The majority of Pensions Buzz respondents said directors who avoid obligations should be penalised.
This week's 94 respondents also answered questions on whether there should be a mandatory authorisation regime for all pension schemes to avoid scams, and whether there should be mandatory fiduciary management tenders on an opened or closed basis.
Buzz peers were also asked whether it is right for the regulator to encourage schemes to match dividends with deficit repair contributions, and if defined contribution schemes should sack managers who fail to provide transaction cost data in a reasonable timeframe.
Over three quarters (77%) of this week's Buzz respondents agreed with the government's proposals to potentially disqualify or fine directors who avoid pension obligations through pre-pack administrations or ‘phoenix' companies.
Several said such measures were "entirely and long overdue" and they should have been put in place earlier.
One noted: "If they are inclined to avoid their pension responsibilities in this way, they must not be allowed to be in a position to become repeat offenders."
Another added: "And maybe disqualification or fining does not go far enough, with potential custodial sentences offering a greater deterrent."
Meanwhile, 15% of respondents disagreed with the government's proposals.
As one explained: "It is not necessarily the directors' fault the company has failed. The attempt to save the business by using a 'pre-pack' administration may save the workforce's jobs, and nowadays the employees have the PPF. It is the government's responsibility to protect the employees' jobs, not to protect the PPF."
Fewer than one in 10 (8%) respondents were unsure as to whether they agreed with the government's proposals or not.
Some 69% of respondents agreed with the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association's (PLSA's) proposals for a mandatory authorisation regime for all pension schemes to avoid scams.
Of these, one said that any help to avoid loss of pension savings is welcome. Another pundit agreed: "Having a pension scheme, however small, involves financial commitment and fiduciary responsibilities so, yes, it should require authorisation as well as stringent criteria and auditing."
Just under a fifth (17%) of respondents did not agree with the proposal. One respondent noted that there are not the resources to do this for all existing schemes - noting "control of new schemes going forward may be more open for discussion".
Another said it would add more cost, especially for smaller schemes.
Just 14% of this week's respondents were unsure. One said: "It could mean too much more administration without any real benefit."
Another pundit noted that there may need to be some search function on The Pensions Regulator's Exchange website to establish the credibility of the enquiring scheme.
Just under half (45%) of this week's Buzz respondents said that tenders for fiduciary management should be run on an open basis.
As one respondent said: "More transparency equals more trust."
This comes as the industry responded to the Competition and Markets Authority's (CMA) provisional decision on its investigation into the investment consultant and fiduciary management markets, which said mandatory tenders should be introduced for first-time fiduciary management mandates, including existing ones
However, just 14% of respondents agreed with the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association that such mandatory tenders should be conducted on a closed basis.
A further 41% of respondents were unsure as to whether such exercises should be open or closed.
As one pundit said: "It seems to me that it should be up to the entity making the appointment."
Another commentator agreed: "I'm not sure it matters either way. A robust decision needs to be taken, from an informed position. Trustees need help from those outside the investment industry to support them in finding out 'what good looks like'."
Over half (54%) of respondents agreed with The Pensions Regulator (TPR) that defined benefit (DB) schemes and sponsors should be encouraged to match dividends with deficit repair contributions.
One pundit said: "I think any form of share buyback and special dividends should be prohibited while a DB scene has a deficit on an actuarial/buyout basis (not an accounting or statutory basis)."
Another added: "Dividends are companies returning spare cash so it is reasonable for trustees to demand more to fund deficits."
However, just over a third of respondents did not agree with the regulator on this occasion. One respondent said that the reinvestment of dividends is crucial to good member outcomes for defined contribution scheme participants: "Why should they suffer? It's not just fat cats that get the dividends!"
Another said: "A business needs freedom to grow and use its capital as appropriate."
Just 12% of this week's Buzz peers were unsure, with several noting that it depends on the circumstances.
As one said: "It depends on the circumstances of the specific employer and the specific scheme."
Over half (57%) of respondents said defined contribution (DC) schemes should remove a manager if they are unable to disclose transaction costs within a reasonable period of time.
Of these respondents, one said: "By overrunning the deadline it begs the question of 'what have they got to hide?' Their position needs to be carefully looked at with remedial action taken."
"The regime needs to have 'teeth' in order to drive a change in culture," another respondent said.
Meanwhile, under a third (30%) disagreed.
Of these, one respondent noted that it depends on the reasons for the delay and for how long the manager has been appointed. "Also the 'complexity' of the funds available to members may [have] impact."
Another said that it is a bit like dropping a footballer for not completing a tax return.
Just 13% of pundits were unsure. One cited: "Possibly, but the removal mechanism in most schemes is quite slow, by which time disclosure would have been made."
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...