Regulatory relief

The Labor Department is receiving a deluge of feedback from advisers and investors on whether to revise its controversial regulation.

A new bill would go further than past attempts to block the Labor Department altogether.

The move comes the same week that the SEC said it would try to coordinate with the Labor Department on the regulation.

Jay Clayton acknowledged in testimony on Capitol Hill that it's a “very complicated issue.”

It allows more flexibility than some may think, according to executives from the two firms.

The legislation ― called the Financial Choice Act ― has little chance of passing the Senate in its current form.

Seeking more help from the industry, the regulator emphasizes a process that offers leniency for firms that proactively report and fix compliance failures.

There is "no principled legal basis" to do so, Labor Secretary Acosta says.

The regulator wants the exam process to be a dialogue with firms and advisers.

Business groups looking for regulatory relief were quick to hail the Senate's confirmation of Jay Clayton, a veteran Wall Street lawyer.

The Labor Department's own rule-making process may be presenting hurdles to completely rescinding the regulation.

One brokerage executive likens the situation to changing the rules of a football game after the teams are already on the field.

The Labor Department will now conduct a review with an eye toward amending or rescinding it.

Here's what an alternative approach to the Labor Department regulation could look like.

Postponement serves no purpose, because honest consideration will not change the regulation.

Big firms are asking for more time, while investors and even some advisers are asking the Labor Department to keep the rule intact.

With an eye toward potential repeal, Alexander Acosta told senators that he will abide by President Trump's executive memorandum and review the rule's impact.

The senator isn't waiting for attorney Jay Clayton's confirmation hearing to ramp up her opposition.

One planner says there's no reasonable basis for a delay, while another says he can't afford all the compliance costs.

Market forces have wrought changes that can't be repealed, according to champions of the rule.