Sesame is urging the FSA to conduct a full cost benefit analysis of the RDR, amid fears many adviser businesses will become unprofitable due to the regulatory burden.
Chief Executive Ivan Martin says the move to higher professional standards is welcomes, but says it should not be enforced at the expense of consumer access to advice.
He believes increased costs faced by advisers, including rising regulatory levies and capital adequacy requirements, will not result in a marked improvement for consumers, and may actually lessen their access to advice.
"Sesame has always supported the drive towards higher professional standards, but we must balance this against the cost of the change and the outcome for consumers," he explains.
"A headlong rush to higher levels of academic qualifications will not necessarily improve access and quality of advice for consumers, because it may disenfranchise many professional competent advisers who possess many years of experience."
Martin argues the recession makes the move to RDR counter-intuitive, as the burden on firms will become unbearable for many.
He says the FSA has a responsibility to the IFA profession, and the general public, to carefully consider the effects its action will have and fully research the impact of RDR.
Since the original Gleneagles speech much has changed and the drivers that produced the original RDR may no longer apply, or have been overtaken by other, even more powerful forces," he adds.
"Although we understand and support many of the objectives of the RDR, the implementation of the measures needs to be pragmatic and rooted within a clear recognition that advisers and product providers face challenging times."
Have your say:
"As a financial adviser for over 20 years I have been through many changes but I feel the worst change was moving away from self regulation. The FSA is not working and has now become a very expensive cost to the industry without any real benefit.
First complaints:- A compliant is thoroughly investigated by very compotent file checkers within the firm or network however there is still an avenue to approach the FOS for further investigation but at a cost to the adviser whether it is upheld or not.
Second :- We have updated the industry qulaifications on number of occasions but directors at the head of banks who deal with substantial amounts of money can carry on giving advice and making decisions which has just cost the tax payer millions without any banking qualifications at all." Steve Pollard, Pollard & Smiles LtdIFAonline
Claim from SocGen's global markets division
Third annual Hampton-Alexander review
European Commission yields to pressure
Numbers in Adviserland
Retirement sector trends