The idea has been proposed that if you are in any doubt as to whether you should either be a registered adviser, or an authorised financial adviser, then you should choose the latter is at risk of coming undone unless the approach to authorisation is given some flexibility. For example: if a narrow approach to authorisation is taken then, for example, you would need to demonstrate not just sufficient education but actual practice in every area of advice you claim in your ABS. This means that you are afforded no protection against occasionally 'accidentally' straying into another advice area merely by being an AFA.
As a consumer I feel strongly that this should be the case - a non-expert has no idea when an expert oversteps the mark and advises in areas beyond their expertise.
Advisers on the other hand, if they have been encouraged to go for AFA because this supposedly reduces risk, should not be pleased. They may find themselves every bit as constrained in the services that they offer.