less than 2% of aggregate debit items (i.e., customer-related obligations to the broker-dealer). See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a)(1)(ii). Customer debit items— computed pursuant to Rule 15c3–3—consist of, among other things, margin loans to customers and securities borrowed by the broker-dealer to effectuate deliveries of securities sold short by customers. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–3; 17 CFR 240.15c3–3a. This ratio generally is used by larger broker-dealers that hold customer securities and funds. 298See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70221–70229. Neither the 15-to-1 aggregate indebtedness to net capital ratio nor the 2% of aggregate debit items ratio would be applicable to stand-alone SBSDs. Id. 299 Id. at 70223. 300 Id. at 70221–70229. 301See paragraph (b)(8)(xvi) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended. 302Compare paragraph (b)(1)(viii) of proposed Rule 18a–6, with paragraph (b)(8) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended.
More specifically: (1) Paragraph (b)(1)(viii)(A) of proposed Rule 18a–6 would be modeled on paragraph (b)(8)(i) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended, except the former would refer to security-based swap customers rather than customers and not contain a reference to cash accounts; (2) paragraph (b)(1)(viii)(B) of proposed Rule 18a–6 would be modeled on paragraph (b)(8)(ii) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended, except the former would refer to security-based swap non-customers instead of non-customers and to security-based swap accounts instead of securities accounts, and not contain a reference to cash accounts; (3) paragraph (b)(1)(viii)(C) of proposed Rule 18a–6 would mirror paragraph (b)(8)(iii) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended; (4) paragraph (b)(1)(viii)(D) of proposed Rule 18a–6 would mirror paragraph (b)(8)(v) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended; (5) paragraph (b)(1)(viii)(E) of proposed Rule 18a– 6 would mirror paragraph (b)(8)(vi) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended; (6) paragraph (b)(1)(viii)(F) of proposed Rule 18a–6 would mirror paragraph (b)(8)(vii) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended; (7) paragraph (b)(1)(viii)(G) of proposed Rule 18a–6 would mirror paragraph (b)(8)(viii) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended; (8) paragraph (b)(1)(viii)(H) of proposed Rule 18a–6 would mirror paragraph (b)(8)(ix) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended; (9) paragraph (b)(1)(viii)(I) of proposed Rule 18a–6 would mirror paragraph (b)(8)(x) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended; (10) paragraph (b)(1)(viii)(J) of proposed Rule 18a–6 would mirror paragraph (b)(8)(xi) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended; (11) paragraph (b)(1)(viii)(K) of proposed Rule 18a–6 would be modeled on paragraph (b)(8)(xii) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended, except the former would refer to proposed Rule 18a–1 (the proposed capital rule for stand-alone SBSDs) rather than Rule 15c3–1 (the broker-dealer capital rule); (12) paragraph (b)(1)(viii)(L) of proposed Rule 18a–6 would mirror paragraph (b)(8)(xiv) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended; (13) paragraph (b)(1)(viii)(M) of proposed Rule 18a–6 would be modeled on paragraph (b)(8)(xv) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended, except the former would refer to proposed Rule 18a–1 and proposed Rule 18a–2 (the proposed tangible net worth rule for nonbank MSBSPs) rather than Rule 15c3–1; (14) paragraph (b)(1)(viii)(N) of proposed Rule 18a–6 would be modeled on paragraph (b)(8)(xvi) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended, except the former would refer to proposed Rule 18a–1 rather than Rule 15c3– 1; and (15) paragraph (b)(1)(viii)(O) of proposed Rule 18a–6 would be modeled on paragraph (b)(8)(xvii) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended, except the former would refer to proposed Rule 18a–7 (the proposed reporting rule for nonbank SBSDs and nonbank MSBSPs) rather than Rule 17a–5 (the broker-dealer reporting rule) and Rule 17a–12 (the OTC derivatives dealer reporting rule). The
Commission is not proposing to include in paragraph (b)(1)(viii) of proposed Rule 18a–6 provisions that would be analogous to paragraphs (b)(8)(iv) and (b)(8)(xiii) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended. Paragraph (b)(8)(iv) relates to a provision in Rule 15c3–1 for which there is not a parallel provision in proposed Rule 18a–1. See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR Continued positions as is required with respect to commodity positions. Paragraph (b)(8)(xiii) of Rule 17a–4 requires broker-dealers to preserve records containing detail relating to information for possession or control requirements under Rule 15c3–3 and reported on a schedule to certain parts of the FOCUS Report.292 As noted above in section II.A.2.a. of this release, Rule 15c3–3 requires a carrying broker-dealer to maintain physical possession or control over customers’ fully paid and excess margin securities.293 The Commission has proposed a parallel requirement in proposed Rule 18a–4 that would apply to SBSDs with respect to their security-based swap customers.294 Moreover, as discussed below in section II.B.2.b. of this release, the Commission is proposing that SBSDs report information relating to possession or control requirements in proposed Form SBS. Consequently, the Commission is proposing to amend paragraph (b)(8) of Rule 17a–4 by adding a new paragraph that is modeled on paragraph (b)(8)(xiii) of Rule 17a–4 but that relates to the possession or control requirements in proposed Rule 18a–4 instead of the possession or control requirements in Rule 15c3–3.295 Thus, broker-dealer SBSDs would be required to preserve records that contain detail relating to information for possession or control requirements under Rule 18a–4 and reported on proposed Form SBS. Finally, the Commission’s proposed capital requirements for nonbank SBSDs would require these registrants to maintain minimum net capital of not less than the greater of a fixed-dollar amount or a ratio amount.296 The ratio amount for a broker-dealer SBSD would be the sum of the current ratio amount prescribed in Rule 15c3–1 and an amount equal to 8% of the firm’s risk margin amount (‘‘8% margin factor’’).297 The ratio amount for a stand-alone SBSD would be an amount equal to the 8% margin factor.298 The term risk margin amount would be defined as the sum of: (1) The greater of the total margin required to be delivered by the nonbank SBSD with respect to security￾based swap transactions cleared for security-based swap customers at a clearing agency or the amount of the deductions that would apply to the cleared security-based swap positions of the security-based swap customers pursuant to paragraph (c)(1)(vi) of Rule 18a–1; and (2) the total margin amount calculated by the stand-alone SBSD with respect to non-cleared security￾based swaps pursuant to proposed new Rule 18a–3.299
Accordingly, to determine its minimum net capital requirement, a nonbank SBSD would need to calculate the amount equal to the 8% margin factor.300 The Commission is proposing to amend paragraph (b)(8) of Rule 17a–4 by adding a new paragraph that would require a broker-dealer SBSD to preserve records that contain detail relating to the calculation of the risk margin amount.301 As indicated above, the Commission is proposing to include a parallel requirement in paragraph (b)(1) of proposed Rule 18a–6, which is modeled on paragraph (b)(8) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended.302 Thus,

70255–70256. Paragraph (b)(8)(xiii) relates to Rule 15c3–3, which does not apply to stand-alone SBSDs or stand-alone MSBSPs. Id. at 70274–70288. 303See paragraphs (b)(1)(vii) and (b)(2)(iv) of proposed Rule 18a–6. 304Compare paragraph (b)(2)(v) of proposed Rule 18a–6, with paragraph (b)(8)(xiv) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended, and paragraph (b)(1)(viii)(L) of proposed Rule 18a–6. 305See paragraph (b)(2)(v) of proposed Rule 18a–
6. 306See 17 CFR 240.15c3–4. See also OTC
Derivatives Dealers, 63 FR 59362; Alternative Net Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers That Are
Part of Consolidated Supervised Entities, and
Exchange Act Release No. 49830 (June 8, 2004), 69 FR 34428 (June 21, 2004). 307See 17 CFR 240.15c3–4. 308See 17 CFR 240.15c3–4(c)(3). The annual review must be conducted in accordance with procedures agreed to by the firm and the independent public accountant conducting the review. 309See 17 CFR 240.17a–4(b)(10). 310See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70250–70251. 311See paragraph (b)(1)(ix) of proposed Rule 18a– 6. 312See 17 CFR 240.17a–4(b)(10). 313Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–4(b)(10), with paragraph (b)(1)(ix) of proposed Rule 18a–6. 314See paragraph (b)(1)(ix) of proposed Rule 18a– 6. 315See 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(d)(2)(A) (providing that the Commission may not prescribe rules imposing prudential requirements on SBSDs and MSBSPs for which there is a prudential regulator). 316See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(c). OTC derivatives dealers are permitted to treat such uncollateralized receivables in a similar manner. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1f. 317See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a)(7); 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(c). 318See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70240–70245. 319See id. 320See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(c). 321See id. Consistent with section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Commission recently adopted amendments eliminating the use of credit ratings of nationally recognized statistical rating organizations for the purposes of determining the credit risk charges under Appendix E. See Public Law 111– 203, 939A; Removal of Certain References to Credit Ratings Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Exchange Act Release No. 71194 (Dec. 27, 2013), 79 FR 1522 (Jan. 8, 2014). Consequently, an ANC broker-dealer must use internal credit assessments to determine the credit risk charges (as would an ANC broker-dealer SBSD). See also Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker￾Dealers, 77 FR 70240–70245 (proposing that stand￾alone ANC SBSDs must use internal credit assessments for purposes of determining credit risk changes). 322See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(c)(4)(vi)(D) and (E). 323See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs would be required to preserve similar types of records, as applicable, containing information supporting their financial reports.303 The Commission is proposing a preservation requirement for bank SBSDs that would require these registrants to preserve the same types of records related to Rule 18a–4 that broker-dealer SBSDs would need to preserve under paragraph (b)(8)(xiv) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended, and that stand-alone SBSDs would be required to preserve under
paragraph (b)(1)(viii)(L) of proposed Rule 18a–6.304 Specifically, bank SBSDs would be required to preserve records containing detail relating to information for possession or control requirements under proposed Rule 18a–4 and reported on proposed Form SBS that is in support of amounts included in the report prepared as of the audit date on proposed Form SBS and in annual audited financial statements required by proposed Rule 18a–7.305 Rule 15c3–4 Risk Management Records. OTC derivatives dealers and ANC broker-dealers are required to comply with Rule 15c3–4.306 This rule requires these types of broker-dealers to establish, document, and maintain a system of internal risk management controls to assist in managing the risks associated with the firm’s business activities, including market, credit, leverage, liquidity, legal, and operational risks.307 The rule also requires periodic reviews (which may be performed by internal audit staff) and annual reviews (which must be conducted by independent certified public accountants) of the firm’s risk management systems.308 Paragraph (b)(10) of Rule 17a–4 requires broker￾dealers subject to Rule 15c3–4 (i.e., OTC derivatives dealers and ANC broker￾dealers) to preserve the records required to be made under the rule and the results of the periodic reviews required to be conducted under the rule.309 The Commission has proposed that nonbank SBSDs and nonbank MSBSPs be required to comply with Rule 15c3–4.310 Consequently, nonbank SBSDs and nonbank MSBSPs should be required to preserve the same types of records relating to Rule 15c3–4 as ANC broker￾dealers and OTC derivatives dealers.311 Paragraph (b)(10) of Rule 17a–4 applies the preservation requirements for records relating to Rule 15c3–4 to broker-dealers, which includes broker￾dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs.312 The Commission is proposing to include a parallel requirement in paragraph (b)(1) of proposed Rule 18a–6 applicable to stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs that would mirror paragraph (b)(10) of Rule 17a–4.313 In particular, paragraph (b)(1)(ix) of proposed Rule 18a–6 would require stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs to preserve the records required to made under Rule 15c3–4 and the results of the periodic reviews required to be conducted under the rule.314 The Commission did not propose that bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs comply with Rule 15c3–4.315 Consequently, the Commission is not proposing a parallel record preservation requirement for these registrants. Credit Risk Determinations. Under
Appendix E to Rule 15c3–1, ANC
broker-dealers are permitted to add back to net worth uncollateralized receivables from counterparties arising from OTC derivatives transactions when computing net capital.316 Instead of the 100% deduction that applies to most unsecured receivables under Rule 15c3– 1, ANC broker-dealers are permitted to take a credit risk charge based on the uncollateralized credit exposure to the counterparty.317 In most cases, the credit risk charge is significantly less than a 100% deduction, since it is a percentage of the amount of the receivable that otherwise would be deducted in full. The Commission has proposed that this treatment be narrowed under proposed amendments to the capital requirements for ANC broker-dealers so that it would apply only to uncollateralized receivables from commercial end users arising from security-based swaps (i.e., uncollateralized receivables from other types of counterparties would be subject to the 100% deduction from net worth).318 In addition, the proposed capital requirements for nonbank SBSDs permitted to use internal models to calculate market and credit risk charges when computing net capital (i.e., ANC broker-dealer SBSDs and stand-alone ANC SBSDs) similarly would allow these registrants to take credit risk charges with respect to uncollateralized receivables but only from commercial end users arising from security-based swaps.319 The method for computing the credit risk charge is set forth in Appendix E of Rule 15c3–1.320 Among other things, the amount of the credit risk charge is based on the creditworthiness of the counterparty.321 Paragraphs (c)(4)(vi)(D) and (E) of Appendix E of Rule 15c3–1 require ANC broker-dealers to make and keep current records relating to the bases of their internal credit assessments of counterparties for purposes of the credit risk charge.322 The Commission has proposed a parallel requirement for stand-alone ANC SBSDs.323 Paragraph (b)(12) of

Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70340 (setting forth the text of paragraphs (e)(2)(iv)(F)(1) and (2) of proposed Rule 18a–1). 324See 17 CFR 240.17a–4(b)(12). 325See paragraph (b)(1)(x) of proposed Rule 18a– 6. 326See 15 U.S.C. 78m–1(a)(1). 327See 15 U.S.C. 78m(m)(1)(G). 328See 15 U.S.C. 78m(m)(1)(C). 329Section 13(m)(1)(E) of the Exchange Act provides, among other things, that, with respect to cleared security-based swaps, the rule promulgated by the Commission related to public dissemination shall contain provisions that specify the criteria for determining what constitutes a large notional security-based swap transaction (block trade) for particular markets and contracts and specify the appropriate time delay for reporting large notional security-based swap transactions (block trades) to the public. 15 U.S.C. 78m(m)(1)(E). 330See Regulation SBSR—Reporting and Dissemination of Security-Based Swap Information, 75 FR 75208. 331See Cross-Border Security-Based Swap Activities, Re-Proposal of Regulation SBSR and Certain Rules and Forms Relating to the Registration of Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants, 78 FR 30968. 332See Regulation SBSR—Reporting and Dissemination of Security-Based Swap Information, 75 FR 75208. 333See id. 334See paragraph (b)(14) of Rue 17a–4, as proposed to be amended. 335Compare paragraph (b)(14) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended, with paragraphs (b)(1)(xi) and (b)(2)(vi) of proposed Rule 18a–6. 336See paragraphs (b)(1)(xi) and (b)(2)(vi) of proposed Rule 18a–6. 337See Business Conduct Standards for Security￾Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants, 76 FR 42396. 338See id. 339See paragraph (b)(15) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended. 340Compare paragraph (b)(15) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended, with paragraphs (b)(1)(xii) and (b)(2)(vii) of proposed Rule 18a–6. 341See paragraphs (b)(1)(xii) and (b)(2)(vii) of proposed Rule 18a–6. 342See 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(h)(4)(C). 343See Business Conduct Standards for Security￾Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants, 76 FR 42424. 344See id. 345See id. 346See 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(h)(4)(C); Business Conduct Standards for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants, 76 FR 42423–42424. Rule 17a–4 requires ANC broker￾dealers—and would require ANC broker-dealer SBSDs—to preserve the records required under paragraphs (c)(4)(vi)(D) and (E) of Appendix E of Rule 15c3–1 in accordance with Rule 17a–4.324 The Commission is proposing to include a parallel requirement in paragraph (b)(1) of proposed Rule 18a– 6 applicable to stand-alone ANC SBSDs that is modeled on paragraph (b)(12) of Rule 17a–4.325 Consequently, stand￾alone ANC SBSDs would be required to preserve the same types of records required to be made under proposed Rule 18a–1. Regulation SBSR. Section 13A(a)(1) of the Exchange Act provides that all security-based swaps that are not accepted for clearing shall be
subject to regulatory reporting.326 Section 13(m)(1)(G) of the Exchange Act 327 provides that each security-based swap (whether cleared or uncleared) shall be reported to a registered swap data repository, and section 13(m)(1)(C) of the Exchange Act 328 generally provides that transaction, volume, and pricing data of all security-based swaps shall be publicly disseminated in real time, except in the case of block trades.329 On November 19, 2010, the Commission proposed Regulation SBSR to implement these requirements.330 On May 1, 2013, the Commission re￾proposed Regulation SBSR as part of its release on cross-border security-based swap activities.331 Re-proposed Regulation SBSR would assign to one side of a security-based swap transaction the duty to report the transaction to a registered swap data repository.332 Although any type of counterparty could in theory become a reporting side, re-proposed Regulation SBSR includes a reporting hierarchy that would assign the duty primarily to SBSDs and MSBSPs. In addition, re￾proposed Regulation SBSR would require SBSDs and MSBSPs to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to ensure that such entities comply with any security-based swap transaction reporting obligations.333 The Commission is proposing to amend paragraph (b) of Rule 17a–4 to add a requirement that broker-dealers, including broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs, preserve the information they are required to submit to a registered swap data repository under Regulation SBSR.334 In addition, the Commission is proposing to include parallel requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of proposed Rule 18a–
6.335 Consequently, stand-alone SBSDs,
stand-alone MSBSPs, bank SBSDs, and bank MSBSPs would be required to preserve the same types of records.336 Records Relating to Business Conduct Standards. As discussed above in
section II.A.2.a. of this release, the
Commission has proposed Rules 15Fh– 1 through 15Fh–6 and Rule 15Fk–1.337 These rules, among other things, would require SBSDs and MSBSPs to make certain disclosures, provide certain notices, and make other records.338 The Commission is proposing to amend paragraph (b) of Rule 17a–4 to add a requirement that broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs preserve copies of documents, communications, and notices related to business conduct standards as required under Rules 15Fh–1 through 15Fh–6 and Rule 15Fk–
1.339 In addition, the Commission is
proposing to include parallel requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of proposed Rule 18a–6.340 Consequently, stand-alone SBSDs, stand-alone MSBSPs, bank SBSDs, and bank MSBSPs would be required to preserve the same types of records.341
Section 15F(h)(4)(C) of the Exchange
Act imposes duties on SBSDs that act as advisors to special entities.342 Proposed Rule 15Fh–2(a) would provide an exclusion to the definition of acting as an advisor to a special entity.343 To fall within the exclusion, the SBSD would be required to obtain a written representation from the special entity that it will not rely on recommendations provided by the SBSD, and that the special entity will rely on advice from a qualified independent representative (as defined in proposed Rule 15F– 5(a)).344 The SBSD also would be required to have a reasonable basis to believe that the special entity is advised by a qualified independent representative (as defined in proposed Rule 15F–5(a)), and the SBSD would be required to disclose to the special entity that it is not undertaking to act in the best interest of the special entity as otherwise required by section 15F(h)(4) of the Exchange Act.345 If an SBSD is acting as an advisor to a special entity, section 15F(h)(4)(C) and proposed Rule 15Fh–4(b) would require the SBSD to make reasonable efforts to obtain such information as it considers necessary to make a reasonable determination that a security-based swap or trading strategy involving a security-based swap is in the best interests of the special entity.346 The information that would be required to be collected to make this determination includes, but is not limited to: The authority of the special entity to enter into the transaction; the financial status and future funding needs of the special entity; the tax status of the special entity; the investment or financing objectives of the special entity; the experience of the special entity with respect to security-based swap transactions generally and of the type and complexity being recommended; whether the special entity has the financial capability to withstand changes in market conditions during the

347See Business Conduct Standards for Security￾Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants, 76 FR 42423–42424. 348See id. at 42428, n. 224. 349See paragraph (b)(16) of Rue 17a–4, as proposed to be amended. 350Compare paragraph (b)(16) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended, with paragraphs (b)(1)(xiii) and (b)(2)(viii) of proposed Rule 18a–6. 351See paragraphs (b)(1)(xiii) and (b)(2)(viii) of proposed Rule 18a–6. 352See 17 CFR 240.17a–4(d). 353See id. 354See paragraph (d) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended. 355See Registration of Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants, Exchange Act Release No. 65543 (Oct. 12, 2011), 76 FR 65784 (Oct. 24, 2011). 356Compare paragraph (d) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended, with paragraph (c) of proposed Rule 18a–6. 357See paragraph (c) of proposed Rule 18a–6. 358See Registration of Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants, 76 FR 65802–65807. 359See 17 CFR 240.17a–3(a)(12). As discussed below in section II.A.3.b. of this release, the Commission is proposing technical amendments to this paragraph. 360See paragraphs (a)(10) and (b)(8) of proposed Rule 18a–5. 361See 17 CFR 240.17a–4(e)(1). 362Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–4(e)(1), with paragraph (d)(1) of proposed Rule 18a–6. Paragraph (h)(2) of proposed Rule 18a–6 would define the term associated person to have the same meaning as that term is defined in paragraph (c) of proposed Rule 18a–5. 363See 17 CFR 240.17a–4(e)(6). Paragraph (m)(3) of Rule 17a–4 defines the term security regulatory authority to have the meaning set forth in paragraph (h)(3) of Rule 17a–3. See 17 CFR 240.17a–4(m)(3). Paragraph (h)(3) of Rule 17a–3 defines the term securities regulatory authority to mean the Commission, any self-regulatory organization, or any securities commission (or any agency or office performing like functions) of the States. See 17 CFR 240.17a–3(h)(3). The Commission is proposing to amend this definition to include the CFTC and a prudential regulator to the extent the prudential regulator oversees security-based swap activities. See paragraph (f)(3) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended. Paragraph (h)(1) of proposed Rule 18a–6 would define the term securities regulatory authority in the same way as that term would be defined in paragraph (f)(3) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended. Compare paragraph (f)(3) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended, with paragraph (h)(1) of proposed Rule 18a–6. As discussed below in section II.A.3.b. of this release, the Commission is proposing technical amendments to paragraph (h)(3) of Rule 17a–3. 364Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–4(e)(6), with paragraphs (d)(2)(i) and (ii) of proposed Rule 18a– 6. term of the security-based swap; and other relevant information.347
Section 15F(h)(5)(A) and proposed
Rule 15Fh–5 would require an SBSD or MSBSP that is acting as a counterparty to a special entity to have a reasonable basis to believe that the special entity has an independent representative that is independent of the SBSD or MSBSP and that meets certain specified qualifications, including that the independent representative:

• Has sufficient knowledge to
  evaluate the transaction and related risks;
• is not subject to a statutory
  disqualification;
• undertakes a duty to act in the best
  interests of the special entity;
• makes appropriate and timely
  disclosures to the special entity of material information concerning the security-based swap;
• will provide written representations
  to the special entity regarding fair pricing and appropriateness of the security-based swap;
• in the case of employee benefit
  plans subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (‘‘ERISA’’), is a fiduciary as defined in
  section 3(21) of ERISA; and
• in the case of a State, State agency,
  city, county, municipality, other political subdivision of a State, or governmental plan, is subject to restrictions on certain political contributions.348 The Commission is proposing to amend paragraph (b) of Rule 17a–4 to add a requirement that broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs preserve records relating to the determinations made pursuant to
  section 15F(h)(4)(C) and section
  15F(h)(5)(A) of the Exchange Act.349 In addition, the Commission is proposing to include parallel requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of proposed Rule 18a–6.350 Consequently, stand￾alone SBSDs, stand-alone MSBSPs, bank SBSDs, and bank MSBSPs would be required to preserve the same types of records.351 Corporate Documents Paragraph (d) of Rule 17a–4 requires broker-dealers to preserve during the life of the enterprise corporate documents such as articles of incorporation, minute books, and stock certificate books.352 It also requires broker-dealers to preserve during the life of the enterprise registration and licensing information such as all Forms BD, Forms BDW, and licenses or other documentation showing registration with a securities regulatory authority.353 The Commission is proposing to amend paragraph (d) of Rule 17a–4 to add references to proposed Form SBSE–BD and proposed Form SBSE–W.354 Forms SBSE and SBSE–W are the registration and withdrawal of registration forms, respectively, the Commission has proposed for broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs.355 The Commission is proposing to include a parallel requirement in paragraph (c) of proposed Rule 18a–6 that is modeled on paragraph (d) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended.356 This would require stand-alone SBSDs, stand-alone MSBSPs, bank SBSDs, and bank MSBSPs to preserve the same types of records during the life of the enterprise.357 Paragraph (c) of proposed Rule 18a–6 would reference proposed Form SBSE and proposed Form SBSE– A rather than proposed Form SBSE–BD because these are the registration forms that the Commission has proposed for SBSDs and MSBSPs that are not dually registered as broker-dealers.358 Associated Persons As discussed above in section II.A.2.a. of this release, paragraph (a)(12) of Rule 17a–3 requires broker-dealers, which would include broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs, to make and keep current records of information about associated persons of the broker￾dealer.359 The Commission is proposing to include parallel requirements in Rule 18a–5 to require stand-alone SBSDs, stand-alone MSBSPs, bank SBSDs, and bank MSBSPs to make and keep current the same types of records.360 Paragraph (e)(1) of Rule 17a–4 requires broker￾dealers to maintain and preserve these records in an easily accessible place until at least three years after the associated person’s employment and any other connection with the broker￾dealer has terminated.361 The Commission is proposing to include a parallel record maintenance and preservation requirement in proposed Rule 18a–6 that would apply to the associated person records that stand￾alone SBSDs, stand-alone MSBSPs, bank SBSDs, and bank MSBSPs would be required to make and keep current.362 Regulatory Authority Reports Paragraph (e)(6) of Rule 17a–4 requires broker-dealers, which would include broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs, to maintain and preserve in an easily accessible place each report that a
  securities regulatory authority has requested or required the firm to make and furnish to it pursuant to an order of settlement, and each regulatory exam report until three years after the date of the report.363 The Commission is proposing to include parallel record maintenance and preservation requirements in proposed Rule 18a–6.364 Specifically, paragraph (d)(2)(i) of proposed Rule 18a–6 would require stand-alone SBSDs and stand￾alone MSBSPs to maintain and preserve in an easily accessible place each report which a regulatory authority has

365See paragraph (d)(2)(i) of proposed Rule 18a– 6. 366See paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of proposed Rule 18a– 6. 367See 17 CFR 240.17a–4(e)(7). As discussed below in section II.A.3.b. of this release, the Commission is proposing technical amendments to this paragraph. 368Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–4(e)(7), with paragraphs (d)(3)(i) and (ii) of proposed Rule 18a– 6. 369See paragraph (d)(3)(i) of proposed Rule 18a– 6. 370See paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of proposed Rule 18a– 6. 371See 17 CFR 240.17a–4(f). As discussed below in section II.A.3.b. of this release, the Commission is proposing technical amendments to this paragraph. 372See 17 CFR 240.17a–4(f)(1)(i). 373See 17 CFR 240.17a–4(f)(1)(ii). See also Electronic Storage of Broker-Dealer Records, 68 FR 25281 (Commission interpretation of electronic storage requirements in paragraph (f) of Rule 17a– 4). 374See 17 CFR 240.17a–4(f)(2) and (3). 375See Reporting Requirements for Brokers or Dealers Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 62 FR 6469–6470. 376See id. 377Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–4(f), with paragraph (e) of proposed Rule 18a–6. 378The Commission preliminarily believes that most broker-dealers use electronic storage media rather than micrographic media for the same reasons. 379See paragraph (e) of proposed Rule 18a–6. 380Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–4(f)(2) and (3), with paragraphs (e)(2) and (3) of proposed Rule 18a–6. 381See 17 CFR 240.17a–4(i). As discussed below in section II.A.3.b. of this release, the Commission is proposing technical amendments to this paragraph. 382 Id. requested or required the firm to make and furnish to it pursuant to an order or settlement, and each regulatory authority examination report until three years after the date of the report.365 Paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of proposed Rule 18a–6 would require bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs to maintain and preserve the same types of records for the same period of time, but only if the records relate to security-based swap activities.366 Compliance, Supervisory, and Procedures Manuals Paragraph (e)(7) of Rule 17a–4 requires broker-dealers, which would include broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs, to maintain and preserve in an easily accessible place each compliance, supervisory, and procedures manual, including any updates, modifications, and revisions to the manual, describing the policies and practices of the broker-dealer with respect to compliance with applicable laws and rules, and supervision of the activities of each natural person associated with the broker-dealer until three years after the termination of the use of the manual.367 The Commission is proposing to include parallel record maintenance and preservation requirements in proposed Rule 18a–
6.368 Specifically, paragraph (d)(3)(i) of
proposed Rule 18a–6 would require stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs to maintain and preserve in an easily accessible place each compliance, supervisory, and procedures manual, including any updates, modifications, and revisions to the manual, describing the policies and practices of the firm with respect to compliance with applicable laws and rules, and supervision of the activities of each natural person associated with the firm until three years after the termination of the use of the manual.369 Paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of proposed Rule 18a–6 would require bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs to maintain and preserve the same types of compliance, supervisory, and procedures manuals for the same period of time, but only if the manuals involve compliance with applicable laws and rules relating to security-based swap activities.370 Electronic Storage Paragraph (f) of Rule 17a–4 provides that the records a broker-dealer, which would include a broker-dealer SBSD or a broker-dealer MSBSP, is required to maintain and preserve under Rule 17a– 3 and Rule 17a–4 may be immediately produced or reproduced on micrographic media or by means of electronic storage media.371 The rule defines the term micrographic media to mean microfilm or microfiche, or any similar medium.372 The term electronic storage media is defined to mean any digital storage medium or system that meets the requirements set forth in paragraph (f) of Rule 17a–4.373 Paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 17a–4 prescribes requirements that are specific to the use of electronic storage media and paragraph (f)(3) prescribes requirements that apply to micrographic media and electronic storage media.374 These requirements are designed to ensure ready access to, and the reliability and permanence of, records a broker-dealer maintains and preserves using micrographic or electronic storage media.375 Thus, the requirements, among other things, include safeguards against data erasure, provisions for immediate verification of stored material, and requirements for back-up facilities.376 The Commission is proposing to include a parallel record maintenance and preservation requirement in proposed Rule 18a–6, but only with respect to electronic storage media.377 The Commission preliminarily believes that SBSDs and MSBSPs that are not dually registered as broker-dealers would not use micrographic media to maintain and preserve records because electronic storage media is more technologically advanced and offers greater flexibility in managing records.378 However, the Commission is seeking comment below on whether proposed Rule 18a–6 should permit micrographic media as an option. Paragraph (e) of proposed Rule 18a– 6 would permit stand-alone SBSDs, stand-alone MSBSPs, bank SBSDs, and bank MSBSPs to use electronic storage media to maintain and preserve the records required to be maintained and preserved under the rule.379 The paragraph would prescribe requirements for using electronic storage media that parallel the requirements
in paragraph (f) of Rule 17a–4, which, as discussed above, are designed to ensure ready access to, and the reliability and permanence of, the records.380 Prompt Production of Records Rule 17a–4 contains provisions designed to ensure that the records a broker-dealer, including a broker-dealer SBSD or broker-dealer MSBSP, is required to maintain and preserve under the rule will be promptly produced to the Commission and other security￾regulators. In this regard, paragraph (i) of Rule 17a–4 contains provisions that apply when a broker-dealer uses a third party to prepare or maintain the records required to be maintained and preserved pursuant to Rules 17a–3 and 17a–4.381 In particular, the paragraph requires the third-party to file with the Commission a written undertaking in a form acceptable to the Commission, signed by a duly authorized person, to the effect that such records are the property of the broker-dealer and will be surrendered promptly on request of the broker-dealer and including the following representation:
With respect to any books and records maintained or preserved on behalf of [broker￾dealer], the undersigned hereby undertakes to permit examination of such books and records at any time or from time to time during business hours by representatives or designees of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and to promptly furnish to said Commission or its designee true, correct, complete and current hard copy of any or all or any part of such books and records.382 The Commission is proposing to include a parallel requirement in proposed Rule 18a–6 that would apply when a stand-alone SBSD, stand-alone

383Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–4(i), with paragraph (f) of proposed Rule 18a–6. 384See paragraph (f) of proposed Rule 18a–6. 385See 17 CFR 240.17a–4(j). Section 17(b) of the Exchange Act provides, among other things, that all records of a broker-dealer are subject at any time, or from time to time, to such reasonable, periodic, special, or other examinations by representatives of the Commission and the appropriate regulatory agency of the broker-dealer as the Commission or the appropriate regulatory agency deems necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. See 15 U.S.C. 78q(b). As discussed below in section II.A.3.b. of this release, the Commission is proposing technical amendments to this paragraph. 386Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–4(j), with paragraph (g) of proposed Rule 18a–6. Section 15F(f)(1)(C) of the Exchange Act provides that SBSDs and MSBSPs shall keep books and records described in sections 15F(f)(1)(B)(i) and (ii) open to inspection and examination by any representative of the Commission. See 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(f)(1)(C). In addition, section 15F(j) of the Exchange Act imposes duties on SBSDs and MSBSPs with respect to monitoring of trading, risk management procedures, disclosing information to the Commission and the prudential regulators, obtaining information, conflicts of interest, and antitrust considerations. See 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(j). With respect to disclosing information, section 15F(j)(3) provides that an SBSD and MSBSP shall disclose to the Commission and to the prudential regulator for the SBSD or MSBSP, as applicable, information concerning: (1) Terms and conditions of its security-based swaps; (2) security-based swap trading operations, mechanisms, and practices; (3) financial integrity protections relating to security￾based swaps; and (4) other information relevant to its trading in security-based swaps. See 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(j)(3). 387See paragraph (g) of proposed Rule 18a–6. MSBSP, bank SBSD, or bank MSBSP uses a third party to prepare or maintain records required pursuant to Rules 18a– 5 and 18a–6.383 Consequently, the third party would be required to file with the Commission an undertaking in which it agrees, among other things, to furnish to the Commission or its designee true, correct, complete, and current hard copy of any or all or any part of such books and records.384 Paragraph (j) of Rule 17a–4 requires a broker-dealer, which would include a broker-dealer SBSD or broker-dealer MSBSP, to furnish promptly to a representative of the Commission legible, true, complete, and current copies of those records of the broker￾dealer that are required to be preserved under Rule 17a–4, or any other records of the broker-dealer subject to examination under section 17(b) of the Exchange Act that are requested by the representative of the Commission.385 The Commission is proposing to include a parallel requirement in proposed Rule 18a–6.386
Specifically, paragraph (g) of proposed Rule 18a–6 would require SBSDs and MSBSPs to furnish promptly to a representative of the Commission legible, true, complete, and current copies of those records of the SBSD or MSBSP that are required to be to be preserved under the rule, or any other records of the SBSD or MSBSP subject to examination or required to be made or maintained pursuant to section 15F of the Exchange Act, which are requested by a representative of the Commission.387 Request for Comment The Commission generally requests comment on the proposals to require broker-dealers, SBSDs, and MSBSPs to maintain and preserve certain records. In addition, the Commission requests comment, including empirical data in support of comments, in response to the following questions:

1. Are the Commission’s proposals
   regarding the records SBSDs and MSBSPs must maintain and preserve under Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended, and proposed Rule 18a–6 comprehensive enough to capture all records relating to their activities as SBSDs and MSBSPs, including records that must be made and/or maintained pursuant to provisions in section 15F of the Exchange Act that are not otherwise covered by Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended, and proposed Rule 18a–6? Conversely, are these proposals too broad? Explain why or why not. For example, should the Commission establish a catch-all record maintenance and preservation requirement in Rule 17a–4 and proposed Rule 18a–6 that applies to any record relating to the registrant’s activities as an SBSD or MSBSP or required to be made and/or maintained pursuant to section 15F of the Exchange Act? Explain why or why not.
2. Are the provisions in Rule 17a–4
   that would be included as parallel provisions in proposed Rule 18a–6 applicable to stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs appropriate for these types of registrants? If not, explain why not. Are there alternative provisions the Commission should consider? If so, describe them. Are there provisions in Rule 17a–4 that are not being included as parallel provisions in proposed Rule 18a–6 applicable to stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs that would be appropriate for these types of registrants? If so, explain why.
3. Are the provisions in Rule 17a–4
   that would be included as parallel provisions in proposed Rule 18a–6 applicable to bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs appropriate for these types of registrants? If not, explain why not. Are there alternative provisions the Commission should consider? If so, describe them. Are there provisions in Rule 17a–4 that are not being included as parallel provisions in proposed Rule 18a–6 applicable to bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs that would be appropriate for these types of registrants? If so, explain why.
4. Are the recordkeeping provisions
   that would be added to Rule 17a–4 appropriate for broker-dealers, including broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs? If not, explain why not. Are there alternative provisions the Commission should consider? If so, describe them.
5. Should proposed Rule 18a–6
   include a record storage provision that permits the use of micrographic media? If so, explain why.
6. The Commission proposes to
   establish a retention period for recordings of telephone calls related to security-based swaps that must be maintained in accordance with section 15F(g) of the Exchange Act. Should the Commission require broker-dealers, SBSDs, and/or MSBSPs to make recordings of telephone calls relating to security-based swaps? Should the Commission require broker-dealers, SBSDs, and/or MSBSPs to retain recordings of telephone calls relating to any topic? Explain why or why not.
7. Should the retention period for
   recorded telephone calls be different than the proposed three year period? For example, should it be a longer or shorter time frame? If the retention period should be different than three years, explain how long such recordings should be kept and why that different retention period would be more appropriate.
8. Are there recordkeeping
   requirements currently not included in these proposed rules that should be applied to ANC broker-dealer SBSDs? If so, please describe them.
9. Are there additional requirements
   that should be included in these proposed rules to promote compliance with the external business conduct standards for SBSDs and MSBSPs? If so, please describe them.
10. Are there additional requirements
    to promote the disaggregation by the reporting entities of composite security￾based swap transactions into segments based on risk as opposed to limiting the data collected to the transaction documents? If so, please describe them. b. Additional Proposed Amendments to Rule 17a–4 The Commission is proposing several amendments to Rule 17a–4 to eliminate obsolete text, improve readability, and modernize terminology. Reference is made throughout Rule 17a–4 to ‘‘members’’ of a national securities exchange as a distinct class of registrant

388The proposed amendments would delete the word ‘‘member’’ from the title and from the following paragraphs of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended: (a), (b), (b)(3), (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(7), (c), (d), (e), (e)(1), (e)(6), (e)(7), (e)(8), (f)(2), (f)(3), (i), (j), (k)(1), (k)(2), and (l). See Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended. 389The proposed amendments would replace the phrase ‘‘Every broker and dealer’’ with the phrase ‘‘Every broker or dealer’’ in the following paragraphs of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended: (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (j). See Rule 17a– 4, as proposed to be amended. 390The proposed amendments would replace the word ‘‘shall’’ with the word ‘‘must’’ or ‘‘will’’ in the following paragraphs of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended: (a), (b), (b)(11), (c), (d), (e), (e)(8), (f)(2), (f)(3), (g), (i), (j), (k)(1), and (l). See Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended. 391The proposed amendments would replace the phrase ‘‘shall have’’ with the word ‘‘has’’ in the following paragraphs of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended: (m)(1), (m)(2), (m)(3), and (m)(4). See Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended. 392The Commission proposes the following stylistic and corrective changes to Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended: (1) In paragraph (a), replacing the phrases ‘‘paragraphs § ’’ and ‘‘paragraph § ’’ with the symbols ‘‘§§ ’’ and ‘‘§ ’’, respectively; (2) adding the word ‘‘and’’ between phrase ‘‘money balance’’ and the word ‘‘position’’ in paragraph (b)(8)(i) of Rule 17a–4 for consistency with paragraph (b)(8)(ii) of Rule 17a–4; (3) replacing the phrase ‘‘out of the money options’’ with the phrase ‘‘out-of-the-money options’’ in paragraph (b)(8)(ix) of Rule 17a–4; (4) replacing the phrase ‘‘paragraph (a)(12) of § 240.17a–3’’ with the phrase ‘‘§ 240.17a–3(a)(12)’’ in paragraph (e)(1); (5) replacing the phrase ‘‘paragraph (a)(13) of § 240.17a–3’’ with the phrase ‘‘§ 240.17a–3(a)(13)’’ in paragraph (e)(2); (6) replacing the phrase ‘‘paragraph (a)(15) of § 240.17a–3’’ with the phrase ‘‘§ 240.17a–3(a)(15)’’ in paragraph (e)(3); (7) replacing the phrase ‘‘for the life’’ with the phrase ‘‘during the life’’ in paragraph (e)(3) of Rule 17a– 4; (8) replacing the phrase ‘‘paragraph (a)(14) of § 240.17a–13’’ with ‘‘§ 240.17a–13(a)(14)’’ in paragraph (e)(4); (9) replacing the phrase ‘‘this paragraph’’ with the phrase ‘‘this section’’ in paragraph (f); (10) replacing the phrase ‘‘each index’’ with the phrase ‘‘the index’’ in paragraph (f)(3)(iv)(B); (11) replacing the phrase ‘‘the self￾regulatory organizations’’ with the phrase ‘‘any self￾regulatory organization’’ in paragraph (f)(3)(vi); (12) in paragraph (f)(3)(vii), adding quotation marks around the phrase ‘‘the undersigned’’ to clarify that the phrase is a defined term; (13) replacing the phrase ‘‘Rule 17a–4’’ with the phrase ‘‘§ 240.17a–4’’ in paragraph (f)(3)(vii); and (14) in paragraph (g), replacing the phrase ‘‘section 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended (48 Stat.
895, 49 Stat. 1377; 15 U.S.C. 78o)’’ with the phrase ‘‘section 15 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78o’’. 393See Public Law 111–203, 764; 15 U.S.C. 78o– 10. 394See 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(f)(2). 395See 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(f)(1)(A). 396See 15 U.S.C. 78q(a)(1). 397See 17 CFR 240.17a–5; 17 CFR 249.617. 398The recent amendments to Rule 17a–5 are discussed below. See Broker-Dealer Reports, Exchange Act Release No. 70073 (July 30, 2013), 78 FR 51910 (Aug. 21, 2013). These amendments will not be fully effective until June 1, 2014. This release refers to these amendments as the recently adopted amendments or recently adopted requirements of Rule 17a–5. 399See id. These requirements are described in more detail below. 400See Commission, Study of Unsafe and Unsound Practices of Brokers and Dealers, H.R. Doc. No. 231, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. 6 (1971) at 24. 401As discussed below in section II.B.3.a. of this release, paragraph (d) of Rule 17a–5 requires broker￾dealers to file certain audited annual reports with the Commission. A portion of these reports is made public. in addition to brokers-dealers. The Commission is proposing to remove these references to ‘‘members’’ given that the rule applies to brokers-dealers, which would include members of a national securities exchange that are brokers-dealers.388 The Commission is proposing a second global change that would replace the phrase ‘‘Every broker and dealer’’ with ‘‘Every broker or dealer’’.389 The Commission is proposing a global change that would replace the use of the word ‘‘shall’’ in the rule with the word ‘‘must’’ or ‘‘will’’ where appropriate.390 In paragraph (m) of Rule 17a–4 the Commission would replace the words ‘‘shall have’’ with the word ‘‘has’’.391 The Commission also proposes to make certain stylistic, corrective, and punctuation amendments to improve the readability of Rule 17a–4.392 Further, as discussed above in section II.A.2.b. of this release, the Commission is proposing to eliminate the requirements in current paragraphs (c) and (d) of Rule 17a–3 and, as a consequence current paragraphs (e), (f), (g), and (h) would be redesignated as paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (f), respectively. The Commission proposes to amend Rule 17a–4 to make corresponding changes to cross￾references to these paragraphs of Rule 17a–3. Proposed amendments to paragraph (a)(8) would replace the phrase ‘‘annual audited financial statements’’ with the phrase ‘‘the annual financial statements’’ to reflect the broader range of documents required by Rule 17a–5. Due to the insertion of paragraphs (a)(8)(xiv) and (a)(8)(xvi) to Rule 17a–4, as discussed above, the Commission proposes to redesignate paragraphs (a)(8)(xiv) and (a)(8)(xv) as paragraphs (a)(8)(xv) and (a)(8)(xvii), respectively. Proposed amendments to paragraph (h) would add after the phrase ‘‘Rule G– 9 of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board’’ the phrase ‘‘or any successor rule’’ to address the possibility of a future change in how the MSRB’s rules are designated. Request for
Comment The Commission generally requests comment on these additional proposed amendments to Rule 17a–4, including comment on whether any of the proposed amendments would result in substantive changes to the requirements applicable to broker-dealers. B. Reporting

