The logic behind this argument is that it would be disconcerting if you were to visit a restaurant and the chef spent the entire evening complaining about all those dastardly food safety rules.
Clients, it is said, will react just as badly to an adviser complaining about the regulations covering suitability reports, and the result will be a bad impression on that adviser in particular and the advice profession in general.
Serious professions, so the argument goes, accept they need to be regulated.
I have some sympathy with this line of thinking - but only up to a point.
Many of the professions which get the best hearing have the biggest trade bodies.
Certainly it is true that it would give a bad impression if advisers began long diatribes about the Financial Conduct Authority or Mifid II in front of their clients - for a start most clients would probably have no idea what on earth their adviser was talking about.
But I'm somewhat sceptical as to whether there are all that many advisers who are actually doing this (those who are, for the record, should stop).
My main concern about this line of thinking is that it too easily becomes an argument in favour of simply taking your medicine - whatever that might be.
I don't think I have ever met an adviser who has said they do not need to be regulated at all (if they do, they haven't admitted it openly, which suggests they know they are probably in a minority).
But that doesn't mean advisers cannot play a role in shaping the regulatory environment in which they work.
Indeed I would say it means they should play that role and, sometimes, that will involve registering a complaint or raising valid points of contention.
If you surrender the role of regulation exclusively to the FCA then, in many respects, advisers cannot complain.
What does that mean? Well, it obviously means acting as an adviser and running your business in an exemplary manner (though I acknowledge most advisers will already be doing so).
But it also means interacting with the regulator in a manner which is, perhaps, less adversarial while also being prepared to lobby the FCA and hold them to account.
That doesn't mean advisers cannot play a role in shaping the regulatory environment.
I would argue this also means joining and being actively involved in a trade body.
It is no coincidence that many of the professions which get the best hearing have the biggest trade bodies and lobby groups.