"As in most matters since 1975, the world has changed, she said, in a hearing on March 1. "It's vitally important when we define important terms, like who is a fiduciary, we get it right."

Mark Quinn, chief risk officer at First Allied Securities, said that although the company is still wrapping their heads around the regulations, the mandates don't seem entirely bad.

"There will be a lot of compliance burden at first, but there will be some good things in the long run," he said. "I think for the most part firms have done all they could over the past few years to not be defined as fiduciary, partly because they didn't want to deal with all that goes along with that, and partly because it's difficult to understand.

"I think the broker-dealer industry and to a lesser extent the investment advisor industry is certainly grappling with that, good or bad."

But not everyone shares this relatively positive outlook. Members of the Republican party claim that there is no "solid basis" for the fiduciary rule, and have urged the Securities and Exchange Commission not to move forward with their version of the regulations.

Products under fire

Another problem is that many key products — such as IRAs and employee-owned options — are being rolled in with the fiduciary definition. And for plan sponsors and industry experts, that simply isn't right.

Bellaire said the current regulation is written too broadly, and, if enacted, it will limit the availability of IRAs and qualified plans to the detriment of investors.

"The IRAs are much more self-directed than 401(k)s," he said, "and so it seems illogical to us that we would expand the definition of fiduciary to include IRAs when they operate very differently."

Michael Keeling, president of the ESOP Association, said that there's certainly reason to be concerned about IRAs. He doesn't fault mutual fund companies or stock brokers for being concerned about the rulemaking, either. But what he's most concerned about is the niche market of employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs).

"From day one of reading the regulation, we noticed that ESOPs are hardly mentioned in that document," he said. "They're mentioned four times. And now, smaller companies who are privately held are facing a sea change where there advisors are concerned because they'll have to become fiduciaries."

Cost issues

Another problem is that implementing the rules may come at a high cost for many firms. Quinn said that the cost of compliance will be very considerable, but it will put everyone on a level playing field.

"At a minimum, you've got an up-front disclosure obligation, and really up until now there's really not been any time spent creating disclosure statements," he said.

There will also be a substantial training effort.

"For most businesses, it's a relatively small number of brokers," Quinn said. "Maybe only five or so. There's an awful lot of training involved there to make sure they know how to be compliant, so those are things that we and I think everyone else is just coming to terms with."

And with a decision not expected until July, and a compliance date by years' end — that's not much time to comply at all.