Nobody likes the prospect of an increase in regulation. RFAs are the same. Some have recorded their opinion that they would rather not be regulated as AFAs. (see Susan Edmunds' article on Goodreturns at this link).
The issue here is closely aligned to labeling. Third-party advisers - whether AFA or RFA - generally hate the idea that a person registered in a QFE may have a business card which includes the magic words 'financial adviser' but have little or not scope or experience to provide anything other than execution only services. Put another way, they don't provide any personalised financial advice, so why are they allowed the use of the term? In the UK terms like "restricted adviser" are used to flag some limitation clearly to the consumer. Here in New Zealand our FSC asked in its submission on FAA/FSP review that "sales" be used in stead of "adviser".
I know many hundreds of RFAs and thousands do business with Quotemonster. Most of them are what I would call 'AFA-ready': they are part-way through or have passed virtually all of their level 5 qualification, are members of a professional body, do continuing education, and have well-developed concepts of advice. Overwhelmingly the work they do is personalised financial advice and most of them would not object to being categorised as AFAs - after grumbling a bit about the cost and record keeping. Some of them even wanted to be regulated as AFAs and were told that they cannot unless they advise on category one products.
Still a few RFAs may be unhappy with the change, but if it was part of a package of changes that saw the QFE advisers lose the right to use the coveted term 'financial adviser' unless they were actually providing advice, I suspect most would think it was worth it.
The other issue that is overlooked by the people commenting on Susan's article is that you remain free to offer a class or execution-only service, provided the client understands and agrees.