Good day, ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the CBOE Holdings First Quarter 2013 Financial Results Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] And as a reminder, this call is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to Debbie Koopman, Vice President of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Good morning, and thank you for joining us for our first quarter earnings conference call. On the call today, Bill Brodsky, our Chairman and CEO, will discuss the quarter and provide an update on our strategic initiatives for 2013; then Alan Dean, our Executive Vice President and CFO, will detail our first quarter 2013 financial results. Following their comments, we will open the call to Q&A. Also joining us for Q&A will be our President and COO, Ed Tilly; and our Executive Vice President and Chief Business Development Officer, Ed Provost. In addition, I'd like to point out that this presentation will include the use of several slides. We will be showing the slides and provide a commentary on each. A downloadable copy of the slide presentation is available on the Investor Relations portion of our website. As a preliminary note, you should be aware that this presentation contains forward-looking statements which represent our current judgment on what the future may hold. And while we believe these judgments are reasonable, these forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve certain assumptions, risks and uncertainties. Actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed or implied in any forward-looking statement. Please refer to our filings with the SEC for a full discussion of the factors that may affect any forward-looking statements. We undertake no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statements whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise after this conference call. Now I'd like to turn the call over to Bill Brodsky.

Good morning, and thank you for joining us today. Before I begin my remarks on our first quarter performance, I'd like to take a moment to touch on last week's trading outage. First and foremost, I would like to reiterate that we very much regret the inconvenience to our customers, with whom we've been in very close communication since the trading delay on April 25. We are grateful to the many customers who've expressed their understanding of the issue, as well as their overall confidence in our system's capability and reliability. We intend to live up to that trust. Preliminary systems work related to extended trading was identified as the catalyst for last Thursday's outage. Therefore, as part of our ongoing review, we are in the process of retaining an independent systems consultant to thoroughly evaluate the rollout procedures of our extended trading hours initiative. As a result, we are delaying the timetable to begin implementation for extended hours to accommodate this input. We've also been in close contact with the SEC. Any time there's a trading disruption delay, there is a detailed protocol on sharing information and working with the SEC. We maintain real-time communication with our regulators from the time we realized we would have to delay the start of trading on the 25th and throughout the afternoon as trading resumed. Immediately after, we began a detailed review of our data to understand exactly what happened, how it happened and how to prevent it from happening again. Everything we learned in this process has been shared with the SEC. Our priority now is to make CBOE Command even stronger going forward. We are using that which we learned to reduce both the occurrence and the length of any future disruptions, including a faster alternative backup for our proprietary…

Thanks, Bill. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us this morning, and I will review our financial results for the quarter and update you on our outlook for the remainder of 2013. We are off to a strong start this year, posting record first quarter financial results. Operating revenue for the first quarter was $142.7 million, up 18% compared with last year's first quarter. Adjusted operating income was $72.6 million, which equates to 50.9% of our operating revenue. This adjusted operating margin represents a 340 basis point improvement over the same quarter last year and our second best quarterly margin. Adjusted net income allocated to common stockholders was $43.9 million, up 33% compared with the first quarter of 2012, resulting in adjusted diluted earnings per share of $0.50, which matches our all-time high set in the third quarter of 2011. Before I continue, let me point out that our GAAP results reported for the first quarter of 2013 and 2012 includes certain unusual items that impact the comparison of our operating performance. These items are detailed in our non-GAAP information provided in the press release and in the appendix of our slide deck. Turning to the details of the quarter, as shown on this chart, the growth in operating revenue is driven by increases in transaction fees, regulatory fees and exchange services and other fees, offset somewhat by lower market data fees. Transaction fees increased $14.3 million or 17% from the first quarter of last year due to a 35% increase in average revenue per contract or RPC compared with last year's first quarter, offset somewhat by a 13% decline in trading volume. While total trading volume declined for the quarter, trading in our exclusive products, VIX options and futures, posted record volume, resulting in higher RPC and…

Well, thanks, Alan. As this is Bill's final earnings call, I wanted to take the opportunity to say thank you to him on behalf of everyone at CBOE. In his remarks, Bill mentioned the transition process that has been underway here for some time. Thank you, Bill, for your vote of confidence in this entire team. While this is not retirement, I could not let the moment pass without publicly thanking you for your leadership as CEO. Going forward, as Chairman of the Board, we will continue to tap into your expertise and perspective, which we believe to be second to none in the industry. So thank you, Bill. And with that, we will now open it up for your questions.