1. Introduction
   As discussed above, section 764 of the Dodd-Frank Act added section 15F to the Exchange Act.393 Section 15F(f)(2) provides that the Commission shall adopt rules governing reporting for SBSDs and MSBSPs.394 Further, section 15F(f)(1)(A) provides that SBSDs and MSBSPs shall make such reports as are required by the Commission, by rule or regulation, regarding the transactions and positions and financial condition of the SBSD or MSBSP.395 In addition, the Commission has concurrent authority under section 17(a)(1) of the Exchange Act to prescribe reporting requirements for broker-dealers.396 After considering the anticipated business activities of SBSDs and MSBSPs, the Commission is proposing to establish a reporting program for these registrants under sections 15F and 17(a) of the Exchange Act that is modeled on the reporting program for broker-dealers codified in Rule 17a–
   5.397 Rule 17a–5—which was recently
   amended 398—has two main elements:
   (1) A requirement that broker-dealers file periodic unaudited reports containing information about their financial and operational condition on a FOCUS Report; and (2) a requirement that broker-dealers annually file financial statements and certain reports and a report covering the financial statements and reports prepared by an independent public accountant registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (‘‘PCAOB’’) in accordance with PCAOB standards.399 The reporting program established under Rule 17a–5 is designed, among other things, to promote compliance with Rules 15c3–1 and 15c3–3 and to assist the Commission, SROs, and state securities regulators in conducting effective examinations of broker-dealers. As the Commission has stated, the reporting requirements, ‘‘together with the Commission’s inspection powers, [are] an integral element in the arsenal for protection of customers against the risks involved in leaving securities with their broker-dealer.’’ 400 The broker￾dealer reporting requirements promote transparency of the financial and operational condition of the broker￾dealer to the Commission, the firm’s DEA, and, in the case of a portion of the annual reports, to the public.401 In the release adopting Rule 17a–5, the Commission stated its intention to periodically review the reporting requirements ‘‘in order to continue modifying and updating the financial

402See Exchange Act Release No. 11935 (Dec. 17, 1975), 40 FR 59706, 59707 (Dec. 30, 1975). 403Except for the requirement to file one of the parts of the FOCUS Report, broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs would be subject to all the reporting requirements applicable to broker￾dealers under Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended, plus the additional requirements specifically applicable to an SBSD or MSBSP. As discussed below in section II.B.2. of this release, a broker-dealer SBSD or broker-dealer MSBSP would file proposed Form SBS rather than one of the parts of the FOCUS Report. 404As discussed below in section II.B.3.b. of this release, the Commission also is proposing technical amendments to Rule 17a–5. 405See undesignated introductory paragraph of Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended. 406See id. 407See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(a). 408See undesignated introductory paragraph of Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended. 409See undesignated introductory paragraph of proposed Rule 18a–7. 410See id. 411The FOCUS Report Part IIA is available at http://www.sec.gov/about/forms/formx-17a–5_ 2f.pdf. 412The FOCUS Report Part II is available at http://www.sec.gov/about/forms/formx-17a–5_ 2.pdf. 413The FOCUS Report Part IIB is available at http://www.sec.gov/about/forms/formx-17a–5_ 2b.pdf. 414The FOCUS Report Part II CSE was developed by the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (‘‘NYSE’’). See Exhibit 3 to Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Require Members That Use Appendix E To Calculate Net Capital To File Supplemental and Alternative Reports, Exchange Act Release No. 51980 (July 6, 2005), 70 FR 40767 (July 14, 2005). See also Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change to Require Members That Use Appendix E to Calculate Net Capital to File Supplemental and Alternative Reports, Exchange Act Release No. 52269 (Aug. 16, 2005), 70 FR 49349 (Aug. 23, 2005). 415See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(a). The requirement that an OTC derivatives dealer file the FOCUS Report Part IIB is set forth in paragraph (a) of Rule 17a–12. See 17 CFR 240.17a–12(a). While an ANC broker-dealer is required under paragraph (a) of Rule 17a–5 to file the FOCUS Report Part IIA, FINRA Rule 4521(b) provides that ANC broker￾dealers must file supplemental and alternative reports as may be prescribed by FINRA. Under this rule, FINRA requires ANC broker-dealers to file the FOCUS Report Part II CSE in lieu of the FOCUS Report Part IIA. See also Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change to Require Members That Use Appendix E to Calculate Net Capital to File Supplemental and Alternative Reports, 70 FR 49349 (Commission approval of amendments to NYSE Rule 418 requiring ANC broker-dealers to file Part II CSE). and operational reporting systems to keep pace with the changing securities industry.’’ 402 Under the proposed reporting program
for SBSDs and MSBSPs, broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs—as broker-dealers—would be subject to Rule 17a–5.403 The Commission is proposing amendments to this rule to account for broker-dealers that are dually registered as an SBSD or MSBSP.404 Stand-alone SBSDs, stand￾alone MSBSPs, bank SBSDs, and bank MSBSPs would be subject to proposed Rule 18a–7, which is modeled on Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended. Proposed Rule 18a–7 would not include a parallel requirement for every requirement in Rule 17a–5 because some of the requirements in Rule 17a– 5 relate to activities that are not expected or permitted of SBSDs and MSBSPs. Similarly, while all types of SBSDs and MSBSPs would use proposed Form SBS, broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs would be required to provide more information than stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs. Further, the reporting requirements in proposed Rule 18a–7 and proposed Form SBS applicable to bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs are more limited in scope because, as discussed above in section
I. of this release, bank SBSDs and bank
MSBSPs are subject to reporting requirements applicable to banks. Further, the prudential regulators— rather than the Commission—are responsible for capital, margin, and other prudential requirements applicable to bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs. For these reasons, the proposed reporting requirements for bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs generally are designed to be tailored specifically to their activities as an SBSD or an MSBSP (as opposed to their activities as banks). However, as discussed below, the Commission is proposing that bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs report certain general financial information that banks are required to report pursuant to requirements of the prudential regulators. Bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs would be able to use the same information reported under the requirements of the prudential regulators to comply with the proposed reporting requirements applicable to bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs. The objective is to provide the Commission with a means to monitor the financial condition of bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs without requiring these entities to report information not already reported to their prudential regulators.
2. Periodic Filing of Proposed Form SBS
a. Amendments to Rule 17a–5 and Proposed Rule 18a–7 Undesignated Introductory Paragraph Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended, would contain an undesignated introductory paragraph explaining that the rule applies to a broker-dealer, including a broker-dealer dually registered with the Commission as an SBSD or MSBSP.405 The note further explains that an SBSD or MSBSP that is not dually registered as a broker￾dealer (i.e., a stand-alone SBSD, stand￾alone MSBSP, bank SBSD, or bank MSBSP) is subject to the reporting requirements under proposed Rule 18a–
7.406 Further, the Commission is
proposing to remove paragraph (a)(1) of Rule 17a–5, which provides that paragraph (a) shall apply to every broker-dealer registered pursuant to
section 15 of the Exchange Act.407 This
text would be redundant of the undesignated introductory paragraph of Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended.408 Similarly, proposed Rule 18a–7 would contain an undesignated introductory paragraph explaining that the rule applies to an SBSD or MSBSP that is not dually registered as a broker￾dealer.409 The note further explains that a broker-dealer dually registered as an SBSD or MSBSP is subject to the reporting requirements under Rule 17a– 5.410 Requirement To File Proposed Form SBS Broker-dealers periodically report information about their financial and operational condition on the FOCUS Report Part II, Part IIA, Part IIB, or Part II CSE. Each version of the report is designed for a particular type of broker￾dealer and the information to be reported is tailored to the type of broker￾dealer. Specifically: (1) The FOCUS Report Part IIA is designed to be used by a broker-dealer that does not hold customer funds or securities; 411 (2) the FOCUS Report Part II is designed to be used by a broker-dealer that holds customer funds or securities; 412 (3) the FOCUS Report Part IIB is designed to be used by an OTC derivatives dealer; 413 and (4) the FOCUS Report Part II CSE is designed to be used by an ANC broker-dealer.414 The FOCUS Report
Part II CSE elicits the most detailed
information of the four parts, including the most detail about a firm’s derivatives activities. Paragraph (a) of Rule 17a–5 requires a broker-dealer, other than an OTC derivatives dealer, to file the FOCUS Report Part II or Part IIA.415 The Commission is proposing to amend this paragraph so that it would require a broker-dealer that is dually registered as an SBSD or MSBSP to file proposed Form SBS rather than the FOCUS Report Part II or Part IIA and to add a parallel requirement in proposed Rule 18a–7 to require stand-alone SBSDs, stand-alone MSBSPs, bank SBSDs, and

416Compare paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended, with paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of proposed Rule 18a–7. As a consequence of the proposed removal of paragraph (a)(1) of Rule 17a– 5, paragraphs (a)(2)(i), (a)(2(ii), and (a)(2)(iii) would be redesignated paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii), and (a)(1)(iii), respectively. Further, as discussed below, the Commission is proposing to add a new paragraph (a)(1)(iv) to Rule 17a–5. As a consequence of the removal of paragraph (a)(1) and the addition of paragraph (a)(1)(iv), paragraph (a)(2)(iv) would be redesignated paragraph (a)(1)(v). Further, as a consequence of the removal of paragraph (a)(1), paragraphs (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7) of Rule 17a–5 would be redesignated paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5), and (a)(6), respectively. 417See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(a)(2)(ii) and (iii). 418See id. 419See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(a)(3). 420See id. 421Specifically, paragraph (a)(4) of Rule 17a–5 contains an exception from the requirement to file the FOCUS Report directly with the Commission applicable to brokers-dealers that are members of a national securities exchange or a registered national securities association if the exchange or association maintains records containing the information required by the FOCUS Report and transmits such information to the Commission pursuant to a plan that has been submitted to, and declared effective by, the Commission (‘‘FOCUS filing plan’’ or ‘‘Plan’’). See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(a)(4). FINRA and other SROs have had FOCUS filing plans in effect since the 1970s under this exception. See, e.g., Self￾Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change by the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. Relating to the Association’s FOCUS Filing Plan, Exchange Act Release No. 36780, (Jan. 26, 1996), 61 FR 3743 (Feb. 1, 1996). 422Currently, FINRA’s plan (which applies to most broker-dealers) requires monthly filing of the FOCUS Report Part II for members that are subject to the requirements of paragraph (e) of Rule 15c3– 3, or that conduct a business in accordance with paragraph (k)(2)(i) of Rule 15c3–3, or that are subject to paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iii) of Rule 15c3–1. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a)(2)(i) through (iii); 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(e) and (k)(2)(i). FINRA’s plan requires quarterly filing of the FOCUS Report
Part IIA for members that conduct a business in
accordance with the provisions of paragraph (k)(1)(i) through (iii), (k)(2)(ii), and (k)(3) of Rule 15c3–3 and are not subject to paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iii) of Rule 15c3–1, and for members that conduct a business in accordance with paragraphs (a)(6) through (8) of Rule 15c3–1. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a)(2)(i) through (iii) and (a)(6) through (8); 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(k)(1)(i) through (iii), (k)(2)(ii), and (k)(3). These firms generally are non￾carrying broker-dealers and firms that do not meet the definition of dealer under Rule 15c3–1. Further, as noted above, ANC broker-dealers file the FOCUS Report Part II CSE pursuant to FINRA Rule 4521(b) rather than the FOCUS Report Part II. 423As noted above, the Commission is proposing to redesignate paragraph (a)(2) of Rule 17a–5 as paragraph (a)(1). 424See paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) and (iii) of Rule 17a– 5, as proposed to be amended. 425See paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended. 426See id. 427Because this would be a monthly filing requirement, the Commission is not proposing to require broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs to also file proposed Form SBS within 17 business days after the end of the fiscal year of the firm where that date is not the end of a calendar quarter as is required under paragraphs (a)(2)(ii) and (iii) of Rule 17a–5 (which require quarterly filing of the FOCUS Report Part II and Part IIA, respectively). Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–5(a)(2)(ii) and (iii), with paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended. 428Compare paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended, with paragraph (a)(1) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 429See paragraph (a)(1) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 430As discussed above, generally all broker￾dealers file the FOCUS Report with their SROs rather than directly with the Commission. 431See paragraph (a)(2) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 432See Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income for a Bank with Domestic and Foreign Offices—FFIEC 031 (‘‘FFIEC Form 031’’ or ‘‘call report’’). See also 12 U.S.C. 161; 12 U.S.C. 324; 12 U.S.C. 1464; 12 U.S.C. 1817. bank MSBSPs to periodically file proposed Form SBS.416 Currently, paragraph (a)(2) of Rule 17a–5 provides that a broker-dealer must file the FOCUS Report Part II if it clears transactions or carries customer accounts or the FOCUS Report Part IIA if it does not clear transactions or carry customer accounts.417 The paragraph further provides that these reports must be filed within seventeen business days after the end of the quarter and within seventeen business days after the end of the fiscal year of the broker-dealer if the date of the fiscal year end is not the end of a calendar quarter.418 Paragraph (a)(3) provides that reports required to be filed with the Commission under paragraph (a) (which includes the reports required under paragraph (a)(2)) shall be considered filed when received at the Commission’s principal office in Washington, DC, and the regional office of the
Commission for the region in which the broker-dealer has its principal place of business.419 Paragraph (a)(3) further provides that all reports filed pursuant to paragraph (a) shall be deemed to be confidential.420 Notwithstanding these requirements, substantially all broker-dealers file the FOCUS Report directly with their SROs pursuant to plans established by the SROs under paragraph (a)(4) of Rule 17a–5 (rather than filing them directly with the Commission).421 Generally, the reporting requirements under the SRO’s plans are consistent with, or more rigorous than, the requirements in paragraph (a)(2) of Rule 17a–5 in terms of the part of the FOCUS Report a broker-dealer must file and the frequency of filing.422 Thus, while most broker-dealers do not file the FOCUS Report pursuant to paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) of Rule 17a–5, these provisions establish a baseline for SROs in designing their plans, which must be declared effective by the Commission. The Commission is proposing to amend paragraph (a)(2) of Rule 17a–5 to account for the fact that some broker￾dealers likely will be registered as an SBSD or potentially as an MSBSP and, therefore, these categories of registrants would be subject to the reporting requirements under Rule 17a–5.423 The proposed amendments would require broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs to file proposed Form SBS rather than the FOCUS Report Part II or
Part IIA. Specifically, the amendments
would specify that the requirement to file the FOCUS Report Part II or Part IIA directly with the Commission in paragraph (a) applies only to broker￾dealers that are not dually registered as an SBSD or MSBSP.424 In addition, the Commission proposes to add a new paragraph (a)(1)(iv) to Rule 17a–5.425 This paragraph would provide that a broker-dealer dually registered as an SBSD or MSBSP must file proposed Form SBS with the Commission within seventeen business days of the end of the month.426 Thus, the paragraph would require broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs to file proposed Form SBS on a monthly basis. This would be consistent with the plans of the SROs, which generally require carrying broker-dealers and broker￾dealers that act as dealers to file the FOCUS Report Part II on a monthly (rather than quarterly) basis.427 The Commission is proposing to include a parallel requirement in paragraph (a)(1) of proposed Rule 18a– 7 that is modeled on paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended, that would apply to stand￾alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs.428 Under this paragraph, these registrants would be required to file proposed Form SBS with the Commission or its designee within seventeen business days after the end of each month.429 The reference to a Commission designee is intended to provide the Commission with the option of requiring that these registrants file proposed Form SBS with a third party.430 Paragraph (a)(2) of proposed Rule 18a–7 would apply to bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs and require these registrants to file proposed Form SBS with the Commission or its designee within seventeen business days after the end of each calendar quarter (instead of each month).431 The Commission would require quarterly financial reporting for bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs, instead of monthly reporting, because the prudential regulators currently require banks to file reports of financial and operational condition known as call reports on a quarterly basis.432 As discussed below in section II.B.3.a. of this release, the information that would be reported by bank SBSDs and bank

433See paragraph (a)(3)(i)–(vii) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 434See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70337. 435See paragraph (a)(3)(viii)–(ix) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 436See paragraphs (a)(1)(ii)–(iv) of Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended. Part II, Part IIA, Part IIB, and Part II CSE of the FOCUS Report each has a
section for the filer to execute the form.
437See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(a)(4).
438See paragraph (a)(3) of Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended. Further, paragraph (a)(5) of Rule 17a–5 requires broker-dealers to file Form Custody (17 CFR 249.1900) with their DEAs within 17 business days after the end of each calendar quarter and within 17 business days after the end of the fiscal year of the broker-dealer where that date is not the end of a calendar quarter. See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(a)(5). The DEA must maintain the information obtained through the filing of Form Custody and must promptly transmit that information to the Commission at such time as it transmits the applicable part of the FOCUS Report pursuant to a plan. See id. The Commission is proposing to amend this provision to include a reference to proposed Form SBS to account for the fact that broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs would file proposed Form SBS with their DEAs along with Form Custody (rather than the FOCUS Report) if the SROs incorporate the filing of Form SBS in their plans. See paragraph (a)(4) of Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended. 439Compare proposed Form SBS, with the FOCUS Report Part II CSE. 440The FOCUS Report Part IIB elicits similar information about derivatives positions and exposures but otherwise is more limited than the FOCUS Report Part II CSE because OTC derivatives dealers are permitted to engage in only a narrow range of activities. See 17 CFR 240.3b–12; 17 CFR 240.15a–1. Specifically, Rule 3b–12, defining the term OTC derivatives dealer, provides, among other things, that an OTC derivatives dealer’s securities activities must be limited to engaging in dealer activities in eligible OTC derivative instruments (as defined in the rule) that are securities; issuing and reacquiring securities that are issued by the dealer, including warrants on securities, hybrid securities, and structured notes; engaging in cash management securities activities (as defined in Rule 3b–14 (17 CFR 240.3b–14); engaging in ancillary portfolio management securities activities (as defined in the rule); and engaging in such other securities activities that the Commission designates by order. See 17 CFR 240.3b–12. Rule 15a–1, governing the securities activities of OTC derivatives dealers, provides that an OTC derivatives dealer must effect transactions in OTC derivatives with most types of counterparties through an affiliated Commission￾registered broker-dealer that is not an OTC derivatives dealer. See 17 CFR 240.15a–1. 441See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70293. 442As used in this release, the term line refers to the lines in the left column on the FOCUS Report and proposed Form SBS that describe the type of entries to be made on that line. The term line item refers to the fields into which information is entered. For example, Line 1 of the statement of financial condition section on Form SBS is cash and Line Item 200
is the field to enter the dollar amount of cash and Line Item 750 is the field to enter the total dollar amount of cash. 443For example, Line Item 200 is the field to enter the dollar amount of cash and Line Item 750 is the field to enter the total dollar amount of cash in the statement of financial condition section for each
part of the FOCUS Report. The FOCUS Report Part
IIB and Part II CSE share certain common sections that have common entries but the line items for the entries are assigned different numbers. Proposed Form SBS would use the numbers assigned to the line items in Part II CSE. 444For example, Line Item 200 is the field to enter the dollar amount of cash and Line Item 750 is the field to enter the total dollar amount of cash in the statement of financial condition section on proposed Form SBS. 445The FOCUS Report Part II CSE has the most line items of the four parts of the FOCUS Report and, consequently, generally will serve as the means of comparing proposed Form SBS with the FOCUS Report for purposes of the discussion in MSBSPs on proposed Form SBS largely would be information that banks are required to provide in the call reports. Paragraph (a)(3) of proposed Rule 18a–7 would apply to SBSDs authorized by the Commission to compute net capital using internal models pursuant to paragraph (d) of proposed Rule 18a–

1. The Commission would require these
   registrants to file most of the required documents within 17 business days after the end of each month.433 However, to correspond with the timing requirement in paragraph (d)(9)(i)(C)(1)– (2) of proposed Rule 18a–1,434 these registrants would be required to file the following reports within seventeen business days after the end of each calendar quarter (instead of each month): A report identifying the number of business days for which actual daily net trading loss exceeded the corresponding daily value at risk (‘‘VaR’’); and the results of backtesting of all internal models used to compute allowable capital, indicating the number of backtesting exceptions.435 The Commission also is proposing amendments to paragraphs (a)(1)(ii), (a)(1)(iii), (a)(1)(iv), and (a)(1)(v) of Rule 17a–5 that would make explicit the requirement that the FOCUS Report or Form SBS filed by a broker-dealer must be ‘‘executed.’’ 436 Additionally, paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of proposed Rule 18a–7 would contain parallel language requiring that a Form SBS filed by a stand-alone SBSD, stand-alone MSBSP, bank SBSD, or bank MSBSP must be executed. Finally, as noted above, paragraph (a)(4) of Rule 17a–5 contains an exception from the requirement to file a FOCUS Report directly with the Commission applicable to broker￾dealers that are members of a national securities exchange or a registered national securities association if that exchange or association maintains records containing the information required by the FOCUS Report and transmits such information to the Commission pursuant to a plan that has been submitted to, and declared effective by, the Commission.437 The Commission proposes to add a reference to proposed Form SBS to this provision so that SROs could include the filing of Form SBS in their plans.438 If incorporated into the plans, broker￾dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs would file proposed Form SBS with their SRO (rather than directly with the Commission). The Commission preliminarily expects that the reporting requirements under an SRO’s plan with respect to proposed Form SBS would need to be at least as rigorous as the requirements in paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended, to be declared effective by the Commission. b. Information Elicited in Form SBS As discussed above, all categories of SBSDs and MSBSPs would be required to file proposed Form SBS. This form is modeled on the FOCUS Report, particularly the FOCUS Report Part II CSE.439 The FOCUS Report Part II CSE served as the template for designing proposed Form SBS because it is designed to account for the use of internal models by ANC broker-dealers and elicits more detailed information about derivatives positions and exposures than the FOCUS Report Part II and Part IIA.440 Based on staff experience, including experience monitoring ANC broker-dealers, the Commission anticipates that most SBSDs will use internal models to compute their net capital.441 The FOCUS Report elicits
   financial and operational information about a broker-dealer through sections consisting of uniquely numbered line items. The information (e.g., a number or dollar amount) is entered into the line items.442 Generally, a line item that is common to Part II, Part IIA, Part IIB, and Part II CSE of the FOCUS Report shares the same unique number, which facilitates aggregating information and comparing reported information across broker-dealers.443 Proposed Form SBS similarly would elicit information about the financial and operational condition of an SBSD or MSBSP through sections consisting of uniquely numbered line items. Line items on proposed Form SBS that correspond to line items on the FOCUS Report would share the same unique number and require the entry of the same type of information.444 Proposed Form SBS would not include a parallel line item for each line item on the FOCUS Report because not all of the information required on the FOCUS Report is relevant for SBSDs and MSBSPs.445 Further, proposed Form

this release. Proposed Form SBS would not include line items from Part II CSE that are obsolete, inapplicable, or redundant of the additional line items on proposed Form SBS. Specifically, proposed Form SBS would not include Line Item 18 (box checked if FOCUS Part II CSE is filed pursuant to Rule 17a–11 under the Exchange Act); Line Item 98 (SEC File No.); Line Item 99 (As of date the for statement of financial condition); Line Item 291 (Derivatives Receivable—Allowable); Line Item 801 (Derivatives Payable—Total); Line Item 3635 (Total Market Risk Exposure); Line Item 3679 (Total Credit Risk Exposure); Line Item 3931 (Number of months included in this statement); Line Item 3932 (For the period from); Line Item 3933 (For the period to); Line Item 4070 (Interest Expense, Includes interest on accounts subject to subordination agreements); and Line Items 5000– 5350 (Financial and operational data). 446Line items that are unique to proposed Form SBS are identified on the Form by the number 99, 999, 9999, or 99999 for the purposes of this proposing release. 447See 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(f)(1)(B)(i). 448See instructions to proposed Form SBS. 449Compare instructions to proposed Form SBS, with instructions to the FOCUS Report Part II. The instructions to the FOCUS Report Part IIA are available at http://www.sec.gov/about/forms/formx￾17a–5_2a.pdf. 450Compare Part 1 proposed Form SBS, with the FOCUS Report Part II CSE. As discussed below, the FOCUS Report has a number of sections that are common to all the parts thereof. Generally, a section on the FOCUS Report Part II CSE elicits information that is as detailed, if not more detailed, than the parallel section on the FOCUS Report Part II, Part IIA, or Part IIB. 451Each part of the FOCUS Report has a section to provide a statement of financial condition that elicits detail about the assets, liabilities and ownership equity of the broker-dealer. Part 1 of proposed Form SBS similarly has a section to provide a statement of financial condition. See Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Statement of Financial Condition. This section would need to be completed by nonbank SBSDs and nonbank MSBSPs. As discussed below, the statement of financial condition section on proposed Form SBS has additional line items that are not on the FOCUS Report. 452Each part of the FOCUS Report has a section to provide a computation of net capital under Rule 15c3–1. Part 1 of proposed Form SBS similarly has sections to provide a computation of net capital that would need to be completed by nonbank SBSDs (i.e., broker-dealer SBSDs and stand-alone SBSDs) and broker-dealer MSBSPs (all of which would be subject to a net capital rule). See Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Computation of Net Capital (Filer Authorized to use Models) and Computation of Net Capital (Filer Not Authorized to use Models). As discussed below, proposed Form SBS has two net capital computation sections: one for firms that are authorized to use models and one for firms that are not
authorized to use models. Further, these sections have additional line items that are not on the FOCUS Report. 453Each part of the FOCUS Report has a section to provide a computation of minimum required net capital under Rule 15c3–1. Part 1 of proposed Form SBS similarly has sections to provide a required minimum net capital computation that would need to be completed by nonbank SBSDs and broker￾dealer MSBSPs. See Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Computation of Minimum Regulatory Capital Requirements (Broker-Dealer) and Computation of Minimum Regulatory Capital Requirements (Non￾Broker-Dealer). As discussed below, proposed Form SBS has two minimum net capital computation sections: one for broker-dealer filers (i.e., broker￾dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs) and one for stand-alone SBSDs. Further, these sections have additional line items that are not on the FOCUS Report. 454Each part of the FOCUS Report has a section to provide a statement of income (loss) that elicits detail about the revenue and expenses of the broker￾dealer during the reporting period. Part 1 of proposed Form SBS similarly has a statement of income (loss) section that would need to be completed by nonbank SBSDs and nonbank MSBSPs. See Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Statement of Income (Loss). As discussed below, the statement of income (loss) section on proposed Form SBS is modeled on a supplemental statement of income form promulgated by FINRA. The proposed Form SBS section has additional line items that are not on FINRA’s form. 455The FOCUS Report Part II, Part IIB, and Part II CSE have sections to provide a statement of capital withdrawals, a statement of changes in ownership equity, and a statement of changes in liabilities subordinated to claims of general creditors. The FOCUS Report Part IIA has sections to provide a statement of changes in ownership equity and a statement of changes in liabilities subordinated to claims of general creditors. In the statement of capital withdrawals section, a broker￾dealer must report information about the firm’s ownership equity and subordinated liabilities maturing or proposed to be withdrawn within the next six months and accruals that have not been deducted in the computation of net capital. In the statements of changes in ownership equity and Continued SBS would have lines and corresponding line items that are not on the FOCUS Report. The additional lines and line items would elicit more detail about the security-based swap and swap activities of the SBSD and MSBSP filers.446 As discussed below, broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs would be required to report the most information on proposed Form SBS because it would elicit information about their activities as a broker-dealer and as an SBSD or MSBSP. Stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs would be required to report information similar to that required of broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs. The information elicited from bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs would: (1) Derive
largely from the information they report on the call reports; and (2) focus on their business as an SBSD or MSBSP.447 Proposed Form SBS is divided into five parts. Part 1 would apply to nonbank SBSDs and nonbank MSBSPs (i.e., broker-dealer SBSDs, broker-dealer MSBSPs, stand-alone SBSDs, and stand￾alone MSBSPs) and is similar to the FOCUS Report Part II CSE, but includes additional sections and line items to elicit more detail about security-based swap and swap activities. Part 2 would apply to bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs and elicit certain financial information that these classes of registrants—as banks—would need to report in the call reports plus certain additional information about security-based swap and swap activities. Part 3 would apply to an SBSD or MSBSP that is dually registered as an FCM and elicit information about the firm’s net capital computation and segregation of customer assets under CFTC rules. Part 4 would apply to nonbank SBSDs and nonbank MSBSPs and elicit detailed information about a firm’s security￾based swap and swap positions, counterparties, and exposures. Part 5 would apply to bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs and also elicit detailed information about a firm’s security￾based swap and swap positions, but on a more limited basis than Part 4. Proposed Form SBS would have a cover page that largely is in the same format as the cover page of the FOCUS Report, but includes line items to indicate the type of registrant filing Form SBS: (1) A stand-alone SBSD; (2) a stand-alone MSBSP; (3) a broker￾dealer SBSD; (4) a broker-dealer MSBSP; (5) a bank MSBSP; or (6) a bank MSBSP. The heading at the top of each remaining page of proposed Form SBS would identify the type of registrant that must enter the information to be reported on the page. A general description of each Part of proposed Form SBS appears below, including a more detailed description of the components of Form SBS for which there are not parallel components in the FOCUS Report. In addition to proposed Form SBS, the Commission is proposing instructions for Form SBS to provide further guidance on the information to be entered into certain line items.448 The instructions are modeled on the instructions to the FOCUS Report Part II, but with more instructions to cover the additional line items and sections that are not on the FOCUS Report Part II.449
i. Part 1 of Proposed Form SBS
Part 1 of proposed Form SBS would
apply to nonbank SBSDs and nonbank MSBSPs. This part of Form SBS is modeled on the FOCUS Report, particularly the FOCUS Report Part II CSE, but includes additional sections and line items to report more detail about security-based swap and swap activities.450 Like the FOCUS Report
Part II CSE, Part 1 of proposed Form
SBS would require the filer to enter information into the following sections, as applicable: (1) A statement of financial condition; 451 (2) a computation of net capital; 452 (3) a computation of minimum net capital required; 453 (4) a statement of income (loss); 454 (5) a statement of capital withdrawals, a statement of changes in ownership equity, and a statement of changes in liabilities subordinated to claims of creditors; 455 (6) certain

liabilities subordinated to claims of general creditors sections, a broker-dealer must report the amount of such equity and liability balances, respectively, as of the beginning of the reporting period and as of the end of the reporting period and provide detail with respect to changes in the balances. The information reported in all these statements is designed to assist securities regulators in monitoring the financial condition of the broker￾dealer and the firm’s compliance with the net capital rule. For example, under Rule 15c3–1, broker-dealers are subject to debt-to-equity ratio requirements, limitations governing the withdrawal of equity capital, and requirements with respect to subordinated loans that qualify to be added back to net worth when computing net capital. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1d ; 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(d) and (e). Nonbank SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs would be subject to similar requirements and limitations. See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70254–
70256. Consequently, Part 1 of proposed Form SBS
has sections to provide a statement of capital withdrawals, a statement of changes in ownership equity, and a statement of changes in liabilities subordinated to claims of creditors that would need to be completed by nonbank SBSDs and broker￾dealer MSBSPs. See Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Capital Withdrawals and Capital Withdrawals Recap. These sections on proposed Form SBS have the same line items as the parallel sections on the FOCUS Report Part II CSE and there are no additional line items. 456Each part of the FOCUS Report has a section to report certain financial and operational data. The FOCUS Report Part II CSE has additional sections to report operational charges deducted from net capital under Rule 15c3–1 and potential operational charges. Broker-dealers must report information on these sections about, among other things, the number of income and non-income producing personnel, fails, security concentrations, lease and rentals payables, money suspense and balancing differences, and securities differences. Certain of these items—including securities differences— result in charges when computing net capital. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(v). Securities regulators use this information to monitor, among other things, whether the broker-dealer is processing securities transactions in a timely manner and properly accounting for the securities it holds. Part 1 of proposed Form SBS similarly has sections to report this type of financial and operational data that would need to be completed by nonbank SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs. See Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Financial and Operational Data. The sections of the form have the same line items as the parallel sections in the FOCUS Report
Part II CSE and there are no additional line items.
457The FOCUS Report Part II and Part II CSE have a section to provide a computation of the customer reserve requirement under Rule 15c3–3. As discussed above in section II.A.2.a. of this release, Rule 15c3–3 requires a carrying broker-dealer to maintain a reserve of funds or qualified securities in an account at a bank that is at least equal in value to the net cash owed to customers. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(e). The amount of net cash owed to customers is computed pursuant to a formula set forth in Exhibit A to Rule 15c3–3. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–3a. Part 1 of proposed Form SBS similarly has a section to provide a computation of the customer reserve requirement under Rule 15c3–3 that would need to be completed by broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs that hold funds and securities for customers that are not security￾based swap customers. See Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Computation for Determination of Reserve Requirements. This section has the same line items as the parallel section on the FOCUS Report Part II CSE and there are no additional line items. Further, as discussed below, proposed Form SBS has a section to provide a separate computation for the security-based swap customer reserve account requirement under proposed Rule 18a–4. In addition, the FOCUS Report Part IIA has a section to claim an exemption under Rule 15c3–3. In this
section, a broker-dealer claiming an exemption
under Rule 15c3–3 must identify whether it is relying on paragraph (k)(1), (k)(2)(A), (k)(2)(B), or (k)(3) of Rule 15c3–3. Part 1 of proposed Form SBS similarly has a section in which a broker-dealer SBSD or broker-dealer MSBSP could claim an exemption from Rule 15c3–3. See Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Exemptive Provision under Rule 15c3–3. 458The FOCUS Report Part II and Part II CSE have a section to report information relating to the possession or control requirement under Rule 15c3–
3. As discussed above in section II.A.2.a. of this
release, Rule 15c3–3 requires a carrying broker￾dealer to maintain physical possession or control over customers’ fully paid and excess margin securities. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(d). Physical possession or control means the carrying broker￾dealer must hold these securities in one of several locations specified in Rule 15c3–3 and free of liens or any other interest that could be exercised by a third party to secure an obligation of the broker￾dealer. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(c). Part 1 of proposed Form SBS similarly has a section to report the same information about the possession or control requirement under Rule 15c3–3 as is required in the FOCUS Report Part II and Part II CSE. See Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Computation for Determination of Reserve Requirements. This section would need to be completed by broker-dealer SBSDs and broker￾dealer MSBSPs that hold funds and securities for customers that are not security-based swap customers. This section has the same line items as the parallel section on the FOCUS Report Part II CSE and there are no additional line items. Further, as discussed below, proposed Form SBS has a
section to report the same type of information about
the possession or control requirement relating to security-based swap customers under proposed Rule 18a–4. 459The FOCUS Report Part II CSE has a section to provide the computation of the reserve requirement for proprietary accounts of broker￾dealers. This computation is a result of a broker￾dealer not being a customer as that term is defined in Rule 15c3–3. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(a)(1). Accordingly, a carrying broker-dealer that holds the account of another broker-dealer is not required to maintain possession or control of the fully paid and excess margin securities of the other the broker￾dealer or include credit and debit items associated with the account of the other broker-dealer in its customer reserve computation. The absence of a requirement to protect the other broker-dealer’s cash under Rule 15c3–3 raised a question of whether the other broker-dealer could treat cash held by the carrying broker-dealer as an allowable asset under Rule 15c3–1. In response, the Commission staff issued a no-action letter stating that the staff would not recommend enforcement action to the Commission if a broker-dealer treated cash held by another broker-dealer as an allowable asset under Rule 15c3–1, provided the other broker￾dealer agreed to: (1) perform a reserve computation for broker-dealer accounts; (2) establish a separate special reserve bank account, and; (3) maintain cash or qualified securities in the reserve account equal to the computed reserve requirement. See Letter from Michael A. Macchiaroli, Associate Director, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, to Raymond J. Hennessy, Vice President, NYSE, and Thomas Cassella, Vice President, NASD regulation, Inc. (Nov. 10, 1998). The Commission recently codified this letter through amendments to Rule 15c3–3. See Financial Responsibility Rules for Broker-Dealers, Exchange Act Release No. 70072 (July 30, 2013); 78 FR 51824 (Aug. 21, 2013). Part 1 of proposed Form SBS similarly has a section to provide a computation of PAB reserve requirements. See Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Computation for Determination of PAB Requirements. This section would need to be completed by broker-dealer SBSDs and broker￾dealer MSBSPs. The section has the same line items as the parallel section on the FOCUS Report Part II CSE and there are no additional line items. 460As noted above, additional line items are identified on proposed Form SBS by the number 99, 999, 9999, or 99999 for the purposes of this proposing release. 461Proposed Rule 18a–2 would require stand￾alone MSBSPs to maintain positive tangible net worth. See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70256–70257. Under proposed Rule 18a–2, tangible net worth would be defined to mean the MSBSP’s net worth as determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the U.S., excluding goodwill and other intangible
assets. 462As discussed above in section II.A.2.a. of this release, proposed Rule 18a–4 would require an SBSD, among other things, to maintain a security￾based swap customer reserve account at a bank separate from any other bank account of the SBSD. See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70282–
70287. Further, it would provide that the SBSD
must at all times maintain in the security-based swap customer reserve account cash and/or qualified securities in amounts computed daily in accordance with Exhibit A to proposed Rule 18a–
4. See id.
463As discussed above in section II.A.2.a. of this release, proposed Rule 18a–4 would require an SBSD to promptly obtain and thereafter maintain physical possession or control of all excess securities collateral carried for the accounts of security-based swap customers. See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security￾Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70278–70282. financial and operational data; 456 (7) a customer reserve account computation under Rule 15c3–3; 457 (8) information for possession or control requirements under Rule 15c3–3; 458 and (9) a computation for the determination of reserve requirements for proprietary accounts of broker-dealers (‘‘PAB’’).459
Part 1 of proposed Form SBS includes
additional line items in certain of these sections to elicit more detail about security-based swap and swap activities.460 Further, Part 1 has the following additional sections: (1) a computation of tangible net worth under proposed Rule 18a–2; 461 (2) a reserve account computation under proposed Rule 18a–4; 462 and (3) information for possession or control requirements under proposed Rule 18a–4.463 The additional line items and sections are discussed below. Statement of Financial Condition The line items in the statement of financial condition section on proposed Form SBS are largely the same line items in the statement of financial

464Compare Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Statement of Financial Condition, with the FOCUS Report Part II CSE, Statement of Financial Condition. 465See FOCUS Report Part II CSE, Statement of Financial Condition, Lines 3A–3E. 466See FOCUS Report Part II CSE, Statement of Financial Condition, Lines 3A1, 3B1, 3C1, and 3D1. 467See Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Statement of Financial Condition, Lines 3A–3E. 468See Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Statement of Financial Condition, Lines 3A2, 3B2, 3C2, and 3D2. As discussed in section II.A.2.a. of this release, proposed Rule 18a–4 is modeled on Rule 15c3–3. See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70274– 70288. 469See FOCUS Report Part II CSE, Statement of Financial Condition, Lines 21A–21E. 470See FOCUS Report Part II CSE, Statement of Financial Condition, Lines 21A1, 21B1, 21C1, and 21D1. 471See Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Statement of Financial Condition, Lines 20A–20E. 472See Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Statement of Financial Condition, Lines 20A2, 20B2, 20C2, and 20D2. 473See FOCUS Report Part II CSE, Statement of Financial Condition, Lines 22A–22B. 474See FOCUS Report Part II CSE, Line Item 950. 475See Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Statement of Financial Condition, Lines 21A–21B. 476See Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Statement of Financial Condition, Lines 21C–21D. 477See FOCUS Report Part II CSE, Statement of Financial Condition, Lines 23A–23B. 478See Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Statement of Financial Condition, Lines 22A–22B. 479See Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Statement of Financial Condition, Lines 22C–22D. 480Broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs—as broker-dealers—would be subject to Rule 15c3–1 and, therefore, would be required to compute net capital as that term is defined in the rule. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2). Stand-alone MSBSPs would be subject to a tangible net worth capital standard pursuant to proposed Rule 18a–2, and therefore, would not compute net capital. See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security￾Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70256–70257. The Commission has proposed that stand-alone SBSDs be subject to a net capital requirement in proposed Rule 18a–1 that is modeled on Rule 15c3–1. See id. at 70217–70257. Under proposed Rule 18a–1, stand￾alone SBSDs would be required to compute net capital as defined in proposed Rule 18a–1. See id. The definition in proposed Rule 18a–1 is modeled on the definition in Rule 15c3–1 and, consequently, proposed Form SBS does not have separate net capital computation sections for broker-dealer filers and stand-alone SBSD filers. 481All broker-dealers that file the FOCUS Report
Part II CSE have been approved to use models.
Accordingly, it does not need to have a computation for broker-dealers not approved to use models. 482Compare Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Computation of Net Capital (Filer Authorized to Use Models), with FOCUS Report Part II CSE, Computation of Net Capital. 483See FOCUS Report Part II CSE, Computation of Net Capital, Line 6A. 484See FOCUS Report Part II CSE, Computation of Net Capital, Line 6A1. Paragraph (c)(2)(xii) of Rule 15c3–1 requires a broker-dealer to deduct the amount of cash required in each customer’s or non￾customer’s account to meet the maintenance margin requirements of the DEA for the broker-dealer, after application of calls for margin, marks to the market or other required deposits which are outstanding five business days or less. See 17 CFR 240.15c3– 1(c)(2)(xii). Broker-dealers are subject to maintenance margin requirements in rules promulgated by their DEAs. See, e.g., FINRA Rules 4210 through 4240. 485See FOCUS Report Part II CSE, Computation of Net Capital Line 6A2. Paragraphs (a)(3)(xii) and (a)(3)(xiii) of Appendix B to Rule 15c3–1 prescribe capital deductions for under-margined customer and non-customer commodity accounts. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1b(a)(3)(xii) and (xiii). 486See Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Computation of Net Capital (Filer Authorized to Use Models), Lines 6A1–6A2. 487See Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Computation of Net Capital (Filer Authorized to Use Models), Line 6A3. The Commission has proposed that nonbank SBSDs be required to deduct the amount of cash required in the account of each security-based swap customer to meet the margin requirements of a clearing agency, DEA, or the Commission, after application of calls for margin, marks to the market, or other required deposits which are outstanding one business day or less and to take certain capital charger in lieu of collecting margin from certain types of entities or with respect to certain types of accounts. See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security￾Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70245–70248. In addition, as discussed above in section II.A.2.a. of this release, the Commission has proposed margin requirements for nonbank SBSDs and nonbank MSBSPs with respect to non-cleared security-based swaps. See id. at 70257–70274. Security-based swap clearing agencies require their clearing members to post margin for proprietary and customer positions of the member cleared by the clearing agency. See Continued condition section on the FOCUS Report
Part II CSE.464 However, as discussed
below, the proposed Form SBS section has additional line items that are not in the Part II CSE section. First, a broker-dealer must enter detail in the FOCUS Report Part II CSE section about the dollar amount of receivables from other broker-dealers and clearing organizations.465 The detail includes the amount of such receivables includible in the reserve computation under Rule 15c3–3.466 The proposed Form SBS
section requires the same detail about
these receivables.467 Additionally, it requires detail about the dollar amount of the receivables includible in the reserve computation under proposed Rule 18a–4.468 Second, a broker-dealer must enter detail in the FOCUS Report Part II CSE
section about the dollar amount of
payables to other broker-dealers and clearing organizations.469 The detail includes the amount of such payables includible in the reserve computation under Rule 15c3–3.470 The proposed Form SBS section requires the same detail about these payables.471 Additionally, it requires detail about the dollar amount of the payables includible in the reserve computation under proposed Rule 18a–4.472 Third, a broker-dealer must enter detail in the FOCUS Report Part II CSE
section about the dollar amount of
payables to securities and commodities customers.473 The broker-dealer also must provide the dollar amount of the payable to securities customers representing free credit balances.474 The proposed Form SBS section requires the same detail about payables to securities and commodities customers.475 Additionally, it requires detail about the dollar amount of payables to security￾based swap customers, including the amount of the payables representing free credits, and the amount of payables to swap customers.476 Fourth, a broker-dealer must enter into the FOCUS Report Part II CSE
section the dollar amount of payables to
securities and commodities non￾customers.477 The proposed Form SBS
section requires the entry of the same
information.478 Additionally, it requires the entry of the dollar amount of the payables to security-based swap and swap non-customers.479 Computation of Net Capital Nonbank SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs would need to complete a computation of net capital section on proposed Form SBS.480 Unlike the FOCUS Report Part II CSE, there are two sections on proposed Form SBS: One applicable to filers that are authorized to use internal models; and one applicable to filers that are not authorized to use internal models.481 Computation for Filers Authorized to use Models. The line items in the net capital computation section on proposed Form SBS applicable to filers authorized to use models are largely the same line items in the computation of net capital section on the FOCUS Report
Part II CSE.482 However, as discussed
below, the proposed Form SBS section has additional line items that are not on the FOCUS Report Part II CSE section. First, a broker-dealer must enter detail in the Part II CSE section about deductions and other charges that the firm must subtract from net worth, including the total dollar amount of non-allowable assets from the Statement of Financial Condition.483 The detail includes charges for under-margined securities accounts of customers and non-customers,484 and under-margined accounts of commodities customers and non-customers.485 The proposed Form SBS section would require the same detail about these deductions.486 In addition, the section would require detail about the amount of deductions for under-margined accounts of security-based swap customers and non￾customers,487 and under-margined

