The director of DP Pensions disagrees that the Financial Conduct Authority's capital adequacy requirements should be based on asset value.
Elaine Turtle, director of DP Pensions, said the firm was prepared for the reform but that she disagreed it was the best option.
The Financial Conduct Authority wants Sipp firms to increase their capital adequacy from £5,000 to £20,000. There would also be higher requirements for firms which hold 'non-standard' assets such as commercial property.
She said she agreed that the minimum requirement should be increased from £5,000 but disagreed it should be based on the value of the assets.
Ms Turtle said: "I think it's mad, it should be based on the number of Sipps held rather than the value. I also think we should have two to three years to prepare for it like advisers had with their capital adequacy ruling."
Capital adequacy rules for financial advisers have been delayed from December 2013 to December 2015 to allow advisers time to adjust to the RDR.
{desktop}{/desktop}{mobile}{/mobile}
Ms Turtle also felt the new rules would discourage competition between firms.
"It has been forecast that 12-15 companies will close because they won't be able to meet the requirements. It's almost as if the FCA is pushing them to close. It's then difficult if a new firm wants to set up and that's not good for competition," she said.
Around 40 per cent of DP Pensions' activity is commercial property and Ms Turtle said she had always seen it as a solid investment so was surprised the FCA had listed it as a non-standard activity.
Ms Turtle also sits on the committee of Association of Member-Directed Pensions (AMPS) with DP Pensions' managing director David Phillips.
She said the firm had submitted a response to consultation the FCA and that was broadly in line with the AMPS response.
In its response in February, AMPS stated that it was "not convinced" by the proposed ruling.
Chairman Andrew Roberts said: "We do not agree that assets under administration should be used for calculating a firm's capital requirement as there are some unintended consequences that would increase the risk of consumer harm as time progresses."