Women who are most vulnerable to changes in the state pension should not receive help from the government to make transitional arrangements according to PP research.
More than half of 115 respondents took this view in Pensions Buzz.
Elsewhere respondents said The Pensions Regulator (TPR)should focus on auto-enrolment compliance and governance in defined contribution schemes over 2016.
On funding levels for defined benefit schemes, 42% thought they would worsen over the year.
Women who are most affected by state pension equalisation should not receive help from the government according to 54% of respondents.
Of the 115 respondents, many were unsympathetic, worried about the cost to taxpayers, and claimed it was up to individuals to make their own pension arrangements.
A commentator said: "A slippery slope. There will be others who could be badly treated - we should not be selective - in principle there could be some transitional arrangement for anyone who loses out by more than a certain figure - but not everyone will be happy with that either."
Another observed that no matter where the line was drawn, there would always be losers.
However 37% disagreed with one asking: "Why can't they protect the benefits of women hit by state pension changes? They were quick enough to introduce protection for high earners who were hit by the lifetime allowance changes."
The changes had been poorly thought through and the transition had not been managed effectively from a communications perspective, another said.
Meanwhile 9% were undecided.
The Pensions Regulator (TPR) should focus on automatic enrolment (AE) compliance and improving the governance of defined contribution (DC) schemes according to a majority of respondents.
One in five said DC governance and administration should be the focus while 43% argued consolidating AE was a key goal.
A pundit said: "We need to ensure auto enrolment is a success so we don't have future generations failing to save for retirement."
Another said AE standards, practice and implementation, still had a long way to go.
A similar case was made for DC governance with one pundit saying "there are still too many loopholes which need closing".
Meanwhile 12% said TPR should concentrate on other areas such as assisting small employers with AE and not creating more regulations.
Around 8% respectively said defined benefit (DB) integrated risk management and defining trusteeship for the 21st century should be the regulator's priorities.
Just over four out of ten respondents said the deficits of DB schemes would worsen during 2016.
This was attributed to lower interest rates, market volatility and failing investment strategies.
A pundit blamed the way funding levels were calculated and said: "As long as (totally notional) deficits are calculated by reference to gilt yields, DB funding levels will continue to fall. An entirely different way is needed to calculate the likelihood of employers being able to meet their promise of paying pensions - which most will be perfectly able to do."
According to 30% of those surveyed, there would be little change over the course of the year as the outlook for the global economy remained similar to the recent past.
Just 18% were optimistic about funding levels getting better, with one respondent saying: "Hopefully the equity market will perform somewhat better."
One in ten was undecided.
Most respondents said judges made life difficult for trustees by focusing too much on technicalities in their rulings with 39% believing this was the case.
Judges did not appreciate the day-to-day challenges trustees faced and were not practically minded, according to a couple of commentators.
However others blamed the problem on the law itself rather than on judges. A pundit said: "The letter of the law is easier to rule upon than the intention of the law. Poor drafting is the real problem."
Another said the judges could not be faulted for their interpretation of the law.
Conversely 23% of people thought judges were doing a good job. "Judges are simply doing their job. We have a British legal system based on regulations and precedents, not on fairness and principles. They have to uphold what the law is, rather than what they may wish that it could be," said one.
Just under four out of ten were undecided.
Almost half of respondents (49%) thought that people cashing in their pension pots last summer was a problem.
Some were worried that pensioners were making short-sighted decisions while others blamed politicians.
A pundit said: "Gorgeous George has presided over the biggest tax con of recent times predicated on the lack of knowledge of the man in the street. All these pots will be seeking welfare payments after George Osborne has retired on his gold plated pension. If he adds taxed exempt exempt (TEE) to that there will not be any occupational pensions to tax in five years (except NEST)."
Four in ten did not think this was cause for concern with several pointing out that sizes of the pots were small. A pundit asked: "What did you expect? Many of these pots were too small to have any realistic alternative option."
A different commentator took the question more personally and said: "I resent the inference that as a pensioner I have lost any financial nous I may have had."
Some 11% were undecided.
To read the survey results, click here.
PMI president Lesley Alexander and the institute's immediate past-president Lesley Carline talk about the challenges of Covid-19 and the opportunities and challenges the industry faces in the future.
The Pensions Administration Standards Association (PASA) has announced global consultant Deloitte as its expert knowledge provider for data.
This week’s top stories included further support for an overhaul of the pension tax regime, while the Treasury confirmed the Retail Prices Index will be reformed by 2030.
XPS Pensions posted a 9% increase in revenues during the six months to 30 September – a rise driven by a number of large client wins.
Here they are - the winners of the 3rd annual Women in Pensions Awards...