Whether or not you agreed with Commissioner Paul S. Atkins - and this column over the years has done both - there was never a question about the rigor and thoughtfulness of his positions.

Now, Atkins is leaving the watchdog agency after nearly six years during which the SEC wrestled with major issues from hedge fund regulation to internal audit standards to mutual fund governance.

He will perhaps be best remembered as one of two Republican commissioners who split from fellow Republican and then-Chairman William Donaldson earlier this decade to form the short end of contentious three-two votes on issues such as forcing hedge fund advisers to register with the agency and mandating independent chairmen for mutual funds. Court decisions eventually upended both rules.

Looking back, Atkins said he thought his "jawboning" was likely a force for putting new regulatory proposals to the test of true cost-benefit analyses, not making that test an afterthought.

"Regulation is necessary, but you have to make it smart regulation," Atkins said in an interview Wednesday.

Imposing excessive regulatory costs on market participants will drive companies to non-U.S. markets or to the less-expensive world of private ownership, he said.

When this column a few years ago argued it's "common sense" that hedge fund advisers should be required to register with the SEC, Atkins phoned to differ. He feared the agency's finite inspection resources would be stretched too thin without sufficient cause.

It's worth noting that despite legitimate worries about hedge funds' increasing role in global markets, the biggest problems in our current credit crisis have been caused instead by more heavily regulated banks.

Asked whether the SEC, as a lawyer-dominated organization with long investigatory and rule-producing time frames, was suited to meet the fast-paced market challenges we've seen this year, Atkins said, "lawyers can also be nimble."

He also said the SEC historically has served well by having a specialized group together in one agency focused on the marketplace. He didn't think it would be a plus to have that expertise dispersed as contemplated in some regulatory reform schemes.

In his speeches, Atkins often made his points with smart and specific examples. When the SEC was headed toward raising the minimum wealth requirements for individuals who wanted to put their money in hedge funds, Atkins asked this rhetorical question: "How does the risk profile of a pooled investment compare to the risks of investing in the securities of a single issuer," for which no minimum wealth standard applies?

The question highlighted how wrongheaded it was to use regulation to try to protect investors from themselves. The plan wasn't enacted.

Atkins also never blinked in the face of controversy. As the world was agog about the options backdating scandal, Atkins looked at one aspect, referred to as "springloading," and found no offense. That's when a company purposely schedules a grant of options to an employee ahead of news that may help the stock or postpones grants before news that may hurt.

"A board may approve an options grant for senior management ahead of what is expected to be a positive quarterly earnings report," Atkins said in 2006. "In approving the grant, the directors may determine that they can grant fewer options to get the same economic effect because they anticipate that the share price will rise. Who are we to second-guess that decision?"

Atkins raised the level of debate about the proper role of corporate and market regulation and intelligently pushed to make sure new rules jumped a higher bar.

----

Neal Lipschutz is senior vice president and managing editor of Dow Jones Newswires.