Process for Submissions for Review of Security￾Based Swaps for Mandatory Clearing and Notice Filing Requirements for Clearing Agencies; Technical Amendments to Rule 19b–4 and Form 19b–4 Applicable to All Self-Regulatory Organizations, Exchange Act Release No. 67286 (June 28, 2012), 77 FR 41602, 41603 (July 13, 2012). They also may require their clearing members to collect margin from their security-based swap customers. See id. 488See Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Computation of Net Capital (Authorized to Use Models), Line 6A4. Derivatives clearing organizations require their clearing members to post margin for proprietary and customer swaps positions of the member cleared by the clearing organization. See Process for Submissions for Review of Security-Based Swaps for Mandatory Clearing and Notice Filing Requirements for Clearing Agencies; Technical Amendments to Rule 19b–4 and Form 19b–4 Applicable to All Self￾Regulatory Organizations, 77 FR 41603. They also may require their clearing members to collect margin from their swaps customers. See id. 489See FOCUS Report Part II CSE, Schedule 1— FINRA Supplementary Capital Information, Lines 6A–6C. As discussed above in section II.B.3.a. of this release, ANC broker-dealers are permitted to add back to net worth uncollateralized receivables from counterparties arising from OTC derivatives transactions when computing net capital. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(c). Instead of the 100% deduction that applies to most unsecured receivables under Rule 15c3–1, ANC broker-dealers are permitted to take the credit risk charge. See 17 CFR 240.15c3– 1(a)(7); 17 CFR 240.15c3–1e(c). 490See Part II CSE, Schedule 1—FINRA Supplementary Capital Information, Lines 6A–6C. 491See Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Computation of Net Capital (Filer Authorized to Use Models), Lines 15A–15C. As discussed above in
section II.B.3.a. of this release, the Commission has
proposed that ANC broker-dealers be permitted to add back to net worth uncollateralized receivables and take the corresponding credit risk charge but only with respect to receivables from counterparties that are commercial end users as that term would be defined in proposed amendments to Rule 15c3– 1 and only with respect to security-based swaps. See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70240–
70245. In addition, the proposed capital
requirements for ANC broker-dealer SBSDs and stand-alone ANC SBSDs similarly would allow these registrants to take credit risk charges with respect to uncollateralized receivables but only from commercial end users arising from security￾based swaps. See id. Under these proposals, the firms would take a credit risk charge that consists of the three components identified above: (1) A counterparty exposure charge; (2) a concentration charge if the current exposure to a single counterparty exceeds certain thresholds; and (3) a portfolio concentration charge if aggregate current exposure to all counterparties exceeds certain thresholds. See id. 492See Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Computation of Net Capital (Authorized to Use Models), Line 15A. 493See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70240–70245. 494See id. 495See id. The credit equivalent amount is the sum of the firm’s: (1) Maximum potential exposure (‘‘MPE’’) to the commercial end user multiplied by a backtesting determined factor; and (2) current exposure to the commercial end user. The MPE amount would be a charge to address potential future exposure and would be calculated using the firm’s VaR model as applied to the commercial end user’s positions after giving effect to a netting agreement with the end user, taking into account collateral received from the end user, and taking into account the current replacement value of the end user’s positions. See id. The current exposure amount would be the current replacement value of the commercial end user’s positions after giving effect to a netting agreement with the counterparty and taking into account collateral received from the counterparty. See id. 496See Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Computation of Net Capital (Filer Authorized to Use Models), Lines 15A, 15A1, and 15A2. 497Compare Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Computation of Net Capital (Filer Not Authorized to Use Models), with the FOCUS Report Part II, Computation of Net Capital. The FOCUS Report
Part II is used by broker-dealers that have not been
approved to use internal models as part of their net capital computation. 498See Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Computation of Net Capital (Filer Not Authorized to Use Models), Line 6A3. 499See Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Computation of Net Capital (Filer Not Authorized to Use Models), Line 6A4. 500See FOCUS Report Part II, Computation of Net Capital, Lines 9A–9E. 501See Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Computation of Net Capital (Filer Not Authorized to Use Models), Lines 9A–9E. 502See Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Computation of Net Capital (Filer Not Authorized to Use Models), Line 10. The proposed capital rules for nonbank SBSDs would prescribe standardized haircuts for security-based swaps. See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security￾Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70231–70237. 503See Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Computation of Net Capital (Filer Not Authorized to Use Models), Line 11. The proposed capital rules for nonbank SBSDs would prescribe standardized haircuts for swaps. See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker￾Dealers, 77 FR 70248–70250. accounts of swap customers and non￾customers.488 Second, an ANC broker-dealer must provide detail on a schedule to the FOCUS Report Part II CSE about the credit risk charges it takes as part of its capital computation.489 Specifically, the FOCUS Report Part II CSE schedule requires the ANC broker-dealer to provide detail with respect to the three components of the credit risk charge, namely: (1) The aggregate counterparty exposure charge; (2) the aggregate counterparty concentration charge; and (3) the portfolio concentration charge.490 Proposed Form SBS would require the same detail about these components of the credit risk charge but require that it be reported in the net capital computation section rather than on a separate schedule.491 The proposed Form also would require additional detail about the first component of the credit risk charge: the counterparty exposure charge.492 Under the proposed capital requirements for nonbank SBSDs, a firm authorized to use models would need to calculate a counterparty exposure charge for a commercial end user in the same manner as an ANC broker-dealer.493 Specifically, the exposure charge for a commercial end user that is insolvent, in a bankruptcy proceeding, or in default of an obligation on its senior debt would be the net replacement value of the security-based swaps with the end user.494 The counterparty exposure charge for all other commercial end users would be the credit equivalent amount of the firm’s exposure to the end user multiplied by an applicable credit risk weight factor and then multiplied by 8%.495 Proposed Form SBS would have line items to enter the aggregate counterparty exposure charge for these two categories of commercial end
users (i.e., (1) end users that are insolvent, in a bankruptcy proceeding, or in default of an obligation on their senior debt; and (2) all other end users and to enter the sum of the two categories).496 Computation for filers not authorized to use models. The line items in the net capital computation section on proposed Form SBS applicable to filers not authorized to use models are largely the same line items in the computation of net capital section on the FOCUS Report Part II.497 However, as discussed below, the proposed Form SBS section has additional line items that are not in the Part II section. First, as discussed above, the computation section applicable to filers authorized to use models includes line items to enter charges with respect to under-margined security-based swap and swap accounts. The computation
section applicable to filers not
authorized to use models similarly would require detail about the amount of charges relating to under-margined accounts of security-based swap customers and non-customers,498 and under-margined accounts of swap customers and non-customers.499 Second, a broker-dealer that is not authorized to use models is required to enter in the FOCUS Report Part II net capital computation section detail about the dollar amount of the standardized haircuts it takes on various categories of proprietary securities positions.500 The proposed Form SBS section requires the same detail about standardized haircuts.501 The section also requires additional entries for the amount of the standardized haircuts applied to security-based swap 502 and swap positions.503

504See Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Broker￾Dealer Computation of Minimum Regulatory Capital Requirements and Non-Broker-Dealer Computation of Minimum Regulatory Capital Requirements. As noted above, broker-dealer MSBSPS—as broker-dealers—would be subject to Rule 15c3–1, and therefore would be subject to a minimum net capital requirement. See 17 CFR 140.15c3–1(a). Stand-alone MSBSPs would be subject to a tangible net worth standard pursuant to proposed Rule 18a–2, and therefore would not be subject to a minimum net capital requirement. See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70256– 70257. 505See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70221–70229. 506See id. 507See id. Neither the 15-to-1 aggregate indebtedness to net capital ratio nor the 2% of aggregate debit items ratio would apply to stand￾alone SBSDs. See id. 508Compare Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Computation of Minimum Regulatory Capital Requirements (Broker-Dealer), with the FOCUS Report Part II, Computation of Basic Net Capital Requirement, Computation of Aggregate Indebtedness, Computation of Alternate Net Capital Requirement, and Other Ratios. 509See Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Computation of Minimum Regulatory Capital Requirements (Broker-Dealer), Lines 1–4; Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Computation of Minimum Regulatory Capital Requirements (Non-Broker￾Dealer), Lines 1–4. 510See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70226–70227. Tentative net capital would be the amount of net capital maintained by the firm before applying standardized haircuts or using internal models to determine deductions on the mark-to￾market value of proprietary positions to arrive at the broker-dealer’s amount of net capital. See id. The minimum tentative net capital requirement is designed to account for the fact that VaR models, while more risk sensitive than standardized haircuts, tend to substantially reduce the amount of the deductions to tentative net capital in comparison to the standardized haircuts because the models recognize more offsets between related positions (i.e., positions that show historical correlations) than the standardized haircuts. See id. 511Under the proposed capital requirements, an ANC broker-dealer SBSD would be required to maintain minimum tentative net capital of $5 billion and a stand-alone ANC SBSD would be required to maintain minimum tentative net capital of $100 million. See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker￾Dealers, 77 FR 70226–70227. 512The amount of excess
tentative net capital would be the amount that the tentative net capital exceeds the amount of required tentative net capital. 513As discussed below in section II.C.2. of the release, Rule 17a–11, as proposed to be amended, and proposed Rule 18a–8 would require an ANC broker-dealer SBSD and a stand-alone ANC SBSD to file a regulatory notice if the firm’s tentative net capital falls below 120% of its required minimum tentative net capital. 514See Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Computation of Minimum Regulatory Capital Requirements (Broker-Dealer), Lines 4A–4C. 515See Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Computation of Minimum Regulatory Capital Requirements (Non-Broker-Dealer), Line 4. 516See FOCUS Report Part II CSE, Computation of Net Capital Requirement, Line 15. As discussed below in section II.C.2. of the release, Rule 17a–11 requires a broker to give notification when its net capital falls below 5% of aggregate debit items and when its net capital falls below 120% of the minimum net capital requirement. See 17 CFR 240.17a–11(c)(2)–(3). 517See Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Computation of Minimum Regulatory Capital Requirements (Broker-Dealer), Line 9A. See also
Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Computation of
Minimum Regulatory Capital Requirements (Non￾Broker-Dealer), Line 9A. As noted above, Rule 17a– 11 requires a broker dealer to give notification when its net capital computation performed pursuant to Rule 15c3–1 shows that its total net capital is less than 120% of the broker-dealer’s required minimum net capital. See 17 CFR 240.17a–11(c)(3). As discussed below in section II.C.2. of the release, proposed Rule 18a–8 would require a stand-alone SBSD to notify the Commission when its net capital computation shows that its total net capital is less than 120% of the SBSD’s required minimum net capital. 518Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 2 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified By Amendment No. 2, Adopting FINRA Rule 4524 (Supplemental FOCUS Information) and Proposed Supplementary Schedule to the Statement of Income (Loss) Page of FOCUS Reports, Exchange Act Release No. 66364 (Feb. 9, 2012), 77 FR 8938 (Feb. 15, 2012). (Form SSOI ‘‘is intended to capture more granular detail of a firm’s revenue and expense information. The lack of more specific revenue and expense categories for certain business activities on the Statement of Income (Loss) Page has led many firms to report much of their revenue and expenses as ‘other’ (miscellaneous), a very Continued Computation of Minimum Regulatory Capital Requirements Proposed Form SBS has two sections for computing minimum required net capital: One for broker-dealer filers (i.e., broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs) and one for stand-alone SBSDs.504 As discussed above in section II.A.3.a. of this release, Rule 15c3–1, as proposed to be amended, and proposed Rule 18a–1 would prescribe minimum net capital requirements applicable to nonbank SBSDs as the greater of a fixed￾dollar amount and a ratio amount.505 The ratio amount applicable to a broker￾dealer SBSD would be the sum of the current ratio amount prescribed in Rule 15c3–1 (the 15-to-1 aggregate indebtedness to net capital ratio or the 2% of aggregate debit items ratio) and an amount equal to the 8% margin factor.506 The ratio amount applicable to a stand-alone SBSD would be an amount equal solely to the 8% margin factor.507 Because the minimum net capital requirement computation that would be applicable to a broker-dealer filer differs from the computation that would be applicable to a stand-alone SBSD, proposed Form SBS would contain a separate section for each type of filer. The line items in the minimum net capital requirement section on proposed Form SBS applicable to broker-dealer filers are largely the same line items in the minimum net capital requirement section on the FOCUS Report Part II.508 The computation
section applicable to stand-alone SBSDs
is a substantially scaled down version of the parallel FOCUS Report Part II
section. As discussed below, both
sections on proposed Form SBS have additional line items that are not on the
Part II section.
First, both sections require the entry of detail about the amount of excess tentative net capital held by the firm.509 The proposed capital requirements for nonbank SBSDs prescribe minimum tentative net capital requirements for ANC broker-dealer SBSDs and stand￾alone ANC SBSDs.510 These filers would need to indicate in proposed Form SBS: (1) The amount of tentative net capital they maintain; (2) their minimum tentative net capital requirement; 511 (3) their excess tentative net capital; 512 and (4) the amount of tentative net capital in excess of 120% of their minimum tentative net capital requirement.513 Second, both sections would have line items to enter the amount of the 8% margin factor. As discussed above, the minimum net capital requirement for a nonbank SBSD would be the greater of a fixed-dollar amount and a ratio amount. The ratio amount for a broker￾dealer SBSD would be the sum of the existing ratio requirement and the 8% margin factor. Consequently, the computation section for broker-dealer filers has line items to enter amounts for (as applicable): (1) The 15-to-1 aggregate indebtedness to net capital ratio; (2) the 2% of aggregate debit items ratio; and (3) the 8% margin factor.514 The section for stand-alone SBSDs has a line item to enter the 8% margin factor.515 Third, a broker-dealer must provide detail in the FOCUS Report Part II CSE
section about the dollar amount of net
capital in excess of the greater of: (1) 5% of combined aggregate debit items; and (2) 120% of the firm’s minimum net capital requirement.516 The proposed Form SBS sections would require a broker-dealer SBSD, broker-dealer MSBSP, and stand-alone SBSD to enter the amount of net capital in excess of 120% of the minimum net capital requirement.517 Statement of Income (Loss) FINRA has adopted Form SSOI with the Commission’s approval ‘‘to magnify the data from the Statement of Income (Loss) page of the FOCUS Report.’’ 518

general categorization that provides FINRA limited visibility into revenue and expense trends.’’) Form SSOI is available at http://www.finra.org/web/ groups/industry/@ip/@reg/@notice/documents/ industry/p125702.pdf. 519Compare Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Statement of Income (Loss), with Form SSOI. 520See FINRA Form SSOI, Lines 1A–1M. 521See Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Statement of Income (Loss), Lines 1A–1P. 522See Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Statement of Income (Loss), Lines 1M–1O. 523See FINRA Form SSOI, Lines 5A–5O. 524See Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Statement of Income (Loss), Lines 5A–5P. 525See Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Statement of Income (Loss), Lines 5L1–5L4. 526See Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Statement of Income (Loss), Line 5M. 527See Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Statement of Income (Loss), Lines 5N1–5N7. 528See FOCUS Report Part II Lines 3a–3c. 529See id. 530See FINRA Form SSOI, Line 6. 531See Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Statement of Income (Loss), Lines 6A–6C. 532See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70256–70257. 533See id. 534See Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Computation of Tangible Net Worth. 535See Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Computation of Tangible Net Worth, Lines 1 and 2. 536See Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Computation of Tangible Net Worth, Line 3. 537See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70282–70287. As noted above, broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs would be subject to Rule 15c3–3 with respect to customers that are not security-based swap customers and, in the case of a broker-dealer SBSD, Rule 18a–4 with respect to security-based swap customers. Proposed Rule 18a– 4 would provide that the SBSD must at all times maintain in the security-based swap customer reserve account cash and/or qualified securities in amounts computed daily in accordance with Exhibit A to proposed Rule 18a–4. 538See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70282–70287. 539See id. 540See Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Computation for Determination of the Amount to be Maintained in the Special Account for the Exclusive Benefit of Security-Based Swap Customers—Rule 18a–4, Exhibit A. Part 2 of proposed Form SBS has an identical section that a bank SBSD would complete. 541Compare Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Computation for Determination of the Amount to be Maintained in the Special Account for the Exclusive Benefit of Security-Based Swap Customers—Rule 18a–4, Exhibit A, with FOCUS Report Part II CSE, Computation for the Determination of Reserve Requirements for Broker-Dealers under Rule 15c3– 3, and FOCUS Report Part II, Computation for the
Determination of Reserve Requirements for Broker￾Dealers under Rule 15c3–3. The statement of income (loss) section on proposed Form SBS is modeled on Form SSOI and uses the same line items to report information about categories of revenues and expenses.519 However, as discussed below, the proposed Form SBS section has additional line items that are not on Form SSOI. First, a broker-dealer is required to enter into Form SSOI detail about the amount of revenue attributable to fees or commissions with respect to various categories of securities.520 The statement of income (loss) section on proposed Form SBS would require a nonbank SBSD or nonbank MSBSP to enter the same information.521 In addition, the section would elicit information about commissions and fees attributable to security-based swaps, mixed swaps, and swaps.522 Second, a broker-dealer is required to enter into Form SSOI detail about the amount of revenue attributable to gains or losses on principal trades with respect to various categories of financial instruments, including security-based swaps and swaps.523 The statement of income (loss) section on proposed Form SBS would require an SBSD or MSBSP to enter the same information, except that it would require additional detail about gains or losses with respect to security-based swaps and swaps.524 Specifically, the section would require entries for gains and losses with respect to the following categories of security￾based swaps: (1) Debt security-based swaps (other than credit default swaps); (2) equity security-based swaps, (3) credit default swaps; and (4) other security-based swaps.525 It further would require entries for gains and losses with respect to mixed swaps 526 and the following categories of swaps:
(1) Interest rate swaps; (2) foreign exchange swaps; (3) commodity swaps; (4) debt index swaps (other than credit default swaps); (5) equity index swaps; (6) credit default swaps; and (7) other swaps.527 Third, a broker-dealer is required to enter into the statement of income (loss)
section on the FOCUS Report Part II
detail about the amount of gains or losses on the firm’s securities investment accounts.528 Specifically, the section requires: (1) The dollar amount of the realized gains or losses; (2) the dollar amount of the unrealized gains or losses; and (3) the total dollar amount of the gains or losses.529 Form SSOI requires the total dollar amount of gains or losses on firm investments but not the detail on the realized and unrealized gains or losses that must be reported on the FOCUS Report Part II.530 The statement of income (loss)
section on proposed Form SBS would
require an SBSD or MSBSP to report the same detail about capital gains and losses on investment accounts as the FOCUS Report Part II.531 Computation of Tangible Net Worth Proposed Rule 18a–2 would require stand-alone MSBSPs to maintain positive tangible net worth.532 Under proposed Rule 18a–2, tangible net worth would be defined to mean the MSBSP’s net worth, as determined in accordance with GAAP in the U.S., excluding goodwill and other intangible assets.533
Part 1 of proposed Form SBS has a
computation of tangible net worth
section that would need to be completed
by an MSBSP.534 In separate lines, the MSBSP would enter: (1) Total ownership equity; and (2) goodwill and other intangible assets.535 The difference between those two line items would be entered in a third line to indicate the MSBSP’s tangible net worth.536 Reserve Account Computation Under Proposed Rule 18a–4 Proposed Rule 18a–4 would require an SBSD, among other things, to maintain a security-based swap customer reserve account at a bank separate from any other bank account of the SBSD.537 Further, proposed Rule 18a–4 would provide that the SBSD must at all times maintain in the security-based swap customer reserve bank account cash and/or qualified securities in amounts computed daily in accordance with a formula set forth in Exhibit A to proposed Rule 18a–4.538 The formula in Exhibit A to proposed Rule 18a–4 is modeled closely on the formula in Exhibit A to Rule 15c3–3.539 Consequently, the steps necessary to compute the reserve account deposit requirement under proposed Rule 18a– 4 are, for the most part, the same steps necessary to compute the reserve account deposit requirement under Rule 15c3–3.
Part 1 of proposed Form SBS has a
section on which a broker-dealer SBSD
or stand-alone SBSD would provide a computation of the deposit requirement for the security-based swap customer reserve account.540 The section is modeled on the sections in the FOCUS Report Part II and Part II CSE on which broker-dealers provide a computation of the reserve account deposit requirement under Rule 15c3–3.541 The computation
section on proposed Form SBS has two
line items that are not on the FOCUS Report Part II CSE or Part II section to account for two additional debit items

542See Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Computation for Determination of the Amount to be Maintained in the Special Account for the Exclusive Benefit of Security-Based Swap Customers—Rule 18a–4, Exhibit A, Lines 17 and 18. The line items on these lines require the entry of the amount of margin required and on deposit related to cleared and non-cleared security-based swaps. See also Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security￾Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70282–70287. 543Under proposed Rule 18a–4, the term excess securities collateral would be defined to mean securities and money market instruments carried for the account of a security-based swap customer that have a market value in excess of the current exposure of the SBSD to the customer, excluding, under certain specified conditions, securities or money market instruments used to meet a margin requirement of a registered security-based swap clearing agency or of another SBSD. See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security￾Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70279. The term security￾based swap customer would be defined to mean any person from whom or on whose behalf the SBSD has received or acquired or holds funds or other property for the account of the person with respect to a cleared or non-cleared security-based swap transaction. See id. at 70278. The definition would exclude a person to the extent that person has a claim for funds or other property which by contract, agreement or understanding, or by operation of law, is part of the capital of the SBSD or is subordinated to all claims of security-based swap customers of the SBSD. See id. 544See Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Information for Possession or Control Requirements under Rule 18a–4. Part 2 of proposed Form SBS has an identical section that a bank SBSD would complete. 545Compare Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Computation for Determination of the Amount to be Maintained in the Special Account for the Exclusive Benefit of Security-Based Swap Customers—Rule 18a–4, Exhibit A, with FOCUS Report Part II CSE, Computation for the Determination of Reserve Requirements for Broker-Dealers under Rule 15c3– 3, and FOCUS Report Part II, Computation for the Determination of Reserve Requirements for Broker￾Dealers under Rule 15c3–3. 546See 12 U.S.C. 161; 12 U.S.C. 324; 12 U.S.C. 1464; and 12 U.S.C. 1817. FFIEC Form 031 is available at http://www.ffiec.gov/pdf/FFIEC_forms/ FFIEC031_201303_f.pdf. 547Obtaining a bank’s FFIEC Form 031 information through Form SBS will allow Commission staff to easily and efficiently retrieve and transfer the information into a database where values can be compared over time and with other firms. For example, broker-dealers submit FOCUS Reports electronically to FINRA through a user￾interactive portal known as ‘‘eFOCUS.’’ This allows
FINRA and Commission staff to easily and efficiently retrieve firm-specific data as well as aggregate data across firms. 548The identifying number of each Line Item on proposed Form SBS shares the same first four characters as the corresponding Line Item on FFIEC Form 031. However, the Form SBS line items end with an additional ‘‘b’’ character. For example, Line Item 0081 on FFIEC Form 031 is Line Item 0081b on proposed Form SBS. The additional ‘‘b’’ accounts for the fact that some of the line items on FFIEC Form 031 have the same unique numbers as line items on the FOCUS Report. 549See FFIEC Form 031, Schedule RC, Balance Sheet, Lines 1–29. 550See FFIEC Form 031, Schedule RC, Balance Sheet, Memoranda, Lines 1–2. 551See Part 2 of proposed Form SBS, Balance Sheet (Information As Reported On FFIEC Form 031—Schedule RC), Lines 1–29. 552Compare Part 2 of proposed Form SBS, Balance Sheet (Information As Reported On FFIEC Form 031—Schedule RC), Lines 1–29, with FFIEC Form 031, Schedule RC, Balance Sheet, Lines 1–29. 553See FFIEC Form 031, Schedule RC–R, Regulatory Capital, Lines 1–62. 554See FFIEC Form 031, Schedule RC–R, Regulatory Capital, Memoranda, Lines 1–2. 555See 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(e)(2). 556See Margin and Capital Requirements for Covered Swap Entities, 76 FR 27564. 557See Part 2 of Proposed Form SBS, Regulatory Capital (Information As Reported On FFIEC Form 031—Schedule RC–R), Lines 1–10. 558See Line Items 3210, 8274, 5311, 1395, 3792, A223, L138, 7204, 7206, 7205, 7273, 7274, and 7275 of FFIEC Form 031 and proposed Form SBS. that are part of the formula in Appendix A to proposed Rule 18a–4.542 Information for Possession or Control Requirements Under Proposed Rule 18a–4 Proposed Rule 18a–4 would require an SBSD to promptly obtain and thereafter maintain physical possession or control of all excess securities collateral carried for the accounts of security-based swap customers.543 Part 1 of proposed Form SBS has a section on which a broker-dealer SBSD or a stand-alone SBSD would enter information related to the possession or control requirements of Rule 18a–4.544 The section is modeled on the sections in the FOCUS Report Part II and Part II CSE on which broker-dealers report information related to the possession or control requirements of Rule 15c3–3.545
ii. Part 2 of Proposed Form SBS
As discussed above, the proposed reporting requirements for bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs generally are designed to be tailored specifically to their activities as an SBSD or an MSBSP. However, in order to be able to monitor the financial condition of bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs, the Commission is proposing a limited program of reporting certain general financial information by these registrants, which is based on the reporting requirements of the prudential regulators. Specifically, banks are required to file quarterly reports on FFIEC Form 031.546 Like the FOCUS Report, FFIEC Form 031 elicits financial and operational information about a bank, which is entered into uniquely numbered line items. Part 2 of proposed Form SBS would require a bank SBSD or a bank MSBSP to report certain of the information reported on FFIEC Form
031.547 Specifically, Part 2 has: (1) A
balance sheet section that largely mirrors Schedule RC to FFIEC Form 031; (2) a statement of regulatory capital
section that is a scaled down version of
Schedule RC–R to FFIEC Form 031; and
(3) an income statement section that is a scaled down version of Schedule RI to FFIEC Form 031. Line items on proposed Form SBS that correspond to line items on FFIEC Form 031 would require the entry of the same type of information.548
Part 2 of proposed Form SBS also has
sections for: (1) A reserve account computation under proposed Rule 18a– 4; and (2) information for possession or control requirements under proposed Rule 18a–4. The sections of Part 2 are discussed below. Balance Sheet A bank must report detail about its assets, liabilities, and equity capital on
Schedule RC to FFIEC Form 031.549
Schedule RC also has a ‘‘Memoranda’’
section that elicits information about the
bank’s external auditors and fiscal year end date.550 Bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs would be required to report detail about their assets, liabilities, and equity capital on a balance sheet section on Part 2 of proposed Form SBS.551 The balance sheet section would have the same line items as Schedule RC to FFIEC Form 031, except it would not include line items from the ‘‘Memoranda’’ section.552 Consequently, bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs would be required to report in proposed Form SBS the same information about assets, liabilities, and equity capital that they report in Schedule RC (excluding the Memoranda information). Regulatory Capital A bank must report detail about its regulatory capital on Schedule RC–R to FFIEC Form 031.553 Schedule RC–R also has a ‘‘Memoranda’’ section that elicits detail about derivatives.554 The information elicited on Schedule RC–R is designed to facilitate an analysis of the bank’s regulatory capital. As discussed above in section II.A.1. of this release, the prudential regulators are responsible for administering capital requirements for bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs.555 The prudential regulators have proposed capital rules that would require a bank SBSD or bank MSBSP to comply with the capital rules applicable to banks.556 Bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs would be required to report detail about their regulatory capital on a section on Part 2 of proposed Form SBS.557 The regulatory capital section would include certain—but not all—of the line items on Schedule RC–R.558 The included line items require a bank to enter total amounts of the components of bank regulatory capital (e.g., total Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3 capital) and other summary

559See FFIEC Form 031, Schedule RI, Income Statement, Lines 1–14. 560See FFIEC Form 031, Schedule RI, Income Statement, Memoranda, Lines 1–14. 561See Part 2 of Proposed Form SBS, Income Statement (Information As Reported On FFIEC Form 031—Schedule RI), Lines 1–11. 562See Line Items 4107, 4073, 4079, 4093, 4301, and 4340 of FFIEC Form 031 and proposed Form SBS. 563See Line Items 3521 and 3196 of FFIEC Form 031 and proposed Form SBS. 564See Line Items 8757, 8758, 8759, 8760, F186, K090, and K094 of FFIEC Form 031 and proposed Form SBS. 565See Line Items C889, C890, and A251 of FFIEC Form 031 and proposed Form SBS. 566See Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Computation for Determination of the Amount to be Maintained in the Special Account for the Exclusive Benefit of Security-Based Swap Customers—Rule 18a–4, Exhibit A. 567Compare Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Computation for Determination of the Amount to be Maintained in the Special Account for the Exclusive Benefit of Security-Based Swap Customers—Rule 18a–4, Exhibit A, with the FOCUS Report Part II CSE, Computation for the Determination of Reserve Requirements for Broker-Dealers under Rule 15c3– 3 and the FOCUS Report Part II, Computation for the Determination of Reserve Requirements for Broker-Dealers under Rule 15c3–3. 568See Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Computation for Determination of the Amount to be Maintained in the Special Account for the Exclusive Benefit of Security-Based Swap Customers—Rule 18a–4, Exhibit A. 569See Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Information for Possession or Control Requirements under Rule 18a–4. 570Compare Part 1 of proposed Form SBS, Computation for Determination of the Amount to be Maintained in the Special Account for the Exclusive Benefit of Security-Based Swap Customers—Rule 18a–4, Exhibit A, with the FOCUS Report Part II CSE, Computation for the Determination of Reserve Requirements for Broker-Dealers under Rule 15c3– 3 and the FOCUS Report Part II, Computation for the Determination of Reserve Requirements for Broker-Dealers under Rule 15c3–3. 571See Part 2 of proposed Form SBS, Information for Possession or Control Requirements under Rule 18a–4. 572See 17 CFR 1.10. See also Form 1–FR–FCM, available at http://www.nfa.futures.org/NFA￾registration/templates-and-forms/form1FR￾fcm.HTML. 573The FOCUS Report Part II CSE assigns different numbers to the line items. 574See FOCUS Report Part II CSE, Statement of Segregation Requirements and Funds in Segregation for Customers Trading on U.S. Commodity Exchanges, Lines 1–14. Section 4d of the CEA requires each FCM to segregate from its own assets all money, securities and other property deposited by futures customers to margin, secure, or guarantee futures contracts and options on futures contracts traded on designated contract markets. It further requires an FCM to treat and deal with futures customer funds as belonging to the futures customer, and prohibits an FCM from using the funds deposited by the futures customer to margin
or extend credit to any person other than the futures customer that deposited the funds. 7 U.S.C. 6d. The CFTC has adopted Rules 1.20 through 1.30 to implement section 4d. See 17 CFR 1.20 through
1.30. The Statement of Segregation Requirements
and Funds in Segregation for Customers Trading on U.S. Commodity Exchanges generally indicates the total amount of funds held by the FCM in segregated accounts, the total amount of funds that the FCM must hold in segregated accounts to meet its regulatory obligations to futures customers, and whether the firm holds excess segregated funds in the segregated accounts as of the reporting date. 575See FOCUS Report Part II CSE, Statement of Segregation Requirements and Funds in Segregation for Customers’ Dealer Options Accounts, Lines 1–
3. Rule 1.32 requires an FCM to prepare a daily
computation which shows: (1) The amount of funds that an FCM is required to segregate for customers who are trading on U.S. commodity exchanges pursuant to the CEA and CFTC rules; (2) the amount of funds the FCM actually has in segregated accounts; and (3) the amount, if any, of the FCM’s residual interest in the customer funds segregated. See 17 CFR 1.32. 576See FOCUS Report Part II CSE, Statement of Secured Amounts and Funds Held in Separate Accounts for Foreign Futures and Foreign Options Customers Pursuant to Commission Regulation 30.7, Foreign Futures and Foreign Options Secured Amount: Summary, Lines I–II, 1–3. Section 4(b) of the CEA provides that the CFTC may adopt rules and regulations proscribing fraud and requiring minimum financial standards, the disclosure of risk, the filing of reports, the keeping of books and records, the safeguarding of the funds deposited by persons for trading on foreign markets, and registration with the CFTC by any person located in the U.S. who engages in the offer or sale of any contract of sale of a commodity for future delivery that is made subject to the rules of a board of trade located outside of the U.S. See 7 U.S.C. 6. Pursuant to section 4(b), the CFTC adopted Part 30 of its regulations to address foreign futures and foreign option transactions. See 17 CFR 30.1 through 30.13. Rule 30.7 provides that an FCM may deposit the funds belonging to foreign futures or foreign options customer in an account or accounts maintained at a bank or trust company located in the U.S., a bank or trust company located outside the U.S. that has in excess of $1 billion of regulatory capital, an FCM registered with the CFTC, a derivatives clearing organization, a member of a foreign board of trade, a foreign clearing organization, or a depository selected by the member of a foreign board of trade or foreign clearing organization. See 17 CFR 30.7. measures. The objective is to require high level reporting of key elements of the regulatory capital of a bank SBSD or bank MSBSP to obtain a profile of the firm’s regulatory capital position. Thus, the information elicited in Part 2 of proposed Form SBS would not involve the level of detail required by the prudential regulators on Schedule RC– R. Income Statement A bank must report detail about its income (loss) and expenses on Schedule RI to FFIEC Form 031.559 Schedule RI also has a ‘‘Memoranda’’ section that elicits further detail about income (loss).560 Bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs would be required to report detail about their income (loss) and expenses on an income section on Part 2 of proposed Form SBS.561 However, the level of detail would be significantly less than is required in Schedule RI. Specifically, to focus the reporting on summary information and information relevant to securities and derivatives activities, the income section only includes line items from Schedule RI that require the entry of: (1) Total amounts for categories of income, expense, and loss; 562 (2)
detail about gains and losses on securities positions; 563 (3) detail about trading revenues; 564 and (4) detail about gains and losses on derivatives.565 Reserve Account Computation Under Proposed Rule 18a–4 As discussed above, Part 1 of proposed Form SBS has a section on which a broker-dealer SBSD or stand￾alone SBSD would provide a computation of the deposit requirement for the security-based swap customer reserve account.566 This section is modeled on the sections of the FOCUS Report Part II and Part II CSE on which broker-dealers provide a computation of the customer reserve account deposit requirement under Rule 15c3–3.567 Part 2 of proposed Form SBS has an identical section that would be completed by a bank SBSD.568 Information for Possession or Control Requirements Under Proposed Rule 18a–4 As discussed above, Part 1 of proposed Form SBS has a section on which a broker-dealer SBSD or a stand￾alone SBSD would enter information related to the possession or control requirements of Rule 18a–4.569 The
section is modeled on the sections of the
FOCUS Report Part II and Part II CSE on which broker-dealers provide information related to the possession or control requirements of Rule 15c3–3.570
Part 2 of proposed Form SBS has an
identical section that would be completed by a bank SBSD.571
iii. Part 3 of Proposed Form SBS
FCMs are required to periodically file with the CFTC and their designated SRO Form 1–FR–FCM.572 Like the FOCUS Report and FFIEC Form 031, Form 1–FR–FCM elicits financial and operational information about an FCM, which is entered into uniquely numbered line items. To account for ANC broker-dealers that are dually registered as FCMs, the FOCUS Report
Part II CSE incorporates, substantially in
the same format, the following from Form 1–FR FCM: 573 (1) A section to show a statement of segregation requirements and funds in segregation for customers trading on U.S. commodity exchanges; 574 (2) a section to show a statement of segregation requirements and funds in segregation for customers’ dealer options account; 575 (3) a section to show a summary statement of secured amounts and funds held in separate accounts for foreign futures and foreign options customers pursuant to CFTC Regulation 30.7; 576 (4) a section to show a

577See FOCUS Report Part II CSE, Statement of Secured Amounts and Funds Held in Separate Accounts for Foreign Futures and Foreign Options Customers Pursuant to Commission Regulation 30.7, Funds Deposited In Separate 17 CFR § 30.7 Accounts, Lines 1–8. This statement generally indicates the total amount of funds held by the FCM in secured accounts, the total amount of funds that the FCM must hold in secured accounts to meet its regulatory obligations to foreign futures or foreign options customers, and whether the firm holds excess secured funds in the secured accounts as of the reporting date. 578See FOCUS Report Part II CSE, Computation of CFTC Minimum Net Capital Requirement, Lines A–C. A broker-dealer dually registered as an FCM is required to maintain net capital in an amount at least equal to the greater of: (1) The minimum amount required of a broker-dealer under Rule 15c3–1; and (2) the minimum amount required of an FCM under CFTC Rule 1.17. See 17 CFR 1.17; 17 CFR 240.15c3–1. 579See 17 CFR 1.10(h) (allowing broker-dealers to file the FOCUS Report instead of Form 1–FR–FCM so long as all information required to be furnished on and submitted with Form 1–FR–FCM is provided with the FOCUS Report). See also instructions to Form 1–FR–FCM, available at http:// www.cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/@ iointermediaries/documents/file/1fr￾fcminstructions.pdf; Enhancing Protections Afforded Customers and Customer Funds Held by Futures Commission Merchants and Derivatives Clearing Organizations, 78 FR 68506, 68513 (Nov. 14, 2013). 580See Enhancing Protections Afforded Customers and Customer Funds Held by Futures Commission Merchants and Derivatives Clearing Organizations, 78 FR 68512. 581One of the objectives of including the Form 1– FR–FCM sections in proposed Form SBS is to permit a filer that is dually registered as an FCM to be able to use proposed Form SBS to comply with reporting requirements of the CFTC, subject to approval by the CFTC. This objective could be defeated if the format of the sections on proposed Form SBS is substantively different than the format of the sections on Form 1–FR–FCM. See 17 CFR 1.10(h) (allowing broker-dealers to file the FOCUS Report instead of Form 1–FR–FCM so long as all information required to be furnished on and submitted with Form 1–FR–FCM is provided with the FOCUS Report). 582See Enhancing Protections Afforded Customers and Customer Funds Held by Futures Commission Merchants and Derivatives Clearing Organizations, 78 FR 68514. 583See Enhancing Protections Afforded Customers and Customer Funds Held by Futures Commission Merchants and Derivatives Clearing Organizations, 78 FR 68513. 584See id. at 68507. See also 7 U.S.C. 6d. 585See Part 3 of proposed Form SBS, Statement of Cleared Swaps Customer Segregation Requirements and Funds in Cleared Swaps Customer Accounts under Section 4D(F) of the Commodity Exchange Act, Lines 1–16. 586The instructions to proposed Form SBS would define the terms gross replacement value and
gross replacement value—receivable as the amount that would need to be paid to enter into identical contracts with respect to derivatives positions that have a positive mark-to-market value to the firm (i.e., are receivable positions of the firm), without applying any netting or collateral. See the Definitions section of the instructions to proposed Form SBS. Applicable netting and collateral rules would include Appendix E to Rule 15c3–1 that prescribes, and proposed Rule 18a–1 that would prescribe, requirements for when netting agreements and collateral can be taken into account for purposes of calculating credit risk charges as
part of computing net capital. See 17 CFR
240.15c3–1e(c)(4)(iv) and (v); Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker￾Dealers, 77 FR 70240–70245. In addition, proposed Rule 18a–3 would prescribe when netting agreements and collateral can be taken into account for purposes calculating margin requirements for non-cleared security-based swaps. See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security￾Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70260–70265. The CFTC also has requirements for netting agreements and collateral for the purposes of the proposed capital requirements for swap dealers and major swap participants. See Enhancing Protections Afforded Customers and Customer Funds Held by Futures Commission Merchants and Derivatives Clearing Organizations, 78 FR 68506. Similarly, the prudential regulators have proposed requirements for netting agreements and collateral for the purposes of their proposed capital and margin requirements for bank SBSDs, bank MSBSPs, bank swap dealers, and bank major swap participants. See Margin and Capital Requirements for Covered Swap Entities, 76 FR 27564. 587The instructions to proposed Form SBS would define the term gross replacement value—payable as the amount that would need to be paid to enter into identical contracts with respect to derivatives positions that have a negative mark-to-market value to the firm (i.e., are payable positions of the firm), without applying any netting or collateral. See the Definitions section of the instructions to proposed Form SBS. 588The instructions to proposed Form SBS would define the term net replacement value as the amount of the ‘‘gross replacement value— receivable’’ minus the amount of the ‘‘gross replacement value—payable’’ that may be netted for each counterparty in accordance with applicable rules. See the Definitions section of the instructions to proposed Form SBS. 589The instructions to proposed Form SBS would define the term current net exposure as the net replacement value minus the fair market value of collateral collected that may be applied under applicable rules (e.g., taking into account haircuts to the fair market value of the collateral required under applicable rules). See the Definitions section of the instructions to proposed Form SBS. statement of secured amounts and funds held in separate accounts for foreign futures and foreign options customers pursuant to CFTC Regulation 30.7; 577 and (5) a section to show a computation of the firm’s minimum capital requirement.578 An ANC broker-dealer dually registered as an FCM can file the FOCUS Report Part II CSE rather than Form 1–FR–FCM.579 The CFTC recently adopted amendments to Form 1–FR–FCM that change the format of the sections identified in items (1), (3), and (4) above to enhance customer protections, risk management programs, internal monitoring and
controls, capital and liquidity standards, customer disclosures, and auditing and examination programs for FCMs.580 The format of these sections in proposed Form SBS are substantively the same as the format of these recently amended sections of Form 1–FR–FCM.581 In addition, the CFTC adopted a new
section for Form 1–FR–FCM that
requires an FCM to provide detail about segregation requirements and funds in cleared swap customer accounts.582 This new section is comparable to the
section on which an FCM provides a
Statement of Segregation Requirements and Funds in Segregation for Customers Trading on U.S. Commodity Exchanges.583 The purpose of the new
section is to provide an FCM that carries
accounts for customers that maintain cleared swap positions with a means to document and to demonstrate its compliance with its obligation to treat, and deal with all money, securities, and property of any swap customer received to margin, guarantee, or secure a swap cleared by or through a derivatives clearing organization (including money, securities, or property accruing to swap customers as the result of such a swap) as belonging to the FCM’s swap customers as required by section 4d of the CEA.584 Consistent with the CFTC’s recent amendment, proposed Form SBS would include a section requiring an FCM filer to report detail about segregation requirements and funds in cleared swap customer accounts.585 The format of the
section mirrors the format of the section
adopted by the CFTC to be included on Form 1–FR–FCM.
iv. Part 4 of Proposed Form SBS
Part 4 of proposed Form SBS would
apply to nonbank SBSDs and nonbank MSBSPs. Part 4 consists of four schedules that elicit detailed information about a firm’s security￾based swap and swap positions, counterparties, and exposures. As discussed below, certain of the schedules are modeled on schedules to the FOCUS Report. The schedules in Part 4 of proposed Form SBS would require filers to report information relating to their exposures resulting from over-the-counter derivatives exposures (including exposures relating to security-based swaps and swaps). The instructions to proposed Form SBS would define terms that are used to indicate the type of information to be entered about the exposures. Specifically, the terms are:
(1) Gross replacement value also referred to as gross replacement value— receivable; 586 (2) gross replacement value—payable; 587 (3) net replacement value; 588 (4) current net exposure; 589

