Betterment, the country’s largest independent robo advisory, offered its opposition to the proposed delay, saying it would “needlessly perpetuate conflicted advice at investors’ expense.”

Three independent, regional broker-dealers wrote in support of the delay.

Maplewood Investment Advisors, which describes itself as a Dallas-based full-service brokerage firm, offered a detailed letter supporting the delay.

It noted the cost and confusion to comply with the rule, the potential for increased litigation under the fiduciary rule’s Best Interest Contract Exemption, and the risk of narrowing investment options to passively managed investments as reasons to delay and reconsider the rule.

More broker-dealers, registered advisory firms, insurance companies, and wire houses can expect to submit comments on the proposed delay before the comment period closes on March 17.

But to date, the lion’s share of commenters are individual investment professionals, including a smattering of CFPs and others claiming to be fiduciaries, and individual consumers.

Only a handful of individual commenters specifically address the merits of delaying the implementation date.

Roughly 26 of the 81 comment letters expressed their support for the rule.

Some letters of support were from individuals in the investment industry, but most were from consumers.

One letter of support was from a boutique California law firm specializing in bankruptcies. “There should be no delay, this rule is long overdue.”

About five participants in the Thrift Savings Plan, the defined contribution option sponsored by the government for federal employees, wrote virtually identical independent comment letters supporting the rule.

“There has been extensive analysis regarding the economic benefits of the fiduciary rule, yet there is little support as to why a delay would benefit the public,” the letters from TSP participants claimed.

One consumer pledging support for the rule attached a letter Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-MA, recently sent to the acting head of Labor, cautioning against the perils in delaying the April 10 implementation date.

Supports of delay and revise chime in from industry, public

The safe majority of commenters, so far, want to see the fiduciary rule delayed, revised, or in some cases, rescinded altogether.

Related: Labor reveals balanced approach to reviewing fiduciary rule in proposed delay

Several CFP fiduciary advisors wrote supporting delay and revision. One CFP said she supports expanding a fiduciary standard to all financial professionals.

“The issue for me is that this is the wrong way to do it,” said the CFP. “The rule should be written by the SEC and FINRA, not the DOL, and it should cover all investment accounts, not just IRA type accounts.”

That argument, along with others offered by investment professionals in the letters, echo arguments regulators and stakeholders have heard throughout the six-year rulemaking process leading up to the recently proposed delay.

Many investment professionals claimed to serve small town communities and clients with modest savings in qualified accounts.

They argued an often-aired complaint over the rule: As written, it will all but insist lower-value brokerage accounts be transferred to fee-based compensation models, which will make servicing lower-value accounts prohibitively expensive for brokers.

The consumer with the most extensive comments is from an anonymous investor claiming to have $2 million in a Merrill Lynch brokerage account.

One-third of those assets are in an IRA that will be impacted by the rule.

Merrill Lynch, the brokerage arm of Bank of America, was among the first large institutions to announce it was moving all IRA accounts to a fee-based model to comply with the rule.

According to the investor’s letter, Merrill has informed the investor they will be paying a flat fee of 1 percent on his $635,000 IRA portfolio. The investor self-describes as a buy-and-hold investor.

“They would rather me pay $16,350 a year in fees than the $800 I am currently spending,” the commenter says. (The commenter’s math is a bit unclear, as a 1 percent fee on $635,000 amounts to $6,350.)

Some of the comment letters betrayed confusion, or lack of familiarity with the rule.

One claimed to be a sales person specializing in “fixed annuities.” In its support to repeal the rule, the letter seemed to confuse immediate annuities, which are not subject to new prohibited transaction exemptions under the rule, with fixed indexed annuities, which are subject to new oversight.

A handful of commenters were vague as to their support, or opposition to the proposed delay, or the rule itself.

One anonymous letter was comprised of a single world: “HELP.”