(Bloomberg) -- Every financial advisor in the country has beendebating the Department of Labor's new fiduciary rule, arguingabout whether or not it's really good for investors.

For my part, I’m on the record saying that the rule -- whichrequires brokers who work with retirement accounts to put their clients’ financial interests ahead oftheir own -- is a boon for investors.

One of the largest brokerages in the world, Merrill Lynch, hasalso thrown its immense weight behind the shift.

It has introduced sweeping changes to its retirement accounts inresponse to the fiduciary rule, giving its investors myriad newchoices about how to invest retirement savings and deciding howmuch to pay for advice.

The fiduciary rule is a broad standard, but it hasa very specific consequence: With limited exceptions, the rule nolonger allows mutual fund companies to pay brokers for sellingtheir funds to clients. Why would you sell other products if itmeant less money in your own wallet?

Thanks to the Department of Labor, a decades-long compensationpractice for brokers that was rife with conflicts of interest isnow ending.

Related: FIAs to take a hit next year, courtesy ofDOL fiduciary rule

But in the weeks and months following the announcement of thefiduciary rule earlier this year, it wasn’t clear how brokeragefirms would adapt. Would they embrace the spirit of the rule? Wouldthey use the rule as an excuse to raise fees for retirement savers?Would they simply abandon those investors altogether?

Edward Jones was the first major broker to announce changes toits practices, and the path it chose didn’t bode well forinvestors.

Edward Jones said that it would stop offering mutual funds andETFs to commission-based retirement accounts. Investors in thoseaccounts would have to make do with stocks, bonds, variableannuities and certificates of deposit.

If they didn't like those choices they would have to move to amanaged account that charges a pricier asset-based fee.

I suggested that Edward Jones instead try to: 1) expand mutualfund options to include index and other low-cost funds, 2) allowclients to choose between a managed account that charges anasset-based fee and a self-directed account that chargescommission-based fees, and 3) only accept fees from its clients inorder to minimize conflicts of interest.

As far as I can tell, Edward Jones isn’t doing any of that.

But Merrill is. Its retirement clients will be able tochoose between a managed account that charges an asset-based feeand a do-it-yourself brokerage account that chargescommissions.

Both options will offer a full range of investment options,including index funds. Most important: Merrill will take fees fromits clients, and nobody else.

Merrill is also joining the modern world with a newrobo-adviser. Merrill Edge Guided Investing –- which is scheduledto launch in February of next year -- will offer active portfoliomanagement in a robo wrapper with an account minimum of just $5,000and an annual fee of 0.45 percent. That fee is modestly higher thanthe fee charged by first-generation robo-advisers who take apassive approach to investing. (Merrill has not yet announced theETFs that will be used in its robo-portfolios, so it’s not clearhow the cost of those ETFs will compare with ETFs used by otherrobo-advisers.)

Let’s applaud Merrill’s efforts and recognize the sea changethat they represent. Mother Merrill -- as it’s affectionatelycalled by its thundering herd of brokers -- remains astandard-bearer among traditional brokers. It’s hard to imaginethat its competitors (including Edward Jones) won’t followsuit.

But Merrill shouldn’t stop there. All of its clients should havethe same investment options that it now offers holders ofretirement accounts. That’s the inevitable next step, andtraditional brokers like Merrill would do better to lead thatchange than to be grudgingly dragged along by regulators -- oreclipsed by competitors.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion ofBloomberg LP and its owners.

Copyright 2018 Bloomberg. All rightsreserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten,or redistributed.