There must be clarity on tax relief sooner rather than later according to PP research.
Sorting out pensions tax relief is the most important issue singled out in Ros Altmann's resignation letter according to 41% of Pensions Buzz's 119 respondents.
Among other priorities, 34% chose defined benefit (DB) funding, 20% selected better communication on the state pension and 5% said fairer treatment for women is the priority.
One commentator argued it is important the government comes to a decision on tax relief reform to create stability and remove uncertainty.
Another said: "Pension tax relief is a fundamental advantage of savings for pensions and so it should be seen as a priority to be kept."
For those who picked DB funding a respondent reflected, "too much time is devoted to funding schemes for an ever-decreasing proportion of the employer's workforce to the detriment of the 'other' employees".
Respondents also said when it comes to the state pension people need to know what the state will give them to plan their retirement properly and therefore communication is crucial.
It is wrong to think DB schemes are unaffordable because trustees cannot cut members' benefits more easily say 62% of respondents.
Several criticised the way liabilities are measured while others suggest DB schemes are ultimately unaffordable.
A pundit said: "They're unaffordable because of the methodology for valuing the liabilities."
Trustees have traditionally over estimated long-term investment returns and not kept a prudent margin to cover bad years, another added.
However others took a more nuanced view and attributed the difficulties to numerous factors. "Largest ones seem to be longevity and investment assumptions over the long term," said one.
Conversely 33% had the opposite opinion. "Certainly they could be more affordable if benefits could be cut, but that doesn't mean that they should," said a respondent.
Another suggested "some of the gold plating needs to be prised off DB schemes" and "the first target should be pensions in payment, as these are the members that have benefited the most from state-imposed generosity".
Gilts have been hammered the most by the outcome of the EU referendum, according to 52%.
In the other asset classes, 19% picked ‘other' such as property, 18% chose equities, 7% went for alternatives and 4% selected infrastructure.
Brexit has depressed interest rates even further and makes the outlook for gilt yields and liabilities worse. "Low interest rates could be with us for a very long time now," said one.
Many respondents believe property has been affected badly by the decision to leave the EU. "Suspension of property funds has been an issue for some pension scheme members."
On the other hand, some argued equities are doing well. "[It has] already proved the doomsayers wrong about the stock market!" said one.
Another observed equities in global companies have soared as a result of the Brexit vote.
Regarding investment in infrastructure a pundit said: "[There is] likely to be a boost to infrastructure through direct government investment and also if property holding costs are removed from the charge cap on default funds in defined contribution (DC)."
Some 41% thought the Transparency Task Force (TTF) is undermined by its members joining the Investment Association's (IA) advisory board on cost transparency, which keeps discussions secret.
The decision to make the board's meetings confidential to has led to criticism, and even rifts within the TTF.
Respondents said it is hard to square members of one organisation that campaigns for transparency co-operating with a less transparent outfit.
One asked: "Am I the only one to find it ironic that the discussions on cost transparency are kept secret? They are still not getting it."
Another pointed out Franz Kafka "would have been proud of the idea - an advisory board on cost transparency which keeps its discussions secret."
Conversely just 11% disagreed. "There needs to be realism about how improved transparency can be achieved. Involving IA members increases the likelihood of this happening," said one.
If the TTF is to have influence, it needs to take key positions and argue the case from within, another suggested.
Just under half, 48% were undecided.
A significantly greater number of respondents, 35%, said companies can withstand further market volatility compared to 25% who believed they cannot.
Markets have always been volatile and people usually find a way to counteract this, it was argued. "It will vary by company. The government needs to support business through this period of volatility and provide some flexibility," said one.
Companies can cope with instability while pensions probably cannot, another argued.
However a different person asked: "How robust are the findings in this report?"
Of the quarter who disagreed one said: "Simple answer is no. An orderly stampede to Croydon is on the cards."
Society cannot afford these guarantees, another added.
Nonetheless 40% admited they do not know. "Depends - some can where they have well-developed contingency plans but these are the ones where covenant tends to be better anyway because they have planned ahead in the past," said one.
In this week's Pensions Buzz, we want to know whether you support the ruling that defined benefit (DB) trustees must equalise GMPs in past transfers.
More than £130bn of company funds are tied up in pension schemes specifically due to lower than expected levels of life expectancy improvements over the last decade, according to PwC.
XPS Pensions Group has launched a scam protection checklist to assist trustees in meeting The Pensions Regulator’s (TPR) scam pledge initiative.
This week’s top stories included the rejection of an automatic guidance amendment in the Pension Schemes Bill, while The Pensions Regulator posted a sharp increase in the use of its powers.
The majority of the pensions industry agrees an eventual net-zero target should not be mandated for schemes as part of the Pension Schemes Bill, according to a Professional Pensions poll.