January 9, 1995
TO: DIRECT MARKETING COMMITTEE No. 2-95
HUMAN RESOURCES AND TRAINING No. 2-95
HUMAN RESOURCES AND TRAINING WORKING GROUP No. 2-95
MARKETING POLICY COMMITTEE No. 3-95
MEMBERS - ONE PER COMPLEX No. 3-95
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE No. 2-95
SALES FORCE MARKETING COMMITTEE No. 2-95
SEC RULES COMMITTEE No. 3-95
SHAREHOLDER COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE No. 2-95
RE: SEC PROPOSAL TO AMEND RULES OF SELF-REGULATORY
ORGANIZATIONS TO ADOPT CONTINUING EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS
_____________________________________________________________________________
As we previously advised you, in August 1994 the National Association of Securities
Dealers ("NASD") issued for comment a proposal to require NASD registrants (e.g., registered
representatives, assistant representatives, principals, etc.) to complete continuing education
requirements commencing in July 1995. (See Memorandum to Direct Marketing Committee
No. 23-94, Human Resources and Training No. 3-94, Human Resources and Training Working
Group No. 10-94, Marketing Policy Committee No. 37-94, Members 58-94, Operations
Committee No. 23-94, Sales Force Marketing Committee No. 31-94, SEC Rules Committee No.
92-94, and Shareholder Communications Committee No. 22-94, dated August 17, 1994.)
The NASD’s proposal was the result of a task force formed to study the continuing
education needs of the securities industry by the following self-regulatory organizations: the
NASD, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, and
the American, New York, and Philadelphia Stock Exchanges. In December 1994, each of these
self-regulatory organizations filed proposed rule changes with the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") to adopt the same two part continuing education program that was
proposed by the NASD in August 1994. A copy of the SEC’s notice proposing adoption of the
rule changes filed by these self-regulatory organizations is attached.
As filed with the SEC and as previously proposed for comment by the NASD, the self-
regulatory organizations have proposed a continuing education program comprised of two
components, a Regulatory Element and a Firm Element. To maintain an existing registration,
all persons that have been registered with the NASD for less than ten years must complete the
Regulatory Element, which will be a standardized computer based training program. The Firm
Element will require firms to establish a training process for registrants that have direct contact
with firm customers and the immediate supervisors of such registrants.
According to the SEC, three technical changes have been made to the version of the rule
published for comment by the NASD in August 1994. These changes, which are based on
comments received on the proposal, are: (1) a clarification that registered persons must
participate in the Regulatory Element on three occasions -- after the occurrence of their second,
fifth, and tenth registration anniversary dates; (2) an additional statement that a registration
that is inactive for two calendar years would be terminated administratively and anyone so
terminated must requalify by examination prior to being reinstated; and (3) a clarification that
the SEC, a state securities regulator, or a self-regulatory organization could require re-entry into
the program only as a result of a sanctioning in a formal disciplinary action. Though other
commenters requested that the rule be amended to permit firms to administer the Regulatory
Element in-house, the NASD believes this will require further study of technology and
administrative issues.
The self-regulatory organizations have proposed that the requirements of the
Regulatory Element portion of the continung education program become effective on July 1,
1995, and that the Firm Element be implemented in two steps whereby members would be
required to have completed their Firm Element plans by July 1 1995, and have implemented
their plans no later than January 1, 1996.
Tamara K. Cain
Assistant Counsel
Attachment
Latest Comment Letters:
TEST - ICI Comment Letter Opposing Sales Tax on Additional Services in Maryland
ICI Comment Letter Opposing Sales Tax on Additional Services in Maryland
ICI Response to the European Commission on the Savings and Investments Union