The Labor Department has already received more than 80 commentsfollowing last week’s publication of a proposed 60-day delay of the fiduciary rule’sApril 10 implementation date.

Related: U.S. Chamber of Commerce appeals ruling upholdingfiduciary rule

In proposing the delay, Labor opened up a 15-day comment periodspecific to the cost benefits of delaying the implementation date.It also opened up a 45-day comment period to solicit inputregarding the new economic and legal analysis of the rule orderedby a Presidential Memorandum.

Financial Engines, the country’s largest registered investmentadvisory, did not address the merits of delaying the rule, but toldregulators it is prepared to comply with the April 10implementation date, and urged the Labor Department to maintain“strong protections to assure that all Americans have access tounconflicted investment advice,” according to its letter.

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 ofthe delay.

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

It noted the cost and confusion to comply with the rule, thepotential for increased litigation under the fiduciary rule’s BestInterest Contract Exemption, and the risk of narrowing investmentoptions to passively managed investments as reasons to delay andreconsider the rule.

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

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

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

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

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

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

About five participants in the Thrift Savings Plan, the definedcontribution option sponsored by the government for federalemployees, wrote virtually identical independent comment letterssupporting the rule.

“There has been extensive analysis regarding the economicbenefits of the fiduciary rule, yet there is little support as towhy a delay would benefit the public,” the letters from TSPparticipants claimed.

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

Supports of delay and revise chime in from industry,public

The safe majority of commenters, so far, want to see thefiduciary rule delayed, revised, or in some cases, rescindedaltogether.

Related: Labor reveals balanced approach to reviewingfiduciary rule in proposed delay

Several CFP fiduciary advisors wrote supporting delay andrevision. One CFP said she supports expanding a fiduciary standardto all financial professionals.

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

That argument, along with others offered by investmentprofessionals in the letters, echo arguments regulators andstakeholders have heard throughout the six-year rulemaking processleading up to the recently proposed delay.

Many investment professionals claimed to serve small towncommunities and clients with modest savings in qualifiedaccounts.

They argued an often-aired complaint over the rule: As written,it will all but insist lower-value brokerage accounts betransferred to fee-based compensation models, which will makeservicing lower-value accounts prohibitively expensive forbrokers.

The consumer with the most extensive comments is from ananonymous investor claiming to have $2 million in a Merrill Lynchbrokerage account.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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