Thanks. We'll be happy to take your questions. [Operator Instructions] Operator?

[Operator Instructions] Our first question is from Rich Repetto of Sandler O'Neill. Richard H. Repetto - Sandler O'Neill + Partners, L.P., Research Division: First, would be most appropriate thing is to congratulate Bill for the transition to the new role. It's been great working with you, Bill, even well before the company went public, so congratulations.

Thanks, Rich. Richard H. Repetto - Sandler O'Neill + Partners, L.P., Research Division: Okay. Anyway, my question, and I hate to narrow and get into the weeds here, but I'm trying to figure out how Alan beats every quarter here. So on the regulatory fees, the fee that increased that you actually filed with the SEC was only a couple pennies or 30%. But you saw an increase both in the revenue line of 50%, as well as the per, if you divide it by the contracts, per contract charge went up by 46% or 47%. So I'm trying to see, I know it's a breakeven thing, but we already have the expenses in because of your guidance, so it is providing upside to the model. And just -- if you could sort of break -- help us understand why it up-ticked so much?

Yes. Rich, Alan. You have to remember that the options regulatory fee that we put in an increase in the middle of last year, I think, was August, and CBOE and in C2. And then we increased that fee again in January of this year. So that's why, if you're just focusing on the change we made on January 1, it might not add up to the change in the total revenue. You have to compound it. You have to look at the change we made in 2012 and the change we made on January. Richard H. Repetto - Sandler O'Neill + Partners, L.P., Research Division: But the numbers I would talk about was sequentially quarter from 1Q '13 versus 4Q '12.

Yes, so -- and so that's what I'm trying to point out, that if you have to look at the increase per customer contract that we instituted in August of 2012, and then add to it the change that we made in January of '13, that's why the regulatory fee line item has taken a big bump up. And also remember that, that fee, that options regulatory fee, is assessed on every customer contract. It doesn't matter which exchange it's traded on. All the exchanges do this, and we all have our own fees. So you just can't tie it to our volume. It's industry volume. And there are other revenue items within regulatory fees that are also -- and there is just not that one fee.

Our next question in queue is from Jillian Miller of BMO Capital Markets.

So your February pricing changes have definitely had some impact, but you haven't recouped all of the shares you lost versus last year. And I guess I'd just be interested in your thoughts on whether you think the pricing changes have done enough? Are you comfortable with where your market share has kind of shaken out around these levels? And if not then, what levers do you think you have to pull to address that?

Jillian, Ed Provost. So we're never completely satisfied with the market share levels. It's always a battle. Clearly, pricing is a significant -- and evermore so, a significant influence in where order flow is directed. Alan has noted the changes we have made in our VIP program, a couple of times actually over the last 2 months. It's a combination of pricing, it's a combination of technology enhancements, but making sure that our market model appeals to the user community. So again, it is and will always be in the competitively traded classes, a battle, and we are striving as much as we can to maintain the #1 position in that area.

So in general, the 17.6% in April is something that, obviously, you'd like it to be higher, but it's something that you're comfortable with?

Well, let me just say this. We're 0.002% behind the market share leader. So we don't like to be second, we like to be first. So I would say we're not satisfied with it, and we continue to battle for the #1 position.

Our next question in queue is from Alex Blostein of Goldman Sachs.

Can you guys elaborate a little bit more on the milestones need to achieve whether with the SEC or just internally to kind of resume your focus on extending the trading hours of the VIX? And maybe a little bit more clarity on the timeline when you think this could happen will be helpful.

Yes, this is Bill Brodsky. Let me at least respond initially to that. The whole initiative on 24,500 was announced by us last fall, and we are very, obviously, enthusiastic about it. But the most important thing is to maintain the integrity of our systems. And so we're just going to put off the start date until we're comfortable that this major change to our systems, I mean there are not many exchanges in the world that trade more than their local trading hours. This is a major, major system enhancement. And what we're doing here is taking a deep breath. We're going to bring in someone to review it with us, so that -- because we don't have an actual deadline. This is a self-imposed, a very important initiative, but it doesn't have a deadline that we must do it by a certain date. So our concern is let's stabilize things because when you make a change like this, where you're basically running your computers almost all day long as opposed to during a very finite domestic trading period. We want to make sure that we have it right. And so we're just taking a deep breath. We'll announce the date when we're comfortable.

