"Our planners found that putting clients' interests first is good both for their clients and their business," Glovsky says.
Says Tittsworth, "We believe regulatory costs need to be reasonable and appropriate, and I'm not aware of any evidence that the fiduciary standard will bankrupt anyone subject to it."
He and other speakers say that imposing the fiduciary standard would eliminate conflicts of interest that come with selling a limited menu of proprietary products to clients that might not be in their best interest. They say that would create more trust between advisors and clients.
"It will align the obligations of broker-dealers with the expectations of their clients," says Denise Voigt Crawford, president, North American Securities Administrators Association, an organization representing state securities regulators.
But Roper acknowledges that incorporating the House's version of the fiduciary standard into the final financial services reform bill won't be easy. "Because the Senate bill serves as the base text for the conference, legislation will need to be amended if the House's pro-investor approach is to prevail," she says.
She's also concerned that Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.), main author of the Senate provision and a member of the conference committee, is in position to cast a crucial vote on the issue.
"There's broad support for the measure, but is Sen. Johnson willing to compromise?" Roper asks.
Efforts to reach Sen. Johnson's office for comment were unsuccessful.
Roper says there's a one-year time limit on the study proposed in the Senate bill.
"I'd argue that if we can't get the House language, we'd be better off with nothing than have the Senate language because it wastes the SEC's time and resources if it doesn't give it the authority to solve the problem [by enabling it to impose the fiduciary standard at study's end]," she says.