President Donald Trump’s delay of the new U.S. Department of Labor fiduciary rule requiring financial advisers to act in their investors’ best interests might not have its intended effect as some local financial advisers say many firms have already complied with the new standards.

The rule would have gone into effect April 10, but Trump signed an executive order Feb. 3, halting the new regulation. The rule passed last June and has been rolled out in phases.

The ruling would have prohibited advisers from concealing potential conflict of interest and states that all fees and commissions must be disclosed to clients before making any recommendation. Fees, in this scenario, are referral fees or kickbacks that financial advisers may receive for recommending one financial product over another.

It’s an industry shift away from “suitability” standards, which only required advisers to recommend products based on what is suitable for the clients’ age, financial goals and income, but these products were not necessarily the best products for their clients’ individual needs.

The Department of Labor issued a statement Feb. 3, saying it “will now consider its legal options to delay the applicability date as we comply with the president’s memorandum.”

But taking such a route is a waste of resources, said Marnie C. Lambert, president of the Oklahoma-based Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association, citing recent federal court actions upholding the regulations.

“The investing public and the industry should have certainty moving forward. What is now certain is that this is a good rule, a carefully crafted rule, and a rule capable of timely implementation by the industry,” she said in a statement.

But the U.S. Chamber of Commerce praised Trump’s executive order.

“The flawed fiduciary rule’s rushed implementation would have jeopardized access to retirement advice and choice while its severe consequences and compliance burdens would have made it harder for small businesses to offer retirement plans,” said Thomas Donohue, president and CEO of the chamber, in a statement.

Since the rule passed, many financial firms began revamping their systems to comply.

The requirement wouldn’t have affected fee-only financial advisers, who charge their clients a percentage of a client’s total assets under management — sometimes anywhere from 2 percent to 5 percent.

Financial advisers like Jeremy Hunsaker of Wells Fargo Advisors operate within these compensation structures and are already held to this fiduciary standard.

Hunsaker said the new rule most likely will not have an effect on him or his clients, many of whom are about to retire or did retire and are seeking income from their portfolios.

“I don’t charge per transaction, so there is no incentive for me to recommend one product over another. By charging per transaction, there could potentially be a conflict of interest there,” Hunsaker said. “If you’re trading more often or buying investment products, oftentimes insurance-based products have higher commission than trading stocks, bonds or mutual funds.”

Hunsaker said Wells Fargo has invested heavily in ensuring the financial firm is ready when the new fiduciary rule goes into effect.

“Wells Fargo has spent millions on getting up to date and ready for the new rule. … We’ve also done a lot of training on upcoming changes and how we can all stay compliant. They’ve been really on top of that,” he said.

Matthew Sweezea, financial adviser with Primerica, has mixed feelings about the new rule.

Although he says overall transparency and accountability is a good thing, he worried that ensuring compliance will raise administrative costs for brokers which will get passed on to the consumer, eventually limiting investment options and access to financial advice for a lot of middle-income households, which are already intimidated by investing.

He also said that it would affect many people who may not meet minimum account thresholds for traditional fee-only advisers. He said many investors may set higher minimums to offset the administrative and compliance costs.

“With these new regulatory requirements, the access to fee-only advisers is not as available as people might think. It will leave more consumers trying to fend for themselves when it comes to accessing trustworthy advice,” Sweezea said. “In any industry, you’re going to have a few bad apples trying to cut corners, but the majority of the industry is focused on helping consumers and their clients accomplish their financial goals.”

Sweezea said Primerica offers clients two different fee structures. One is a retail platform in which the client pays a sales charge when investing in a mutual fund company, like Fidelity or American Funds. Although the sales charge for every fund family may be different, the compensation to the adviser is the same no matter which one they recommend. The second option is a wrap fee-based program calculated based on the assets under management.

Sweezea said most firms have already adopted more stringent guidelines even if the fiduciary rule doesn’t end up moving forward through the Department of Labor.

In October 2015, he and a group of other local financial advisers sat on a panel hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in partnership with the Tri-City Regional Chamber of Commerce to discuss how the rule could have a negative impact on small business retirement plans, such as qualified plans and Individual Retirement Accounts.

“The biggest market it will affect is middle-income households, who may not have access to fee-based advisers,” Sweezea said. “We’ve always been driven to serve clients who are just like us — mostly middle-income households who are hard-working and want to make sure they can hit retirements at some point, or they’re trying to pay off student loans or just put away smaller amounts of money.”

These clients, he said, may have $10,000 to $15,000 from a 401K and are trying to figure out what to do with those assets.

For example, Sweezea works with clients who may start with only $50 invested in mutual funds — the minimum they’ve established with the fund company. The new change, he says, will create more administrative costs associated with filing fees. Some companies will charge $40 every quarter, which doesn’t cover advising fees.

“The additional paperwork associated with meeting the new regulatory requirements will pass the cost on to advisers in terms of compensation, which will go down and will reduce the amount of qualified people in the industry for consumers who need investment advice,” Sweezea said. “When you put a blanket resolution on everybody, it can hurt some people. Specific clients will be affected from different financial status, making them less likely to take advantages of working with an adviser.”