590The instructions to proposed Form SBS would define the term total exposure as the sum of the following (as applicable): (1) The current net exposure; (2) the amount of initial margin for cleared security-based swaps and swaps required by a clearing agency or derivatives clearing organization (regardless of whether the margin has been collected); (3) the margin amount for uncleared security-based swaps calculated under paragraph (c) of proposed Rule 18a–3; (4) the initial margin for non-cleared swaps calculated under the CFTC’s rules (regardless of whether the margin has been collected); and (5) maximum potential exposure as defined in 17 CFR §§ 240.15c3–1 or 18a–1, as applicable, for any over-the-counter derivatives not included above. See the Definitions
section of the instructions to proposed Form SBS.
591The instructions to proposed Form SBS would define the term margin collected as the amount of initial margin collateral collected that can be applied against the firm’s total exposure under applicable rules. See the Definitions section of the instructions to proposed Form SBS. 592See FOCUS Report Part II CSE, Aggregate Securities and OTC Derivatives Positions, Lines 1–
15. OTC derivatives dealers are required to provide
similar information in a section on the FOCUS Report Part IIB. See FOCUS Report Part IIB,
Schedule VI, Aggregate Securities and Commodities
Positions, Lines 1–15.
593See FOCUS Report Part II CSE, Aggregate Securities and OTC Derivatives Positions, Line 11. 594See Part 4 of proposed Form SBS, Schedule 1, Aggregate Securities, Commodities, and Swaps Positions, Lines 1–18. 595 In addition to the differences discussed below, for increased clarity, Line 2 of the proposed Form SBS schedule would read ‘‘U.S. government agency and U.S. government-sponsored enterprises’’ instead of ‘‘U.S. government agency and government-sponsored entities’’. Compare FOCUS Report Part II CSE, Aggregate Securities and OTC Derivatives Positions, Line 2 with Part 4 of proposed Form SBS, Schedule 1, Aggregate Securities, Commodities, and Swaps Positions, Line 2. Moreover, the proposed Form SBS schedule would elicit detail with respect to two categories of U.S. government agency securities and U.S. government sponsored enterprise securities: debt securities and mortgage-backed securities. Finally, for increased clarity, Line 17 would read ‘‘Securities with no ready market’’ instead of ‘‘Investments with no ready market’’. Compare FOCUS Report Part II CSE, Aggregate Securities and OTC Derivatives Positions, Line 13 with Part 4 of proposed Form SBS,
Schedule 1, Aggregate Securities, Commodities, and
Swaps Positions, Line 17. See also Letter from Howard Spindel, Senior Managing Director, and Cassondra E. Joseph, Managing Director, Integrated Management Solutions USA LLC to FINRA (Feb. 25, 2013), available at http://www.finra.org/web/ groups/industry/@ip/@reg/@notice/documents/ noticecomments/p213401.pdf (suggesting such a modification). 596See Part 4 of proposed Form SBS, Schedule 1, Aggregate Securities, Commodities, and Swaps Positions, Lines 12A–12D. 597See Part 4 of proposed Form SBS, Schedule 1, Aggregate Securities, Commodities, and Swaps Positions, Line 13. 598See Part 4 of proposed Form SBS, Schedule 1, Aggregate Securities, Commodities, and Swaps Positions, Lines 14A–14G. 599See instructions to proposed Form SBS for
Part 4, Schedule 1.
600See FOCUS Report Part II CSE, Schedule III, Credit-Concentration Report for Fifteen Largest Net Exposures in Derivatives. OTC derivatives dealers are required to provide similar information in a
section on the FOCUS Report Part IIB. See FOCUS
Report Part IIB, Schedule I, Credit-Concentration Report for Twenty Largest Current Net Exposures. 601See FOCUS Report Part II CSE, Schedule III, Credit-Concentration Report for Fifteen Largest Net Exposures in Derivatives. 602See FOCUS Report Part II CSE Line Items 7810, 7811, 7812, 7813, 7814, and 7815. 603Compare Part 4 of proposed Form SBS,
Schedule 2, Credit Concentration Report for Fifteen
Largest Exposures in Derivatives, with FOCUS Report Part II CSE, Schedule III, Credit￾Concentration Report for Fifteen Largest Net Exposures in Derivatives. 604See Part 4 of proposed Form SBS, Schedule 2, Credit Concentration Report for Fifteen Largest Exposures in Derivatives, Table I. 605See Part 4 of proposed Form SBS, Schedule 2, Credit Concentration Report for Fifteen Largest Exposures in Derivatives, Table II. 606See Part 4 of proposed Form SBS, Schedule 2, Credit Concentration Report for Fifteen Largest Exposures in Derivatives, Tables I and II. The Commission is proposing to add a line item to elicit the amount of margin collected from the counterparty in order to provide a means to monitor how much of the exposure to the counterparty is collateralized thereby mitigating the risk to the firm of the counterparty’s default. (5) total exposure; 590 and (6) margin collected.591
Schedule 1
ANC broker-dealers are required to complete a schedule on the FOCUS Report Part II CSE to report the dollar amount of the aggregate long and short positions in various categories of financial instruments held by the firm.592 The categories include, for example, U.S. treasury securities, foreign debt securities, foreign equity securities, and corporate obligations. The schedule has a single line for derivatives.593 Schedule 1 to Part 4 of proposed Form SBS has a subsection that elicits the dollar amount of the aggregate long and short positions in the same categories of non-derivative financial instruments as the FOCUS Report Part II CSE section.594
Schedule 1 elicits more detail about
security-based swap, mixed swap, and swap positions than the parallel FOCUS Report Part II CSE section.595 Specifically, it would require the filer to enter the aggregate long and short positions for cleared and non-cleared:
(1) Debt security-based swaps (other than credit default swaps); (2) equity security-based swaps, (3) credit default security-based swaps; and (4) other security-based swaps.596 It further would require the same information with respect to mixed swaps 597 and the following categories of swaps: (1) Interest rate swaps; (2) foreign exchange swaps; (3) commodity swaps; (4) debt index swaps (other than credit default swaps); (5) equity index swaps; (6) credit default swaps; and (7) other swaps.598 The instructions to proposed Form SBS would direct firms to report the month-end gross replacement value for cleared and non-cleared receivables in the long column, and report the month-end gross replacement value for cleared and non-cleared receivables in the short column.599
Schedule 2
ANC broker-dealers are required to provide detail on Schedule III to the FOCUS Report Part II CSE about the fifteen counterparties to which they have the largest credit exposures in derivatives.600 The FOCUS Report Part II CSE specifies that an ANC broker￾dealer must provide for each of the fifteen counterparties: (1) A counterparty identifier; (2) the counterparty’s country; (3) the counterparty’s industry segment; (4) the counterparty’s credit rating; (5) the gross replacement value of the receivables from and payables to the counterparty; (6) the net replacement value of the transactions with the counterparty; (7) the current net exposure to the counterparty; (8) the total credit exposure to the counterparty; and (9) the aggregate maximum potential exposure to the counterparty.601 It also requires total amounts for items (5) through (9) above (i.e., the sum of the amounts for the fifteen counterparties).602
Schedule 2 to Part 4 of proposed Form
SBS has two tables that are modeled on
Schedule III to the FOCUS Report Part
II CSE.603 The first table would require a nonbank SBSD or a nonbank MSBSP to identify in the first column the fifteen counterparties to which the firm has the largest current net exposure in the order from the largest to the smallest current net exposure.604 The second table would require the filer to identify in the first column the fifteen counterparties to which the firm as the largest total exposure in the order from the largest to the smallest total exposure.605 For each counterparty, the filer would need to enter into the tables the following information: (1) The counterparty’s unique identifier; (2) the counterparty’s internal credit rating assigned by the SBSD or MSBSP; (3) the amount of the gross replacement value—receivables from the counterparty (gross gain); (4) the amount of the gross replacement value—payables to the counterparty (gross gain); (5) the amount of the net replacement value of the derivatives positions with the counterparty; (6) the current net exposure to the counterparty; (7) the total exposure to the counterparty; and (8) the margin collected from the counterparty.606 For items (3) through (8) above, the filer also would be required to provide the aggregate amounts for all counterparties

607See FOCUS Report Part II CSE, Schedule IV, Portfolio Summary of OTC Derivatives Exposures by Internal Credit Rating. 608See id. 609See FOCUS Report Part II CSE Line Items 7820, 7821, 7822, 7823, and 7824. 610See Part 4 of proposed Form SBS, Schedule 3, Portfolio Summary of OTC Derivatives Exposures by Internal Credit Rating. 611The instructions to proposed Form SBS would provide that each category and notches within a category would constitute a ‘‘notch’’ in the rating scale. For example, the following symbols would each represent a notch in the rating scale in descending order: AAA, AA+, AA, AA¥, A+, A, A¥, BBB+, BBB, BBB¥, BB+, BB, BB¥, CCC+, CCC, CCC¥, CC, C, and D. 612See Part 4 of proposed Form SBS, Schedule 3, Portfolio Summary of OTC Derivatives Exposures by Internal Credit Rating. As noted above, the line item added to the schedule to elicit the amount of margin collected from the counterparties is intended to have a means to monitor how much of the exposure to the counterparties is collateralized thereby mitigating the risk to the firm of a counterparty’s default. 613See FOCUS Report Part II CSE, Schedule II, Geographic Distribution of OTC Derivatives Exposures for Ten Largest Countries. OTC derivatives dealers are required to provide similar information in a section on the FOCUS Report Part IIB. See FOCUS Report Part IIB, Schedule III, Geographic Distribution of OTC Derivatives Exposures. 614See id. 615See FOCUS Report Part II CSE Line Items 7901, 7902, 7903, and 7904. 616See Part 4 of proposed Form SBS, Schedule 4, Geographic Distribution of OTC Derivatives Exposures for Ten Largest Countries. 617See Part 4 of proposed Form SBS, Schedule 4, Geographic Distribution of OTC Derivatives Exposures for Ten Largest Countries, Table I. 618See Part 4 of proposed Form SBS, Schedule 4, Geographic Distribution of OTC Derivatives Exposures for Ten Largest Countries, Table II. 619See Part 4 of proposed Form SBS, Schedule 4, Geographic Distribution of OTC Derivatives Exposures for Ten Largest Countries, Tables I and
II. Requiring nonbank SBSDs and nonbank MSBSPs
to report their derivatives exposures by country allows Commission staff to monitor firms with concentrated exposures to a particular country, which can present risk if a localized event occurs (e.g., a sovereign downgrade). As noted above, the line item added to the schedule to elicit the amount of margin collected from the counterparties is intended to provide a means to monitor how much of the exposure to the counterparties is collateralized thereby mitigating the risk to the firm of a counterparty’s default. 620See Part 5 of proposed Form SBS, Schedule 1, Aggregate Security-Based Swap and Swaps Positions. 621See Part 5 of proposed Form SBS, Schedule 1, Aggregate Security-Based Swap and Swaps Positions, Lines 1A–1D. 622See Part 5 of proposed Form SBS, Schedule 1, Aggregate Security-Based Swap and Swaps Positions, Line 2. 623See Part 5 of proposed Form SBS, Schedule 1, Aggregate Security-Based Swap and Swaps Positions, Lines 3A–3G. other than the fifteen specifically reported counterparties.
Schedule 3
ANC broker-dealers are required to provide detail on a table on Schedule IV to the FOCUS Report Part II CSE about their aggregate credit exposures to counterparties grouped by the internal credit rating assigned by the ANC broker-dealer to the counterparty.607 Specifically, for each notch in the ANC broker-dealer’s rating scale, the firm must provide the following information aggregated across all counterparties rated at that notch: (1) The current net exposure to the counterparties; (2) the net replacement value of the transactions with the counterparties; (3) the gross replacement value of the receivables from and payables to the counterparties; and (4) the aggregate maximum potential exposure to the counterparties.608 It also requires total amounts for these items.609
Schedule 3 to Part 4 of proposed Form
SBS has a table that is modeled on
Schedule IV to the FOCUS Report Part
II CSE.610 This table would require the filer to set forth its internal credit rating scale in the left hand column.611 For each notch in the rating scale, the filer would need to provide: (1) The amount of the gross replacement value— receivables from the counterparties rated at that notch; (2) the amount of the gross replacement value—payables to the counterparties rated at that notch; (3) the amount of the net replacement value of the derivatives positions with the counterparties rated at that notch; (4) the current net exposure to the counterparties rated at that notch; (5) the total exposure to the counterparties rated at that notch; and (6) the margin collected from the counterparties rated at that notch.612
Schedule 4
ANC broker-dealers are required to provide detail on a table on Schedule II to the FOCUS Report Part II CSE about their OTC derivatives exposures grouped by country.613 Specifically, for each country, the firm must provide the following information aggregated across all counterparties located in that country and grouped by credit rating category: (1) The current net exposure to the counterparties; (2) the net replacement value of the transactions with the counterparties; and (3) the gross replacement value of the receivables from and payables to the counterparties.614 It also requires total amounts for these items.615
Schedule 4 to Part 4 of proposed Form
SBS has two tables that are modeled on
Schedule II to the FOCUS Report Part II
CSE.616 The first table would require the filer to identify in the left column the ten largest countries in terms of the filer’s aggregate current net exposure to counterparties located in the country in the order from the largest to the smallest current net exposure amounts.617 The second table would require the filer to identify in the left column the ten largest countries in terms of the filer’s aggregate total exposure to counterparties located in the country in the order from the largest to the smallest total exposure amounts.618 For each country, the filer would need to enter into the tables the following information: (1) The amount of the gross replacement value—receivables from the counterparties located in the country; (2) the amount of the gross replacement value—payables to counterparties located in the country; (3) the amount of the net replacement value of the derivatives positions with the counterparties located in the country; (4) the current net exposure to counterparties located in the country; (5) the total exposure to counterparties located in the country; and (6) the amount of margin collected from counterparties located in the country.619
v. Part 5 of Proposed Form SBS
Part 5 of proposed Form SBS would
apply to bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs.
Part 5 consists of one schedule that is
a truncated version of Schedule 1 to Part 4 of proposed Form SBS.620 Specifically, Schedule 1 to Part 5 only would elicit detail about the filer’s security-based swap, mixed-swap, and swap positions. In particular, Schedule 1 to Part 5 would require the filer to report the aggregate long and short positions for the following categories of cleared and non-cleared security-based swaps: (1) Debt security-based swaps (other than credit default swaps); (2) equity security-based swaps, (3) credit default security-based swaps; and (4) other security-based swaps.621 It further would require the same information with respect to mixed swaps 622 and the following categories of swaps: (1) Interest rate swaps; (2) foreign exchange swaps; (3) commodity swaps; (4) debt index swaps (other than credit default swaps); (5) equity index swaps; (6) credit default swaps; and (7) other swaps.623 Request for Comment The Commission generally requests comment on proposed Form SBS. In addition, the Commission requests comment, including empirical data in support of comments, in response to the following questions:

1. As proposed, a broker-dealer that is
   not dually registered as an SBSD or MSBSP would continue to file Part IIA,
   Part IIB, or Part II CSE of the FOCUS
   Report, as applicable, whereas SBSDs and MSBSPs (including broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs)

624See 17 CFR 240.17a–5. would file Form SBS. As an alternative, all broker-dealers, SBSDs, and MSBSPs could be required to file the same consolidated form—Form SBS, which could be re-titled the ‘‘FOCUS Report
Part II’’ or some similar name. Under
this alternative, broker-dealers not dually registered as an SBSD or MSBSP (‘‘stand-alone broker-dealers’’) would complete Parts 1 and 4 of Form SBS (and would also complete Part 3 if they are dually registered as an FCM). Should all broker-dealers, SBSDs, and MSBSPs file the same consolidated form? Explain why or why not, and quantify any estimated burdens associated with this alternative.
2. Does proposed Form SBS elicit the
appropriate information for the various types of registrants that would be required to complete and file the form (e.g., stand-alone SBSDs, stand-alone MSBSPs, bank SBSDs, bank MSBSPs, broker-dealer SBSDs, and broker-dealer MSPSPs)? If not, how should proposed Form SBS be modified to address the information elicited from particular registrant(s)?
3. If stand-alone SBSDs and stand￾alone MSBSPs are required to file Form
SBS with the Commission (instead of with the Commission’s designee), should the Commission require these firms to file Form SBS electronically? Explain why or why not. If Form SBS should be filed electronically, should it be filed using the Commission’s EDGAR system, as an Excel spreadsheet, as a delimiter separated value (DSV) file, and/or using some other electronic format?
4. Are there any line items in
proposed Form SBS that require further clarification or instruction? If so, identify the applicable line items and explain the needed clarification or instruction.
5. Proposed Form SBS consists of five
parts. An SBSD or MSBSP would need to complete: (1) Parts 1 and 4 of Form SBS if it is a stand-alone SBSD, broker￾dealer SBSD, stand-alone MSBSP, or broker-dealer MSBSP; or (2) Parts 2 and 5 of Form SBS if it is a bank SBSD or bank MSBSP. Should Parts 1 and 4 be consolidated into a single part? Should Parts 2 and 5 be consolidated into a single part? Explain why or why not.
6. Proposed Form SBS would include
line items that are not on the FOCUS Report or CFTC Form 1–FR–FCM. Is it inappropriate to include any of these new line items on Form SBS? If so, identify the line item and explain why it would not be appropriate to include it. Should any new line items that are not currently included in proposed Form SBS be added? If so, describe the new line item and where it should be included on the form, provide accompanying instructions, and explain why it should be included.
7. Are there any line items that should
not be included on proposed Form SBS because they are no longer relevant to broker-dealer activities or would not be relevant to SBSD or MSBSP activities? For example, are Line Items 150, 160, and 190 relevant to broker-dealer activities? Similarly, is Note B to the Financial and Operational Data section widely used? Explain why or why not. If a line item is not relevant to broker￾dealer activities, should the Commission remove it from the FOCUS Report? Explain why or why not.
8. Should the Commission rely on the
public call reports completed by bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs to gather the information necessary to monitor the transactions, positions and financial condition of the bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs, instead of requiring such firms to complete and file with the Commission Parts 2 and 5 of Form SBS? If so, explain why.
9. The instructions for proposed Form
SBS define ‘‘total exposure’’ as the sum of several amounts, including ‘‘[t]he amount of initial margin for cleared security-based swaps and swaps required by a clearing agency or derivatives clearing organization (regardless of whether the margin has been collected).’’ Should the definition of ‘‘total exposure’’ instead include the capital charge that would apply to the positions under Rule 15c3–1 or proposed Rule 18a–1, as applicable? Explain why or why not.
10. According to the proposed
instructions for proposed Form SBS, firms should report on Line Item 120 the market value of encumbered securities that the firm transferred to a creditor and that the creditor has the right to sell or re-pledge. Should this instruction instead direct firms to report any encumbered security, whether or not the creditor has the right to sell or re-pledge the collateral? If this instruction should be changed, should the instructions for the FOCUS Report relating to the corresponding line item also be changed? Explain why or why not.
11. With respect to Line Items 190,
650, 660, and 900 of proposed Form SBS, do broker-dealers continue to own exchange memberships as assets? If so, are their values, relative to the rest of a broker-dealer’s assets, significant enough to continue collecting this information as a separate line item? Explain why or why not.
12. Should broker-dealer MSBSPs be
required to complete the section entitled ‘‘Computation of Tangible Net Worth’’ in addition to the sections relating to the computation of net capital and minimum net capital requirement? Explain why or why not.
13. Schedule 1 of Part 4 and Schedule
1 of Part 5 of proposed Form SBS request information about four categories of security-based swaps: (1) Debt security-based swaps, (2) equity security-based swaps, (3) credit default security-based swaps, and (4) other security-based swaps. These schedules also request information about seven categories of swaps: (1) Interest rate swaps, (2) foreign exchange swaps, (3) commodity swaps, (4) debt index swaps, (5) equity index swaps, (6) credit default swaps, and (7) other swaps. Should different categories of security-based swaps and swaps be specified for purposes of the Form? Explain why or why not. If different categories should be specified, identify and define the alternative categories, and explain why these alternative categories should be specified.
14. Are there terms used in proposed
Form SBS and/or its instructions that are not defined that should be defined? If so, identify the term and describe how it should be defined. For example, should the following terms in Schedule 1 of Part 4 and Schedule 1 of Part 5 of proposed Form SBS be defined: (1) Debt security-based swap; (2) equity security￾based swap; (3) credit default security￾based swap; (4) interest rate swap; (5) foreign exchange swap; (6) commodity swap; (7) debt index swap; (8) equity index swap; and/or (9) credit default swap? If so, how should these terms be defined?
15. Are there reporting requirements
currently not included in these proposed rules that should be applied to ANC broker-dealer SBSDs? If so, please describe them.
16. Are there additional requirements
to promote the reporting of composite security-based swap transactions into disaggregated data based on risk? If so, please describe them.
3. Filing of Annual Audited Financial
Reports and Other Reports Rule 17a–5 generally requires a broker-dealer to, among other things, annually file reports audited by a PCAOB-registered independent public accountant, disclose certain financial information to customers, and notify the Commission of a change of accountant.624 The rule also requires the independent public accountant to notify the broker-dealer if the accountant discovers an instance of non￾compliance with certain broker-dealer rules or an instance of material

625The Commission is not proposing to include in proposed Rule 18a–7 a requirement that is parallel to the Exemption Report requirement in paragraph (d)(4) of Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended, because all SBSDs would be subject to the segregation requirements in proposed Rule 18a–
4. Proposed Rule 18a–7 also would not include
requirements that parallel the requirements in paragraphs (d)(6) and (e)(4) of Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended, requiring broker-dealers to file certain reports with the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (‘‘SIPC’’) because stand￾alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs would not be members of SIPC. In addition, proposed Rule 18a– 7 would not include a requirement that parallels the requirement for a broker-dealer to file Form Custody with the firm’s DEA. Additional differences between proposed Rule 18–7 and Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended, are discussed below. 626See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(a)(6). 627See id. 628See id. 629Alternative Net Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers That Are Part of Consolidated Supervised Entities, 69 FR 34449. 630See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70252–70254. 631See id. 632See id. 633See paragraph (a)(5)(vii) of Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended. 634Compare paragraph (a)(5) of Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended, with paragraph (a)(3) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 635See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(b). 636See paragraph (b) of Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended (emphasis added to highlight the modification). The Commission is not proposing to include a parallel requirement in proposed Rule 18a–7 applicable to stand-alone SBSDs, stand-alone MSBSPs, bank SBSDs, or bank MSBSPs because such SBSDs and MSBSPs would not be eligible for membership in a national securities exchange or national securities association. weakness. As discussed above, the Commission is proposing to amend Rule 17a–5 to account for broker-dealers that are dually registered as SBSDs or MSBSPs. The Commission also is proposing certain largely technical amendments to Rule 17a–5. With respect to stand-alone SBSDs and stand￾alone MSBSPs, the Commission is proposing to include in new Rule 18a– 7 many requirements that would parallel requirements in Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended. However, proposed Rule 18a–7 does not include a parallel requirement for every requirement in Rule 17a–5.625 Further, the requirements in proposed Rule 18a– 7, other than the requirement discussed above in section II.B.2. of this release to periodically file proposed Form SBS, would not apply to bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs. a. Amendments to Rule 17a–5 and Proposed Rule 18a–7 Additional ANC Broker-Dealer Reports Paragraph (a)(6) of Rule 17a–5 requires ANC broker-dealers to periodically file certain reports with the Commission.626 The reports contain information related to the ANC broker￾dealer’s use of internal models to calculate market and credit risk charges when computing net capital.627 Specifically, ANC broker-dealers must file on either a monthly or quarterly basis the following reports:

• For each product for which the
  broker-dealer calculates a deduction for market risk other than in accordance with paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(3) of
  Appendix E of Rule 15c3–1, the product
  category and the amount of the deduction for market risk (monthly report);
• A graph reflecting, for each
  business line, the daily intra-month VaR (monthly report);
• The aggregate VaR for the broker￾dealer (monthly report);
• For each product for which the
  broker-dealer uses scenario analysis, the product category and the deduction for market risk (monthly report);
• Credit risk information on
  derivatives exposures, including: (1) Overall current exposure; (2) current exposure (including commitments) listed by counterparty for the 15 largest exposures; (3) the 10 largest commitments listed by counterparty; (4) the broker-dealer’s maximum potential exposure listed by counterparty for the fifteen largest exposures; (5) the broker￾dealer’s aggregate maximum potential exposure; (6) a summary report reflecting the broker-dealer’s current and maximum potential exposures by credit rating category; and (7) a summary report reflecting the broker￾dealer’s current exposure for each of the top ten countries to which the broker￾dealer is exposed (by residence of the main operating group of the counterparty) (monthly report);
• Regular risk reports supplied to the
  broker-dealer’s senior management in the format described in the application (monthly report);
• A report identifying the number of
  business days for which the actual daily net trading loss exceeded the corresponding daily VaR (quarterly report); and
• The results of backtesting of all
  internal models used to compute allowable capital, including VaR and credit risk models, indicating the number of backtesting exceptions (quarterly report).628 The Commission uses these reports to monitor the financial condition, internal risk management control system, and activities of an ANC broker-dealer.629 As discussed above in section II.A.2.a. of this release, the Commission has proposed amendments to Rule 15c3–1 that would establish liquidity stress test requirements for ANC broker-dealers, which would include ANC broker￾dealer SBSDs.630 Further, the Commission has proposed identical liquidity stress test requirements for stand-alone ANC SBSDs as part of the capital requirements for SBSDs.631 Under the proposed liquidity stress test requirements, ANC broker-dealers and stand-alone ANC SBSDs would be required, among other things, to conduct a liquidity stress test at least monthly that takes into account certain assumed conditions lasting for 30 consecutive days.632 The Commission is proposing to amend Rule 17a–5 to add a requirement that an ANC broker￾dealer must file a monthly report with the Commission containing the results of the liquidity stress test.633 The Commission also proposes to include a parallel reporting requirement in proposed Rule 18a–7 applicable to stand-alone ANC SBSDs that is modeled on the reporting requirement in Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended, applicable to ANC broker-dealers.634 Consequently, stand-alone ANC SBSDs would be required to file the same types of reports relating to their use of internal models and liquidity stress tests as ANC broker-dealers, including ANC broker￾dealer SBSDs. Termination of Membership in an SRO Paragraph (b) of Rule 17a–5 requires a broker-dealer to file with the Commission the FOCUS Report Part II or Part IIA, as applicable, within two business days after terminating its membership with a national securities exchange or national securities association.635 The Commission is proposing to amend paragraph (b) of Rule 17a–5 to provide that in either of these events the broker-dealer must file
  Part II, Part IIA or proposed Form
  SBS.636 This change is designed to account for broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs, which, as discussed above, would use proposed Form SBS instead of the FOCUS Report
  Part II or Part IIA.
  Customer Statements
  Paragraph (c) of Rule 17a–5 requires, among other things, that certain broker￾dealers annually send their customers audited statements that must include, among other things: (1) A statement of financial condition with appropriate notes; (2) a footnote containing a statement of the amount of the firm’s net capital and required net capital and other information, if applicable, related

637The statement in the footnote must include summary financial statements of the broker-dealer’s subsidiaries consolidated pursuant to Appendix C of Rule 15c3–1, where material, and the effect thereof on the net capital and required net capital of the broker-dealer. See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(c)(2)(ii).
Appendix C to Rule 15c3–1 requires a broker-dealer
in computing its net capital and aggregate indebtedness to consolidate in a single computation assets and liabilities of any subsidiary or affiliate for which it guarantees, endorses or assumes directly or indirectly obligations or liabilities. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1c. The assets and liabilities of a subsidiary or affiliate whose liabilities and obligations have not been guaranteed, endorsed, or assumed directly or indirectly by the broker-dealer may also be consolidated. See id. 638See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(c)(1) and (2). A material weakness is discussed below in more detail. 639See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(c)(3). 640See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(c)(5). 641See Reports to be Made by Certain Exchange Members, Brokers, and Dealers and Related Audit Requirements of Form X–17A–5, Exchange Act Release No. 9658 (June 30, 1972), 37 FR 14607, 14607 (July 21, 1972). 642See the broad definition of customer in paragraph (c)(4) of Rule 17a–5. See 17 CFR 240.17a– 5(c)(4). As discussed below in section II.B.3.b. of this release, the Commission is proposing certain technical amendments to paragraph (c) of Rule 17a– 5. 643Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–5(c), with paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 644See paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 645See paragraph (b)(1)(i) of proposed Rule 18a–
7. As discussed in more detail below, the
Commission is proposing to require nonbank SBSDs and nonbank MSBSPs to annually file audited financial reports with the Commission that would need to include, among other items, a statement of financial condition. Under paragraph (c)(2) of Rule 17a–5, a broker-dealer’s audited statements must be sent to customers within 105 calendar days of the date of the broker-dealer’s audited annual reports. See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(c)(2). Further, the broker￾dealer’s audited annual reports must be filed with the Commission within 60 calendar days after the end of the broker-dealer’s fiscal year. See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(d)(5). Consequently, the broker-dealer has 45 calendar days after filing the audited annual reports with the Commission to send the audited financial statements to customers. The Commission is proposing a shorter timeframe (10 business days) in proposed Rule 18a–7 to make the web-based disclosures after filing the audited annual reports with the Commission because posting this information to the internet should take substantially less time than preparing mailings to be sent to all customers. 646The statement would need to include summary financial statements of the broker-dealer’s subsidiaries consolidated pursuant to Appendix C of Rule 15c3–1, where material, and the effect thereof on the net capital and required net capital of the SBSD. See paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 647See paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of proposed Rule 18a– 7. 648See paragraph (b)(2) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 649The Commission is proposing a shorter time period (30 calendar days after the date of the unaudited financial statement as opposed to 65 calendar days) for the web-based disclosure of the unaudited financial statements and other statements, because, as discussed above, posting this information on a Web site should take less time than mailing documents. Compare paragraph (b)(2) of proposed Rule 18a–7, with 17 CFR 240.17a– 5(c)(3). 650See paragraph (b)(3) of proposed Rule 18a–7. While bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs would not be subject to paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 18a–7, bank call reports are available at: http:// www2.fdic.gov/Call_TFR_Rpts/. See 12 CFR 261.10(d)(3) and (4); 12 CFR 304.2; 12 CFR Pt. 3,
Appendix C.
651See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(d). See also Broker￾Dealer Reports, 78 FR 51910 (setting forth the effective dates for the amendments). to the firm’s net capital; 637 and (3) if, in connection with the most recent annual audit of the broker-dealer, the independent public accountant identified one or more material weaknesses, a statement by the broker￾dealer that one or more material weaknesses have been identified and that a copy of the report of the independent public accountant is currently available for the customer’s inspection.638 In addition, paragraph (c) requires these broker-dealers to send their customers unaudited statements dated six months from the date of the audited statements that contain: (1) A statement of financial condition with appropriate notes; and (2) a footnote about the firm’s net capital as described above.639 Under paragraph (c)(5) of Rule 17a–5, a broker-dealer is exempt from sending the statement of financial condition to customers if the broker￾dealer, among other things: (1) Sends its customers semi-annually the statements described above relating to the firm’s net capital and, if applicable, the identification of a material weakness; and (2) makes the statement of financial condition described above available on the broker-dealer’s Web site home page and maintains a toll-free number that customers can call to request a copy of the statement, which the broker-dealer must send promptly to the customer at no charge.640 The Commission has stated that the information sent to a customer about the broker-dealer is ‘‘essential for a customer to have in order to judge’’ whether the broker-dealer is financially sound and able to efficiently and safely handle securities transactions, monies and securities.641 The Commission preliminarily believes that it is not necessary to amend paragraph (c) of Rule 17a–5 to account for broker-dealers that are dually registered as an SBSD or MSBSP. These registrants will be required to send or disclose to their customers, including security-based swap customers, the information currently required to be sent or disclosed under paragraph (c).642 However, the Commission is proposing to include a parallel customer statement requirement in proposed Rule 18a–7 that is modeled on paragraph (c) of Rule 17a–5.643 Proposed Rule 18a–7, however, would require (rather than make optional) Web site disclosure of the mandated information.644 Specifically, stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs would be required to disclose on their Internet Web sites an audited statement of financial condition with appropriate notes within ten business days after the date the firm is required to file its audited annual reports with the Commission.645 Web site disclosure generally provides customers with readily accessible information that can be easily viewed at any time. Further, this form of disclosure generally is less expensive and burdensome than other forms of disclosure. Consequently, the Commission preliminarily
anticipates that firms would opt for Web site disclosure if given the choice. In addition to the audited statement of financial condition with appropriate notes, a stand-alone SBSD would be required to disclose on its Internet Web site at the same time: (1) A statement of the amount of the firm’s net capital and required net capital and other information, if applicable, related to the firm’s net capital; 646 and (2) if, in connection with the firm’s most recent annual reports, the report of the independent public accountant identifies one or more material weaknesses, a copy of the report.647 Further, stand-alone SBSDs and stand￾alone MSBSPs also would be required to disclose on their Web sites an unaudited statement of financial condition as of a date that is six months after the date of the most recent audited annual reports and the other information discussed above.648 This disclosure would need to be made within 30 calendar days of the date of the unaudited statement of financial condition.649 Finally, stand￾alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs would be required to make the information required to be disclosed to customers on their Web sites under paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 18a–7 available in writing upon request of the customer and maintain a toll-free number to receive such requests.650 Annual Reports Under the recent amendments to Rule 17a–5, paragraph (d) of the rule requires broker-dealers, among other things, to file with the Commission each year annual reports consisting of a financial report and either a compliance report or an exemption report, as well as reports that are prepared by an independent public accountant registered with the PCAOB covering the financial report and the compliance report or the exemption report in accordance with standards of the PCAOB.651 The financial report must contain financial

652See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(d)(2)(i).
653See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(d)(2)(ii).
654See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(d)(1)(i)(B)(1) and (2). 655See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(d)(3)(i)(A). The term Internal Control Over Compliance means internal controls that have the objective of providing the broker-dealer with reasonable assurance that non￾compliance with Rule 15c3–1, Rule 15c3–3, Rule 17a–13, or any rule of the DEA of the broker-dealer that requires account statements to be sent to the customers of the broker-dealer (an ‘‘Account Statement Rule’’) will be prevented or detected on a timely basis. See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(d)(3)(i). 656See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(d)(3)(i)(B) and (C). A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in Internal Control Over Compliance such that there is a reasonable possibility that non-compliance with Rule 15c3–1 or paragraph (e) of Rule 15c3–3 will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis or that non￾compliance to a material extent with Rule 15c3–3, except for paragraph (e), Rule 17a–13, or any Account Statement Rule will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. A deficiency in Internal Control Over Compliance exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow the management or employees of the broker-dealer, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent or detect on a timely basis non-compliance with Rule 15c3–1, Rule 15c3–3, Rule 17a–13, or any Account Statement Rule. 657See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(d)(4). 658Compare paragraph (d) of Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended, with paragraph (c) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 659See Broker-Dealer Reports, 78 FR 51916– 51920. 660See paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B)(1) of Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended. 661See paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B)(2) of Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended. 662See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(d)(2)(i) and (ii). 663See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(d)(2)(iii). 664See paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (iii) of Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended. 665See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(d)(2)(ii). 666See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(d)(3)(i) through (iii). statements, including, among others, a statement of financial condition, a statement of income, and a statement of cash flows.652 The financial report also must contain, as applicable, supporting schedules consisting of a computation of net capital under Rule 15c3–1, a computation of the reserve requirements under Rule 15c3–3, and information relating to the possession or control requirements under Rule 15c3–3.653 A broker-dealer that does not claim it was exempt from Rule 15c3–3 throughout the most recent fiscal year must file the compliance report, and a broker-dealer that does claim it was exempt from Rule 15c3–3 throughout the most recent fiscal year must file the exemption report.654 The compliance report must contain statements as to whether: (1) The broker-dealer has established and maintained Internal Control Over Compliance (a defined term); (2) the Internal Control Over Compliance of the broker-dealer was effective during the most recent fiscal year; (3) the Internal Control Over Compliance of the
broker-dealer was effective as of the end of the most recent fiscal year; (4) the broker-dealer was in compliance with Rule 15c3–1 and paragraph (e) of Rule 15c3–3 as of the end of the most recent fiscal year; and (5) the information the broker-dealer used to state whether it was in compliance with Rule 15c3–1 and paragraph (e) of Rule 15c3–3 was derived from the books and records of the broker-dealer.655 Further, if applicable, the compliance report must contain a description of: (1) Each identified material weakness (a defined term) in the Internal Control Over Compliance during the most recent fiscal year; and (2) each instance of non￾compliance with Rule 15c3–1 or paragraph (e) of Rule 15c3–3 as of the end of the most recent fiscal year.656 The exemption report must contain the following statements made to the best knowledge and belief of the broker￾dealer: (1) A statement that identifies the provisions in paragraph (k) of Rule 15c3–3 under which the broker-dealer claimed an exemption from Rule 15c3– 3; (2) a statement that the broker-dealer met the identified exemption provisions without exception or that it met the identified exemption provisions throughout the most recent fiscal year except as described in the exemption report; and (3) if applicable, a statement that identifies each exception during the most recent fiscal year in meeting the exemption provisions and that briefly describes the nature of each exception and the approximate date(s) on which the exception existed.657 The Commission is proposing amendments to the requirements in paragraph (d) of Rule 17a–5 that require broker-dealers to file annual reports with the Commission and is proposing to include a parallel requirement in proposed Rule 18a–7 to require stand￾alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs to file annual reports with the Commission.658 The amendments to paragraph (d) of Rule 17a–5 are designed to account for broker-dealers that are dually registered as an SBSD or MSBSP. First, under the proposals, all broker￾dealer SBSDs would be required to file the compliance report. It is likely that a broker-dealer SBSD would carry funds and securities of customers and, therefore, would not be exempt from Rule 15c3–3. In this case, under the recently adopted requirements of Rule 17a–5, the broker-dealer SBSD would be required to file the compliance report. The Commission believes that a broker￾dealer SBSD that has only security￾based swap customers also should be required to file the compliance report because this report and the related report of the independent public accountant covering the compliance report would serve the same customer protection objectives in terms of promoting compliance with proposed Rule 18a–4 as these reports will serve in terms of promoting compliance with Rule 15c3–3.659 For this reason, the Commission is proposing to amend paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B)(1) of Rule 17a–5 to provide that a broker-dealer must file the compliance report if it did not claim it was
exempt from Rule 15c3–3 throughout the most recent fiscal year or it is subject to proposed Rule 18a–4.660 Further, paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B)(2) of Rule 17a–5 would be amended to provide that a broker-dealer must file the exemption report if the broker-dealer did claim it was exempt from Rule 15c3–3 throughout the most recent fiscal year and it is not subject to proposed Rule 18a–4.661 Second, paragraph (d) of Rule 17a–5 provides that the financial statements in the financial report must be prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP and must be in a format that is consistent with, and the supporting schedules must include information from, the FOCUS Report Part II or Part IIA.662 Further, the supporting schedules must contain a reconciliation if the computation of net capital under Rule 15c3–1 or the customer reserve requirement under Rule 15c3–3 in the supporting schedule is materially different than computation in the broker-dealer’s most recent FOCUS Report Part II or Part IIA.663 The amendments to the reporting requirements in paragraph (d) of Rule 17a–5 would add a reference to proposed Rule 18a–4 to be included with the existing references to Rules 15c3–1 and 15c3–3, and to proposed Form SBS to be included with each reference to the FOCUS Report Part II and Part IIA to account for broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs that would use proposed Form SBS rather than the FOCUS Report Part II or Part IIA.664 Third, as discussed above, the supporting schedules require a computation of the reserve requirements under Rule 15c3–3 and information relating to the possession or control requirements under Rule 15c3–3.665 Further, the statements required in the compliance report and the definitions of Internal Control Over Compliance and material weakness for the purposes of the compliance report make reference to Rule 15c3–3 or paragraph (e) of Rule 15c3–3.666 The proposed amendments would add references to proposed Rule 18a–4 generally or to specific parallel