Okay. And then does that require you, you think, any additional investing, whether through expenses in P&L or CapEx to whether you're bringing consultants from the outside or just to have to spend more resources fixing things up internally?

Yes. Let me ask Alan to respond to that.

Sure, Bill. Alex, we have -- within our, the guidance that we gave you 3 months ago on our CapEx for the year, I don't see any changes at all to that guidance at all. We regularly roll out and roll in new equipment in this change of expanded trading hours. All that means is we're more efficiently utilizing the hardware that we already have and that we will bring in. So no, I don't see any changes to CapEx because of this expanded trading hour goal.

Our next question in queue is from Chris Allen of Evercore.

Nice quarter, and congrats on the new role. I just wanted to ask real quickly, and if the RPC change that got made during the -- the prices you seem to have made during the quarter were in at the start of the quarter, what was the impact that's been on the RPC? Just trying to get a flavor for how to think about this moving forward?

Yes, this is Alan. It's hard to say. Well, I could say, but I'm not going to say what the RPC would have been for the quarter had the changes been in for the quarter. What we did see is a decline in RPC first -- on February 1 when we rolled out the first changes to VIP, and then another slide throughout the March 1 when we rolled out another set of changes to VIP. And so based on what I saw in March and what I'm looking at in April, I would expect that to continue. But I'm not going to speculate on what that might be for the quarter going forward or for the year. As you know, there are many things that could impact the RPC for these multi-list products. What I'm sure is that's heading down from the rolling 3-month average that we gave you. It will be dependent on mix. It will be, the change will be evident in the data that we publish in the months going forward. If you're looking for potential size, you could look at what happened in our multi-list RPC in January of '12 compared to 2011 as it may be an indicator of what to expect. But keep in mind that the multi-list business is becoming an ever smaller part of our business. It's hard to believe that I'm saying that, but the multi-list business accounted for less than 25% of our transaction fees in the first quarter, while the futures side and the index side accounted for 77%. So the RPC is heading down, but it has less of an impact on us than ever before. So I hope that's helpful even though I didn't directly answer your question.

Our next question in queue is from Patrick O'Shaughnessy of Raymond James. Patrick J. O'Shaughnessy - Raymond James & Associates, Inc., Research Division: So my first -- or I guess my question is, your futures franchise, I think, has obviously been one of your stars recently. And you're seeing a really nice volume growth. As you think about the VIX futures on a long term, like 2 or 3 years, how sustainable do you think your pricing is? Because as you mentioned, it is well above where your options pricing is and certainly, there's different characteristics to the contract. But do you think that as the contract continues to get more and more important, that you can maintain this pricing over the longer term?

This is Ed Tilly. Thank you, Patrick, for the question. We're very comfortable in the pricing that we have in place today. And I think as you point out, the notional size of this contract is very large compared to VIX options. So as I say just again, this is the pricing that's in place today. And then Alan said, give-or-take, in the pennies, if we have to offer some incentive going forward, I think it's minor. But we're in a very comfortable place today.

Our next question in queue is from Alex Kramm of UBS.

On the futures business here, I think Bill mentioned that you're attracting more users. So hoping to get a flavor for how much or percentage of your volume is now coming from prop high-frequency traders? How much is from hedge fund? I think when you look at CME, I think prop is like 40% and hedge funds, maybe that's 10-plus. So do you think it can get there? And again, so where are you now? Where do you think it can get there? And just on Patrick's question, the changing user base, how are the fees for the different user bases? Should we think about shift here as maybe the prop side grows faster?

Let's take that question in 3 parts. I think you've asked a couple in there. We'll have, Alex, we'll have Alan answer the fees to different users. Let me tell you kind of another trend that we see. We've always given you in the past the trend of the ETP's, the major institutional sponsored products that are trying to replicate some VIX exposure. And while that has been less and less of an impact on the overall volume that this last month marks the fourth consecutive month that growth in money in those ETPs has increased. So there's roughly $3.5 billion still in those ETP's. That's still meaningful. So on top of that, consecutive 4 months of growth is the trend of new users. And I will point out the strategies that I see, and then Ed can get into some of the new users that are coming into the futures contract. So I think what's interesting is what we see are tied trades. So if you look at our SPX, a very common trade, a volatility trade in SPX is trading calls versus futures. What we're seeing users now in VIX trading tied trades, so VIX futures versus VIX options. So at the end of day, that's really trading the volatility of VIX. So that's new and growing. Roughly 4,000 contracts, of the futures contracts today, are in this tied-up trade. That's new. We see the potential going forward as growing. So that's just one of the strategies and some of the changes that I see from how people are using the contract. I'll turn it over to Ed Provost as to who they are, and then Alan Dean on fees for specific users.

