You didn’t read the story slightly differently. It is different. IR Magazine changed their story to make it clearer.

I quoted directly from the story as it appeared at the time — 6 days ago.

Also, I took their wording of “40 percent of the 400 sell-side analysts, buy-side analysts and portfolio managers questioned in the survey are amenable to the ATS” to be part of a different question. In other words, 60% are not amenable. Now, by “amenable” I took it mean they are willing to use it.

The next question, in my mind, was is the ATS a threat to the LSE? 22% said it was. The rest were unsure or felt unable to comment (my math put that at 78%). How you go from amenable to threat in a single question, I don’t know. They are two different concepts, surely? That’s how I understood it.

Now I see that IR Magazine has changed the story to make it clear that the 40% who are amenable and 22% who see it as a threat were answering the same question, and that 38% of respondents were unsure or felt unable to comment.

So all in all, not very clear, useful or meaningful — and easily misunderstood.

Investors are given up to seven days to vote and we apply a series of weighting techniques to answers to bring in accurate results of what private investors believe works online for them.

Also having read the article you quote I saw something slightly different:

“40 percent of the 400 sell-side analysts, buy-side analysts and portfolio managers questioned in the survey are amenable to the ATS. ‘The London Stock Exchange (LSE) doesn’t have a God-given right to be the only one, so bring it on,’ commented one analyst. Only 22 percent of respondents believe ATSs pose a threat, while the remaining 38% were unsure or felt unable to comment.”

With it all being so new/up in the air at the moment ‘38% being unsure’ of what this will mean to the market I don’t think ranks them as ignoramuses! Especially in light of the fact that I fall into this category ;>)