667See paragraphs (d)(2)(ii) and (iii) and (d)(3)(i) through (iii) of Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended. 668Compare paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended, with paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 669See paragraph (c)(1)(i)(A) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 670See paragraph (c)(1)(i)(B) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 671See paragraph (c)(1)(i)(C) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 672See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70274–70288. 673Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–5(d)(2)(i), with paragraph (c)(2)(i) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 674Compare Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended, with paragraph (c)(2)(ii) and (iii) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 675Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–5(d)(3), with paragraph (c)(3) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 676See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(d)(5). 677Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–5(d)(5), with paragraph (c)(4) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 678See paragraph (c)(4) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 679See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(d)(6). Paragraph (d)(6) further provides that the broker-dealer must provide copies of the reports to all SROs of which the broker-dealer is a member, unless the SRO by rule waives this requirement. See id. 680Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–5(d)(6), with paragraph (c)(5) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 681See paragraph (c)(5) of proposed Rule 18a–7. There would be no requirement to file the reports with SIPC or a DEA because stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs would not be members of SIPC and would not have a DEA. 682See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(e). 683See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(e)(2). 684See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(e)(2). If the broker or dealer is a sole proprietorship, the oath or affirmation must be made by the proprietor; if a partnership, by a general partner; if a corporation, by a duly authorized officer; or if a limited liability company or limited liability partnership, by the chief executive officer, chief financial officer, manager, managing member, or those members vested with management authority for the limited liability company or limited liability partnership. Id. 685See 17 CFR 242.617. See also FOCUS Reporting System; Requirements for Financial Reporting, Exchange Act Release No. 14242 (Dec. 9, 1977), 42 FR 63883 (Dec. 21, 1977) (‘‘The Commission proposed the facing page for the annual report based on its experience that the processing of the annual report would be greatly facilitated if the identification information were submitted in a consistent format. The proposed facing page requires basic identification information, including the . . . name and address of the broker or dealer and its accountant, the oath or affirmation, and the itemization of the materials included in the report.’’). See also FOCUS Report
Part III, available at http://www.sec.gov/about/
forms/formx–17a–5_3.pdf. requirements in proposed Rule 18a–4 so that the supporting schedule and compliance report requirements would incorporate information relating to proposed Rule 18a–4 in addition to information relating to Rule 15c3–3.667 As indicated above, the Commission is proposing to include parallel annual reporting requirements in proposed Rule 18a–7 applicable to stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs that are modeled on paragraph (d) of Rule 17a– 5, as proposed to be amended.668 Under these proposed parallel requirements, stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs would be required to annually file with the Commission a financial report.669 In addition, stand-alone SBSDs would be required to file a compliance report stating that the SBSD has established and maintains internal controls that have the objective of providing reasonable assurance that non-compliance with Rules 18a–1, 18a– 4, and 18a–9 will be prevented or detected on a timely basis.670 Further, stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs would be required to file a report of an independent public accountant covering the financial report and the compliance report, as applicable.671 The Commission is not proposing to include a requirement in proposed Rule 18a–7 that would parallel the exemption report requirement in Rule 17a–5 because there are no exemption provisions in proposed Rule 18a–4 that parallel the exemption provisions in Rule 15c3– 3.672 The financial report under Rule 18a– 7 would need to contain the same types of financial statements as are required for the financial report under Rule 17a–
5.673 Further, it also would need to
contain the same types of supporting schedules and reconciliations as the financial report under Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended, except that the Rule 18a–7 financial report would require information relating to Rules 18a–1 and 18a–2, as applicable, rather than Rule 15c3–1.674 The financial report under Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended, and proposed Rule 18a–7 would require information relating to proposed Rule 18a–4. Similar to the financial report, the compliance report under Rule 18a–7 would need to contain the same type of statements and information as the compliance report under Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended, except the Rule 18a–7 compliance report would require information relating to Rules 18a–1 and 18a–9 rather than Rules 15c3–1, Rule 15c3–3, Rule 17a–13, and the Account Statement Rules.675 The compliance report under Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended, and proposed Rule 18a–7 would require information relating to proposed Rule 18a–4. Timing and Location of Filing Paragraph (d)(5) of Rule 17a–5 provides that a broker-dealer must file the annual reports with the Commission not more than sixty calendar days after the end of the fiscal year of the broker￾dealer.676 The Commission is proposing to include a parallel requirement in proposed Rule 18a–7 that would mirror paragraph (d)(5) of Rule 17a–5.677 Consequently, stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs would be required to file the annual reports required under proposed Rule 18a–7 within 60 calendar days after the end of their fiscal years.678 Paragraph (d)(6) of Rule 17a–5 provides that a broker-dealer must file the annual reports: (1) At the office of the Commission for the region where the broker-dealer has its principal place of business; (2) at the Commission’s principal office in Washington, DC; (3) at the principal office of the broker￾dealer’s DEA; and (4) with SIPC.679 The Commission is proposing to include a parallel requirement in proposed Rule 18a–7 that is modeled on paragraph (d)(5) of Rule 17a–5.680 In particular, paragraph (c)(5) of proposed Rule 18a– 5 would require stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs to file the annual reports at the regional office of the Commission for the region in which the SBSD or MSBSP has its principal place of business and the Commission’s principal office in Washington, DC.681 Nature and Form of the Reports Paragraph (e) of Rule 17a–5 among other things: (1) Provides certain exceptions from the requirement that a broker-dealer engage an independent public accountant to audit the annual reports, (2) requires the broker-dealer to attach an oath or affirmation to the financial reports; (3) provides that the annual reports are not confidential except that the broker-dealer can request confidentiality for all of the annual reports other than the statement of financial condition; and (4) requires a broker-dealer to file certain additional reports with SIPC.682 Paragraph (e)(2) of Rule 17a–5 requires a broker-dealer to attach
an oath or affirmation to its financial report indicating that the report is true and correct and that the broker-dealer does not have any proprietary interest in one of its customer accounts.683 Paragraph (e)(2) also requires that the oath or affirmation must be made before a person duly authorized to administer such oaths or affirmations and prescribes who must make the oath or affirmation on behalf of the broker￾dealer.684 The Commission adopted the FOCUS Report Part III as the means for the broker-dealer to provide the oath or affirmation required under paragraph (e)(2).685 The FOCUS Report Part III elicits certain basic information about

686See FOCUS Report Part III.
687Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–5(e)(2), with paragraph (e)(2) of Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended. 688See paragraph (e)(2) of Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended. 689These amendments would: (1) Add a reference to Rule 17a–12 and proposed Rule 18a–7 to the subtitle; (2) remove the phrase ‘‘Name of Broker￾Dealer’’ and in its place add the phrase ‘‘Name of Firm’’ in section A; (3) add check boxes to section A for the filer to indicate whether it is registered as an OTC derivatives dealer, broker-dealer, SBSD, and/or MSBSP; (4) add to the check list at the end of the Form boxes to indicate whether the annual reports attached to the Form include: (i) A computation of net capital pursuant to proposed Rule 18a–1; (ii) a computation of tangible net worth under Rule 18a–2; (iii) a computation for determination of reserve requirements pursuant to proposed Rule 18a–4; (iv) information relating to possession or control requirements under proposed Rule 18a–4; (v) a reconciliation, including appropriate explanation of the computation of net capital under proposed Rule 18a–1; (vi) a reconciliation, including appropriate explanation of the computation of tangible net worth under proposed Rule 18a–2; (vii) a reconciliation, including appropriate explanation of the computation of reserve requirements under proposed Rule 18a–4; (viii) an independent public accountant’s report based on an examination of the financial statements under Rule 17a–12; (ix) an independent public accountant’s report based on an examination of the financial report under proposed Rule 18a–7; and (x) an independent public accountant’s report based on an examination of the compliance report under proposed Rule 18a–7; and (5) replace the check box entitled ‘‘A Reconciliation, including appropriate explanation of the Computation of Net Capital Under Rule 15c3–1 and the Computation for Determination of the Reserve Requirements Under Exhibit A of Rule 15c3–3’’ with two check boxes entitled: (i) ‘‘A reconciliation, including appropriate explanation of the computation of net capital under 17 C.F.R. § 240.15c3–1’’; and (ii) A reconciliation, including appropriate explanation of the computation of net capital under 17 C.F.R. § 240.15c3–3. See Part III of the FOCUS Report, as proposed to be amended. The proposals also would amend the instructions at the end of the Form with respect to seeking confidential treatment for portions of the annual reports by adding a reference to the provisions of proposed Rule 18a–7 governing how to request confidential treatment and replacing the phrase ‘‘For conditions of’’ with the phrase ‘‘To request.’’ Id. 690See Broker-Dealer Reports, 78 FR 51910. These amendments would: (1) Add the phrase ‘‘PCAOB-Registered’’ before the phrase ‘‘Independent Public Accountant’’ in section B; (2) remove check boxes in section B to indicate whether the independent public accountant is certified, a public accountant, or an accountant not registered in the U.S.; (3) add to the check
list at the end of the Form boxes to indicate whether the annual reports attached to the Form include: (i) The exemption report under Rule 17a–5; (ii) the compliance report under Rule 17a–5; (iii) the independent public accountant’s report based on an examination of the financial report under Rule 17a– 5; (iv) the independent public accountant’s report based on the examination of the compliance report, as required by Rule 17a–5; or (v) the independent public accountant’s report based on the review of the exemption report under Rule 17a–5. See Part III of the FOCUS Report, as proposed to be amended. The amendments also would remove from the checklist an item to indicate whether any material inadequacies under Rule 17a–5 were found to exist or found to have existed since the date of the previous audit. See id. 691The proposed technical amendments are as follows: (1) Removing the phrase ‘‘See Section 240.17a–5(e)(2)’’ in the instruction for broker￾dealers that claim an exemption from the requirement that the annual report be covered by an opinion of an independent public accountant and in its place adding the phrase ‘‘See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(e)(1)(ii), if applicable.’’; and (2) removing the ‘‘Statement of Changes in Financial Condition’’ from the checklist and in its place adding the phrase ‘‘Statement of cash flows’’. 692See paragraph (e)(3) of Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended. 693Compare paragraph (e)(2) of Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended, with paragraph (d)(1) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 694See paragraph (d)(2) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 695Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–5(e)(3), with paragraph (d)(2) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 696See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(d)(1)(i)(C). 697See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(f). 698See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(f)(1). See also 15 U.S.C 78q(e)(1)(A); 17 CFR 210.2–01. Prior to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, section 17(e)(1)(A) of the Exchange Act required that the annual financial statements a broker-dealer must file with the Commission be ‘‘certified by an independent public accountant.’’ The Sarbanes-Oxley Act established the PCAOB and amended section 17(e)(1)(A) to provide that the annual financial statements must be ‘‘certified by a registered [with the PCAOB] public accounting firm.’’ See Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Public Law 107–204, 101, 116 Stat. 745 (2002); 15 U.S.C 78q(e)(1)(A). Title I of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act prescribed specific PCAOB registration, standards￾setting, inspection, investigation, disciplinary, foreign application, oversight, and funding programs in connection with audits of issuers. See Public Law 107–204 generally and, in particular, § 2(a)(7) (defining the term issuer as an issuer as defined in section 3 of the Exchange Act, the securities of which are registered under section 12 of the Exchange Act, or that files or has filed a registration statement that has not yet become effective under the Securities Act of 1933 and that it has not withdrawn). However, as originally enacted, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act did not expressly prescribe similar
programs in connection with audits of broker-dealers that are not issuers. The Dodd-Frank Act amended the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to provide the PCAOB with explicit authority to, Continued the broker-dealer and the independent public accountant (e.g., name and address), contains a checklist to indicate the statements and other information included in the annual reports, and sets forth the text of the oath or affirmation required under paragraph (e)(2) of Rule 17a–5.686 The Commission is proposing to amend paragraph (e)(2) of Rule 17a–5 to remove the text of the oath or affirmation because the text of oath or affirmation is set forth on the FOCUS Report Part III.687 The proposed amendments also would state explicitly in the text of Rule 17a–5 that a broker￾dealer is required to attach a complete and executed FOCUS Report Part III to the confidential and non-confidential portions of the annual reports filed with the Commission.688 In addition, the Commission is proposing a number of amendments to the FOCUS Report Part III to accommodate use of the FOCUS Report
Part III by OTC derivatives dealers,
stand-alone SBSDs, and stand-alone MSBSPs.689 The Commission also proposes amendments to Part III of the FOCUS Report to address the recently adopted amendments to Rule 17a–5.690 Further, the Commission is proposing a number of technical changes to the FOCUS Report Part III.691 The Commission is proposing to add a reference to proposed Form SBS to the references to the FOCUS Report Part II and Part IIA in paragraph (e)(3) of Rule 17a–5 to account for broker–dealers that are dually registered as an SBSD or MSBSP and, therefore, would use proposed Form SBS instead of the FOCUS Report Part II or Part IIA.692 The Commission is proposing to include parallel provisions in proposed Rule 18a–7 to the provisions in paragraph (e) of Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended. Under these provisions, stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs would be required to attach a completed and executed FOCUS Report
Part III to the confidential and non￾confidential portions of the annual
report.693 In addition, paragraph (d)(2) of proposed Rule 18a–7 would provide that the annual reports are not confidential except that if the statement of financial condition is bound separately from the balance of the annual reports and each page of the balance of the annual reports is stamped ‘‘confidential’’, then the balance of the annual reports will be deemed confidential to the extent permitted by law.694 Paragraph (d)(2) of proposed Rule 18a–7 would mirror the confidential treatment of broker-dealer annual reports under Rule 17a–5.695 Qualification of the Independent Public Accountant As discussed above, a broker-dealer is required to file with the Commission a report of a PCAOB-registered independent public accountant covering the annual reports.696 Paragraph (f) of Rule 17a–5: (1) Prescribes certain minimum qualifications for the independent public accountant; (2) requires the broker-dealer to file with the Commission a statement concerning the accountant; and (3) requires the broker-dealer to file a notice when replacing the independent public accountant.697 More specifically, paragraph (f)(1) of Rule 17a–5 provides that the independent public accountant must be qualified and independent in accordance with the independence requirements of Rule 2–01 of Regulation S–X and registered with the PCAOB if required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.698

among other things, establish (subject to Commission approval) auditing and related attestation, quality control, ethics, and independence standards for registered public accounting firms with respect to their preparation of audit reports to be included in broker-dealer filings with the Commission, and the authority to conduct and require an inspection program of registered public accounting firms that audit broker￾dealers. See Public Law 111–203, 982. Further, the Dodd-Frank Act amended section 17(e) of the Exchange Act to provide, among other things, that a broker-dealer must annually file with the Commission a balance sheet and income statement certified by an independent public accounting firm, or by a registered (with the PCAOB) public accounting firm if the firm is required to be registered (with the PCAOB) under the Sarbanes￾Oxley Act of 2002. See Public Law 111–203, 982(e)(1); 15 U.S.C 78q(e)(1). Additionally, the Dodd-Frank Act added section 104(a)(2)(D) to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which provides that a public accounting firm is not required to register with the PCAOB if the public accounting firm is exempt from an inspection program established by the PCAOB. See id. To date, the PCAOB has not exempted the audits by independent public accountants of any class of broker-dealer from the PCAOB’s permanent inspection program. See Public Company Accounting Oversight Board; Order Approving Proposed Temporary Rule for an Interim Program of Inspection Related to Audits of Brokers and Dealers, Exchange Act Release No. 65163 (Aug. 18, 2011), 76 FR 52996 (Aug. 24, 2011). At this time, there is no reason to expect that any types of broker-dealer audits will be exempt from the PCAOB permanent inspection program, and any PCAOB determination to exempt broker-dealer audits from the PCAOB’s permanent inspection program must be approved by the Commission. 699See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(f)(2). Paragraph (f)(2) further provides that if the engagement of an independent public accountant is of a continuing nature, providing for successive engagements, no further filing is required after the original filing. See id. On the other hand, if the engagement is for a single year, or if the most recent engagement has been terminated or amended, a new statement must be filed by the required date. See id. 700See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(f)(2). Under the recent amendments to Rule 17a–5, broker-dealers that clear transactions or carry customer accounts must include certain representations in the statement as well. See Broker-Dealer Reports, 78 FR 51992– 51993. 701See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(f)(3). The notice must be received at the Commission’s principal office in Washington, DC and at the applicable regional office of the Commission not more than fifteen days after: (1) The broker-dealer has notified the independent public accountant that provided the reports covering the annual reports for the most recent fiscal year that the independent public accountant’s services will not be used in
future engagements; (2) the broker-dealer has notified an independent public accountant that was engaged to provide the reports covering the annual reports that the engagement has been terminated; (3) an independent public accountant has notified the broker-dealer that the independent public accountant would not continue under an engagement to provide the reports covering the annual reports; or (4) a new independent public accountant has been engaged to provide the reports covering the annual reports without any notice of termination having been given to or by the previously engaged independent public accountant. See id. 702See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(f)(3). 703Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–5(f), with paragraph (e) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 704Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–5(f)(1), with paragraph (e)(1) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 705See paragraph (e)(1) of proposed Rule 18a–7. With respect to qualifications, paragraph (a) of Rule 2–01 provides that the Commission will not recognize any person as a certified public accountant who is not duly registered and in good standing as such under the laws of the place of the accountant’s residence or principal office. See 17 CFR 210.2–01(a). Paragraph (a) further provides that the Commission will not recognize any person as a public accountant who is not in good standing and entitled to practice as such under the laws of the place of the accountant’s residence or principal office. See id. With respect to independence, paragraph (b) of Rule 2–01 provides that the Commission will not recognize an accountant as independent, with respect to an audit client, if the accountant is not, or a reasonable investor with knowledge of all relevant facts and circumstances would conclude that the accountant is not, capable of exercising objective and impartial judgment on all issues encompassed within the accountant’s engagement. See 17 CFR 210.2–01(b). Paragraph (b) further provides that in determining whether an accountant is independent, the Commission will consider all relevant circumstances, including all relationships between the accountant and the audit client, and not just those relating to reports filed with the Commission. See id. Paragraph (c) of Rule 2–01 sets forth a non-exclusive specification of circumstances inconsistent with independence as required under paragraph (b). See 17 CFR 210.2– 01(c). For example, an accountant is prohibited from providing the following non-audit services, among others, to an audit client: (1) Bookkeeping or other services related to the accounting records or financial statements of the audit client; (2) financial information systems design and implementation; and (3) management functions or human resources. See id. Not all of the independence requirements in Rule 2–01 that are applicable to audits of issuers would be applicable to engagements under proposed Rule 18a–7. For example, the independent public accountants of stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs that are not issuers would not be subject to
the partner rotation requirements or the compensation requirements of Rule 2–01 because the statute mandating those requirements is limited to issuers. See 15 U.S.C. 78j–1(j); 17 CFR 210.2–01(c)(6). Additionally, the independent public accountants would not be subject to the cooling-off period requirements for employment or the audit committee pre-approval requirements because those requirements only reference issuers within the independence rules. See 17 CFR 210.2–01(c)(2) and (c)(7). 706See Custody of Funds or Securities of Clients by Investment Advisers, Investment Advisers Act Release No. 2968 (Dec. 30, 2009), 75 FR 1456 (Jan. 11, 2010) (adopting rules requiring certain investment advisers to undergo annual surprise examinations performed by, and obtain internal control reports prepared by, independent public accountants registered with the PCAOB). Paragraph (f)(2) requires a broker￾dealer to annually file with the Commission no later than December 10 a statement regarding the independent public accountant engaged to audit its annual reports.699 The statement must contain, among other things: (1) The name, address, telephone number, and registration number of the broker-dealer; (2) the name, address, and telephone number of the independent public accountant; (3) the date of the fiscal year of the annual reports of the broker￾dealer covered by the engagement; (4) whether the engagement is for a single year or is of a continuing nature; and (5) a representation that the independent public accountant has undertaken to prepare reports covering the annual reports as required by paragraph (g) of Rule 17a–5.700 Paragraph (f)(3) of Rule 17a–5 requires a broker-dealer to file a notice with the Commission if it replaces the independent public accountant engaged to prepare reports covering the annual reports.701 The notice must contain, among other things: (1) The date of the notification of termination or the engagement of the new independent public accountant; (2) the details of any issues arising during the twenty-four months (or the period of the engagement, if less than twenty-four months) preceding the termination or new engagement relating to any matter of accounting principles or practices, financial statement disclosure, auditing scope or procedure, or compliance with applicable rules of the Commission; and (3) whether the accountant’s report covering the annual reports for any of the past two fiscal years contained an adverse opinion or a disclaimer of opinion or was qualified as to uncertainties, audit scope, or accounting principles, and must describe the nature of each such adverse opinion, disclaimer of opinion, or qualification.702 Broker-dealer SBSDs and broker￾dealer MSBSPs will be required to engage independent public accountants that meet the qualifications in Rule 17a– 5 and file the statements and notices required by the rule. The Commission is proposing to include in proposed Rule 18a–7 parallel independent public accountant
qualification, statement, and notice requirements applicable to stand￾alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs that are modeled on the requirements in paragraph (f) of Rule 17a–5.703 Paragraph (e)(1) of proposed Rule 18a–7 is modeled on paragraph (f)(1) of Rule 17a–5.704 Paragraph (e)(1) would provide that an independent public accountant engaged by a stand-alone SBSD or stand-alone MSBSP must be qualified and independent in accordance with Rule 2–01 of Regulation S–X and registered with the PCAOB.705 While the PCAOB’s authority with respect to audits of stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs would be more limited than its authority with respect to audits of issuers and broker-dealers, the Commission preliminarily believes that it would be appropriate to require stand￾alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs to engage an independent public accountant that is registered with the PCAOB.706 In particular, the

707See id. at 1460.
708Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–5(f)(2), with paragraph (e)(2) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 709See paragraph (e)(2) of proposed Rule 18a–7. Like paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 17a–5, paragraph (e)(2) of proposed Rule 18a–7 would provide that if the engagement of an independent public accountant is of a continuing nature, providing for successive engagements, no further filing would be required. See id. Further, if the engagement is for a single year, or if the most recent engagement has been terminated or amended, a new statement would need to be filed by the required date. See id. 710Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–5(f)(2), with paragraph (e)(2) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 711Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–5(f)(3), with paragraph (e)(3) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 712See paragraph (e)(3) of proposed Rule 18a–7. Like paragraph (f)(3) of Rule 17a–5, paragraph (e)(3) of proposed Rule 18a–7 would require that the notice must be received at the Commission’s principal office in Washington, DC and at the applicable regional office of the Commission not more than 15 days after: (1) The stand-alone SBSD or stand-alone MSBSP has notified the independent public accountant that provided the reports covering the annual reports for the most recent fiscal year that the independent public accountant’s services will not be used in future engagements; (2) the stand-alone SBSD or stand-alone MSBSP has notified an independent public accountant that was engaged to provide the reports covering the annual reports that the engagement has been terminated; (3) an independent public accountant has notified the stand-alone SBSD or stand-alone MSBSP that the independent public accountant would not continue under an engagement to provide the reports covering the annual reports; or (4) a new independent public accountant has been engaged to provide the reports covering the annual reports without any notice of termination having been given to or by the previously engaged independent public accountant. See id. 713Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–5(f)(3), with paragraph (e)(3) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 714See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(g). The PCAOB recently adopted, and the Commission approved, standards for examinations of compliance reports of broker￾dealers and reviews of exemption reports of broker￾dealers and for audits of supplemental information accompanying financial statements. See Public Company Accounting Oversight Board; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rules, Standards for Attestation Engagements Related to Broker and Dealer Compliance or Exemption Reports Required by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and Related Amendments to PCAOB Standards, Exchange Act Release No. 71524 (Feb. 12, 2014). See also PCAOB, Standards for Attestation Engagements Related to Broker and Dealer Compliance or Exemption Reports Required by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, PCAOB Release No. 2013–007 (Oct. 10, 2013), available at http://pcaobus.org/Rules/Rulemaking/Docket035/ PCAOB_Release_2013_007.pdf; PCAOB. The PCAOB also
recently adopted, and the Commission approved Auditing Standard No. 17, which applies when the auditor of a company’s financial statements is engaged to perform audit procedures and report on supplemental information that accompanies financial statements, including supporting schedules that broker-dealers are required to file pursuant to Rule 17a–5 under the Exchange Act. See Public Company Accounting Oversight Board; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rules, Auditing Standard No. 17, Auditing Supplemental Information Accompanying Audited Financial Statements, and Related Amendments to PCAOB Standards, Exchange Act Release No. 71525 (Feb. 12, 2014). See also, PCAOB, Auditing Standard No. 17: Auditing Supplemental Information Accompanying Audited Financial Statements and Related Amendments to PCAOB Standards, PCAOB Release No. 2013–008 (Oct. 10, 2013), available at http://pcaobus.org/ Rules/Rulemaking/Docket036/PCAOB_Release_ 2013_008.pdf. 715Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–5(g), with paragraph (f) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 716See paragraph (f) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 717See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(h). The term material weakness is defined with regard to the compliance report and, therefore, applies only to a broker-dealer that files a compliance report 718See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(h). See also 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a)(6)(iv)(B), (a)(6)(v), (a)(7)(ii), (c)(2)(x)(C)(1), and (e); 17 CFR 240.15c3–1d(c)(2); 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(i); 17 CFR 240.17a–11. Notifications under Rule 17a–11 also must be filed with the CFTC if the broker-dealer is registered dually registered as a futures commission merchant with the CFTC. See 17 CFR 240.17a–11(g). 719See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(h). Commission has greater confidence in the quality of audits conducted by an independent public accountant registered with the PCAOB.707 Paragraph (e)(2) of proposed Rule 18a–7 is modeled on paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 17a–5.708 Under paragraph (e)(2), a stand-alone SBSD or stand-alone MSBSP would be required to annually file with the Commission no later than December 10 a statement regarding the independent public accountant engaged to audit its annual reports.709 The statement would need to contain similar information as is required in the statement under paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 17a–5.710 Paragraph (e)(3) of proposed Rule 18a–7 is modeled on paragraph (f)(3) of Rule 17a–5.711 Under paragraph (e)(3), a stand-alone SBSD or stand-alone MSBSP would be required to file a notice with the Commission if the firm replaces the independent public accountant engaged to prepare the reports covering the annual reports.712 The notice would need to contain the same information as is required in the notice under paragraph (f)(3) of Rule 17a–5.713 Engagement of the Independent Public Accountant Under the recent amendments to Rule 17a–5, paragraph (g) of the rule provides that the independent public accountant engaged by the broker-dealer to provide the reports covering the annual reports must, as part of the engagement, undertake to
prepare the following reports, as applicable, in accordance with PCAOB standards: (1) A report based on an examination of the financial report; and (2) either a report based on an examination of certain statements in the compliance report or a report based on a review of the exemption report.714 As broker-dealers, dually registered broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs will be required to engage their independent public accountants to undertake an examination of their financial report and compliance report. The Commission is proposing to include parallel engagement of accountant requirements in proposed Rule 18a–7 that would be applicable to stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs that are modeled on the requirements in paragraph (g) of Rule 17a–5.715 Specifically, paragraph (f) of proposed Rule 18a–7 would provide that the independent public accountant engaged by a stand-alone SBSD or stand-alone MSBSP must, as part of the engagement, undertake to prepare a report based on an examination of the financial report and, in the case of the SBSD, a report based on an examination of certain statements in the compliance report.716 There would not be a provision relating to an exemption report because, as explained above, broker-dealer SBSDs and stand-alone SBSDs would be required to file the compliance report (and would not be permitted to file the exemption report in lieu of the compliance report). Notification of Non-Compliance or Material Weakness Under the recent amendments to Rule 17a–5, paragraph (h) of the rule provides that the independent public accountant engaged to prepare reports covering the annual reports must immediately notify the broker-dealer if the accountant determines during the course of preparing the reports that the broker-dealer is not in compliance with Rule 15c3–1, Rule 15c3–3, Rule 17a–13, or an Account Statement Rule or if the accountant determines that any material weakness exists in the broker-dealer’s Internal Control Over Compliance.717 If the notice from the accountant concerns an instance of non-compliance that would require a broker-dealer to provide a notification under Rule 15c3–1, Rule 15c3–3, or Rule 17a–11, or if the notice concerns a material weakness, the broker-dealer must provide a notification in accordance with Rule 15c3–1, Rule 15c3–3, or Rule 17a–11, as applicable, and provide a copy of the notification to the independent public accountant.718 If the independent public accountant does not receive the notification within one business day, or if the independent public accountant does not agree with the statements in the notification, then the independent public accountant must notify the Commission and the DEA within one business day.719 The report from the independent public accountant must, if the broker-dealer failed to file a notification, describe any instances of non-compliance that required a

720See id.
721See id.
722See paragraph (h) of Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended. 723See id. 724See id. As discussed below in section II.C.2. of this release, the Commission is proposing to amend Rule 17a–11 to require notification to the Commission if a broker-dealer SBSD fails to make a required deposit into its reserve account under paragraph (c) of proposed Rule 18a–4. 725Compare paragraph (h) of Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended, with paragraph (g) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 726See paragraphs (g)(1)–(2) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 727See paragraph (g)(1) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 728See id. 729Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–5(h), with paragraph (g)(1) of proposed Rule 18a–7. As discussed above, proposed Rules 18a–1 and 18a–4 are modeled on Rules 15c3–1 and 15c3–3, respectively. Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security￾Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70217–70257, 70274–70288. As discussed below in section II.C.2. of this release, proposed Rule 18a–8 is modeled on Rule 17a–11 (the broker-dealer notification rule). Stand-alone SBSDs would not be subject to an Account Statement Rule. 730Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–5(h), with paragraph (g)(1) of proposed Rule 18a–7. As discussed above, the definition of the term material weakness in proposed Rule 18a–7 is modeled on the definition of the term material weakness in Rule 17a–5. Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–5(d)(3)(iii), with paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 731Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–5(h), with paragraph (g)(1) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 732See paragraph (g)(1) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 733See paragraph (g)(2) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 734See id. As discussed above, the concept of material weakness applies in the context of the filing of the compliance report and the report of the independent public accountant covering the compliance report. 735See paragraph (g)(2) of proposed Rule 18a–7. As discussed below in section II.C.2. of this release, proposed Rule 18a–8 would require a stand-alone MSBSP to provide notice to the Commission if the firm receives notice of noncompliance with proposed Rule 18a–2 or determines that it is not in compliance with proposed Rule 18a–2. 736See paragraph (g)(2) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 737See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(i)(1). Paragraph (i)(1) of Rule 17a–5 provides that the report of the independent public accountant must: (1) Be dated; (2) be signed manually; (3) indicate the city and state where issued; and (iv) identify without detailed enumeration the items covered by the report. See id. 738See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(i)(2). Paragraph (i)(2) provides that the report of the independent public accountant must: (1) State whether the examinations or review, as applicable, were made in accordance with standards of the PCAOB; and (2) identify any examination and, if applicable, review procedures deemed necessary by the independent public accountant under the circumstances of the particular case that have been omitted and the
reason for their omission. See id. The paragraph further provides that nothing in Rule 17a–5 may be construed to imply authority for the omission of any procedure that independent public accountants would ordinarily employ in the course of an examination or review made for the purpose of expressing the opinions or conclusions required under Rule 17a–5. See id. 739See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(i)(3). Paragraph (i)(3) provides that the report of the independent public accountant must state clearly: (1) The opinion of the independent public accountant with respect to the financial report and the accounting principles and practices reflected in that report; (2) the opinion of the independent public accountant with respect to the financial report as to the consistency of the application of the accounting principles, or as to any changes in those principles, that have a material effect on the financial statements; and (3)(i) the opinion of the independent public accountant with respect to certain statements in the compliance report; or (ii) the conclusion of the independent public accountant with respect to certain statements in the exemption report. See id. 740See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(i)(4). Paragraph (i)(4) provides that any matters to which the independent public accountant takes exception must be clearly identified, the exceptions must be specifically and clearly stated, and, to the extent practicable, the effect of each such exception on any related items contained in the annual reports must be given. notification under Rule 15c3–1, Rule 15c3–3, or Rule 17a–11, or any material weaknesses.720 If the broker-dealer filed a notification, the report from the accountant must detail the aspects of the notification of the broker-dealer with which the accountant does not agree.721 The Commission is proposing to amend paragraph (h) of Rule 17a–5 to add references to proposed Rule 18a–4 to the references to Rule 15c3–1, Rule 15c3–3, and Rule 17a–13.722 Thus, the independent public accountant would need to notify the broker-dealer if the accountant determines the broker-dealer is not in compliance with proposed Rule 18a–4.723 Depending on the nature of the noncompliance, the broker-dealer may need to provide notification to the Commission in accordance with Rule 17a–11.724 The Commission is proposing to include parallel notification requirements in proposed Rule 18a–7 applicable to stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs that are modeled on paragraph (h) of Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended.725 Because stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs would be subject to different rules, paragraph (g) of proposed Rule 18a–7 would contain separate provisions for each type of registrant.726 Paragraph (g)(1) would apply to stand￾alone SBSDs.727 Under this paragraph, the independent public accountant of a stand-alone SBSD would be required to notify the SBSD if the accountant determines that the SBSD is not in compliance with proposed Rules 18a–1, 18a–4, or 18a–9 or that any
material weaknesses exist.728 Consequently, the independent public accountant would need to provide notice to a stand-alone SBSD regarding noncompliance with requirements that parallel the requirements for which an independent public accountant must provide notice to a broker-dealer under paragraph (h) of Rule 17a–5.729 Further, the independent public accountant would need to provide notice of a material weakness just as a broker-dealer’s independent public accountant must provide notice of a material weakness.730 Like Rule 17a–5, the receipt by a stand-alone SBSD of a notice would trigger the requirement for the SBSD to notify the Commission if the noncompliance requires notification under Rule 18a–8 or if the notice concerns a material weakness and to provide a copy of the notice to the accountant.731 Further, the accountant would be required to notify the Commission if the accountant does not receive a copy of the notice or if the accountant disagrees with the notice.732 Paragraph (g)(2) of proposed Rule 18a–7 would apply to stand-alone MSBSPs.733 Because the Commission is not proposing that MSBSPs be subject to proposed Rule 18a–4, proposed Rule 18a–9, or the requirement to file a compliance report, the notification triggers in paragraph (g)(2) would be limited to noncompliance with the proposed Rule 18a–2 (the proposed tentative net worth standard for stand￾alone MSBSPs).734 Like Rule 17a–5 and paragraph (g)(1) of proposed Rule 18a– 7, the receipt by a stand-alone MSBSP of a notice of noncompliance with proposed Rule 18a–2 would trigger the requirement for the MSBSP to notify the Commission under Rule 18a–8 and to provide a copy of the notice to the independent public accountant.735 Further, the accountant would be required to notify the Commission if the accountant does not receive a copy of the notice or if the accountant disagrees with the notice.736 Reports of the Independent Public Accountant Under the recent amendments to Rule 17a–5, Paragraph (i) of the rule prescribes requirements for the reports of the independent public accountant covering the broker-dealer’s annual reports, including: (1) Technical requirements; 737 (2) required representations; 738 (3) the opinions or conclusions to be expressed in the accountant’s reports; 739 and (4) requirements related to matters to which the accountant takes exception.740 As broker-dealers dually registered as SBSDs or MSBSPs, the independent public accountants of these registrants will need to prepare reports covering the registrant’s financial report and compliance report pursuant to the requirements prescribed in paragraph (i) of Rule 17a–5. The Commission is proposing to include parallel independent public accountant report requirements in proposed Rule 18a–7 applicable to

741Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–5(i), with paragraph (h) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 742Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–5(i)(1), with paragraph (h)(1) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 743Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–5(i)(2), with paragraph (h)(2) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 744Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–5(i)(3), with paragraph (h)(3) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 745Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–5(i)(4), with paragraph (h)(4) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 746See paragraph (h) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 747See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(m). Paragraph (m)(1) of Rule 17a–5 provides that a broker-dealer’s DEA may extend the period for filing the annual reports and requires the DEA to maintain a record of each granted extension. See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(m)(1). Paragraph (m)(2) exempts from the requirements of Rule 17a–5 entities that are: (1) banks or insurance companies as those terms defined in the Exchange Act; (2) are registered as broker-dealers to sell variable contracts; and (3) are exempt from Rule 15c3–1. See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(m)(2). Paragraph (m)(3) of Rule 17a–5 provides that the Commission may grant an extension of time or an exemption, upon written request of a national securities exchange, registered national securities association or the broker-dealer, from any of the requirements of Rule 17a–5 either unconditionally or on specified terms and conditions. See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(m)(3). Paragraph (m)(4) of Rule 17a–5 exempts from the requirements of Rule 17a–5 entities registered as broker-dealers under section 15(b)(11)(A) of the Exchange Act the purpose of effecting transactions in security futures products. See 17 CFR 240.17a– 5(m)(4). 748Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–5(m), with paragraph (i) of proposed Rule 18a–7. As discussed above in section II.B.2. of this release, bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs would be required to file proposed Form SBS on a quarterly basis. These types of registrants would be able to use the provisions of paragraph (i) of proposed Rule 18a– 7 to seek extensions and exemptions from the provisions of the rule relating to the filing of proposed Form SBS. 749See paragraph (i) of proposed Rule 18a–7. Paragraph (i) of proposed Rule 18a–7 does not include the self-executing exemption in paragraph (m)(2) of Rule 17a–5 (applicable to banks and insurance companies registered as broker-dealers to sell variable contracts) and in paragraph (m)(4) of Rule 17a–5 (applicable to broker-dealers only effecting transactions in security futures products). Stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs would not qualify for these exemptions because, among other things, they would engage in a broader range of activities than those permitted of entities that may use the exemptions. 750See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(n)(1). 751See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(n)(2). 752Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–5(n), with paragraph (j) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 753See paragraph (j)(1) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 754See paragraph (j)(2) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 755See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(o). 756Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–5(o), with paragraph (k) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 757See paragraph (k)
of proposed Rule 18a–7. stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs that are modeled on paragraph (i) of Rule 17a–5.741 Specifically, paragraph (h) of proposed Rule 18a–7 prescribes parallel requirements for the reports of the independent public accountant covering the stand-alone SBSD’s or stand-alone MSBSP’s annual reports, namely: (1) Technical requirements; 742 (2) required representations; 743 (3) the opinions or conclusions to be expressed in the accountant’s reports; 744 and (4) requirements related to matters to which the accountant takes exception.745 The requirements in paragraph (h) of proposed Rule 18a–7 would not include the requirements relating to the review engagement with respect to the exemption report because, as discussed above, stand-alone SBSDs and stand￾alone MSBSPs would not file exemption reports as part of their annual reports.746 Extensions and Exemptions Paragraph (m) of Rule 17a–5 governs the granting of extensions of time to comply with the requirements of Rule 17a–5 and the granting of exemptions from complying with the requirements of the rule, and also provides two self￾executing exemptions from complying with Rule 17a–5 for certain types of broker-dealers.747 As broker-dealers, dually registered SBSDs or MSBSPs will be able to seek extensions and exemptions under the provisions of paragraph (m). The Commission is proposing to include a parallel extension and exemption provision in proposed Rule 18a–7 applicable to stand-alone SBSDs, stand-alone MSBSPs, bank SBSDs, and bank MSBSPs that is modeled on paragraph (m) of Rule 17a–5, but that only provides that the Commission may grant extensions or exemptions.748 Specifically, paragraph (i) of proposed Rule 18a–7 would provide that upon written application by a stand-alone SBSD or stand-alone MSBSP to the Commission or on its own motion, the Commission may grant an extension of time or an exemption from any of the requirements of proposed Rule 18a–7 either unconditionally or on specified terms and conditions.749 Notification of Change of Fiscal Year Paragraph (n)(1) of Rule 17a–5 requires a broker-dealer to notify the Commission and its DEA of a change of its fiscal year.750 Paragraph (n)(2) requires that the notice contain a detailed explanation for the reasons for the change and requires that changes in the filing period for the annual reports must be approved in writing by the broker-dealer’s DEA.751 As broker￾dealers, dually registered broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs will be required to file the notices of changes in fiscal years and obtain approvals from their DEAs as prescribed in paragraph (n). The Commission is proposing to include a parallel change in fiscal year requirement in proposed Rule 18a–7 applicable to stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs that is modeled on paragraph (n) of Rule 17a–5, but that only provides that the Commission may approve a change in the filing period for the annual reports.752 Specifically, paragraph (j)(1) of proposed
Rule 18a– 7 would provide that, in the event any stand-alone SBSD or stand-alone MSBSP finds it necessary to change its fiscal year, it must file, with the Commission’s principal office in Washington, DC and the regional office of the Commission for the region in which the SBSD or MSBSP has its principal place of business, a notice of such change.753 Paragraph (j)(2) would provide that the notice must contain a detailed explanation of the reasons for the change and that any change in the filing period for the annual reports must be approved in writing by the Commission.754 Filing Requirements Paragraph (o) of Rule 17a–5 provides that a filing pursuant to the rule is deemed to be accomplished when it is received by the Commission’s principal office with duplicates filed simultaneously at the locations prescribed in other parts of Rule 17a–
5.755 As broker-dealers, dually
registered broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs will be required to comply with the filing requirements prescribed in paragraph (o). The Commission is proposing to include a parallel filing requirement in proposed Rule 18a–7 applicable to stand-alone SBSDs, stand-alone MSBSPs, bank SBSDs, and bank MSBSPs that mirrors paragraph (o) of Rule 17a–5.756 Specifically, paragraph (k) of proposed Rule 18a–7 would provide that for purposes of the filing requirements in the rule, filing will be deemed to have been accomplished upon receipt at the Commission’s principal office in Washington, DC, with duplicate originals simultaneously filed at the locations prescribed in the particular paragraph of the rule which is applicable.757 Request for Comment The Commission generally requests comment on the proposed amendments to Rule 17a–5 and proposed Rule 18a–
7. In addition, the Commission requests
comment, including empirical data in support of comments, in response to the following questions:

1. Will the majority of stand-alone
   SBSDs apply to use internal models to calculate net capital? If not, what portion of stand-alone SBSDs will apply to use internal models?

