A lot of work and two years' time for ,118 - on which he would have had to pay taxes.

There may be no other place in regulation where the tension between (i) adopting regulations that protect retail investors and (ii) imposing regulatory costs that are passed on to retail investors is so obvious. Over time, it seems that regulators tend to focus more and more on investor protection and to ignore the costs. It is important to revisit the trade-offs, as Commissioner Peirce urges.

It was notable that the law firm representing the whistleblowers disclosed the enforcement case as to which the award was made. Given that violations of Rule 15c3-3 would likely only be spotted by persons working in close proximity to the relevant misconduct, it raises a question as to whether the identity of the whistleblowers can be determined. Perhaps, given the size of the awards, the whistleblowers did not care whether their identities were known as they no longer need to work.

Ms. Blass's statements are a good example of the SEC focusing on the basics: regulating large scale public markets, seeking to protect public investors, and establishing rules that are of broad general application. Given the size of the market, it makes sense for the SEC to take on rulemaking with respect to ETFs. In fact, it raises a question as to whether the Investment Company Act itself should be amended to provide statutory recognition of the product.