The delay of the fiduciary rule has been panned by the rule’s supporters and lauded by its opponents—but both sides might change their minds about the DOL's decision after a closer reading.

What may give both proponents and critics reason to pause is, that in delaying the rule on Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Labor appeared to solidify its commitment to two key portions of the rule establishing stricter standards for advice within retirement accounts, while reiterating that it intends to make the rule applicable this year.

Some opponents of the rule argue that the 60-day delay announced by the DOL won’t go far enough, as the agency reiterated that elements of the rule expanding the definition of “fiduciary” and establishing standards for impartial conduct will go into effect on the rule’s new applicability date, June 9.

"We are concerned that the delay rule contains convoluted extraneous conditions that are not only based on imperfect data but [which] contradicts the intent of the presidential memorandum," said Kenneth Bentsen Jr., president and CEO of SIFMA, in a statement released Wednesday. "The memorandum directs a review of the entire rule and its impact, not part.”

The DOL argued that advisors have had almost an entire year since the fiduciary rule was finalized, thus there is “little basis” for arguments that the industry needs additional time to prepare for the rule’s applicability.

Blaine Aikin, chairman of the CFP Board and executive chair of fi360, a support firm for financial advisors, notes that the DOL gave supporters of the rule reasons for optimism, even as it pushed applicability back another 60 days.

“The delay definitely does not deal a mortal blow to the rule,” says Aikin. “The delay makes it more likely that we will see major parts of it put into effect as the law of the land.

We expected a 60-day delay, but they did not go longer than that. They pushed out some of the more onerous parts of the rule, the exemptions, to better see what the impacts will be, but the requirement that those who provide advice will be fiduciaries and adhere to impartial conduct standards remains. … What they have done is make it more likely that that part of the rule, which is a very important part, will remain.”

The DOL was acting in response to a Feb. 3 memorandum from President Donald Trump requesting an investigation into the rule’s potential impacts. At the time, the president instructed the DOL to take any measures necessary to delay the rule to allow for sufficient time for an economic study.

In a released statement, Cathy Weatherford, CEO of the Insured Retirement Institute, a critic of the rule, says that the DOL is failing to abide by the president’s request by only issuing a partial delay of the rule.

“The delays provided by the DOL are necessary to give the appropriate time needed to conduct the examination the president directed—which reflects IRI’s well-found, ongoing and significant concerns about the rule,” said Weatherford. “However, IRI is disappointed to see that the department did not delay all the provisions of the rule. The president directed the department to examine all questions of law and policy raised by the rule, the potential harm that could be caused to retirement savers, as well as potential market disruptions that could occur from the department’s failure to delay all the provisions of the rule.”

After being approved last year, the rule went into effect last summer, but most of the standards it established, like the Best Interest Contract Exemption, were not applicable until April 10, at the earliest. Under the delay, applicability for most aspects of the rule will move to June 9.

The delay does not impact the rule’s full applicability date of Jan. 1, 2018. In the meantime, advisors are left in the middle, wondering when the rule will go into effect, and what the rule will look like when it does.

For most, including Drew Horter, founder, president and chief investment strategist of Horter Investment Management in Cincinnati, the safest long-term bet is to continue preparing for the onset of the rule as it was presented in its “final” form last year.

"Horter is just getting an additional 60 days to prepare for the rule," Horter said. "It’s very difficult to predict what will ultimately happen to this rule, but given the level of support for the rule during the most recent comment period we believe it will be extremely difficult for the DOL to simply revoke the rule in its entirety. Horter will continue to prepare as though some or all of the rule will survive in 2017.

Douglas Lyons, founder of Douglas J. Lyons Financial Group in Red Bank, N.J., says the delay gives financial advisors more time to prepare for implementing the rule, but he adds, “I would not be surprised if the rule is diluted by the time it is implemented.

“We are fiduciaries and I would like to see that extended to others in the industry. I would also like to see more clarification for the public on what the different designations mean.”

The rule’s supporters, including U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), rallied against the DOL’s move on Wednesday.

“Altogether, families stand to lose nearly $4 billion because of the two-month fiduciary rule delay the Trump administration just finalized,” said Warren in released comments. “That money matters—it’s the difference between retiring with dignity and fighting to stretch every dollar as far as it will go. President Trump and Republicans in Congress may want to make it easier for big banks to cheat their customers, but we’re fighting back for a fair marketplace and to protect families’ retirement savings.”

Warren helped unveil a “Retirement Ripoff Counter,” similar to the U.S. Debt Clock, to count the cost of the delay based on a recent White House Council of Economic Advisors report that concluded that conflicted financial advice costs Americans $17 billion a year, which comes to roughly $532 each second.

At Betterment for Business, associate general counsel Seth Rosenbloom also voiced his concern over the rule’s delay.

“While the delay is not a surprise, it is still extremely disappointing,” said Rosenbloom in emailed comments. “This should have been a great month for retirement savers as the rule was originally set to be implemented on the 10th. Instead, the bottom lines of the big institutions have won again at the expense of retail investors. Public comments opposing a delay outnumbered those supporting a delay by more than 10 to one. The DOL should keep this in mind, as well as its own extensive analysis of the harm associated with conflicted advice, as it moves forward.”

The DOL continues to accept comments on the rule. Thus far, sentiment seems to have been in favor of allowing the rule to go into full effect as is. The department announced that it had received 15,000 comments in support of a delay, versus 178,000 comments opposing any delay as of March 17.

Yet the rule’s critics from within the industry, like Paul Schott Stevens, president of the Investment Company Institute, indicated on Wednesday that they will press for more time.

"ICI welcomes the Department of Labor's delay of the original implementation date of the agency's fiduciary rule until June 9, but additional time is critically needed," Stevens said in a released statement.