The recent RDR consultation paper represents a 'common sense' set of proposals, says Transact head of marketing Malcolm Murray.
The industry veteran thinks the regulator's plan not to ban commission on protection products is on balance a sensible move because of the "dire shortage" of protection take-up.
"There is a dearth of life insurance amongst the public - and anything that can improve that I welcome," he says.
However, he issues a warning to those companies looking to profit from maximum commissions at the expense of policyholders.
"What annoys me intensely is if the client sees no benefit when an adviser chooses to accept less than the maximum commission," he says. "That saving must be reflected as a benefit to the policyholder and not the insurance company."
Murray dismisses concerns that should wraps enter the life insurance arena they will have two different, and potentially confusing, remuneration structures.
"The protection element for the majority of IFAs will sit outside platforms - so it won't be any different to the way it is now. A lot of advisers already write insurance premiums which do not sit on platforms.
"And wraps do not pay commission - the client pays it. We have only one model of payment at Transact and that is what a client agrees to pay the adviser. This is completely different to the life insurance model."
He also thinks the FSA's decision to create an in-house standards model - as opposed to a more costly independent organisation - is pragmatic.
"I heard a saying recently that common sense is in such short supply these days it is mistaken for genius," says Murray. "The in-house standards model may not necessarily be genius - but it is certainly common sense."
The FSA's pledge to look at alternative ways of assessing advisers other than exams is a sound one too, notes Murray.
"There has to be a common sense approach to demonstrate knowledge," he says.
He agrees with a suggestion from AWD Chase's marketing director Martyn Laverick that advisers should be able to take research books into exams to replicate the tools they have at their fingertips in the real world.
"Yes, there is certainly sense in that," says Murray. "If an adviser has ten years experience in the business, has received no complaints and can answer questions such as the difference between investment trusts and unit trusts then that constitutes a satisfactory knowledge regardless of whether he can recount facts and figurers."
But the industry veteran warns of the dangers posed by some advisers who lack the necessary knowledge.
"I know people who have been in the industry for as long as me who have scant knowledge and continue to perpetuate myths," he says. "These people, who often have excellent customer service skills, are potentially dangerous and need to be guarded against."
Tapered annual allowance headache
Our weekly heads-up for advisers
Acquisition completed earlier this month.
Changes to take place by next year
Launched 18 November