758The proposed amendments would replace the word ‘‘shall’’ with the word ‘‘must’’ or ‘‘will’’ in the following paragraphs of Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended: (a)(1)(v), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(6), (b)(1), (b)(3), (b)(4), (b)(5), (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(2)(i), (c)(2)(ii), (c)(3), (c)(4)(iii), (e)(3), note to paragraph (h), (k), (l), (m)(1), (m)(2), (m)(4), (n)(2), and (o). See Rule 17a– 5, as proposed to be amended. 759The Commission proposes the following stylistic and corrective changes to Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended: (1) Clarifying in paragraph (a)(5) that ANC broker-dealers must file additional reports ‘‘with the Commission’’; (2) replacing ‘‘monthly’’ with ‘‘on a monthly basis’’ in paragraph (a)(1)(v); (3) replacing ‘‘10 largest commitments’’ with ‘‘ten largest commitments’’ in paragraph (a)(5)(v)(C); (4) replacing ‘‘broker or dealer’s’’ with ‘‘broker’s or dealer’s’’ in paragraphs (a)(5)(v)(D)–(G); (5) cross-referencing ‘‘paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2)’’ and ‘‘paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (c)(2)(ii)’’ instead of ‘‘paragraphs (c)(1) and (2)’’ and ‘‘paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii)’’ in paragraph (c)(3); (6) cross-referencing ‘‘paragraphs (c)(2)(iii) and (c)(2)(iv)’’ instead of ‘‘paragraphs (c)(2)(iii) and (iv)’’ in paragraph (c)(5)(i)(C); (9) eliminating the quotation marks around the defined term ‘‘customer’’ in paragraph (c)(4), and instead italicizing the defined term if it is not already italicized; (7) replacing the phrase ‘‘Home page’’ with the phrase ‘‘home page’’ in paragraph (c)(5)(iii)(C); (8) referring to a broker￾dealer’s annual report in the singular instead of the plural in paragraph (e)(1)(ii) by replacing the phrase ‘‘annual reports’’, and the words ‘‘are’’, and ‘‘reports’’ with the phrase ‘‘an annual report’’, the word ‘‘is’’, and the phrase ‘‘a report’’, respectively; (9) adding the word ‘‘the’’ before the phrase ‘‘independent public accountant does not agree’’ in paragraph (f)(3)(v)(B); (10) removing the phrase ‘‘by telegram’’ in the last sentence of the Note to paragraph (h); (11) adding the word ‘‘Reserved’’ in brackets in paragraph (j); (12) replacing the phrase ‘‘Division of Market Regulation’’ with the phrase ‘‘Division of Trading and Markets’’ in paragraph (k); (13) replacing the phrase ‘‘Securities Exchange Act of 1934’’ with the word ‘‘Act’’ in paragraph (l); (14) removing the U.S.C. citations from paragraphs (m)(2) and (m)(4), since the rule already cites to the applicable section of the Exchange Act; and (15) replacing the phrase ‘‘§ 240.17a–5’’ with the phrase ‘‘this section’’ in paragraph (o).
2. Paragraph (j)(2) of proposed Rule
18a–7 would require the Commission to approve a change in the fiscal year of a stand-alone SBSD or stand-alone MSBSP. Should the rule instead provide that a stand-alone SBSD or stand-alone MSBSP may provide notice to the Commission of a change in fiscal year and that the notice will be deemed approved by the Commission unless the Commission rejects the change within a prescribed period of time such as 30, 60, or 90 days? Are there any other alternative approval mechanisms the Commission should consider?
3. Under the recently adopted
amendments to Rule 17a–5, paragraphs (f)(2)(ii)(F) and (G) require each clearing broker-dealer to include a representation in its statement regarding its independent public accountant that the broker-dealer agrees to allow Commission and DEA examination staff to review the audit documentation associated with its annual audit reports required under Rule 17a–5 and to allow its independent public accountant to discuss findings relating to the audit reports with Commission and DEA examination staff if requested for the purposes of an examination of the broker-dealer. Should this requirement apply to stand-alone SBSDs? Explain why or why not.
4. Will entities already registered with
the Commission as investment advisers, but not as broker-dealers, also register with the Commission as SBSDs? If so, would the compliance report and the independent public accountant’s report based on an examination of the compliance report be sufficient to satisfy the requirement that certain investment advisers obtain an internal control report pursuant to Rule 206(4)– 2 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940?
5. Could there be broker-dealer SBSDs
that claim an exemption from Rule 15c3–3, but that would be subject to Rule 18a–4? Please provide data to support the answer. If there would be a broker-dealer SBSD that claims an exemption from Rule 15c3–3 but would be subject to Rule 18a–4, should the firm submit an exemption report under paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B)(2) relating to its exemption from Rule 15c3–3 and also submit a compliance report under paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B)(1) of Rule 17a–5 relating to its compliance with Rule 18a–4? Please explain why or why not.
6. Paragraph (b)(1) of proposed Rule
18a–7 would require each nonbank stand-alone SBSD and nonbank stand￾alone MSBSP to make certain documents publicly available on its Web site within ten business days after the date the firm is required to file its annual reports with the Commission. Should firms be given more or less time than ten business days to post the requisite documents on their Web sites? Explain why or why not.
7. Paragraph (b)(2) of proposed Rule
18a–7 would require each nonbank stand-alone SBSD and nonbank stand￾alone MSBSP to make publicly available on its Web site unaudited statements as of the date that is six months after the date of the most recent audited statements filed with the Commission. These reports would need to be made publicly available within thirty calendar days of the date of the statements. Should firms be given more or less time than thirty calendar days to post their unaudited financial statements on their Web sites? Explain why or why not. b. Additional Proposed Amendments to Rule 17a–5 The Commission is proposing several amendments to Rule 17a–5 to eliminate obsolete text, improve readability, and modernize terminology. The Commission is proposing a global change that would replace the use of the word ‘‘shall’’ in the rule with the word ‘‘must’’ or ‘‘will’’ where appropriate.758 The Commission also proposes to make certain stylistic, corrective, and punctuation amendments to improve Rule 17a–5’s readability.759 As a consequence of the proposed deletion of current paragraph (a)(1) of Rule 17a–5, paragraphs (a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(ii), and (a)(2)(iii) would be redesignated paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii), and (a)(1)(iii), respectively (and the cross-references to these paragraphs would also be updated accordingly). Further, as discussed above, the Commission is proposing to add a new paragraph (a)(1)(iv) to Rule 17a–5. As a consequence of the proposed deletion of paragraph (a)(1) and addition of paragraph (a)(1)(iv), paragraph (a)(2)(iv) would be redesignated paragraph (a)(1)(v). Further, as a consequence of the deletion of paragraph (a)(1), paragraphs (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7) of Rule 17a–5 would be redesignated paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5), and (a)(6), respectively (and the cross￾references to these paragraphs would also be updated accordingly). The Commission is proposing to amend paragraph (a)(4) of Rule 17a–5 to specify that a DEA ‘‘must promptly transmit that information’’ obtained through the filing of Form Custody, instead of merely requiring that the DEA ‘‘transmit the information’’ obtained through the Form Custody filing. Pursuant to this amendment, the DEA must provide this information promptly to the Commission after it is obtained from the broker-dealers, which would facilitate the Commission’s monitoring of broker-dealer custody practices. Instead of grouping the ANC reports required by paragraph (a)(5) by the applicable timeframe, the Commission is proposing to specify the applicable timeframe in each paragraph requiring an ANC report to be filed. As a result, the numbering within paragraph (a)(5) of Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended, would be largely restructured due to the consolidation of paragraph (a)(5)(i)(A) into paragraph (a)(5)(i), and due to the elimination of certain sublevels to improve the paragraph’s organization. As discussed above, the Commission is proposing to add to paragraph (e)(2) of Rule 17a–5 a
reference to Part III of Form X–17A–5, which contains the required oath or affirmation. Thus, the Commission does not believe it is necessary to identify the content of the oath or affirmation, and proposes to

760See Public Law 111–203, 764; 15 U.S.C. 78o– 10. 761See 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(f)(2). 762See 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(f)(1)(A). 763See 15 U.S.C. 78q(a)(1). 764See 17 CFR 240.17a–11. As discussed below, the Commission also is proposing a parallel notification requirement applicable to stand-alone SBSDs that is modeled on a broker-dealer notification requirement in paragraph (i) of Rule 15c3–3. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(i). 765See 17 CFR 240.17a–11. 766See Study of Unsafe and Unsound Practices of Brokers and Dealers. 767See id. 768See id. at 2. 769See id. at 12. 770See Prompt Notice of Net Capital or Recordkeeping Violations, 36 FR 14725. See also Prompt Notice of Net Capital or Record Keeping Violations, Exchange Act Release No. 9128 (Apr. 20, 1971), 36 FR 7972 (Apr. 28, 1971) (proposing Rule 17a–11) (‘‘Experience during the past 3 years has demonstrated that neither the Commission nor any self-regulatory body is receiving an adequate and timely flow of information on the financial and operational condition of broker-dealers. Accordingly, there is a need for a Commission rule which would impose upon firms (and, secondarily, upon the self-regulatory bodies themselves) a duty to report net capital and operational problems.’’). 771See 17 CFR 240.17a–11. 772See id. 773The Commission is not proposing to include in proposed Rule 18a–8 notice requirements that would parallel the notice requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of Rule 17a–11 because these requirements relate to ratios in Rule 15c3–1 (the capital rule for broker-dealers) that are not incorporated into proposed Rule 18a–1 (the proposed capital standard for stand-alone SBSDs) or proposed Rule 18a–2 (the proposed capital standard for stand-alone MSBSPs). The Commission is not proposing to include in proposed Rule 18a–8 a notice requirement that would parallel the notice requirement in paragraph (f) of Rule 17a–11 because this requirement generally arises in the context of an Exchange’s supervision of a broker-dealer as an SRO of the firm. The Commission is not proposing to include in proposed Rule 18a–8 a provision that would parallel the provision in paragraph (h) of Rule 17a–11 because this provision cross-references notice requirements in other Commission rules that would not apply to a stand-alone SBSD or stand￾alone MSBSP. Finally, the Commission is not proposing to include in proposed Rule 18a–8 a provision that would parallel the provision in paragraph (i) of Rule 17a–11 because this provision establishes an exemption for a special class of broker-dealer. 774See paragraph (c) of proposed Rule 18a–8. 775See undesignated introductory paragraph of Rule 17a–11, as proposed to be amended. remove the required text of the oath or affirmation in the rule text. The Commission also proposes to add clarity by specifying that the oath or affirmation is ‘‘made in Part III of Form X–17A–5’’. Since the recently adopted amendments to Rule 17a–5 require a more diverse range of annual filings, the Commission is
proposing to amend paragraph (e)(2) of Rule 17a–5 to reference ‘‘the annual reports’’ instead of ‘‘the financial report’’. Reference is made in paragraph (e)(3) to a ‘‘member’’ of a national securities exchange as a distinct class of registrant in addition to a ‘‘broker’’ and ‘‘dealer’’. The Commission is proposing to remove this reference to a ‘‘member’’ given that the rule applies to brokers-dealers, which would include a member of a national securities exchange that is a broker-dealer. Request for Comment The Commission generally requests comment on these additional proposed amendments to Rule 17a–5, including comment on whether any of the proposed amendments would result in substantive changes to the requirements applicable to broker-dealers.
C. Notification

1. Introduction
   As discussed above, section 764 of the Dodd-Frank Act added section 15F to the Exchange Act.760 Section 15F(f)(2) provides that the Commission shall adopt rules governing reporting for SBSDs and MSBSPs.761 Further, section 15F(f)(1)(A) provides that SBSDs and MSBSPs shall make such reports as are required by the Commission, by rule or regulation, regarding the transactions and positions and financial condition of the SBSD or MSBSP.762 In addition, the Commission also has concurrent authority under section 17(a)(1) of the Exchange Act to prescribe reporting requirements for broker-dealers.763 After considering the anticipated business activities of SBSDs and MSBSPs, the Commission is proposing to establish a notification program for these registrants under sections 15F(f) and 17(a) of the Exchange Act that is modeled on the notification program for broker-dealers codified in Rule 17a–
   11.764 Rule 17a–11 specifies the
   circumstances under which a broker￾dealer must notify the Commission and other regulators about its financial or operational condition, as well as the form that the notice must take.765 Rule 17a–11 was promulgated in the aftermath of the securities industry ‘‘paper work crisis’’ of 1967–1970.766 This crisis prompted the Commission to undertake a study of unsafe and unsound practices of brokers and dealers.767 The study found, among other things, that early warning signals required of broker-dealers at the time were inadequate to foretell financial and operational difficulties in a reliable and timely manner.768 This diminished the Commission’s ability to take effective proactive steps to respond when a broker-dealer was experiencing or was likely to experience financial difficulty.769 In response, the Commission adopted Rule 17a–11.770 This rule requires a broker-dealer to notify the Commission when, among other things, its net capital falls below 120% of the minimum required amount or below the minimum required amount, or when the firm fails to make and keep current the books and records required by Commission rules.771 The Commission is proposing to establish notification requirements applicable to SBSDs and MSBSPs in order to require the timely notification to the Commission of information about potential problems at these registrants. The Commission would use the notifications to respond, when necessary, to financial or operational problems at a particular SBSD or MSBSP by, for example, heightening its supervision of the firm. Under the proposed notification program for SBSDs and MSBSPs, broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs—as broker-dealers—would be subject to Rule 17a–11.772 The Commission is proposing amendments to this rule to account for a broker￾dealer that is dually registered as an SBSD or MSBSP. Stand-alone SBSDs, stand-alone MSBSPs, bank SBSDs, and bank MSBSPs would be subject to proposed Rule 18a–8, which is modeled on Rule 17a–11, as proposed to be amended. Proposed Rule 18a–8 would not include a parallel requirement for every requirement in Rule 17a–11.773 For the reasons discussed above in
   section I. of this release, the proposed
   notification requirements for bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs are substantially narrower in scope than the notification requirements for broker￾dealer SBSDs, broker-dealer MSBSPs, stand-alone SBSDs, and stand-alone MSBSPs. Moreover, the proposed notification requirements applicable to bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs, in one case, parallel a notification requirement the prudential regulators have established for banks.774 Thus, bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs would be able to use the same information reported to the prudential regulators to comply with the proposed requirement.
2. Amendments to Rule 17a–11 and
   Proposed Rule 18a–8
   Undesignated Introductory Paragraph Rule 17a–11, as proposed to be amended, would contain an undesignated introductory paragraph explaining that the rule applies to a broker-dealer, including a broker-dealer dually registered with the Commission as an SBSD or MSBSP.775 The note

776See id.
777See 17 CFR 240.17a–11(a). As a consequence of this deletion, paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and (e) of Rule 17a–11 would be redesignated paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d), respectively. Further, as discussed below, the Commission is proposing to add two new notification provisions to Rule 17a–11 that would be codified in paragraphs (e) and (f) of the rule, as proposed to be amended. As a consequence of the deletion of paragraph (a) and addition of the two new provisions, paragraphs (f), (g), (h), and (i) would be redesignated paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (j), respectively. 778See undesignated introductory paragraph of Rule 17a–11, as proposed to be amended. 779See undesignated introductory paragraph of proposed Rule 18a–8. 780See id. 781See 17 CFR 240.17a–11(b). 782See 17 CFR 240.17a–11(b)(1) . Rule 15c3–1 requires broker-dealers to maintain a minimum level of net capital (meaning highly liquid capital) at all times. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1. The rule requires that a broker-dealer perform two calculations: (1) A computation of the minimum amount of net capital the broker-dealer must maintain; and (2) a computation of the amount of net capital the broker-dealer is maintaining. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a) and (c)(2). As discussed above in sections II.A. and II.B.2.b. of this release, the minimum net capital requirement is the greater of a fixed-dollar amount specified in the rule and an amount determined by applying one of two financial ratios: The 15-to-1 aggregate indebtedness to net capital ratio or the 2% of aggregate debit items ratio. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a). 783See 17 CFR 240.17a–11(b)(2). 784See 17 CFR 240.17a–11(b)(1) and (2). As discussed above, paragraph (b) of Rule 17a–11 would be redesignated paragraph (a). Further, as discussed below in section II.C.3. of this release, the Commission is proposing certain technical amendments to the text in paragraph (b), which would be contained in paragraph (a) of Rule 17a– 11, as proposed to be amended. 785Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–11(b), with paragraph (a) of proposed Rule 18a–8. 786See paragraph (a)(1)(i) of proposed Rule 18a–
8. Proposed Rule 18a–1—which is modeled on Rule
15c3–1—would specify minimum net capital requirements for stand-alone SBSDs. See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security￾Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70221–70230. 787See paragraph (a)(1)(i) of proposed Rule 18a– 8. 788See id. 789See paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of proposed Rule 18a–
8. Proposed Rule 18a–1 would specify minimum
tentative net capital requirements for stand-alone ANC SBSDs. See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70226–70227. 790See paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of proposed Rule 18a– 8. 791See id. 792See paragraph (a)(2) of proposed Rule 18a–8. Proposed Rule 18a–2 would require stand-alone MSBSPs to maintain positive tangible net worth. See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70256–
70257. Under proposed Rule 18a–2, tangible net
worth would be defined to mean the stand-alone MSBSP’s net worth as determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the U.S., excluding goodwill and other intangible assets. See id. 793See 17 CFR 240.17a–11(c). further explains that an SBSD or MSBSP that is not dually registered as a broker￾dealer (i.e., a stand-alone SBSD, stand￾alone MSBSP, bank SBSD, or bank MSBSP) is subject to the notification requirements under proposed Rule 18a–
8.776 Further, the Commission is
proposing to delete paragraph (a) of Rule 17a–11, which provides that the rule shall apply to every broker-dealer registered pursuant to section 15 of the Exchange Act.777 This text would be redundant, given the proposed undesignated introductory paragraph of Rule 17a–5.778 Similarly, proposed Rule 18a–8 would contain an undesignated introductory paragraph explaining that the rule applies to an SBSD or an MSBSP that is not registered as a broker￾dealer.779 The note further explains that a broker-dealer that is dually registered as an SBSD or MSBSP is subject to the notification requirements under Rule 17a–11.780 Failure To Meet Minimum Capital Requirements Paragraph (b) of Rule 17a–11 requires a broker-dealer to notify the Commission if the firm’s net capital or, if applicable, tentative net capital declines below the minimum amount required under Rule 15c3–1.781 Specifically, paragraph (b)(1) requires notification to the Commission when a broker-dealer’s net capital falls below the required level the same day it discovers or is notified by the Commission or its DEA of the net capital deficiency.782 If the broker￾dealer disagrees with the Commission or the DEA that a net capital deficiency exists, the firm can indicate in the notice the reasons for disagreeing. Paragraph (b)(2) of Rule 17a–11 requires an OTC derivatives dealer or an ANC broker-dealer to also notify the Commission when its tentative net capital falls below the minimum required for these types of broker￾dealers.783 In either case, the notice must specify the broker-dealer’s net capital or tentative net capital requirement and its current amount of net capital or tentative net capital.784 As broker-dealers, dually registered SBSDs and MSBSPs will be required to comply with the existing notification requirements. The Commission is proposing to include parallel capital deficiency notification requirements in proposed Rule 18a–8 applicable to stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs that are modeled on the requirements in paragraph (b) of Rule 17a–5.785 Specifically, paragraph (a)(1)(i) of proposed Rule 18a–8 would require a stand-alone SBSD to give notice to the Commission on the same day if the firm’s net capital declines below the minimum amount required pursuant to proposed Rule 18a–1 or if the Commission informs the stand-alone SBSD that it is or has been in violation of proposed Rule 18a–1.786 The notice would need to specify the stand-alone SBSD’s net capital requirement and its current amount of net capital.787 Further, if the notice is triggered by the Commission informing the stand-alone SBSD that it is or has been in violation of proposed Rule 18a–1 and the SBSD disagrees, the SBSD could specify the reasons for the disagreement in the notice.788 Paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of proposed Rule 18a–8 would require a stand-alone ANC SBSD to give notice to the Commission on the same day if its tentative net capital declines below the minimum amount required pursuant to proposed Rule 18a–1
or if the Commission informs the stand-alone ANC SBSD that is or has been in violation of proposed Rule 18a–1.789 The notice would need to specify the stand-alone ANC SBSD’s tentative net capital requirement and its current amount of tentative net capital.790 Further, if the notice is triggered by the Commission informing the stand-alone ANC SBSD that it is or has been in violation of proposed Rule 18a–1 and the SBSD disagrees, the SBSD could specify the reasons for the disagreement in the notice.791 Paragraph (a)(2) of proposed Rule 18a–8 would require a stand-alone MSBSP to give notice to the Commission on the same day if it fails to maintain a positive tangible net worth pursuant to proposed Rule 18a–2 or if the Commission informs the stand-alone MSBSP that it is or has been in violation of proposed Rule 18a–2.792 The notice would need to specify the extent to which the firm has failed to maintain positive tangible net worth. Further, if the notice is triggered by the Commission informing the stand-alone MSBSP that it is or has been in violation of proposed Rule 18a–2 and the MSBSP disagrees, the MSBSP could specify the reasons for the disagreement in the notice. Early Warning of Potential Capital or Model Problem Paragraph (c) of Rule 17a–11 specifies four events that, if they occur, trigger a requirement that a broker-dealer send notice promptly (but within twenty-four hours) to the Commission.793 These

794See 17 CFR 240.17a–11(c)(1). As discussed above, the minimum net capital requirement for certain types of broker-dealers is the greater of a fixed-dollar amount specified in the rule and an amount determined by applying a 15-to-1 aggregate indebtedness to net capital ratio. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a)(1)(i). Consequently, requiring notification when a broker-dealer has a 12-to-1 aggregate indebtedness to net capital ratio provides notice before the firm reaches the minimum 15-to￾1 requirement. 795See 17 CFR 240.17a–11(c)(2). As discussed above, the minimum net capital requirement for certain types of broker-dealers is the greater of a fixed-dollar amount specified in the rule and an amount determined by applying a 2% of aggregate debit items ratio. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a)(1)(ii). Consequently, requiring notification when a broker￾dealer has net capital equal to 5% of aggregate debit items provides notice before the firm reaches the 2% minimum requirement. 796See 17 CFR 240.17a–11(c)(3). 797See 17 CFR 240.17a–11(c)(4). OTC derivatives dealers (and ANC broker-dealers) take market risk charges when computing net capital that are determined using the VaR models instead of applying standardized haircuts. The amount of the VaR measure computed by the model must be multiplied by a factor of at least three but potentially a greater factor based on the number of exceptions to the measure resulting from quarterly backtesting exercises. A backtesting exception occurs when the ANC broker-dealer’s actual one￾day loss exceeds the amount estimated by its VaR model. Multiple backtesting exceptions can indicate a problem with the VaR model. See, e.g., Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, Supervisory framework for the use of ‘‘backtesting’’ in conjunction with the internal models approach to market risk capital requirements (Jan. 1996), available at http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs22.pdf (‘‘The essence of all backtesting efforts is the comparison of actual trading results with model￾generated risk measures. If this comparison is close enough, the backtest raises no issues regarding the quality of the risk measurement model. In some cases, however, the comparison uncovers sufficient differences that problems almost certainly must exist, either with the model or with the assumptions of the backtest. In between these two cases is a grey area where the test results are, on their own, inconclusive.’’). 798As discussed above, paragraph (c) of Rule 17a– 11 would be redesignated paragraph (b). Further, as discussed below in section II.C.3. of this release, the Commission is proposing certain largely technical amendments to the text in paragraph (c), which would be contained in paragraph (b) of Rule 17a– 5, as proposed to be amended. 799See paragraph (b)(6) of Rule 17a–11, as proposed to be amended. As discussed above, proposed Rule 18a–2 would require nonbank MSBSP to maintain a positive tangible net equity. See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for
Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70256–
70257. The Commission, however, did not propose
that a nonbank MSBSP be required to a minimum amount of positive net equity. See id. The CFTC proposed a $20 million fixed-dollar ‘‘tangible net equity’’ minimum requirement for swap dealers and major swap participants that are not FCMs and are not affiliated with a U.S. bank holding company. See Capital Requirements of Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants, 78 FR 27827. Further, OTC derivatives dealers are required to maintain minimum net capital of $20 million. See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(a)(5). In addition, the Commission has proposed a $20 million fixed-dollar minimum net capital requirement for stand-alone SBSDs. See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security￾Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70221–70227. The proposed $20 million early warning threshold for broker-dealer MSBSPs is based on these proposals and requirements. 800Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–11(c), with paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 18a–8. 801See paragraph (b)(1) of proposed Rule 18a–8. 802See paragraph (b)(2) of proposed Rule 18a–8. 803See paragraph (b)(3) of proposed Rule 18a–8. 804See paragraph (b)(4) of proposed Rule 18a–8. 805See 12 CFR 325.103; 12 CFR 6.4; 12 CFR 208.43. 806See id. 807See 12 CFR 6.3(c); 12 CFR 208.42(c); 12 CFR 325.102(c). 808See paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 18a–8. 809See 17 CFR 240.17a–11(d). notices are designed to provide the Commission with ‘‘early warning’’ that the broker-dealer may experience financial difficulty. The events triggering the early warning notification requirements are:

• The computation of a broker-dealer
  subject to the aggregate indebtedness standard of Rule 15c3–1 shows that its aggregate indebtedness is in excess of 1,200% of its net capital;794
• The computation of a broker-dealer
  which has elected to use the alternative standard of calculating net capital under Rule 15c3–1 shows that the firm’s net capital is less than 5% of aggregate debit items computed in accordance with
  Appendix A of Rule 15c3–3;795
• A broker-dealer’s net capital
  computation shows that its total net capital is less than 120% of its required minimum level of net capital or of its required minimum level of tentative net capital, in the case of an OTC derivatives dealer;796
• With respect to an OTC derivatives
  dealer, the occurrence of the fourth and each subsequent backtesting exception under Appendix F of Rule 15c3–1 during any 250 business day measurement period.797 As broker-dealers, dually registered SBSDs and MSBSPs will be required to comply with the existing notification requirements.798 The Commission is proposing to add a new notification requirement in paragraph (c) applicable to broker-dealer MSBSPs. Specifically, paragraph (c)(5) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended, would require a broker-dealer MSBSP to notify the Commission when its level of tangible net worth falls below $20 million.799 The Commission also is proposing to include parallel early warning notification requirements in proposed Rule 18a–8 applicable to stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs that are modeled on the requirements in paragraph (c) of Rule 17a–5.800 Specifically, paragraph (b)(1) of proposed Rule 18a–8 would require a stand-alone SBSD to notify the Commission promptly (but within twenty-four hours) when the SBSD’s net capital falls below 120% of the SBSD’s required minimum tentative net capital.801 Paragraph (b)(2) of proposed Rule 18a–8 would require a stand-alone ANC SBSD to notify the Commission when the SBSD’s tentative net capital falls below 120% of the SBSD’s required minimum net capital.802 Paragraph (b)(3) of proposed Rule 18a–8 would require a stand-alone MSBSP to notify the Commission when its level of tangible net worth falls below $20 million.803 Finally, paragraph (b)(4) of proposed Rule 18a–8 would require a stand-alone ANC SBSD to report the occurrence of the fourth and any subsequent backtesting exception performed pursuant to paragraph (d) of Rule 18a–1 during any 250 business day measurement period.804 Notice of Adjustment of Reported Capital Category Prudential regulators have established five capital categories that are used to describe a bank’s capital strength: well capitalized, adequately capitalized, undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized, and critically undercapitalized.805 The definition of each capital category is based on capital measures under the bank capital standard and other factors.806 A bank is required to notify its appropriate prudential regulator of adjustments to the bank’s capital category that may have occurred that would put the bank into a lower capital category from the category previously assigned to it. Following the notice, the prudential regulator determines whether the bank needs to adjust its capital category.807 Because these notices may indicate that a bank is in or approaching financial difficulty, the Commission is proposing to include a notification requirement in proposed Rule 18a–8 that would require a bank SBSD or a bank MSBSP to give notice to the Commission when it files an adjustment of reported capital category with its prudential regulator by transmitting a copy of the notice to the Commission.808 Failure To Make and Keep Current Books and Records Paragraph (d) of Rule 17a–11
  requires a broker-dealer that fails to make and keep current the books and records required under Rule 17a–3 to notify the Commission of this fact on the same day that the failure arises.809 The notice must specify the books and records which have not been made or which are

810See id.
811See id.
812As discussed above, paragraph (d) of Rule 17a–11 would be redesignated paragraph (c). Further, as discussed below in section II.C.3. of this release, the Commission is proposing certain technical amendments to the text in paragraph (d), which would be contained in paragraph (c) of Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended. 813Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–11(d), with paragraph (d) of proposed Rule 18a–8. 814See paragraph (d) of proposed Rule 18a–8. As discussed above in section II.A.2.a. of this release, proposed Rule 18a–5—which is modeled on Rule 17a–3—would require stand-alone SBSDs, stand￾alone MSBSPs, bank SBSDs, and bank MSBSPs to make and keep current certain records. 815See paragraph (d) of proposed Rule 18a–8. 816See Broker-Dealer Reports, 78 FR 51993. As discussed above in section II.B.3.a. of this release, under the recently adopted amendments to Rule 17a–5, the concept of material weakness is used for the purposes of the compliance report and the report of the independent public accountant covering the compliance report. See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(d)(3). A material weakness is defined in Rule 17a–5 to mean a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in Internal Control Over Compliance (as that term is defined in the rule) such that there is a reasonable possibility that non￾compliance with Rule 15c3–1 or paragraph (e) of Rule 15c3–3 will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis or that non-compliance to a material extent with Rule 15c3–3, except for paragraph (e), Rule 17a–13, or any Account Statement Rule will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(d)(3)(iii). The recently amended rule further provides that a deficiency in Internal Control Over Compliance exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow the management or employees of the broker or dealer, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent or detect on a timely basis non-compliance with Rule 15c3–1, Rule 15c3–3, Rule.17a–13, or any Account Statement Rule. See id. The term Internal Control Over Compliance means internal controls that have the objective of providing the broker-dealer with reasonable assurance that non-compliance with Rule 15c3–1, Rule 15c3–3, Rule 17a–13, or any Account Statement Rule will be prevented or detected on a timely basis. See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(d)(3)(ii). 817See Broker-Dealer Reports, 78 FR 51993. Paragraph (i) of Rule 17a-12 requires an OTC derivatives dealer to take the same steps when it discovers or is notified of a material inadequacy as defined in Rule 17a-12. Rule 17a-12—the reporting rule for OTC derivatives dealers—is similar to Rule 17a–5. See 17 CFR 240.17a-12. However, rather than using the concept of material weakness, Rule 17a-12 uses the concept of material inadequacy. See id. The Commission replaced the use of material inadequacy with material weakness in Rule 17a–5 through the recent amendments to the rule, which were designed, among other things, to (1) increase the
focus of carrying broker-dealers and their independent public accountants on compliance, and internal control over compliance, with certain financial and custodial requirements; and (2) strengthen and clarify broker-dealer audit and reporting requirements in order to facilitate consistent compliance with these requirements. See Broker-Dealer Reports, 78 FR 51911. As discussed above in section II.B.3.a. of this release, the Commission is proposing to use the concept of material weakness in proposed Rule 18a–7. 818As discussed above, paragraph (e) of Rule 17a– 11 would be redesignated paragraph (d). Further, as discussed below in section II.C.3. of this release, the Commission is proposing certain largely technical amendments to the text in paragraph (e), which would be contained in paragraph (d) of Rule 17a– 5, as proposed to be amended. 819Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–11(e), with paragraph (e) of proposed Rule 18a–8. As discussed above in section II.B.3.a. of this release, stand-alone MSBSPs would not be required to file with the Commission a compliance report or a report of the independent public accountant covering the compliance report. Consequently, as the concept of material weakness is used in the context of these reports, the material weakness notification requirement would not apply or be relevant to stand-alone MSBSPs. Further, as discussed above in
section II.B.3.a. of this release, bank SBSDs and
bank MSBSPs would not be subject to the requirements in proposed Rule 18a–7 to file annual reports with the Commission. Consequently, the material weakness notification requirement would not apply or be relevant to these registrants. 820See paragraph (e) of proposed Rule 18a–8. 821See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70252–70254. 822See id. 823See id. 824See paragraph (e) of Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended. As discussed above, current paragraph (e) of Rule 17a–5 would be redesignated paragraph (d). not current.810 In addition, a broker￾dealer is required to report to the Commission within forty-eight hours of the original notice a report stating what the broker or dealer has done or is doing to correct the situation.811 As broker￾dealers, dually registered SBSDs and MSBSPs will be required to comply with the existing notification requirements in paragraph (d).812 The Commission is proposing to include a parallel books and records notification requirement in proposed Rule 18a–7 applicable to stand-alone SBSDs, stand-alone MSBSPs, bank SBSDs, and bank MSBSPs that is modeled on the requirement in paragraph (d) of Rule 17a–5.813 Specifically, paragraph (d) of proposed Rule 18a–8 would require a stand-alone SBSD, stand-alone MSBSP, bank SBSD, or bank MSBSP that fails to make and keep current the books and records required under proposed Rule 18a–5 to give notice of this fact that same day and specify in the notice the books and records which have not been made or which are not current.814 Further, these registrants would be required to transmit a report within 48 hours of the notice stating what the registrant has done or is doing to correct the situation.815 Material Weakness The recently adopted amendments to paragraph (e) of Rule 17a–11 require a broker-dealer to provide notification about a material weakness as that term is defined in Rule 17a–5.816 Specifically, paragraph (e) provides that, whenever a broker-dealer discovers or is notified by an independent public accountant of a material weakness as defined in Rule 17a–5, the broker-dealer must: (1) give notice to the Commission within twenty-four hours of the discovery or notification of the material weakness; and (2) transmit a report within forty-eight hours of the notice stating what the broker-dealer has done or is doing to correct the situation.817 As broker-dealers, dually registered broker￾dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs will be required to comply with the existing notification requirements in paragraph (e).818 The Commission is proposing to include a parallel material weakness notification requirement in proposed Rule 18a–7 applicable to stand-alone SBSDs that is modeled on paragraph (e) of Rule 17a–11. 819 Specifically, paragraph (e) of Rule 18a–8 would provide that, whenever a stand-alone SBSD discovers or is notified by an independent
public accountant of a material weakness as defined in Rule 18a–7, the SBSD must: (1) give notice to the Commission within twenty-four hours of the discovery or notification of the material weakness; and (2) transmit a report within forty-eight hours of the notice indicating what the SBSD has done or is doing to correct the situation.820 Insufficient Liquidity Reserves As discussed above in section II.A. of this release, the Commission has proposed amendments to Rule 15c3–1 that would establish liquidity stress test requirements for ANC broker-dealers, which would include ANC broker￾dealer SBSDs.821 Further, the Commission has proposed identical liquidity stress test requirements for stand-alone ANC SBSDs as part of the capital requirements for SBSDs.822 Under the proposed liquidity stress test requirements, ANC broker-dealers, including ANC broker-dealer SBSDs, and stand-alone ANC SBSDs would be required, among other things, to: (1) perform a liquidity stress test at least monthly that takes into account certain assumed conditions lasting for thirty consecutive days; and (2) maintain at all times liquidity reserves based on the results of the liquidity stress test comprised of unencumbered cash or U.S. government securities.823 Given the importance to the health of a financial institution of maintaining adequate liquidity, the Commission is proposing a new notification requirement that would apply to ANC broker-dealers, including ANC broker￾dealer SBSDs.824 Specifically, paragraph (e) of Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended, would require an ANC broker-dealer to give immediate notice

825See paragraph (e) of Rule 17a–11, as proposed to be amended. Current paragraph (f) of Rule 17a– 11 provides that every national securities exchange or national securities association that learns that a member broker-dealer has failed to send notice or transmit a report as required by paragraphs (b), (c), (d), or (e) of Rule 17a–11, even after being advised by the securities exchange or the national securities association to send notice or transmit a report, shall immediately give notice of such failure in accordance with paragraph (g) of Rule 17a–11. See 17 CFR 240.17a–11(f). As discussed above, the Commission is proposing to redesignate current paragraph (f) as paragraph (g). Further, the Commission is proposing to replace the specific reference to ‘‘paragraphs (b), (c), (d), or (e)’’ of Rule 17a–11 in current paragraph (f) with a reference to ‘‘this section’’. This would incorporate all the notices required under Rule 17a–11, including notices that would be required under the new liquidity notification requirement. See paragraph (g) of Rule 17a–11, as proposed to be amended. 826Compare paragraph (e) of Rule 17a–11, as proposed to be amended, with paragraph (f) of proposed Rule 18a–8. 827See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70282–70287. 828See 17 CFR 240.15c3–3(i). 829See paragraph (f) of Rule 17a–11, as proposed to be amended. As discussed above, current paragraph (f) of Rule 17a–5 would be redesignated paragraph (g). 830Compare paragraph (h) of Rule 17a–11, as proposed to be amended, with paragraph (g) of proposed Rule 18a–8. 831See 17 CFR 240.17a–11(g). 832See id. 833See paragraph (h) of Rule 17a–11, as proposed to be amended. 834See Tom Standage, No Morse, L.A. Times, Feb. 8, 2006, at B15 (noting that Western Union discontinued its telegram services effective January 27, 2006). 835As discussed above, paragraph (g) of Rule 17a– 11 would be redesignated paragraph (h). Further, as discussed below in section II.C.3. of this release, the Commission is proposing certain largely technical amendments to the text in paragraph (g), which would be contained in paragraph (h) of Rule 17a– 5, as proposed to be amended. 836Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–11(g), with paragraph (h) of proposed Rule 18a–8. 837See paragraph (h) of proposed Rule 18a–8. in writing if the liquidity stress test conducted pursuant to Rule 15c3–1, as proposed to be amended, indicates that the amount of the firm’s liquidity reserve is insufficient.825 The Commission is proposing to include a parallel liquidity notification requirement in proposed Rule 18a–8 applicable to stand-alone ANC SBSDs.826 The proposed liquidity notification requirements are designed to provide the Commission with notice of a liquidity shortfall at an ANC broker￾dealer or stand-alone ANC SBSD that could impair the ability of the firm to withstand a liquidity crisis. Failure To
Make a Required Reserve Deposit As discussed above in section II.A. of this release, Rule 15c3–3 requires a carrying broker-dealer to maintain a reserve of funds or qualified securities in an account at a bank that is at least equal in value to the net cash owed to customers, and proposed Rule 18a–4 would include a parallel requirement with respect to security-based swap customers applicable to SBSDs, including broker-dealer SBSDs.827 Under paragraph (i) of Rule 15c3–3, a broker-dealer is required to notify the Commission and its DEA if it fails to make a required deposit into its customer reserve account under Rule 15c3–3.828 Since a broker-dealer SBSD would be required to maintain a separate reserve account for its security￾based swap customers under Rule 18a– 4, the Commission is proposing a new notification requirement in Rule 17a–11 that would be triggered if a broker￾dealer fails to make a required deposit into its security-based swap customer reserve account.829 In addition, the Commission is proposing to include a parallel reserve account notification requirement in proposed Rule 18a–8 applicable to stand-alone SBSDs and bank SBSDs.830 Manner of Notification Paragraph (g) of Rule 17a–11 provides that every notice or report required to be given or transmitted by the rule shall be given or transmitted to the principal office of the Commission in Washington, DC, the regional office of the Commission for the region in which the broker-dealer has its principal place of business, the DEA of which such broker-dealer is a member, and the CFTC if the broker-dealer is registered as an FCM.831 Paragraph (g) further provides that for the purposes of Rule 17a–11, notice shall be given or transmitted by telegraphic notice or facsimile transmission and that a report about how the broker-dealer is addressing a failure to make and keep current books and records or a material weakness may be transmitted by overnight delivery.832 The Commission is proposing to amend this paragraph to no longer permit notice by telegraphic transmission, and instead to only allow notice by facsimile transmission.833 This proposal recognizes that telegrams are no longer widely used in the U.S.,834 and that Commission staff no longer receive Rule 17a–11 notices by telegram. As broker￾dealers, dually registered broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs will be required to give notice or transmit the notices and reports, including the proposed new notices, pursuant to the requirements specified in paragraph (g).835 The Commission is proposing to include a parallel manner of notification requirement in proposed Rule 18a–8 that is modeled on paragraph (g) of Rule 17a–11. 836 Specifically, paragraph (i) of proposed Rule 18a–8 would provide that a stand-alone SBSD, stand-alone MSBSP, bank SBSD, or bank MSBSP required to give notice or transmit a report under the rule would need to do so in the same manner as a broker￾dealer under paragraph (g) of Rule 17a– 11, except there would
be no requirement to give notice or provide a report to a DEA as these registrants would not have DEAs.837 Request for Comment The Commission generally requests comment on the proposed amendments to Rule 17a–11 and proposed Rule 18a–
9. In addition, the Commission requests
comment, including empirical data in support of comments, in response to the following question:

1. Should paragraph (f) of Rule 17a–
   11 be amended to require a broker￾dealer’s DEA (in addition to a broker￾dealer’s national securities exchange or national securities association) to transmit notice to the Commission upon learning that a broker-dealer failed to send notice in accordance with Rule 17a–11? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. For example, given the responsibilities of a DEA, is a DEA more likely to learn if a broker-dealer for which it serves as DEA has failed to send notice in accordance with Rule 17a–11 than a national securities exchange or national securities association of which the broker-dealer is a member? Commenters are asked to provide information and data about the costs and benefits of requiring the DEA to provide notice.
2. Rule 17a–11 is proposed to be
   amended to include new notification requirements applicable to broker￾dealers (e.g., requiring notice if the broker-dealer’s liquidity stress test indicates that the amount of its liquidity reserve is insufficient). Consequently, this would expand the types of instances in which a national securities exchange or national securities association would be required to give notice under paragraph (g) of Rule 17a– 11, as proposed to be amended, if the exchange or association learns that a broker-dealer has failed to do so under Rule 17a–11. Would this expansion materially increase the number of notices that would need to be sent by national securities exchanges and national securities associations under Rule 17a–11? If so, please explain why and quantify the increased burden

838The proposed amendments would replace the word ‘‘shall’’ with the word ‘‘must’’ or ‘‘will’’ in the following paragraphs of Rule 17a–11, as proposed to be amended: (a)(1), (a)(2), (b), (c), (g), (h), and (j). See Rule 17a–11, as proposed to be amended. 839The Commission proposes the following stylistic and corrective changes to Rule 17a–11, as proposed to be amended: (1) Replacing the phrase ‘‘this § 240.17a–11’’ with the phrase ‘‘this section’’ in paragraph (a)(1); (2) replacing the phrase ‘‘Every broker or dealer who’’ with the phrase ‘‘Every broker or dealer that’’ in paragraph (c); (3) replacing the phrase ‘‘such discovery or notification of the material inadequacy or the material weakness’’ with the phrase ‘‘the discovery or notification of the material inadequacy or material weakness’’ in paragraph (d)(1); and (4) removing the U.S.C. citations from paragraph (j) since the rule already cites to the applicable section of the Exchange Act. 840The proposed amendments would replace the phrase ‘‘paragraph (g)’’ with the phrase ‘‘paragraph (h)’’ in the following paragraphs of Rule 17a–11, as proposed to be amended: (a)(1), (b), (c), (d)(1), (d)(2), and (g). See Rule 17a–11, as proposed to be amended. 841See Broker-Dealer Reports, 78 FR 51910; Financial Responsibility Rules for Broker-Dealers, 78 FR 51824. 842See Public Law 111–203, 764; 15 U.S.C. 78o– 10. 843See 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(f)(2). 844See 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(f)(1)(A). 845See 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(f)(1)(B)(ii). 846See 17 CFR 240.17a–13. 847See id. As noted in section I. of this release, the Dodd-Frank Act amended the definition of security in section 3(a)(10) of the Exchange Act to include a security-based swap. See Public Law 111– 203, 761(a)(2); 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(10). Therefore, each reference in Rule 17a–13 to a security in the Exchange Act includes a security-based swap. The Commission, however, has issued temporary exemptive relief excluding security-based swaps from the definition of security to the extent Commission rules did not otherwise apply specifically to security-based swaps prior to the amendment. See Order Granting Temporary Exemptions under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in Connection with the Pending Revision of the Definition of ‘‘Security’’ to Encompass Security￾Based Swaps, and Request for Comment, 76 FR 39927. 848See Quarterly Securities Counts by Certain Exchange Members, Brokers and Dealers, Exchange Act Release No. 9140 (Apr. 19, 1971), 36 FR 7974 (Apr. 28, 1971); Net Capital Requirements for Brokers and Dealers; Amended Rules, Exchange Act Release No. 18417 (Jan. 13, 1982), 47 FR 3512 (Jan. 25, 1982). 849See Study of Unsafe and Unsound Practices of Brokers and Dealers at 2. 850See id. at 3–5. resulting from the increased number of notices that would need to be sent.
3. Additional Proposed Amendments to
Rule 17a–11
The Commission is proposing several amendments to Rule 17a–11 to eliminate obsolete text, improve readability, and modernize terminology. The Commission is proposing a global change to Rule 17a–11 that would replace the use of the word ‘‘shall’’ in the rule with the word ‘‘must’’ or ‘‘will’’ where appropriate.838 The Commission also proposes to make certain stylistic, corrective, and punctuation amendments to improve Rule 17a–11’s readability.839 As a consequence of the proposed deletion of paragraph (a), paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and (e) of Rule 17a–11 would be redesignated paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d), respectively. Further, as discussed above, the Commission is proposing to add two new notification provisions to Rule 17a–11 that would be codified in paragraphs (e) and (f) of the rule, as proposed to be amended. As a consequence of the deletion of paragraph (a) and the addition of the two new provisions, paragraphs (f), (g), (h), and (i) would be redesignated paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (j), respectively. Similarly, due to the proposed addition and deletion of paragraphs, the Commission is proposing a global change that would replace the cross-references to ‘‘paragraph (g)’’ of Rule 17a–11 with ‘‘paragraph (h)’’ of Rule 17a–11.840 Reference is made in paragraph (g) to a ‘‘member’’ of a national securities exchange as a distinct class of registrant in addition to a ‘‘broker’’ and ‘‘dealer’’. The Commission is proposing to remove this reference to a ‘‘member’’ given that the rule applies to brokers-dealers, which would include a member of a national securities exchange that is a broker-dealer. The Commission is also proposing to replace a specific reference to the notices required under ‘‘paragraphs (b), (c), (d), or (e)’’ of Rule 17a–11 in current paragraph (f) with a reference to ‘‘this
section’’. This would incorporate all the
notices required under Rule 17a–11, including notices that would be required under the new security-based swap customer reserve account notification requirement. Finally, the Commission proposes to amend paragraph (i) to reference ‘‘§ 240.15c3–1, § 240.15c3–1d, § 240.15c3–3, § 240.17a–5, and § 240.17a–12’’ instead of ‘‘§ 240.15c3– 1(a)(6)(iv)(B), § 240.15c3–1(a)(6)(v), § 240.15c3–1(a)(7)(ii), § 240.15c3– 1(c)(2)(x)(B)(1), § 240.15c3–1(e), § 240.15c3–1d(c)(2), § 240.15c3–3(i), § 240.17a–5(h)(2), and § 240.17a– 12(f)(2)’’. This proposed amendment corrects certain cross-references that are outdated due to the recently adopted amendments to some of these rules.841 It also eliminates cross-references to specific paragraphs in the event of future amendments to these cross￾referenced rules. Request for Comment The Commission generally requests comment on these additional proposed amendments to Rule 17a–11, including comment on whether any of the proposed amendments would result in substantive changes to the requirements applicable to broker-dealers. D. Quarterly Securities Count and Capital Charge for Unresolved Securities Differences