Alex, Ed Provost here. So yes, it's -- our ability to have transparency all the way down to the end-user customer is somewhat limited because, of course, we only see the firms that they come through. But in our interaction with the customer base, we're seeing growth among hedge funds, high-frequency traders, proprietary trading. And one of the interesting recent changes is we've started seeing significant interest by the fixed income market, utilizing some equity exposure to increase their yield and managing that equity exposure using VIX options and futures. So in fact, we had an organization in here yesterday that was very, very excited about both the futures and the options and affirm that historically, it's been more fixed income than equity. So it really is on all fronts that we see a thirst for knowledge and increased usage. So again, in a way, it's a little bit of a lot of different groups and we're very pleased about it.

Alex, Alan. Based on the new users that we're seeing come to VIX futures and looking at what might happen in the future, the differences in the rate per contract that we charge to the users, it isn't so significant that I would anticipate or expect a material change in our RPC for VIX futures going forward. So no, I don't see that as being an issue at all.

Our next question in queue is from Niamh Alexander of KBW. Niamh Alexander - Keefe, Bruyette, & Woods, Inc., Research Division: And congrats to you, Bill.

Thank you. Niamh Alexander - Keefe, Bruyette, & Woods, Inc., Research Division: You're welcome. And cash, the cash generation was still strong this quarter, $95 million, and that's up 50% year-on-year. And you got quite a bit of cash on your balance sheet. You don't need a lot of cash to run your company. I know that you gave us kind of in the prepared remarks your priorities, but looking at the flow and looking at the kind of increased pace of cash generation, help me think about, is there -- are you kind of getting close to maybe thinking about inorganic growth? Or is it still we should think about the buyback? Is the appetite for buyback as strong as it was at this float of level of the share price or at the share price level 2?

In my prepared remarks, I talked about the board's intentions or priorities, but it bears repeating. And our first priority is to reinvest in our business as needed to ensure future growth, to continue to pay regular dividends and grow them along with our business, and then to use excess cash for stock repurchases. So our attitude, our board's attitude, my attitude, Ed Tilly, Bill Brodsky and Ed Provost, nothing has changed in the way we prioritize, how we use our cash. We've always taken an opportunistic approach towards our stock repurchase program. And there are many things that could prevent us from being in the market, buying back our stock. And I know you're familiar with all those various circumstances. The one driver of our significant cash generation in the first quarter, that may not be obvious, is that we offer a discount to large options liquidity providers. If they prepay a certain part of their transaction fees for the year, then they receive a greater discount. So if you look at our cash generation in the past couple of years, you'll see the first quarter was always a blip, and that's typically the driver. So nothing has changed in our attitude about stock repurchases, and that's why we -- you see a jump in cash generation on the first quarter. Niamh Alexander - Keefe, Bruyette, & Woods, Inc., Research Division: I guess that's a good indicator of volume then, too, because it's up on a strong first quarter last year. It's up 50%, and that's people prepaying for activity.

Yes. Well, they prepay for the activity, it's based on the sliding scale. So what they're doing is, and you can read all this in our fee schedule. If they -- they were essentially buying their way down our sliding scale by prepaying for the entire year. And then they will pay us for incremental volume above their buy-down amount. So certainly, the great results we had for the quarter are a driver of the cash generation. But that prepayment is also a factor.

Our next question in queue is from Chris Harris of Wells Fargo.

My question is on SPX Weeklys. The growth you guys are getting there is really just phenomenal. I'm just wondering, are you seeing new adopters kind of driving the incremental growth you're getting there? Or is it existing users increasing their trading frequency? And then in addition to that, we're now up to a point where Weeklys are 25% of total SPX volume. So just wondering how sustainable you think the growth is there?

Chris, Ed Provost. And so the Weekly's phenomenon really across the industry, not just limited to SPX, has really been fabulous. In SPX, as we look at the users of the Weekly contract, it's a lot more retail than it is in the longer-term SPX, which is obviously heavily institutional. So we're very pleased with the growth. Again, hard to predict whether the 25% will be 30% or 40%. Certainly, the interest in Weeklys continues. We did discuss and announce at our conference in Las Vegas an initiative to expand the very, very successful Weeklys initiative, so that we will have a Weekly contract expiring everyday. That is to say, that whereas today, all Weeklys expire on Fridays. We will be beginning a new Weekly everyday, and we will have everyday, a Weekly expiring. So that's leveraging a very, very successful product. We think that will ultimately, just like Weeklys themselves were, become an industry standard across all classes. So Weeklys are very popular. And it is more retail-oriented than institutional.

