I am not quite sure why anyone would oppose the general concept of “putting the customers interest first” especially relating to the elderly. There is a whole industry dedicated to screwing the elderly and they should all be buried alive.
Most reputable financial advisors I have heard discuss it seem to support this rule. However it has always bothered me in its vagueness of interpretation. How does one define “client interest above ones own”? Sometimes it would be clear. Other times more difficult. If a client demands to be placed in an annuity and later finds out that the tax consequences make it a terrible investment, can they sue the advisor ..when they demanded the investment? If the stock market is returning 8% and an advisor places a client in CD’s returning only 1% can they be sued for the opportunity loss of 7%? Will advisors simply stop offering products to some investors all together because they may be viewed as a conflict of interest? Some investments work for some people and not for others.
To me, I do not think it is the governments responsibility or right to pick winners or losers or to shield people from the consequences of their actions. It does however have a responsibility to assure we all play on an even playing field with equal access and that we are fully informed of risks to allow us to make an informed decision. I would love to know the Trump administrations specific objections to this rule. It seems to have the right spirit at its core but it may not have the right set of tools and clarity of requirements.