We have heard many descirptions of the "maker/taker" model prevalent at trading venues today. Please tell us how you feel about each of these characterizations.

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
Maker Taker fees are "the oil that makes trading run" by rewarding liquidity provision.	*We have heard many descirptions of the "maker/taker" model prevalent at trading venues today. Please tell us how you feel about each of these characterizations. Maker Taker fees are "the oil that makes trading run" by rewarding liquidity provision. Strongly Agree	Maker Taker fees are "the oil that makes trading run" by rewarding liquidity provision. Agree	Maker Taker fees are "the oil that makes trading run" by rewarding liquidity provision. Disagree	Maker Taker fees are "the oil that makes trading run" by rewarding liquidity provision. Strongly Disagree
Maker Taker fees are "distortive incentives that obscure actual bid/ask spreads by masking fees that ought to be represented in the bid/ask spread."	Maker Taker fees are "distortive incentives that obscure actual bid/ask spreads by masking fees that ought to be represented in the bid/ask spread." Strongly Agree	Maker Taker fees are "distortive incentives that obscure actual bid/ask spreads by masking fees that ought to be represented in the bid/ask spread." Agree	Maker Taker fees are "distortive incentives that obscure actual bid/ask spreads by masking fees that ought to be represented in the bid/ask spread." Disagree	Maker Taker fees are "distortive incentives that obscure actual bid/ask spreads by masking fees that ought to be represented in the bid/ask spread." Strongly Disagree
Maker Taker fees are "violations of anti-bribery laws used to payoff preferred participants."	Maker Taker fees are "violations of anti-bribery laws used to payoff preferred participants." Strongly Agree	Maker Taker fees are "violations of anti-bribery laws used to payoff preferred participants." Agree	Maker Taker fees are "violations of anti-bribery laws used to payoff preferred participants." Disagree	Maker Taker fees are "violations of anti-bribery laws used to payoff preferred participants." Strongly Disagree

Should co-locators be subject to "affirmative or negative obligations" in the same way that specialists/market makers who also had "location advantage" were?

Should co-locators be subject to "affirmative or negative obligations" in the same way that specialists/market makers who also had "location advantage" were? Strongly Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

The "trade at" rule proposal seems, at first glance, to be a reasonable protection for those market participants courageous enough to publicly display their trading intentions.

The "trade at" rule proposal seems, at first glance, to be a reasonable protection for those market participants courageous enough to publicly display their trading intentions. Strongly Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Why would a trade at rule not be appropriate?

General consensus suggests that equity markets have performed well over the past 18 months.

General consensus suggests that equity markets have performed well over the past 18 months. Strongly Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

What do you see as key issues requiring regulatory action?

Is the regulation of Exchanges and ATS's properly balanced?

Is the regulation of Exchanges and ATS's properly balanced? Yes	No
If not, where should the focus be?

Some comment letters already submitted suggest that the minimum price improvement should be not less than .01 (except for low priced securities) - is this reasonable?

Some comment letters already submitted suggest that the minimum price improvement should be not less than .01 (except for low priced securities) - is this reasonable? Yes

It has been suggested that the growth of non-public liquidity threatens the "public quote" - do you think this is accurate?

It has been suggested that the growth of non-public liquidity threatens the "public quote" - do you think this is accurate? Yes	No
Why or why not?

The Commission rather aggressively commits to "protecting" the long term investor - should there be regulatory discrimination included in this "protection"?

The Commission rather aggressively commits to "protecting" the long term investor - should there be regulatory discrimination included in this "protection"? Yes

While we have a set of issues placed before us today - what might you speculate "tomorrow's" issues to include?

Additional Comments:

form {display:none;} #jserror {text-align:center;margin-top:50px;}Javascript is required for this site to function, please enable.