Our next question is from Ken Worthington of JPMorgan. Kenneth B. Worthington - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division: My question goes to the BOX contract. And I think the industry is objecting to that contract because I think it's confusing to those who are trading the products. My question is like are those objections likely to sway regulators that have already approved products like SPXpm and the SPX Weekly and the Apple Mini and the Amazon Mini and the Google Mini. Like how is the jumbo product really that much different than launching kind of Mini products, if that make sense?

Yes, this is Ed Tilly. Good question. I think that really, our comment letter was, let's have the industry get used to or swallow the Mini. Let them absorb that. The multiplier difference, let them know when they're looking at the 160 strike, for example, the half of money call, that there's this Spider, the very successful 2.5 million contract a day, Spider, let the retailer get used to a Mini contract. And then if that gains traction, then we should consider whether or not we fragment the liquidity and yet a third contract with another multiplier. But it's really kind of a staging and a length of time to market for the large contract. That's number one. There is the fragmented liquidity that is concerning. So if there's x amount of liquidity in the marketplace at the money 160 line, in my example, certainly if we introduce a Jumbo contract that's going to take some liquidity away from the very successful Spider contract today, that's concerning to us. We have users, both retail and institutional, that are trading Spiders that are used to a certain amount of liquidity at a given line. That's new. And then of course, selfishly, from an exchange perspective, we're interested in seeing what happens to the 2.5 million contracts, and whether or not a successful Max SPY turns that into 250,000 contracts. So we would be watching that as well. So ultimately, do we think the SEC will find this not as confusing as -- hopefully, they'll look at this in the timeline and take this up in a year or so after the Minis have been absorbed into the marketplace.

Our next question is from Gaston Ceron of Morningstar Equity Research.

Just wondering, I just want to come back to the trading situation for a second and on your plans to kind of address things from there. I'm just curious, if you could say any more about, I think you said something like backup for this trading on these proprietary products. I'm wondering if you could say it a little bit more about how that might work? And just on a larger canvas, I know that they had, in the wake of the systems they showed or whatever it was, but there was some kind of criticism of the ability of exchanges to kind of be able to deploy proprietary products. I'm just curious how you see that, if you kind of see that kind of dying down or if you think that might kind of create problems for your ability to deploy your proprietary products down the road?

This is Ed Tilly. Thank you. Let me be really clear that we take any outage very, very seriously, as Bill said in his opening remarks. So there is obviously, for CBOE, there is a plan, and Bill laid that out. We have delayed the rollout of the extended training hours. That is done. We've identified the extended trading hour potential impact and rollout procedures with a third-party expert. That begins Monday. We'll provide our customers. This our goal, to provide our customers with near-instantaneous backup to SPX and VIX as a trading solution, likely electronic, but totally embedded with the SEC. That's in progress. A run-through with the SEC will be -- happen shortly. Then clearly, define revised procedures for our customers and the SEC, so that all will know what to expect in the future. That will happen right after we come up with a near-instantaneous solution. I'm confident we'll do it. So this is all about confidence and certainty in the marketplace from our customer's perspective. At the end of this, we're going to be more reliable. We will make sure our customers maintain the confidence that they already have in CBOE. And then to your -- the ultimate question is, no, I don't think there's any change that we anticipate for CBOE to trade proprietary products. It's what we do. It's the end result of our innovation. We developed the VIX methodology here. We will continue to trade VIX at CBOE or one of our exchanges. That's what the future looks like.

Our next question in queue is from Akhil Bhatia of Rosenblatt Securities.

Could you guys talk about the derivatives tax proposal and potential impact on volumes at CBOE and likelihood that it's going through the way it is right now?

