Subject: File S7-10-00 Electronic filing by investment advisers Date: 06/01/2000 9:11 AM I am a State registered, fee only adviser - a one person sole proprietorship. I have the following comments: 1. I believe the electronic filing proposal is a sound idea that will facilitate comparison shopping for advisers by the investing public. I fully support the overall concept of the proposal. 2. To facilitate browsing and comparison shopping by the public, the format for the disclosures - including the brochure - should have some standardization. The level of standardization required by the current "check the box" format for parts I and II is not required, but care should be taken to retain enough format comparability to make browsing and comparisons between advisers a relatively easy task for the public. 3. My biggest concern is the proposed fee structure. As proposed, the smallest advisers will pay $200 and the largest will pay $400. This is a tremendous deal for the large advisers, but not equitable for the smallest advisers. Fees should bear some resemblance to system maintenance costs. Compare system maintenance costs for a one person firm such as my own and a firm with hundreds of advisers and associates. System maintenance costs for the larger firm will obviously be more than double the amount for the smallest adviser firm. It looks like a cross-subsidy of the larger operations by the smaller companies to me. My concern is not about being able to pay a $200 fee, but about the apparent unfair cost treatment given to the larger firms. The larger firms may well save money over the current system, but this will not be the case for the smaller firms. The state filing fees, administrative costs, and notary fees for the smallest firms currently are less than $200 annually. The current fee proposal will increase regulatory costs for small firms while saving costs for the larger firms. Michael James Skinner -- A California Registered Adviser