1. Introduction
   As discussed above, section 764 of the Dodd-Frank Act added section 15F to the Exchange Act.842 Section 15F(f)(2) provides that the Commission shall adopt rules governing reporting and recordkeeping for SBSDs and MSBSPs.843 Further, section 15F(f)(1)(A) provides that SBSDs and MSBSPs shall make such reports as are required by the Commission, by rule or regulation, regarding the transactions and positions and financial condition of the SBSD or MSBSP.844 In addition, section 15F(f)(1)(B)(ii) provides that nonbank SBSDs and nonbank MSBSPs shall keep books and records in such form and manner and for such period as may be prescribed by the Commission by rule or regulation.845 After considering the anticipated business activities of nonbank SBSDs, the Commission is proposing to establish a securities count program for these registrants under sections 15F that is modeled on the securities count program for broker-dealers codified in Rule 17a–13.846 Rule 17a–13 requires certain broker-dealers (generally, broker￾dealers that hold funds and securities) to examine and count the securities they physically hold, account for the securities that are subject to their control or direction but are not in their physical possession, verify the locations of securities under certain circumstances, and compare the results of the count and verification with their records.847 Like Rule 17a–11, Rule 17a–13 was adopted in the aftermath of the securities industry ‘‘paper work’’ crisis of 1967–1970.848 At that time, the Commission identified several factors contributing to the crisis, including, that securities were not checked and counted frequently enough nor controlled tightly enough.849 The Commission also identified corrective measures to counter these conditions in the future,850 including requiring broker-dealers to conduct quarterly security counts as part of the effort to eliminate the ‘‘deficiencies in broker￾dealers’ internal controls and procedures for safeguarding securities reflected by material amounts of unresolved security differences, suspense balances and unverified

851 Id. at 30.
852Quarterly Securities Counts by Certain Exchange Members, Brokers and Dealers, 36 FR 7974. 853The Commission is not proposing to include in proposed Rule 18a–9 provisions that would parallel the provisions in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), and (e) of Rule 17a–13. These paragraphs of Rule 17a–13 provide exemptions from complying with Rule 17a–13 for certain types of broker￾dealers. See 17 CFR 240.17a–13(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), and (e). The Commission preliminarily believes that SBSDs will not limit their activities to the types of activities in which the exempt broker-dealers engage. However, the Commission is requesting comment below on this question. 854See undesignated introductory paragraph of proposed Rule 18a–9. 855See id. 856See 17 CFR 240.17a–13(b)(1). 857See 17 CFR 240.17a–13(b)(2). 858See 17 CFR 240.17a–13(b)(3). 859See 17 CFR 240.17a–13(b)(4). 860See 17 CFR 240.17a–13(b)(5). This paragraph further provides that no examination, count, verification, and comparison for the purpose of the rule shall be within two months of or more than four months following a prior examination, count, verification, and comparison made hereunder. See id. transfer items.’’851 As the Commission stated when proposing Rule 17a–13, One of a broker-dealer’s major functions is that of moving funds from buyer to seller in exchange for securities. The movement of these funds and securities is monitored and directed by the books and records of the broker-dealers involved in the various transactions. To the extent that a firm’s records do not accurately reflect the movement and location of funds and securities, the ability of that firm to operate efficiently and even its continued viability come into question. The insolvency of many broker-dealers in the past few years is attributable to a large extent to their loss of operational control. Once a firm’s operations reach a certain level of errors, it is a Herculean task, requiring extraordinary sums of capital, to reverse the process and to resolve past errors so that the firm’s present records accurately reflect its position. That
part of the broker-dealer’s operations dealing
with the movement and location of securities has, in the past, been subject only to the once-a-year check of the X–17A–5 audit. The accounting record for the location and movement of securities is the stock record. The annual audit may disclose differences between positions reflected in the stock record and the results of a physical count of securities and verification of securities positions outside the firm. Many accountants have advised and urged their clients to make regular periodic box counts, but this advice has not always been followed. Furthermore, some firms have failed to research and resolve promptly stock record differences.852 Rule 17a–13 continues to play an important role today, given the volume of securities transactions and the resulting movement of securities between control locations and broker￾dealers. Under the proposed securities count program for SBSDs, broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs—as broker-dealers—would be subject to Rule 17a–13. Consequently, they will be required to comply with the existing securities count requirements in the rule. Stand-alone SBSDs would be subject to proposed Rule 18a–9, which is modeled on Rule 17a–13. Proposed Rule 18a–9 would not include a parallel requirement for every requirement in Rules 17a–13.853 In addition, proposed Rule 18a–9 would not apply to stand￾alone MSBSPs because the customer protection rationale for Rule 17a–13 and proposed Rule 18a–9 is not as pertinent to stand-alone MSBSPs. For example, the Commission preliminarily does not anticipate that stand-alone MSBSPs will engage in securities operations involving the movement of funds and securities from buyer to seller that are as complex as the operations of dealers in securities such as broker-dealers and SBSDs. Finally, for the reasons discussed above in section I. of this release, proposed Rule 18a–9 would not apply to bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs.
2. Proposed Rule 18a–9
Undesignated Introductory Paragraph Proposed Rule 18a–9 contains an undesignated introductory paragraph explaining that the rule applies only to an SBSD that is not dually registered as a broker-dealer (i.e., a stand-alone SBSD), provided, however, that the rule does not apply to an SBSD with a prudential regulator (i.e., a bank SBSD).854 The note further explains that a broker-dealer, including a broker￾dealer that is dually registered as an SBSD, is subject to the securities count requirements under Rule 17a–13.855 Requirement To Perform a Securities Count Paragraph (b) of Rule 17a–13 prescribes the requirement to perform a quarterly securities count and specifies the steps a broker-dealer must take in performing a count. Specifically, it requires a broker-dealer to at least once in each calendar quarter:

• Physically examine and count all
  securities held including securities that are the subjects of repurchase or reverse repurchase agreements;856
• Account for all securities in
  transfer, in transit, pledged, loaned, borrowed, deposited, failed to receive, failed to deliver, subject to repurchase or reverse repurchase agreements or otherwise subject to the broker-dealer’s control or direction but not in the broker-dealer’s physical possession by examination and comparison of the supporting detail records with the appropriate ledger control accounts;857
• Verify all securities in transfer, in
  transit, pledge, loaned, borrowed, deposited, failed to receive, failed to deliver, subject to repurchase or reverse repurchase agreements or otherwise subject to the broker-dealer’s control or direction but not in the broker-dealer’s physical possession, where such securities have been in said status for longer than thirty days;858
• Compare the results of the count
  and verification with the broker-dealer’s records; 859 and
• Record on the books and records of
  the broker-dealer all unresolved differences setting forth the security involved and date of comparison in a security count difference account no later than seven business days after the date of each required quarterly security examination, count, and verification in accordance with the requirements provided in paragraph (c) of the Rule.860 In general terms, the rule requires a broker-dealer to physically examine, count and verify all securities positions (e.g., equities, corporate bonds, and government securities, and, after the Commission’s exemptive relief expires, security-based swaps), and to compare the results of the count and verification with the firm’s records at least once each calendar quarter. A securities count difference results when the count reflects positions different than those reflected in the firm’s books and records. As discussed above in section II.A.2.a. of this release, a broker-dealer’s securities record consists of a ‘‘long’’ side and a ‘‘short’’ side. The ‘‘long’’ side of the record accounts for the broker￾dealer’s responsibility as a custodian of securities and shows, for example, the securities the firm has received from customers and securities owned by the broker-dealer. The ‘‘short’’ side of the record shows where the securities are located such as at a securities depository. A short securities difference occurs when the amount of securities on the ‘‘long’’ side of the securities record are greater than the amount of securities on the ‘‘short’’ side of the securities. A long securities difference occurs when the opposite is true. The rule requires the firm to record on its books and records any unresolved differences within seven business days after the date of each required count. The seven business days should be measured from the date of the commencement of the count. A broker-dealer must take a capital charge for short securities differences outstanding seven business

861See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(v).
862Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–13(b), with paragraph (a) of proposed Rule 18a–9. 863See paragraph (a) of proposed Rule 18a–9. 864See id. 865See 17 CFR 240.17a–13(c). 866Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–13(c), with paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 18a–9. 867See paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 18a–9. 868See 17 CFR 240.17a–13(d). 869See id. 870Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–13(d), with paragraph (c) of proposed Rule 18a–9. 871See paragraph (c) of proposed Rule 18a–9. 872See 17 CFR 240.17a–13(f). 873Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–13(f), with paragraph (d) of proposed Rule 18a–9. 874See paragraph (d) of proposed Rule 18a–9. 875See 17 CFR 240.15c3–1(c)(2)(v). 876See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70214. days or more and for long securities differences where the securities have been sold before they are adequately resolved.861 The Commission is proposing to include parallel securities count requirements in proposed Rule 18a–9 that would mirror the requirements in paragraph (b) of Rule 17a–13.862 Consequently, a stand-alone SBSD would be required to perform a securities count each quarter following steps specified in paragraph (a) of Rule 18a–9 that are identical to the steps specified in paragraph (b) of Rule 17a–
13.863 Moreover, a securities count
would need to be performed no sooner than two months after the last count and no later than four months after the last count.864 Date of the Count Paragraph (c) of Rule 17a–13 provides that: (1) The examination, count, verification, and comparison may be made either as of a date certain or on a cyclical basis covering the entire list of securities; (2) in either case the recordation shall be effected within seven business days subsequent to the examination, count, verification, and comparison of a particular security; (3) in the event that an examination, count, verification, and comparison is made on a cyclical basis, it shall not extend over more than one calendar quarter-year; and (4) no security shall be examined, counted, verified, or compared for the purpose of the rule less than two months or more than four months after a prior examination, count, verification, and comparison.865 This permits a broker-dealer to perform the securities count on a rolling basis throughout the quarter as opposed to all in one day. For example, on day one the broker-dealer could perform the count with respect to securities of ABC Corporation, on day two the broker-dealer could perform the count with respect to securities of DEF Corporation, and on day three the broker-dealer could perform the count with respect to securities of GHI Corporation. The Commission is proposing to include a parallel securities count requirement in proposed Rule 18a–9 that would mirror the requirement in paragraph (c) of Rule 17a–13.866 Consequently, a stand-alone SBSD could perform the securities count as of a date certain or on a cyclical basis subject conditions that are identical to the conditions in paragraph (c) of Rule 17a–13.867 Separation of Duties Paragraph (d) of Rule 17a–13 provides that the examination, count, verification, and comparison shall be made or supervised by persons whose regular duties do not require them to have direct responsibility for the proper care and protection of the securities or the making or preservation of the subject records.868 Thus, the rule requires a separation of duties as a control to promote the integrity of the securities count process.869 The Commission is proposing to include a parallel separation of duties requirement in proposed Rule 18a–9 that would mirror the requirement in paragraph (d) of Rule 17a–13.870 Consequently, a stand-alone SBSD would need to assign responsibility for making or supervising the count to individuals whose regular duties do not require them to have direct responsibility for the proper care and protection of the securities or the making or preservation of the subject records.871 Exemptions Paragraph (f) of Rule 17a–13 provides that the Commission may, upon written request, exempt from the provisions of the rule, either unconditionally or on specified terms and conditions, any broker-dealer that satisfies the Commission it is not necessary in the public interest and for the protection of investors to subject
the firm to certain or all of the provisions of the rule, because of the special nature of the firm’s business, the safeguards the firm has established for the protection of customers’ funds and securities, or such other reason as the Commission deems appropriate.872 The Commission is proposing to include a parallel exemption provision in proposed Rule 18a–9 that would mirror the provision in paragraph (f) of Rule 17a–13.873 Consequently, a stand￾alone SBSD could seek an exemption from proposed Rule 18a–9 or from a specific requirement in the rule.874 The standard for granting such requests would be the same standard as is used for granting exemptions from Rule 17a– 13. Request for Comment The Commission generally requests comment on proposed Rule 18a–9. In addition, the Commission requests comment, including empirical data in support of comments, in response to the following questions:

1. Are there any categories of stand￾alone SBSDs to which proposed Rule
   18a–9 should not apply? If so, explain why.
2. Should proposed Rule 18a–9 apply
   to stand-alone MSBSPs? If so, explain why. Should proposed Rule 18a–9 apply to bank SBSDs? If so, explain why. Should proposed Rule 18a–9 apply to bank MSBSPs? If so, explain why.
3. How should security-based swaps
   be treated with respect to the requirements in Rule 17a–13 and proposed Rule 18a–9 to examine and count the securities they physically hold, account for the securities that are subject to their control or direction but are not in their physical possession, verify the locations of securities under certain circumstances, and compare the results of the count and verification with their records?
4. Capital Charge
   As discussed above, Rule 15c3–1 requires a broker-dealer to take a capital charge for short securities differences that are unresolved for seven days or longer and for long securities differences where the securities have been sold before they are adequately resolved.875 The Commission’s proposed capital rule for stand-alone SBSDs is modeled closely on Rule 15c3–1 but the proposal did not include these types of capital charges.876 The failure to include these capital charges in proposed Rule 18a–1 was inadvertent and, consequently, the Commission is proposing to include them in the rule. Request for Comment The Commission generally requests comment on this proposed capital charge. In addition, the Commission requests comment, including empirical data in support of comments, in response to the following questions:
5. Is the proposed capital appropriate
   for stand-alone SBSDs? If not, explain why.

877See 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.; 5 CFR 1320.11. 878See Public Law 111–203, 764; 15 U.S.C. 78o– 10(f)(2). 879See 17 CFR 240.17a–3. 880See proposed Rule 18a–5.
III. General Request for Comment
The Commission invites comment, including relevant data and analysis, regarding all aspects of the proposed rules. The Commission also requests comment on appropriate effective dates for the proposals, including whether it would be appropriate to stagger or delay the effective dates for the requirements based on the nature or characteristics of the activities or entities to which they would apply.
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act
Certain provisions of the rule amendments and new rules proposed in this release would contain a new ‘‘collection of information’’ within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (‘‘PRA’’).877 The Commission is submitting the proposed rule amendments and proposed new rules to the Office of Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) for review and approval in accordance with the PRA. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The titles for the collections of information are:
(1) Rule 17a–3—Records to be made by certain brokers and dealers (OMB control number 3235–0033); (2) Rule 17a–4—Records to be preserved by certain brokers and dealers (OMB control number 3235–0279); (3) Rule 17a–5—Reports to be made by certain brokers and dealers (OMB control number 3235–0123); (4) Rule 17a–11—Notification provisions for brokers and dealers (OMB control number 3235–0085); (5) Rule 18a–5—Records to be made by certain security-based swap dealers and major security-based swap participants (a proposed new collection of information); (6) Rule 18a–6—Records to be preserved by certain security-based swap dealers and major security-based swap participants (a proposed new collection of information); (7) Rule 18a–7—Reports to be made by certain security-based swap dealers and major security-based swap participants (a proposed new collection of information); (8) Rule 18a–8—Notification provisions for security-based swap dealers and major security-based swap participants (a proposed new collection of information); (9) Rule 18a–9—Quarterly security counts to be made by certain security￾based swap dealers (a proposed new collection of information); and (10) Form SBS (a proposed new collection of information). The burden estimates contained in this
section do not include any other
possible costs or economic effects beyond the burdens required to be calculated for PRA purposes. A. Summary of Collections of Information Under the Proposed Rules and Proposed Rule Amendments

1. Proposed Amendments to Rule 17a–
   3 and Proposed Rule 18a–5
   Section 764 of the Dodd-Frank Act
   added section 15F(f)(2) to the Exchange Act, which provides that the Commission shall adopt rules governing reporting and recordkeeping for SBSDs and MSBSPs.878 Rule 17a–3 requires a broker-dealer to make and keep current certain records.879 The Commission is proposing to amend this rule to account for the security-based swap and swap activities of broker-dealers, including broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs. With respect to stand-alone SBSDs, stand-alone MSBSPs, bank SBSDs, and bank MSBSPs, the Commission is proposing new Rule 18a–5—which is modeled on Rule 17a– 3, as proposed to be amended—to require these registrants to make and keep current certain records.880 Proposed Rule 18a–5 would not include a parallel requirement for every requirement in Rule 17a–3 because some of the requirements in Rule 17a– 3 relate to activities that are not expected or permitted of SBSDs and MSBSPs. Further, the proposed recordkeeping requirements for bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs are tailored specifically to their activities as an SBSD or an MSBSP because: (1) the Commission’s authority under section 15F(f) of the Exchange Act is tied to activities related to the SBSD or MSBSP business; (2) bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs are subject to recordkeeping requirements applicable to banks; and (3) the prudential regulators—rather than the Commission—establish and monitor capital, margin, and other prudential requirements applicable to bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs. The proposed amendments to Rule 17a–3 and proposed Rule 18a–5 would establish a number of new collections of information, as summarized in the table below. Non-SBSD/ MSBSP broker￾dealers Non-model broker-dealer SBSDs ANC broker￾dealer SBSDs Broker-dealer MSBSPs Non-model stand-alone SBSDs ANC stand￾alone SBSDs Bank SBSDs Stand-alone MSBSPs Trade blotters ...... 17a–3(a)(1)* .... 17a–3(a)(1)* .... 17a–3(a)(1)* .... 17a–3(a)(1)* .... 18a–5(a)(1) ..... 18a–5(a)(1) ..... 18a–5(b)(1) ..... 18a–5(a)(1). General ledger ..... ......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... 18a–5(a)(2) ..... 18a–5(a)(2) ..... ......................... 18a–5(a)(2). Ledgers for cus￾tomer and non￾customer ac￾counts. 17a–3(a)(3)* .... 17a–3(a)(3)* .... 17a–3(a)(3)* .... 17a–3(a)(3)* .... 18a–5(a)(3) ..... 18a–5(a)(3) ..... 18a–5(b)(2) ..... 18a–5(a)(3). Stock record ........ 17a–3(a)(5)* .... 17a–3(a)(5)* .... 17a–3(a)(5)* .... 17a–3(a)(5)* .... 18a–5(a)(4) ..... 18a–5(a)(4) ..... 18a–5(b)(3) ..... 18a–5(a)(4). Memoranda of brokerage or￾ders. 17a–3(a)(6)* .... 17a–3(a)(6)* .... 17a–3(a)(6)* .... 17a–3(a)(6)* .... ......................... ......................... 18a–5(b)(4). Memoranda of proprietary or￾ders. 17a–3(a)(7)* .... 17a–3(a)(7)* .... 17a–3(a)(7)* .... 17a–3(a)(7)* .... 18a–5(a)(5) ..... 18a–5(a)(5) ..... 18a–5(b)(5) ..... 18a–5(a)(5). Confirmations ....... 17a–3(a)(8)* .... 17a–3(a)(8)* .... 17a–3(a)(8)* .... 17a–3(a)(8)* .... 18a–5(a)(6) ..... 18a–5(a)(6) .....
   18a–5(b)(6) ..... 18a–5(a)(6). Accountholder in￾formation. 17a–3(a)(9)* .... 17a–3(a)(9)* .... 17a–3(a)(9)* .... 17a–3(a)(9)* .... 18a–5(a)(7) ..... 18a–5(a)(7) ..... 18a–5(b)(7) ..... 18a–5(a)(7). Options positions ......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... 18a–5(a)(8) ..... 18a–5(a)(8) ..... ......................... 18a–5(a)(8). Trial balances and computation of net capital. ......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... 18a–5(a)(9) ..... 18a–5(a)(9) ..... ......................... 18a–5(a)(9). Associated per￾son’s employ￾ment application. ......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... 18a–5(a)(10) ... 18a–5(a)(10) ... 18a–5(b)(8) ..... 18a–5(a)(10).

881See Public Law 111–203, 764; 15 U.S.C. 78o– 10(f)(2). 882See 17 CFR 240.17a–4. 883See proposed Rule 18a–6. Non-SBSD/ MSBSP broker￾dealers Non-model broker-dealer SBSDs ANC broker￾dealer SBSDs Broker-dealer MSBSPs Non-model stand-alone SBSDs ANC stand￾alone SBSDs Bank SBSDs Stand-alone MSBSPs Liquidity stress test. ......................... ......................... 17a–3(a)(24) ... ......................... ......................... 18a–5(a)(11). Account equity and margin cal￾culations under proposed Rule 18a–3. ......................... 17a–3(a)(25) ... 17a–3(a)(25) ... 17a–3(a)(25) ... 18a–5(a)(12) ... 18a–5(a)(12) ... ......................... 18a–5(a)(12). Possession or control require￾ments under proposed Rule 18a–4. ......................... 17a–3(a)(26) ... 17a–3(a)(26) ... ......................... 18a–5(a)(13) ... 18a–5(a)(13) ... 18a–5(b)(9). Customer reserve requirements under proposed Rule 18a–4. ......................... 17a–3(a)(27) ... 17a–3(a)(27) ... ......................... 18a–5(a)(14) ... 18a–5(a)(14) ... 18a–5(b)(10). Unverified trans￾actions. ......................... 17a–3(a)(28) ... 17a–3(a)(28) ... 17a–3(a)(28) ... 18a–5(a)(15) ... 18a–5(a)(15) ... 18a–5(b)(11) ... 18a–5(a)(15). Political contribu￾tions. ......................... 17a–3(a)(29) ... 17a–3(a)(29) ... ......................... 18a–5(a)(16) ... 18a–5(a)(16) ... 18a–5(b)(12). Compliance with external busi￾ness conduct requirements. ......................... 17a–3(a)(30) ... 17a–3(a)(30) ... 17a–3(a)(30) ... 18a–5(a)(17) ... 18a–5(a)(17) ... 18a–5(b)(13) ... 18a–5(a)(17).

• Broker-dealers are currently required to comply with these paragraphs of Rule 17a–3, but the Commission proposes to amend these paragraphs to tailor the types
  of records that should be made and kept with respect to security-based swaps, and to make certain technical changes.

2. Proposed Amendments to Rule 17a–
   4 and Proposed Rule 18a–6
   Section 764 of the Dodd-Frank Act
   added section 15F(f)(2) to the Exchange Act, which provides that the Commission shall adopt rules governing reporting and recordkeeping for SBSDs and MSBSPs.881 Rule 17a–4 requires a broker-dealer to preserve certain records if it makes or receives them.882 The Commission is proposing to amend this rule to account for the security-based swap and swap activities of broker￾dealers, including broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs. With respect to stand-alone SBSDs, stand-alone MSBSPs, bank SBSDs, and bank MSBSPs, the Commission is proposing new Rule 18a–6—which is modeled on Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended—to require these registrants to preserve certain records if they make or receive them.883 Proposed Rule 18a–6 would not include a parallel requirement for every requirement in Rule 17a–4 because some of the requirements in Rule 17a–4 relate to activities that are not expected or permitted of SBSDs and MSBSPs. In addition, the recordkeeping requirements for bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs are tailored specifically to bank SBSD and bank MSBSP activities relating to operating as an SBSD or an MSBSP. The proposed amendments to Rule 17a–4 and proposed Rule 18a–6 would establish a number of new collections of information, as summarized in the table below. Non-SBSD/ MSBSP broker￾dealers Non-model broker-dealer SBSDs ANC broker￾dealer SBSDs Broker-dealer MSBSPs Non-model stand-alone SBSDs ANC stand￾alone SBSDs Bank SBSDs Stand-alone MSBSPs Records To Be Preserved for a Period of Not Less Than 6 Years Trade blotters ...... ......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... 18a–6(a)(1) cit￾ing 18a– 5(a)(1). 18a–6(a)(1) cit￾ing 18a– 5(a)(1). 18a–6(a)(2) cit￾ing 18a– 5(b)(1). 18a–6(a)(1) cit￾ing 18a– 5(a)(1). General ledger ..... ......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... 18a–6(a)(1) cit￾ing 18a– 5(a)(2). 18a–6(a)(1) cit￾ing 18a– 5(a)(2). ......................... 18a–6(a)(1) cit￾ing 18a– 5(a)(2). Ledgers for cus￾tomer and non￾customer ac￾counts. ......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... 18a–6(a)(1) cit￾ing 18a– 5(a)(3). 18a–6(a)(1) cit￾ing 18a– 5(a)(3). 18a–6(a)(2) cit￾ing 18a– 5(b)(2). 18a–6(a)(1) cit￾ing 18a– 5(a)(3). Stock record ........ ......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... 18a–6(a)(1) cit￾ing 18a– 5(a)(4). 18a–6(a)(1) cit￾ing 18a– 5(a)(4). 18a–6(a)(2) cit￾ing 18a– 5(b)(3). 18a–6(a)(1) cit￾ing 18a– 5(a)(4). Records To Be Preserved for a Period of Not Less Than 3 Years Memoranda of brokerage or￾ders. ......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... 18a–6(b)(2)(i) citing 18a– 6(b)(4) Memoranda of proprietary or￾ders. ......................... ......................... .........................
   ......................... 18a–6(b)(1)(i) citing 18a– 6(a)(5). 18a–6(b)(1)(i) citing 18a– 6(a)(5). 18a–6(b)(2)(i) citing 18a– 6(b)(5). 18a–6(b)(1)(i) citing 18a– 6(a)(5). Confirmations ....... ......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... 18a–6(b)(1)(i) citing 18a– 6(a)(6). 18a–6(b)(1)(i) citing 18a– 6(a)(6). 18a–6(b)(2)(i) citing 18a– 6(b)(6). 18a–6(b)(1)(i) citing 18a– 6(a)(6).

Non-SBSD/
MSBSP broker￾dealers
Non-model broker-dealer
SBSDs
ANC broker￾dealer SBSDs
Broker-dealer
MSBSPs
Non-model stand-alone
SBSDs
ANC stand￾alone SBSDs Bank SBSDs Stand-alone MSBSPs Accountholder in￾formation. ......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... 18a–6(b)(1)(i) citing 18a– 6(a)(7). 18a–6(b)(1)(i) citing 18a– 6(a)(7). 18a–6(b)(2)(i) citing 18a– 6(b)(7). 18a–6(b)(1)(i) citing 18a– 6(a)(7). Options positions ......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... 18a–6(b)(1)(i) citing 18a– 6(a)(8). 18a–6(b)(1)(i) citing 18a– 6(a)(8). ......................... 18a–6(b)(1)(i) citing 18a– 6(a)(8). Trial balances and computation of net capital. 17a–4(b)(1) cit￾ing 17a– 3(a)(11). 17a–4(b)(1) cit￾ing 17a– 3(a)(11). 17a–4(b)(1) cit￾ing 17a– 3(a)(11). 17a–4(b)(1) cit￾ing 17a– 3(a)(11). 18a–6(b)(1)(i) citing 18a– 6(a)(9). 18a–6(b)(1)(i) citing 18a– 6(a)(9). ......................... 18a–6(b)(1)(i) citing 18a– 6(a)(9). Liquidity stress test. ......................... ......................... 17a–4(b)(1) cit￾ing 17a– 3(a)(24). ......................... ......................... 18a–6(b)(1)(i) citing 18a– 6(a)(11). Account equity and margin cal￾culations under proposed Rule 18a–3. ......................... 17a–4(b)(1) cit￾ing 17a– 3(a)(25). 17a–4(b)(1) cit￾ing 17a– 3(a)(25). 17a–4(b)(1) cit￾ing 17a– 3(a)(25). 18a–6(b)(1)(i) citing 18a– 6(a)(12). 18a–6(b)(1)(i) citing 18a– 6(a)(12). ......................... 18a–6(b)(1)(i) citing 18a– 6(a)(12). Possession or control require￾ments under proposed Rule 18a–4. ......................... 17a–4(b)(1) cit￾ing 17a– 3(a)(26). 17a–4(b)(1) cit￾ing 17a– 3(a)(26). ......................... 18a–6(b)(1)(i) citing 18a– 6(a)(13). 18a–6(b)(1)(i) citing 18a– 6(a)(13). 18a–6(b)(2)(i) citing 18a– 6(b)(9). Customer reserve requirements under proposed Rule 18a–4. ......................... 17a–4(b)(1) cit￾ing 17a– 3(a)(27). 17a–4(b)(1) cit￾ing 17a– 3(a)(27). ......................... 18a–6(b)(1)(i) citing 18a– 6(a)(14). 18a–6(b)(1)(i) citing 18a– 6(a)(14). 18a–6(b)(2)(i) citing 18a– 6(b)(10). Unverified trans￾actions. ......................... 17a–4(b)(1) cit￾ing 17a– 3(a)(28). 17a–4(b)(1) cit￾ing 17a– 3(a)(28). 17a–4(b)(1) cit￾ing 17a– 3(a)(28). 18a–6(b)(1)(i) citing 18a– 6(a)(15). 18a–6(b)(1)(i) citing 18a– 6(a)(15). 18a–6(b)(2)(i) citing 18a– 6(b)(11). 18a–6(b)(1)(i) citing 18a– 6(a)(15). Political contribu￾tions. ......................... 17a–4(b)(1) cit￾ing 17a– 3(a)(29). 17a–4(b)(1) cit￾ing 17a– 3(a)(29). ......................... 18a–6(b)(1)(i) citing 18a– 6(a)(16). 18a–6(b)(1)(i) citing 18a– 6(a)(16). 18a–6(b)(2)(i) citing 18a– 6(b)(12). Compliance with external busi￾ness conduct requirements. ......................... 17a–4(b)(1) cit￾ing 17a– 3(a)(30). 17a–4(b)(1) cit￾ing 17a– 3(a)(30). 17a–4(b)(1) cit￾ing 17a– 3(a)(30). 18a–6(b)(1)(i) citing 18a– 6(a)(17). 18a–6(b)(1)(i) citing 18a– 6(a)(17). 18a–6(b)(2)(i) citing 18a– 6(b)(13). 18a–6(b)(1)(i) citing 18a– 6(a)(17). Bank records ....... ......................... .........................
......................... ......................... 18a–6(b)(1)(ii) 18a–6(b)(1)(ii) ......................... 18a–6(b)(1)(ii). Bills ...................... ......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... 18a–6(b)(1)(iii) 18a–6(b)(1)(iii) ......................... 18a–6(b)(1)(iii). Communications .. 17a–4(b)(4)* .... 17a–4(b)(4)* .... 17a–4(b)(4)* .... 17a–4(b)(4)* .... 18a–6(b)(1)(iv) 18a–6(b)(1)(iv) 18a–6(b)(2)(ii) 18a–6(b)(1)(iv). Trial balances ...... ......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... 18a–6(b)(1)(v) 18a–6(b)(1)(v) ......................... 18a–6(b)(1)(v). Account docu￾ments. ......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... 18a–6(b)(1)(vi) 18a–6(b)(1)(vi) 18a–6(b)(2)(iii) 18a–6(b)(1)(vi). Written agree￾ments. 17a–4(b)(7)* .... 17a–4(b)(7)* .... 17a–4(b)(7)* .... 17a–4(b)(7)* .... 18a–6(b)(1)(vii) 18a–6(b)(1)(vii) 18a–6(b)(2)(iv) 18a–6(b)(1)(vii). Information sup￾porting financial reports. 17a–4(b)(8)* .... 17a–4(b)(8)* .... 17a–4(b)(8)* .... 17a–4(b)(8)* .... 18a–6(b)(1)(viii) 18a–6(b)(1)(viii) 18a–6(b)(2)(v) 18a– 6(b)(1)(viii). Rule 15c3–4 risk management records (OTC derivatives deal￾ers only). ......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... 18a–6(b)(1)(ix) 18a–6(b)(1)(ix) ......................... 18a–6(b)(1)(ix). Internal credit rat￾ings. ......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... 18a–6(b)(1)(x) Regulation SBSR information. 17a–4(b)(14) ... 17a–4(b)(14) ... 17a–4(b)(14) ... 17a–4(b)(14) ... 18a–6(b)(1)(xi) 18a–6(b)(1)(xi) 18a–6(b)(2)(vi) 18a–6(b)(1)(xi). Records relating to business con￾duct standards. ......................... 17a–4(b)(15) ... 17a–4(b)(15) ... 17a–4(b)(15) ... 18a–6(b)(1)(xii) 18a–6(b)(1)(xii) 18a–6(b)(2)(vii) 18a–6(b)(1)(xii). Special entity doc￾uments. ......................... 17a–4(b)(16) ... 17a–4(b)(16) ... 17a–4(b)(16) ... 18a–6(b)(1)(xiii) 18a–6(b)(1)(xiii) 18a–6(b)(2)(viii) 18a– 6(b)(1)(xiii). Associated per￾son’s employ￾ment application. ......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... 18a–6(d)(1) ..... 18a–6(d)(1) ..... 18a–6(d)(1) ..... 18a–6(d)(1). Regulatory author￾ity reports. ......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... 18a–6(d)(2)(i) .. 18a–6(d)(2)(i) .. 18a–6(d)(2)(ii) 18a–6(d)(2)(i). Compliance, su￾pervisory, and procedures manuals. ......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... 18a–6(d)(3)(i) .. 18a–6(d)(3)(i) .. 18a–6(d)(3)(ii) 18a–6(d)(3)(i). Life of the enterprise and of any successor enterprise Corporate docu￾ments. 17a–4(d)* ........ 17a–4(d)* ........ 17a–4(d)* ........ 17a–4(d)* ........ 18a–6(c) ..........
18a–6(c) .......... ......................... 18a–6(c).

• Broker-dealers are currently required to comply with these paragraphs of Rule 17a–4, but the Commission proposes to amend these paragraphs as required by
  the Dodd-Frank Act or to tailor to the types of records that should be preserved with respect to security-based swaps, and to make certain technical changes.

884See Public Law 111–203, 764; 15 U.S.C. 78o– 10(f)(2). 885See 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(f)(1)(A). 886See 15 U.S.C. 78q(a)(1). 887See 17 CFR 240.17a–5. 888See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(h). 889See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(d). 890See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(a)(5). 891See Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended. See also section II.B. of this release. 892See proposed Rule 18a–7. 893See paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended; paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of proposed Rule 18a–7. Nonbank SBSDs and nonbank MSBSPs would be required to file Form SBS on a monthly basis, whereas bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs would be required to file Form SBS on a quarterly basis. Compare paragraphs (a)(1)(iv) of Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended, with paragraph (a)(1) of proposed Rule 18a–7, and paragraph (a)(2) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 894As described above, a broker-dealer is required to file with the Commission or the broker-dealer’s DEA a different part of Form X–17A–5 (Part II, Part IIA, Part IIB, or Part II CSE), depending on the nature of its business. 895For example, as described in further detail above, the Commission is not proposing a requirement in Rule 18a–7 that is parallel to the exemption report requirement in Rule 17a–5 or the requirement to file certain reports with SIPC. See 17 CFR 240.17a–5(d)(4) and (e)(4). 896Compare 17 CFR 240.17a–5(c), with paragraph (b) of proposed Rule 18a–7. 897See Public Law 111–203, 764; 15 U.S.C. 78o– 10(f)(2). 898See 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(f)(1)(A). 899See 15 U.S.C. 78q(a)(1). 900See 17 CFR 240.17a–11. 901See paragraphs (b)(5), (e), and (f) of Rule 17a– 11, as proposed to be amended. 902See proposed Rule 18a–8. 903See, e.g., 17 CFR 240.17a–11(b)(2) and (c)(1).
3. Proposed Amendments to Rule 17a–
5 and Proposed Rule 18a–7
Section 764 of the Dodd-Frank Act
added section 15F(f)(2) to the Exchange Act, which provides that the Commission shall adopt rules governing reporting for SBSDs and MSBSPs.884 Further, section 15F(f)(1)(A) provides that SBSDs and MSBSPs shall make such reports as are required by the Commission, by rule or regulation, regarding the transactions and positions and financial condition of the SBSD or MSBSP.885 The Commission has concurrent authority under section 17(a)(1) of the Exchange Act to prescribe reporting requirements for broker￾dealers.886 Rule 17a–5 requires a broker-dealer to annually file reports audited by a PCAOB-registered independent public accountant, disclose certain financial information to customers, file with the Commission a statement about its engagement of an independent public accountant, notify the Commission of a change of accountant, and to notify the Commission of the change in fiscal year.887 The rule also requires the independent public accountant to notify the broker-dealer if the accountant discovers an instance of non￾compliance with certain broker-dealer rules or an instance of material weakness.888 Rule 17a–5 requires broker-dealers to file a financial report, compliance report, and/or exemption report with the Commission on an annual basis.889 ANC broker-dealers are required to file with the Commission additional information relating to market risk, credit risk, and the monthly liquidity stress test on a periodic basis.890 The Commission is proposing amendments to Rule 17a–5 to account for the security-based swap activities of broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs.891 Proposed Rule 18a–7— which is modeled on Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended—would establish reporting requirements for stand-alone SBSDs, stand-alone MSBSPs, bank SBSDs, and bank MSBSPs.892 Under Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended, and proposed Rule 18a–7, SBSDs and MSBSPs would be required to periodically file proposed Form SBS.893 Broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs would file Form SBS instead of the applicable part of Form X–17A–5.894 Form SBS would include additional entries as compared to Part II CSE of Form X–17A–5 to account for the firm’s security-based swap activities. Proposed Rule 18a–7 does not include a parallel requirement for every requirement in Rule 17a–5.895 Moreover, instead of requiring stand￾alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs to make available to customers an audited statement of financial condition with appropriate notes and certain reports of the independent public accountant, the Commission proposes that stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs make such information available on their public Web site.896 Further, for the reasons discussed above, the reporting requirements in proposed Rule 18a–7, other than the requirement to periodically file proposed Form SBS, would not apply to bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs.
4. Proposed Amendments to Rule 17a–
11 and Proposed Rule 18a–8
Section 764 of the Dodd-Frank Act
added section 15F(f)(2) to the Exchange Act, which provides that the Commission shall adopt rules governing reporting for SBSDs and MSBSPs.897
Section 15F(f)(1)(A) provides that
SBSDs and MSBSPs shall make such reports as are required by the Commission, by rule or regulation, regarding the transactions and positions and financial condition of the SBSD or MSBSP.898 In addition, the Commission has concurrent authority under section 17(a)(1) of the Exchange Act to prescribe reporting requirements for broker￾dealers.899 Rule 17a–11 specifies the circumstances under which a broker￾dealer must notify the Commission and other securities regulators about its financial or operational condition, as well as the form that the notice must take.900 The Commission is proposing amendments to Rule 17a–11 to account for the security-based swap activities of broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs.901 Proposed Rule 18a–8— which is modeled on Rule 17a–11, as proposed to be amended—would establish notification requirements for stand-alone SBSDs, stand-alone MSBSPs, bank SBSDs, and bank MSBSPs.902 Proposed Rule 18a–8 would not include a parallel requirement for every requirement in Rule 17a–11 because some of the Rule 17a–11 notices relate to calculations that would not be relevant to stand-alone SBSDs, stand￾alone MSBSPs, bank SBSDs, and bank MSBSPs.903 Further, the notification requirements for bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs are designed to be tailored specifically to their activities as an SBSD or an MSBSP. The proposed amendments to Rule 17a–11 and proposed Rule 18a–8 would establish a number of new collections of information, as summarized in the table below. Non-SBSD/ MSBSP broker￾dealers Non-model broker-dealer SBSDs ANC broker￾dealer SBSDs Broker-dealer MSBSPs ANC stand– alone SBSDs Non-model stand-alone SBSDs Bank SBSDs Stand-alone MSBSPs Net capital below minimum.
......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... 18a–8 ..............
(a)(1)(i) ............
18a–8
(a)(1)(i).
Tentative net cap￾ital below min￾imum. ......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... 18a–8 (a)(1)(ii).

