May 27, 1998 The following is a comment on the pilot for the revised Primary Market Maker standards. Adams, Harkness & Hill, Inc. makes markets in 160 stocks with plans to expand to two hundred. As manager of the OTC department, I pride myself in having very high Nasdaq ratings for volume per stock. By this measure, we were in the top 25 firms in 1997 despite a list that included primarily small and mid-cap names. Our primary purpose in making markets is for the benefit of institutional clients. We are valued by them for our ability to create "naturals," often without benefit of having been on the bid or the ask in the process. We pride ourselves in filling large orders quietly without moving the market. Another constituency for us is our fellow dealers. We recognize that there would not be a Nasdaq market without them and so we participate actively in intra-dealer trading. One constituency to which we attach a low priority is the professional day trader, a.k.a. "SOES bandit." We believe that participants in this category serve to reduce the liquidity and increase the volatility of the markets in which we are involved. To the extent that we can avoid trading with SOES, we do. However, to the extent that we move our market for a given stock without an intervening trade, we score poorly on one criterion for primary market making. Thus, it is unfair to use this criterion unless you have already determined that the hyper-activity of the SOES system is a good thing for the Nasdaq market as a whole. And, you are well aware, opinion on the value added by professional day traders is divided at best. In summary, we believe that the acid test for the "primary" designation should be volume done in the name. If a market maker is doing the volume he or she is making a valued contribution to the market place by definition. Sincerely, Benjamin A. Marsh Managing Director Adams, Harkness & Hill Inc.