The chief executive of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) is "sympathetic"to calculating the scheme's levy based on the risk posed by specific businesses.
Speaking at a meeting of building society leaders in London, Mark Neale said he would back a risk-weighted approach to calculating the levy as long as the determination of a business's risk was calculated in a fair way.
He said: "I am personally sympathetic to risk-weighting FSCS levies. But we must have a transparent, objective and fair way of ecognising and assessing risk.
"So if that is want you want, please come forward with ideas about how to do this."
However, he also warned that funding compensation costs was a "zero sum game". It's possible to carve up the costs differently but not to reduce them, he suggested.
Last month, following the FSCS's announcement that it was planning to raise another interim levy following mounting costs from the demise of Catalyst, advisers voiced concerns over the unfair way they were being hit by compensation costs, some highlighting the need for a risk-based approach.
Forty Two Wealth Management principal Alan Dick said: "I understand that security for the consumer is paramount but it seems that those who take the fewest risks and do the least wrong end up paying the price for those who take excessive risks and get into trouble."
Jacksons Financial Services managing director Pete Matthew added: "The problem with the FSCS grouping is that [Catalyst] is deemed to be an investment firm, but we are advisers, so it's another example of the failure of something we have nothing to do with.
"I'd like to see [the calculation] being properly risk-based. Those that get involved with higher risk stuff should pay for it."
Headed up PFS for eight years
Questions over fairness
Support accessible from one place