In what is perhaps the most forceful defense of the Securities and Exchange Commission's recent rule-making on broker-dealer and investment adviser conduct, Chairman Jay Clayton hit back against his critics, saying their arguments ranged from false and misleading to simple "nonsense" in a speech before an investor roundtable event in Boston this week. "Since we adopted our rulemaking package, there has been no shortage of views expressed, both from those in support of our efforts and from those who would have preferred a different approach," Chair Clayton said in his address. "Some of this commentary has, in my view, shown a lack of understanding of the law and legal obligations of financial professionals, both before and after adoption of our rulemaking package. This has only further solidified my view that our actions were timely and appropriate, and will ultimately benefit retail investors and our markets," he added. On June 5th, the SEC formally adopted a new standard of conduct for all broker-dealer recommendations to retail investors, called Regulation Best Interest, or Reg BI. And it also issued a new Fiduciary Interpretation, designed to reaffirm and clarify registered investment advisers' fiduciary obligations to retail investors under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. Critics of Reg BI have claimed throughout the rulemaking process that it does not go far enough to protect investors from brokers' conflicts of interest, that conflicts will be allowed so long as they are simply disclosed, and that the use of the term "best interest" is not adequately defined, which will ultimately sow greater confusion among retail investors over the distinction between brokers and fiduciary IAs. "We're disappointed with many aspects of the new regulations," said Ric Edelman, founder and executive chairman of Edelman Financial Services, which merged with Financial Engines last year to form the largest independent fiduciary RIA firm in the country. "Its use of the phrase 'best interest' is frankly not the same as the fiduciary standard RIAs have always had in place," Edelman recently told BenefitsPRO. "That will create confusion in the market place. It's unfortunate the SEC has used terminology that confuses rather than clarifies business practices." Other critics have gone so far as to call Chair Clayton's integrity into question. "Not only do we see the SEC plan as a step backwards for investors, we believe the Chairman is deliberately leading a false and misleading impression that his proposal will raise the bar for brokers and advisers," said Christine Lazaro, president of Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association (PIABA), which represents investors in securities arbitrations, in a press call on the eve of the regulations' adoption. "However, that simply isn't true. We know that, the Chairman knows that, and the industry that is the only group that has endorsed these rules knows it as well," added Lazaro. In his speech, Chair Clayton pushed back—strenuously—against those and other criticisms. "I believe that much of this criticism—which is focused broadly on the extent of the investor protections under Reg. BI and our Fiduciary Interpretation—is false, misleading, misguided, and unfortunately, in some cases, is simply policy preferences disguised as legal critiques," he said. Chair Clayton itemized seven specific criticisms that have been levied by consumer advocates, RIAs, and others that believe all investment providers should by subject to a uniform fiduciary standard. The slides above show excerpts of his responses. READ MORE: SEC, DOL moving in tandem on investment advice rules Suitability plus? Lawyers say SEC proposal lacks clarity CFA Institute says SEC has immediate authority to clarify broker roles