904See Public Law 111–203, 764; 15 U.S.C. 78o– 10(f)(2). 905See 15 U.S.C. 78o–10(f)(1)(B)(ii). 906Proposed Rule 18a–9 does not include the exceptions from applicability that Rule 17a–13 includes. See 17 CFR 240.17a–13(a) and (e). 907See, e.g., Books and Records Requirements for Brokers and Dealers Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 66 FR 55818 (‘‘The Commission has required that broker-dealers create and maintain certain records so that, among other things, the Commission, [SROs], and State Securities Regulators . . . may conduct effective examinations of broker-dealers’’ (footnote omitted)). 908See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70292; Further Definition of ‘‘Swap Dealer,’’ ‘‘Security-Based Swap Dealer,’’ ‘‘Major Swap Participant,’’ ‘‘Major Security-Based Swap Participant’’ and ‘‘Eligible Contract Participant’’, 77 FR 30725. 909See id. Non-SBSD/ MSBSP broker￾dealers Non-model broker-dealer SBSDs ANC broker￾dealer SBSDs Broker-dealer MSBSPs ANC stand– alone SBSDs Non-model stand-alone SBSDs Bank SBSDs Stand-alone MSBSPs Tangible net worth below minimum. ......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... 18a–8 (a)(2). Early warning of net capital. ......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... 18a–8(b)(1) ..... 18a–8(b)(1). Early warning of tentative net capital. ......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... 18a–8 (b)(2). Early warning of tangible net worth. ......................... ......................... ......................... 17a–11 (b)(6) .. ......................... ......................... ......................... 18a–8(b)(3). Backtesting ex￾ception. ......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... 18a–8(b)(4). Notice of adjust￾ment of reported capital category. ......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... 18a–8(c). Failure to make and keep cur￾rent books and records. ......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... 18a–8(d) .......... 18a–8(d) .......... 18a–8(d) .......... 18a–8(d). Material weakness ......................... ......................... ......................... ......................... 18a–8(e) .......... 18a–8(e). Insufficient liquidity reserves. ......................... ......................... 17a–11(e) ........ ......................... 18a–8(f). Failure to make a required reserve deposit. 17a–11(f) ......... 17a–11(f) ......... 17a–11(f) ......... ......................... 18a–8(g) .......... 18a–8(g)
.......... 18a–8(g).
5. Proposed Rule 18a–9
Section 764 of the Dodd-Frank Act
added section 15F(f)(2) to the Exchange Act, which provides that the Commission shall adopt rules governing reporting for SBSDs.904 In addition,
section 15F(f)(2)(B)(ii) provides that
nonbank SBSDs shall keep books and records in such form and manner and for such period as may be prescribed by the Commission by rule or regulation.905 Proposed Rule 18a–9, which is modeled on Rule 17a–13, would require stand-alone SBSDs to examine and count the securities they physically hold, account for the securities that are subject to their control or direction but are not in their physical possession, verify the locations of securities under certain circumstances, and compare the results of the count and verification with their records.906 B. Proposed Use of Information Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended, and proposed Rule 18a–5 would require broker-dealers, SBSDs, and MSBSPs to make and keep current certain books and records. Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended, and proposed Rule 18a–6 would require broker-dealers, SBSDs, and MSBSPs to preserve certain records if the firm makes or receives the type of record. These rules are designed, among other things, to promote the prudent operation of broker-dealers, SBSDs, and MSBSPs and to assist the Commission, SROs, and state securities regulators in conducting effective examinations.907 Thus, the collections of information under the proposed amendments to Rules 17a–3 and 17a–4, and proposed Rules 18a–5 and 18a–6, would facilitate the examinations of broker-dealers, SBSDs, and MSBSPs. Rule 17a–5, as proposed to be amended, and proposed Rule 18a–7 would establish reporting requirements for broker-dealers, SBSDs, and MSBSPs. Rule 17a–11, as proposed to be amended, and proposed Rule 18a–8 would require broker-dealers, SBSDs, and MSBSPs to notify the Commission of certain events related to their financial condition. The rules are designed to promote compliance with the proposed financial responsibility requirements for SBSDs and MSBSPs, facilitate regulators’ oversight and examinations of such firms, and promote transparency of SBSDs’ and MSBSPs’ financial condition and operation. Proposed Rule 18a–9 would require a stand-alone SBSD to physically examine, count and verify all securities positions (e.g., equities, corporate bonds, and government securities), and to compare the results of the count and verification with the firm’s records at least once each calendar quarter. This proposed rule is designed to promote an SBSD’s custody of securities and accurate accounting for securities.
C. Respondents
Consistent with prior releases, the Commission estimates that fifty or fewer entities ultimately may be required to register with the Commission as SBSDs.908 In addition, consistent with prior releases, based on available data regarding the single-name credit default swap market—which the Commission believes will comprise the majority of security-based swaps—the Commission estimates that the number of MSBSPs likely will be five or fewer and, in actuality, may be zero.909 Therefore, to capture the likely number of MSBSPs that may be subject to the collections of information for purposes of this PRA, the Commission estimates for purposes of this PRA that five entities will register with the Commission as MSBSPs. Accordingly, for purposes of calculating PRA reporting burdens, the Commission estimates there will be fifty SBSDs and five MSBSPs.

910See Registration of Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants, 76 FR 65808. 911See 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(4) (generally defining broker as any person engaged in the business of effecting transactions in securities for the account of others). 912See 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(71) (generally defining security-based swap dealer as any person who holds himself out as a dealer in security-based swaps, makes a market in security-based swaps, regularly enters into security-based swaps with counterparties as an ordinary course of business for its own account, or engages in any other activity causing it to be commonly known in the trade as a dealer or market maker in security-based swaps). 913See 7 U.S.C. 1a(28) (generally defining futures commission merchant as a person engaged in soliciting or in accepting orders for the purchase or sale of a commodity for future delivery, a security futures product, or a swap). 914See 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(67) (generally defining major security-based swap participant as any person who is not an SBSD but maintains a substantial position in security-based swaps for any of the major security-based swap categories, whose outstanding security-based swaps could have serious adverse effects on the financial stability of the U.S. banking system or financial markets, or is highly leveraged and maintains a substantial position in security-based swaps for any of the major security-based swap categories). 915The Commission believes that the broker￾dealer MSBSP would register as an FCM, since the broker-dealer may find it beneficial to hedge security and security-based swap positions with futures contracts, options on futures, or swaps. See Registration of Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants, 76 FR 65814. 916See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70292. 917See Registration of Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants, 76 FR 65814. 918The Commission does not anticipate that any firms will be dually registered as a broker-dealer and a bank. 919 50 SBSDs ¥ 16 broker-dealer SBSDs = 34 maximum non-broker-dealer SBSDs. 920 34 maximum estimated non-broker-dealer SBSDs × 75% = 25.5, rounded to 25 bank SBSDs. 921 34 maximum estimated non-broker-dealer SBSDs × 25% = 8.5, rounded to 9 stand-alone FCM SBSDs. 922 In addition, the Commission understands that banks do not register as FCMs; rather, bank affiliates register as FCMs. 923See Registration of Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants, 76 FR 65814. 924 VaR models, while more risk-sensitive than standardized haircuts, tend to substantially reduce the amount of the deductions to tentative net capital in comparison to the standardized haircuts because the models recognize more offsets between related positions than the standardized haircuts. Therefore,
the Commission expects that stand-alone SBSDs that have the capability to use internal models to calculate net capital would choose to do so. 925 9 stand-alone FCM SBSDs ¥ 6 ANC stand￾alone FCM SBSDs = 3 non-model stand-alone FCM SBSDs. Of the five MSBSPs, the Commission estimates that one firm also would be registered as a broker-dealer and an FCM.910 By definition, an MSBSP’s primary business is not engaging in security-based swap activity, so it would be rare for an MSBSP to qualify as a broker-dealer and/or FCM but not an SBSD. Such an MSBSP would be engaged in the business of effecting securities transactions,911 but not in the business of effecting security-based swap transactions 912 or commodities, securities futures products, or swaps 913 and yet involved in enough security￾based swap transactions to be required to register as an MSBSP.914 However, the Commission estimates there will be one broker-dealer FCM MSBSP for the purposes of calculating PRA burdens, in recognition that broker-dealer MSBSPs and stand-alone MSBSPs are subject to different burdens under the proposed and amended rules in certain instances.915 The Commission previously estimated that sixteen broker-dealers would likely seek to register as SBSDs.916 The Commission is retaining this estimate for purposes of this release. The Commission believes that all sixteen broker-dealer SBSDs also will be registered as FCMs, since SBSDs may find it beneficial to hedge security-based swap positions with futures contracts, options on futures, or swaps.917 Accordingly, for purposes of calculating PRA reporting burdens, the Commission estimates there will be sixteen broker￾dealer FCM SBSDs. For purposes of calculating PRA reporting burdens, the Commission estimates there would be twenty-five bank SBSDs and nine stand-alone SBSDs.918 Because the Commission estimates that sixteen broker-dealers would likely register as SBSDs, there would be an estimated maximum of thirty-four non-broker-dealer SBSDs consisting of bank SBSDs and stand￾alone SBSDs.919 For business planning purposes, risk management purposes, potential regulatory requirements, and other reasons, some of these entities likely would register with the Commission as stand-alone SBSDs. Because many of the dealers that currently engage in OTC derivatives activities are banks, the Commission estimates that approximately 75% of the thirty-four non-broker-dealer SBSDs would register as bank SBSDs (i.e., twenty-five firms),920 and the remaining 25% would register as stand-alone SBSDs (i.e., nine firms).921 The Commission believes that none of the bank SBSDS would register as FCMs, because of the burden associated with complying with three different supervisors’ regulatory requirements.922 However, the Commission believes that all of the stand-alone SBSDs would register as FCMs, since SBSDs may find it beneficial to hedge security-based swap positions with futures contracts, options on futures, or swaps.923 Of the nine stand-alone
FCM SBSDs, the Commission estimates that, based on its experience with ANC broker-dealers and OTC derivatives dealers, the majority of stand-alone SBSDs would apply to use internal models.924 Consequently, the Commission is estimating that six of the nine stand￾alone SBSDs would apply to operate as ANC stand-alone SBSDs, which would use internal models to compute net capital under proposed Rule 18a–1. Because the Commission estimates that there would be six ANC stand-alone SBSDs, the Commission estimates that three stand-alone SBSDs would not use internal models to compute net capital.925 EP02MY14.000</GPH>

926Currently, 6 broker-dealers are registered as ANC broker-dealers and 1 broker-dealer’s application to register as an ANC broker-dealer is pending. The Commission has previously estimated that all current and future ANC broker-dealers will also register as SBSDs. See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker￾Dealers, 77 FR 70293. 927 16 broker-dealer FCM SBSDs ¥ 10 ANC broker-dealer FCM SBSDs = 6 non-model broker￾dealer FCM SBSDs. 928See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70302. 929See Public Law 111–203, 761 (amending definition of ‘‘security’’ in 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(10)). 930See International Swaps and Derivatives Association (‘‘ISDA’’), Margin Survey 2012 (May 1,
2012) (‘‘ISDA Margin Survey 2012’’), at Appendix
1, available at http://www2.isda.org/attachment/ NDM5MQ==/ISDA%20Margin%20Survey%20 2012%20FORMATTED.pdf. The ISDA Margin Survey is conducted annually to examine the state of collateral use and management among derivatives dealers and end-users. Appendix 1 to the survey lists firms that responded to the survey including broker-dealers. See id. 931See Commission, Supporting Statement for the Paperwork Reduction Act Information Collection Submission for Rule 17a–3 (Mar. 28, 2011), available at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ DownloadDocument?documentID=238297& version=1. Of the sixteen broker-dealer FCM SBSDs, the Commission estimates that ten firms would operate as ANC broker￾dealer SBSDs, which use internal models to compute net capital under Rule 15c3–1.926 Because the Commission estimates that ten broker￾dealer SBSDs would be ANC broker￾dealer SBSDs, it is estimated that six broker-dealer SBSDs would not use internal models to compute net capital.927 As of April 1, 2013, there were 4,545 broker-dealers registered with the Commission. The Commission estimates that twenty-five registered broker￾dealers will be engaged in security￾based swap activities but would not be required to register as an SBSD or MSBSP. Other than OTC derivatives dealers, which are subject to significant limitations on their activities, broker￾dealers historically have not participated in a significant way in security-based swap trading for at least two reasons.928 First, because the Exchange Act has not previously defined security-based swaps as ‘‘securities,’’ security-based swaps have not been required to be traded through registered broker-dealers.929 Second, a broker-dealer engaging in security-based swap activities is currently subject to existing regulatory requirements with respect to those activities, including capital, margin, segregation, and recordkeeping requirements. Specifically, the existing broker-dealer capital requirements make it relatively costly to conduct these activities in broker-dealers. As a result, security￾based swap activities are mostly concentrated in affiliates of broker-dealers, not broker￾dealers themselves.930 The Commission generally requests comment on all aspects of these estimates of the number of respondents. Commenters should provide specific data and analysis to support any comments they submit with respect to the number of respondents, including identifying any sources of industry information that could be used to estimate the number of respondents. D. Total Initial and Annual Recordkeeping and Reporting Burden

1. Proposed Amendments to Rule 17a–
   3 and Proposed Rule 18a–5 The proposed amendments to Rule 17a–3 and proposed Rule 18a–5 would impose collection of information requirements that result in initial and annual time burdens for broker-dealers, SBSDs, and MSBSPs. Current Rule 17a– 3 imposes an estimated annual burden of 539 hours per firm and $8,256 in costs and a total industry burden of 2,449,755 hours and $37,523,520 in costs.931 The Commission estimates that the proposed amendments to Rule 17a– 3 would impose the following initial and annual burdens:
   EP02MY14.001</GPH> EP02MY14.002</GPH>

932See paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(3), (a)(5)(ii), (a)(6)(ii), (a)(7)(ii), (a)(8)(ii), and (a)(9)(iv) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended. 933See paragraphs (a)(25), (a)(28), and (a)(30) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended. 934See paragraphs (a)(26), (a)(27), and (a)(29) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended. 935See paragraph (a)(24) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended. 936See paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(10), (a)(12), (a)(15), and (a)(17) of proposed Rule 18a–5. 937See paragraphs (a)(13), (a)(14), and (a)(16) of proposed Rule 18a–5. 938See paragraph (a)(11) of proposed Rule 18a– 5. 939See paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(8), (b)(11), and (b)(13) of proposed Rule 18a–5. 940See paragraphs (b)(9), (b)(10), and (b)(12) of proposed Rule 18a–5. 941See Supporting Statement for the Paperwork Reduction Act Information Collection Submission for Rule 17a–3 at 9 (2,723,970 hours/year/5,057 registered broker-dealers = 539 hours/year per registered broker-dealer). 942 539 hours/year × 4,545 registered broker￾dealers = 2,449,755 hours/year. 943 $8,256/year × 4,545 registered broker-dealers = $37,523,520/year. 944The Commission estimates that 34 broker￾dealers are dually registered as FCMs¥17 non￾SBSD/MSBSP broker-dealers, 16 broker-dealer SBSDs, and 1 broker-dealer MSBSP. As of March 31, 2013, 34 broker-dealers reported a positive value on Line Item 7060 of the FOCUS Report (amount required to be segregated under CFTC rules), which is a line item that is only filled in by FCMs. 945The Commission estimates that all 17 estimated broker-dealer FCM SBSDs and broker￾dealer FCM MSBSPs would also register as swap dealers or major swap participants. See Registration of Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security￾Based Swap Participants, 76 FR 65814 (estimating that 35 SBSDs or MSBSPs would also be registered with the CFTC as swap dealers or major swap participants). Burden Initial burden Annual burden
New security-based swap records 932 ................ Per firm: 30 hours ............................................
Industry: 1,260 hours .......................................
Per firm: 42 hours.
Industry: 1,764 hours.
New burdens applicable to broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs 933.
Per firm: 60 hours ............................................
Industry: 1,020 hours .......................................
Per firm: 75 hours.
Industry: 1,275 hours.
New burdens applicable to broker-dealer SBSDs 934.
Per firm: 60 hours ............................................
Industry: 960 hours ..........................................
Per firm: 75 hours.
Industry: 1,200 hours.
New burdens applicable to ANC broker-deal￾ers 935.
Per firm: 20 hours ............................................
Industry: 200 hours ..........................................
Per firm: 25 hours.
Industry: 250 hours.
Total—Proposed amendments to Rule 17a–3. Industry: 3,440 hours ....................................... Industry: 4,489 hours. The Commission estimates that proposed Rule 18a–5 would impose the following initial and annual burdens:
Burden Initial burden Annual burden Burdens applicable to stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs 936.
Per firm: 260 hours and $1,000 .......................
Industry: 3,380 hours and $13,000 ..................
Per firm: 325 hours and $4,650.
Industry: 4,225 hours and $60,450.
Burdens applicable to stand-alone SBSDs 937 ... Per firm: 60 hours ............................................
Industry: 540 hours ..........................................
Per firm: 75 hours.
Industry: 675 hours.
Burdens applicable to ANC stand-alone SBSDs 938.
Per firm: 20 hours ............................................
Industry: 120 hours ..........................................
Per firm: 25 hours.
Industry: 150 hours.
Burdens applicable to bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs 939.
Per firm: 200 hours ..........................................
Industry: 5,000 hours .......................................
Per firm: 250 hours.
Industry: 6,250 hours.
Burdens applicable to bank SBSDs 940 .............. Per firm: 60 hours ............................................
Industry: 1,500 hours .......................................
Per firm: 75 hours.
Industry: 1,875 hours.
Total—Proposed Rule 18a–5 ...................... Industry: 10,540 hours and $13,000 ................ Industry: 13,175 hours and $60,450. Estimated Ongoing Hours and Costs of Current Rule 17a–3 In the Supporting Statement accompanying the most recent extension of Rule 17a–3’s collection, the estimated ongoing burden for a registered broker-dealer to make and keep current the books and records required by Rule 17a–3 averages out to 539 hours per year and $8,256 per year (after adjusting for increases in postage prices), although actual recordkeeping requirements vary depending on the broker-dealer’s size and complexity.941 Given that 4,545 broker-dealers were registered with the Commission as of April 1, 2013, current Rule 17a–3 creates an estimated industry-wide ongoing annual burden of 2,449,755 hours 942 and $37,523,520.943 Estimated Hours and Costs of Proposed Amendments to Rule 17a–3 Many of the proposed amendments to Rule 17a–3 are not expected to impose an initial burden. Most of the additional proposed amendments discussed in
section II.A.2.b. of this release are
largely clarifying changes that should not impose an hour burden or costs. With respect to the proposed new records required by the proposed amendments to Rule 17a–3, these are not expected to impose initial dollar costs because firms should already own or have established the requisite recordkeeping system software. Firms will likely need to program software to begin collecting additional records and may need to update their compliance manuals to reflect that certain paragraphs of Rule 17a–3 have been proposed to be re-numbered. The Commission expects these services to be performed in-house, and these hourly burdens are estimated below. The Commission does not expect there to be a burden associated with its proposal to modify the definition of securities regulatory authority to include the CFTC and prudential regulators to the extent they oversee security-based swap activities, because the Commission does not expect any broker-dealers to dually register as banks and estimates that thirty-four broker-dealers would be dually registered as FCMs,944 swap dealers, and/or major swap participants.945 In the three instances that securities regulatory authority is mentioned, the broker-dealer must provide certain information to its securities regulatory

946See paragraphs (a)(6)(i), (a)(7)(i), and (a)(19)(i) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended. 947See 17 CFR 240.17a–3(b)(2). 948See 17 CFR 240.17a–3(c). 949See 17 CFR 240.17a–3(d). 950The provision for securities other than security-based swaps would largely mirror the paragraph’s current text. See paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(3), (a)(5)(i), (a)(6)(i), (a)(7)(i), (a)(8)(i), and (a)(9)(i) through (iii) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended. The provision for security-based swaps would tailor to security-based swaps the type of records the broker-dealer must make and keep current. See paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(3), (a)(5)(ii), (a)(6)(ii), (a)(7)(ii), (a)(8)(ii), and (a)(9)(iv) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended. 951 (10 minutes/business day/60 minutes/hour) × 251 business days/year = 42 hours/year. There are 251 non-weekend days in 2013. The Commission does not include U.S. public holidays in estimating the number of business days per year, given that many broker-dealers trading security-based swaps operate internationally. 952 16 broker-dealer SBSDs + 1 broker-dealer MSBSP + 25 non-SBSD/MSBSP broker-dealers engaged in security-based swap activities = 42 broker-dealers engaged in security-based swap activities. 953 30 hours/year × 42 broker-dealers engaged in security-based swap activities = 1,260 hours/year. These internal hours likely would be performed by a compliance manager. 954 42 hours/year × 42 broker-dealers engaged in security-based swap activities = 1,764 hours/year. These internal hours likely would be performed by a compliance clerk. 955See paragraphs (a)(25), (a)(28), and (a)(30) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended (proposing recordkeeping requirements for Rule 18a–3 calculations, unverified transactions, and compliance with external business conduct requirements, respectively). 956See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR
70297. 957See Trade Acknowledgment and Verification
of Security-Based Swap Transactions, 76 FR 3869–
3870. 958See Business Conduct Standards for Security￾Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based
Swap Participants, 76 FR 42443–42448. 959 60 hours × 17 broker-dealer SBSDs and broker￾dealer MSBSPs = 1,020 hours. These internal hours likely would be performed by a compliance manager. 960 75 hours/year × 17 broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs = 1,275 hours/year. These internal hours likely would be performed by a compliance clerk. 961See Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended (paragraph (a)(26) (compliance with proposed Rule 18a–4 possession or control requirements); paragraph (a)(27) (proposed Rule 18a–4 reserve account computations); and paragraph (a)(29) (political contributions)). 962See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70297–70299. 963See Business Conduct Standards for Security￾Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants, 76 FR 42447. 964 60 hours × 16 broker-dealer SBSDs = 960 hours. These internal hours likely would be performed by a compliance manager. 965 75 hours/year × 16 broker-dealer SBSDs = 1,200 hours/year. These internal hours likely would be performed by a compliance clerk. 966See paragraph (a)(24) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended. 967See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70294. authority if the firm does not make the required record or memorandum containing the information and the information is requested by the securities regulatory authority.946 The Commission understands that it is already industry practice to make the required record and memorandum of the information in these three instances (especially among more sophisticated entities dually registered with the Commission and the CFTC), and therefore the Commission does not believe that this proposed amendment would impose an additional burden. The Commission proposes to eliminate three exemptions from Rule 17a–3 which should not affect the burden of complying with Rule 17a–3. Paragraph (b)(2) exempts transactions cleared by a bank if the bank keeps the requisite records for the broker￾dealer,947 but the Commission believes that this exemption is not relied on. Paragraph (c) exempts records of certain U.S. bond sales 948 and paragraph (d) exempts records of certain de minimis cash transactions,949 but the Commission believes these transactions are currently automatically recorded as a matter of practice because it likely takes more time to identify these transactions as exempt than to make and keep records of these transactions. The Commission proposes to amend paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), and (a)(9) of Rule 17a–3 to include a provision requiring broker￾dealers to make and keep current various records for security-based swaps.950 The Commission estimates that the proposed amendments to paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6),
(a)(7), (a)(8), and (a)(9) of Rule 17a–3 would impose on each broker-dealer that engages in security-based swap activities an initial burden of thirty hours and an ongoing burden of approximately ten minutes per business day, or forty-two hours per year.951 The Commission estimates that there are forty-two respondents—sixteen broker￾dealer SBSDs, one broker-dealer MSBSP, and twenty-five non-SBSD/ MSBSP broker-dealers engaged in security-based swap activities.952 Thus, these proposed amendments would add to the industry an estimated initial burden of 1,260 hours 953 and an ongoing burden of 1,764 hours per year.954 The proposed amendments to Rule 17a–3 would require three additional types of records to be made and kept current by broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs.955 Because the burden to run the applicable calculation or comply with the applicable standard is accounted for in the PRA estimates for proposed Rules 18a–3,956 15Fi–1,957 15Fh–1 through 15Fh–5, and 15Fk–1,958 the burden imposed by these new requirements is the requirement to make and keep current a written record of these tasks. The Commission estimates that paragraphs (a)(25), (a)(28), and (a)(30) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended, would impose an initial burden of 60 hours per firm and an ongoing annual burden of seventy-five hours per firm. The Commission estimates that there are seventeen respondents (sixteen broker-dealer SBSDs and one broker-dealer MSBSP), adding to the industry an initial burden of 1,020 hours 959 and an ongoing burden of 1,275 hours per year.960 The proposed amendments to Rule 17a–3 would require three additional types of records to be made and kept current by broker-dealer SBSDs.961 Because the burden to run the applicable calculation or comply with the applicable standard is accounted for in the PRA estimates for proposed Rules 18a–4 962 and 15Fh–6,963 the burden imposed by these new requirements is the requirement to make and keep current a written record of these tasks. The Commission estimates that paragraphs (a)(26), (a)(27), and (a)(29) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended, would impose an initial burden of sixty hours per firm and an ongoing annual burden of seventy-five hours per firm. The Commission estimates that there are sixteen broker-dealer SBSDs, adding to the industry an initial burden of 960 hours 964 and an ongoing burden of 1,200 hours per year.965 The Commission proposes to add paragraph (a)(24) to Rule 17a–3, which would require ANC broker-dealers to make and keep current certain records relating to the firm’s monthly liquidity stress test.966 Because the burden of actually performing the liquidity stress test and creating a liquidity funding plan is already accounted for in the PRA estimate for Rule 15c3–1, as proposed to be amended,967 the burden imposed by paragraph (a)(24) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended, is the requirement to make and keep current a written record of these tasks. The Commission estimates
that paragraph (a)(24) would impose on each ANC broker-dealer an initial burden of twenty hours and an ongoing burden of twenty-five hours per year. The Commission estimates that there are ten

968 20 hours × 10 ANC broker-dealers = 200 hours. These internal hours likely would be performed by a compliance manager. 969 25 hours/year × 10 ANC broker-dealers = 250 hours/year. These internal hours likely would be performed by a compliance clerk. 970 $1,000 × 13 stand-alone SBSDs and stand￾alone MSBSPs = $13,000. 971 $4,650/year × 13 stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs = $60,450/year. 972See, e.g., 12 CFR 12.3 (Department of Treasury); 12 CFR 219.21 et seq. (Federal Reserve); 12 CFR 344.4 (FDIC). 973See proposed Rule 18a–5 (paragraph (a)(1) (trade blotters); paragraph (a)(2) (general ledgers); paragraph (a)(3) (ledgers of customer and non￾customer accounts); paragraph (a)(4) (stock record); paragraph (a)(5) (memoranda of proprietary orders); paragraph (a)(6) (confirmations); paragraph (a)(7) (accountholder information); paragraph (a)(8) (options positions); paragraph (a)(9) (trial balances and computation of net capital); paragraph (a)(10) (associated person’s application); paragraph (a)(12) (proposed Rule 18a–3 calculations); paragraph (a)(15) (unverified transactions); paragraph (a)(17) (compliance with external business conduct standards)). 974 In estimating the burden associated with proposed Rules 18a–5 and 18a–6, the Commission recognizes that entities that would register stand￾alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs likely make and keep some records today as a matter of routine business practice, but the Commission does not have information about the records that such entities currently keep. Therefore, the Commission is estimating the PRA burden for these entities based on the assumption that they currently keep no records. 975 260 hours × 13 stand-alone SBSDs and stand￾alone MSBSPs = 3,380 hours. These internal hours likely would be performed by a compliance manager. 976 325 hours/year × 13 stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs = 4,225 hours/year. These internal hours likely would be performed by a compliance clerk. 977See proposed Rule 18a–5 (paragraph (a)(13) (compliance with proposed Rule 18a–4 possession or control requirements); paragraph (a)(14) (proposed Rule 18a–4 reserve account computations); and paragraph (a)(16) (political contributions)). 978See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70297–70299. 979See Business Conduct Standards for Security￾Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants, 76 FR 42447. 980 60 hours × 9 stand-alone SBSDs = 540 hours. These internal hours likely would be performed by a compliance manager. 981 75 hours/year × 9 stand-alone SBSDs = 675 hours/year. These internal hours likely would be performed by a compliance clerk. 982See paragraph (a)(11) of proposed Rule 18a– 5. 983See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR
70294. 984 20 hours × 6 ANC stand-alone SBSDs = 120 hours. These internal hours likely would be performed by a compliance manager. 985 25 hours/year × 6 ANC stand-alone SBSDs = 150 hours/year. These internal hours likely would be performed by a compliance clerk. 986See proposed Rule 18a–5 (paragraph (b)(1) (trade blotters); paragraph (b)(2) (general ledgers); paragraph (b)(3) (stock record); paragraph (b)(4) (memoranda of brokerage orders); paragraph (b)(5) (memoranda of proprietary orders); paragraph (b)(6) (confirmations); paragraph (b)(7) accountholder information); paragraph (b)(8) (associated person’s application); paragraph (b)(11) (unverified transactions); and paragraph (b)(13) (compliance with external business conduct requirements)). ANC broker-dealers (all of which are assumed to be dually registered as SBSDs), adding to the industry an initial burden of 200 hours 968 and an ongoing burden of 250 hours per year.969 Estimated Hours and Costs of Proposed Rule 18a–5 Dollar Costs. The Commission estimates that proposed Rule 18a–5 would cause a stand-alone SBSD or stand-alone MSBSP to incur an initial dollar cost of approximately $1,000 to purchase recordkeeping system software and an ongoing dollar cost of $4,650 per year for associated equipment and systems development. The Commission estimates that there are thirteen respondents (nine stand-alone SBSDs and four stand-alone MSBSPs), resulting in an estimated industry-wide initial burden of $13,000 970 and an industry￾wide ongoing burden of $60,450 per year.971 Proposed Rule 18a–5 is not expected to increase the initial and ongoing dollar costs that bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs incur to purchase recordkeeping system software and for equipment and systems development. Banks are already subject to recordkeeping requirements by the prudential regulators,972 so they already own or have established the requisite recordkeeping system software. Although bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs may need to program the software to begin collecting additional records, the Commission expects these services to be performed in-house, and these hour burdens are estimated below. Hour Burden. Proposed Rule 18a–5 would require thirteen types of records to be made and kept current by stand￾alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs.973 Proposed Rule 18a–5 imposes the burden to make and keep current these records, but does not require the firm to perform the underlying task.974 Therefore, after consideration of the estimated burdens under Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended, the Commission estimates that paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(10), (a)(12), (a)(15), and (a)(17) of proposed Rule 18a–5 would impose on each firm an initial burden of 260 hours and an ongoing annual burden of 325 hours. The Commission estimates that there are thirteen respondents (nine stand-alone SBSDs and four stand-alone MSBSPs), resulting in an estimated industry-wide initial burden of 3,380 hours 975 and an industry-wide ongoing annual burden of 4,225
hours.976 Proposed Rule 18a–5 would require three types of records to be made and kept current by stand-alone SBSDs.977 Because the burden to run the applicable calculation or comply with the applicable standard is accounted for in the PRA estimates for proposed Rules 18a–4 978 and 15Fh–6, 979 the burden imposed by these new requirements is the requirement to make and keep current a written record of these tasks. The Commission estimates that paragraphs (a)(13), (a)(14), and (a)(16) of proposed Rule 18a–5 would impose an initial burden of sixty hours per firm and an ongoing annual burden of seventy-five hours per firm. The Commission estimates that there are nine stand-alone SBSDs, resulting in an industry-wide initial burden of 540 hours 980 and an industry-wide ongoing burden of 675 hours per year.981 Paragraph (a)(11) of proposed Rule 18a–5 would require ANC stand-alone SBSDs to make and keep current certain records relating to the monthly liquidity stress test.982 Because the burden of actually performing the liquidity stress test and creating a liquidity funding plan is already accounted for in the PRA estimate for proposed Rule 18a–1,983 the burden imposed by paragraph (a)(11) of proposed Rule 18a–5 is the requirement to make and keep current a written record of these tasks. The Commission estimates that paragraph (a)(11) would impose on each ANC broker-dealer an initial burden of twenty hours and an ongoing burden of twenty-five hours per year. The Commission estimates that there are six ANC stand-alone SBSDs, resulting in an industry-wide initial burden of 120 hours 984 and an industry￾wide ongoing burden of 150 hours per year.985 Proposed Rule 18a–5 would require ten types of records to be made and kept current by bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs, all of which are limited to the firm’s business as an SBSD or MSBSP.986 Proposed Rule 18a–5 imposes the burden to make and keep current these records, but does not require the firm to perform the underlying task. Therefore, after consideration of the estimated burdens under Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended, the Commission estimates that paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(8), (b)(11), and (b)(13) of proposed Rule 18a–5 would impose on each firm an initial burden of 200 hours per firm and an ongoing burden of 250 hours per firm. The Commission estimates that

987 200 hours × 25 bank SBSDs = 5,000 hours. These internal hours likely would be performed by a compliance manager. 988 250 hours/year × 25 bank SBSDs = 6,250 hours/year. These internal hours likely would be performed by a compliance clerk. 989See proposed Rule 18a–5 (paragraph (b)(9) (compliance with proposed Rule 18a–4 possession or control requirements); paragraph (b)(10) (proposed Rule 18a–4 reserve account computations); and paragraph (b)(12) (political contributions)). 990See Capital, Margin, and Segregation Requirements for Security-Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants and Capital Requirements for Broker-Dealers, 77 FR 70297–70299. 991See Business Conduct Standards for Security￾Based Swap Dealers and Major Security-Based Swap Participants, 76 FR 42447. 992 60 hours × 25 bank SBSDs = 1,500 hours. These internal hours likely would be performed by a compliance manager. 993 75 hours/year × 25 bank SBSDs = 1,875 hours/ year. These internal hours likely would be performed by a compliance clerk. 994See Commission, Supporting Statement for the Paperwork Reduction Act Information Collection Submission for Rule 17a–4 (Sept. 12, 2013), available at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ DownloadDocument?documentID=422180 &version=0. 995See paragraph (b)(4) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended. 996See paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(8)(v) through (viii), (b)(8)(xvi), and (b)(14) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended. 997See paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(15), and (b)(16) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended. 998See paragraph (b)(1) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended. 999See paragraph (b)(1) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended. there are twenty-five respondents (twenty-five bank SBSDs and no bank MSBSPs), resulting in an estimated industry-wide initial burden of 5,000 hours 987 and an industry-wide ongoing burden of 6,250 hours per year.988 Proposed Rule 18a–5 would require three types of records to be made and kept current by bank SBSDs, all of which are limited to the firm’s business as an SBSD.989 Because the burden to run the applicable calculation or comply with the applicable standard is accounted for in the PRA estimates for proposed Rules 18a–4990 and 15Fh-6,991 the burden imposed by these new requirements is the requirement to make and keep current a written record of these tasks. The Commission estimates that paragraphs (b)(9), (b)(10), and (b)(12) of proposed Rule 18a–5 would impose an initial burden of sixty hours per firm and an ongoing annual burden of seventy-five hours per firm. The Commission estimates that there are twenty-five bank SBSDs, resulting in an industry-wide initial burden of 1,500 hours992 and an industry-wide ongoing burden of 1,875 hours per year.993
2. Proposed Amendments to Rule 17a–
4 and Proposed Rule 18a–6 The proposed amendments to Rule 17a–4 and proposed Rule 18a–6 would impose collection of information requirements that result in initial and ongoing burdens for broker-dealers, SBSDs, MSBSPs, and certain third-party custodians. Current Rule 17a–4 imposes an estimated annual burden of 254 hours per firm and $5,000 and a total industry burden of 1,196,086 hours and $23,545,000.994 The Commission estimates that the proposed amendments to Rule 17a–4 would impose the following initial and annual burdens:
Burden Initial burden Annual burden
Recorded telephone calls 995 ............................. Per firm: 13 hours ............................................
Industry: 221 hours ..........................................
Per firm: 6 hours and $2,000 Industry: 102 hours and $34,000. New burdens applicable to all broker-deal￾ers 996.
Per firm: 39 hours ............................................
Industry: 1,638 hours .......................................
Per firm: 18 hours and $360 Industry: 756 hours and $15,120. New burdens applicable to broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs 997.
Per firm: 65 hours ............................................
Industry: 1,105 hours .......................................
Per firm: 30 hours and $600 Industry: 510 hours and $10,200. New burdens applicable to broker-dealer SBSDs 998.
Per firm: 39 hours ............................................
Industry: 624 hours ..........................................
Per firm: 18 hours and $360 Industry: 288 hours and $5,760. New burdens applicable to ANC broker-deal￾ers 999.
Per firm: 13 hours ............................................
Industry: 130 hours ..........................................
Per firm: 6 hours and $120 Industry: 60 hours and $1,200. Total—Proposed amendments to Rule 17a–4 ... Industry: 3,718 hours ....................................... Industry: 1,716 hours and $66,280. The Commission estimates that proposed Rule 18a–6 would impose the following initial and annual burdens:
Burden Initial burden Annual burden Burdens applicable to stand-alone SBSDs and stand-alone MSBSPs 1000.
Per firm: 364 hours ..........................................
Industry: 4,732 hours .......................................
Per firm: 280 hours and $5,720.
Industry: 3,640 hours and $74,360.
Burdens applicable to stand-alone SBSDs 1001 Per firm: 44 hours ............................................
Industry: 396 hours ..........................................
Per firm: 30 hours and $360.
Industry: 270 hours and $3,240.
Burdens applicable to ANC stand-alone SBSDs 1002.
Per firm: 31 hours ............................................
Industry: 186 hours ..........................................
Per firm: 20 hours and $240.
Industry: 120 hours and $1,440.
Burdens applicable to bank SBSDs and bank MSBSPs 1003.
Per firm: 247 hours ..........................................
Industry: 6,175 hours .......................................
Per firm: 190 hours and $4,520.
Industry: 4,750 hours and $113,000.
Burdens applicable to bank SBSDs 1004 ............ Per firm: 57 hours ............................................
Industry: 1,425 hours .......................................
Per firm: 40 hours and $480.
Industry: 1,000 hours and $12,000.
Burdens applicable to third-party custodians 1005.
Per firm: 0 hours ..............................................
Industry: 0 hours ..............................................
Per firm: 2 hours.
Industry: 38 hours.
Total—Proposed Rule 18a–6 ............................. Industry: 12,914 hours ..................................... Industry: 9,818 hours and $204,078.

1000See paragraphs (a)(1), (b)(1)(i) through (ix), (b)(1)(xi) through (xiii), (c), (d)(1), (d)(2)(i), and (d)(3)(i) of proposed Rule 18a–6. 1001See paragraph (b)(1)(i) of proposed Rule 18a– 6. 1002See paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(x) of proposed Rule 18a–6. 1003See paragraphs (a)(2), (b)(2)(i) through (iv), (b)(2)(vi) through (viii), (d)(1), (d)(2)(ii), and (d)(3)(ii) of proposed Rule 18a–6. 1004See paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(v) of proposed Rule 18a–6. 1005See paragraph (f) of proposed Rule 18a–6. 1006See Supporting Statement for the Paperwork Reduction Act Information Collection Submission for Rule 17a–4. 1007 254 hours/year × 4,545 registered broker￾dealers = 1,154,430 hours/year. 1008 $5,000/year × 4,545 registered broker-dealers = $22,725,000/year. 1009See paragraph (m)(5) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended. 1010See paragraph (b)(1) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended (cross-referencing paragraph (a)(11) of Rule 17a–3, as proposed to be amended (proof of money balances)). 1011See Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended (paragraph (b)(5) (trial balances, computations of aggregate indebtedness and net capital); paragraph (b)(8)(i) (money balance and position in securities accounts payable to customers); paragraph (b)(8)(i) (money balance and position in securities accounts payable to non-customers)). 1012See paragraph (b)(4) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended. 1013See paragraph (b)(8) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended. 1014See paragraph (b)(8)(xiv) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended. 1015See paragraph (d) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended. 1016See paragraph (b)(4) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended. 1017 13 hours × 17 broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs = 221 hours. These internal hours likely would be performed by a senior database administrator. 1018 6 hours × 17 broker-dealer SBSDs and broker￾dealer MSBSPs = 102 hours. These internal hours likely would be performed by a compliance clerk. 1019 $2,000 × 17 broker-dealer SBSDs and broker￾dealer MSBSPs = $34,000. 1020See Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended (paragraph (b)(8)(v) through (viii) (identifying information about swaps); paragraph (b)(8)(xvi) (risk margin calculation); and paragraph (b)(14) (Regulation SBSR information)). 1021See id. See also Supporting Statement for the Paperwork Reduction Act Information Collection Submission for Rule 17a–3. 1022See Commission, Supporting Statement for the Paperwork Reduction Act Information Collection Submission for Rule 15c3–1 (July 1, 2010), available at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/ do/DownloadDocument?documentID=184515 &version=1. 1023See Regulation SBSR—Reporting and Dissemination of Security-Based Swap Information, 75 FR 75246–75250. Estimated Hours and Costs of Current Rule 17a–4 The Supporting Statement accompanying the most recent extension of Rule 17a–4’s collection estimates that each registered broker￾dealer spends 254 hours to ensure it is in compliance with Rule 17a–4 and
produce records promptly when required, and $5,000 each year on physical space and computer hardware and software to store the requisite documents and information.1006 Given that 4,545 broker-dealers were registered with the Commission as of April 1, 2013, current Rule 17a–4 creates an estimated industry-wide ongoing annual cost of 1,154,430 hours 1007 and $22,725,000.1008 Estimated Hours and Costs of Proposed Amendments to Rule 17a–4 Many of the proposed amendments to Rule 17a–4 are not expected to change the estimated burden imposed by Rule 17a–4. Most of the additional proposed amendments discussed in section II.A.3.b. of this release are largely clarifying changes that do not affect the Commission’s burden estimate. Similarly, paragraph (m)(5) of Rule 17a– 4, as proposed to be amended, which adds a definition for business as such,1009 is a clarifying amendment that should not affect the rule’s burden. The Commission believes there is no burden associated with its proposal that a broker-dealer retain a record of the proof of money balances of all ledger accounts in the form of trial balances, and a record of the computation of aggregate indebtedness and net capital.1010 Since Rule 17a–3 requires broker-dealers to make these records, the Commission understands that it is already industry practice for broker￾dealers to also keep these records. In addition, Rule 17a–4 already requires broker-dealers to keep records containing substantially similar information,1011 so that the same record would likely also include the information required by this proposed amendment to Rule 17a–4. The Commission believes there is no burden associated with its proposal that a security-based swap customer or non￾customer’s written agreements be maintained with his or her account records,1012 because the Commission understands that it is already industry practice to keep written agreements with the relevant person’s account records. Certain proposed amendments to Rule 17a–4 would require broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs to retain certain new records but would no longer require them to retain other records required to be kept by non￾SBSD/MSBSP broker-dealers. Specifically, broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs must preserve proposed Form SBS instead of Form X– 17A–5,1013 possession or control information for security-based swap customers under proposed Rule 18a–4 instead of under Rule 15c3–3,1014 and Forms SBSE–BD and SBSE–W instead of Forms BD and BDW.1015 These proposed amendments are not expected to significantly change the number of documents that the broker-dealer must preserve, but simply the type of document that must be preserved—a factor that is not expected to affect Rule 17a–4’s burden. The Commission proposes to amend paragraph (b)(4) of Rule 17a–4 to require broker-dealer SBSDs and broker-dealer MSBSPs to retain telephone calls that have already been recorded and are related to the broker-dealer SBSD’s and broker-dealer MSBSP’s
security-based swap business.1016 Paragraph (b)(4) of Rule 17a–4, as proposed to be amended, only requires the retention of telephonic recordings the broker-dealer SBSD or broker-dealer MSBSP voluntarily chooses to record, so the Commission’s burden estimate does not include the cost of recording phone calls. Therefore, the burdens imposed by the proposed amendment would be to provide adequate physical space and computer hardware and software for storage. The Commission estimates that the proposed amendment to paragraph (b)(4) of Rule 17a–4 would impose an initial burden of 13 hours per firm. The Commission estimates that there are seventeen respondents (sixteen broker-dealer SBSDs and one broker-dealer MSBSP), resulting in an estimated industry-wide initial burden of 221 hours.1017 The Commission estimates that each firm would incur an annual burden of approximately six hours to confirm that telephonic communications are being retained in accordance with Rule 17a– 4, and approximately $2,000 for server, equipment, and systems development costs. The Commission estimates that there are seventeen respondents (sixteen broker-dealer SBSDs and one broker￾dealer MSBSP), resulting in an estimated industry-wide ongoing annual cost of 102 hours 1018 and $34,000.1019 The proposed amendments to Rule 17a–4 would add three types of records to be preserved by broker-dealers.1020 Because the burden to create these records is already accounted for in the PRA estimates for Rule 17a–3,1021 Rule 15c3–1,1022 or in proposed Regulation SBSR,1023 the burdens imposed by these new requirements are to ensure there is adequate physical space and computer hardware and software for storage, ensure these records are preserved for the requisite time period, and produce them when requested. The Commission estimates that the proposed amendments to paragraphs (b)(8)(v)–