Sure. So this is Bill Brodsky. I think what you're referring to is the camp proposal. It is a -- it's not a, what I'll call legislative initiative at this point. It is really a white paper on the broad base of how derivatives might be changed in terms of taxation. We have been very, very active on this. I've been on the hill. I've met with Senators and Congressmen on this. We think that they, as it relates to the enlisted option business, the case against the proposal is very compelling, and we have gotten good response to our arguments on the hill. And then by the way, we are obviously very active in this. But all the other options exchanges, the New York Stock Exchange and NASDAQ, SIFMA, all involved because we have and have had a very strong convention based on the way the law works, of how options in the tax roll to 35 years. And as far as I'm concerned, nothing's broken. This affects literally millions of customer. And therefore, it affects an enormous amount of firms in the country. So they're all impacted on it. We've had firms like Schwab and Fidelity, E*TRADE, Ameritrade, and others all weigh in on this. So we are far from a point where I think that this is a real likelihood. I think it's more a discussion issue. And I will tell you that even in my new role, I will be extremely active on this because we have a system here that's not broken. It serves investors well. No one's getting away with anything. And it’s unique, I think, to the option business to how this works. So I think that something we have to just to stay committed and involved in. And on future calls, obviously, we can fill you in. But it's just part of the process that's going on in Washington right now. We don't even know if there's going to be a tax bill. But if there is, we will be front and center on this issue.

I want to just, Akhil, punch one point that Bill made. This effort among the industry OCC is taking a very, very active role on this and able to coordinate the exchanges effort, of course. As Bill points out, we certainly are willing to take a lead role, but the OCC being able to bring us all together, we are -- our position is shared not only by the exchanges, but as Bill points out, by our end-users and millions that are representing that community. So this really is an effort on behalf of the entire industry, really to shed light and educate those that would be looking to change some of the tax code.

And we have a follow-up from Patrick O'Shaughnessy of Raymond James. Patrick J. O'Shaughnessy - Raymond James & Associates, Inc., Research Division: Your regulatory fees they kind of stay at this run rate are going to be probably up close to $20 million year-over-year. And if we look at your core expense guidance kind of midpoint of that is just that your core expenses, they're going to be up about $10 million year-over-year. So is it -- does the math work to say that aside from your increased regulatory costs, your core operating expenses are actually down on a year-over-year basis?

Well, you heard Patrick here, you're projecting volume, customer volume for the year, which was pretty tough to do. We are -- all of our regulatory revenue can only be spent on regulatory expenses. You have to keep that in mind. So -- and there are increases in non-regulatory expenses year-over-year like stock compensation. So that's an interesting way to look at it, but you can't characterize it like that exactly.

One more follow-up.

And we also have a follow-up from Jillian Miller of BMO Capital Markets.

I just wanted to touch on that innovative kind of new pricing schedule you introduced at C2. It seems like it's having a positive impact, at least on the ETF side. So I just want to get an update like what you're seeing on your end, where you think the market share can go by the end of the year? And then I know you had mentioned when you launched that it might take time for market participants to kind of come to understand the new pricing and factor then into their decision-making. So have we gotten through that education period? Or are there still firms that kind of need to figure this out in order to take advantage of it?

Jillian, Ed Provost. Yes, so we had a great month in April. We had 2.4% overall market share in C2. And that was up, this is a little bit of a play on small numbers, up about 25% from March where we have 1.9% market share. I will tell you though, most of that growth was in our ETF options, where we continue to use the maker-taker market model, specifically, Spider, which is the most actively traded multiply-listed option in the industry. We did 7.5% market share in the QQQs, another very active option class, 6.5% market share. And even the IWM, the Russell 2000 ETF option, 3.6% market share. So while we're thrilled with the growth in the market share in C2, it is primarily in the ETFs, which is still a maker-taker model. In the single names, where we've implemented our spread-based model, we are working with our DPMs. They're fine-tuning their models. We're getting traction. But to be quite frank with you, most of the growth we're seeing is in ETFs, and we're not displeased by that. We are still working with our users to get greater traction in the single names. So we're very pleased with the C2 story overall.

This is Alan Dean. I want to add another part to Patrick's question about regulatory fees. Patrick, if customer volume is a lot more than we expect industry-wide, then you should expect us to reduce that options regulatory fee going forward to make sure that we don't collect more than we're spending on regulation. And conversely, if customer volume was a lot less than we expected in our regulatory costs paid where we think that it'd be then -- we'd be thinking about increasing that regulatory fee. So we look at that fee on a regular basis, and we'll adjust it accordingly.

And there are no further questions in queue. I'd like to turn it back to Debbie Koopman for any further remarks.

Thanks a lot. That completes our call this morning. We appreciate your time and continued interest in our company. And I'll be available the rest of the day for any follow-up questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you. And again, thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for joining today's conference. You may now disconnect. Have a great day.