Majority of people believe Brexit is a bad decision for UK according to PP research.
Over two thirds (67%) of 200 respondents surveyed by Pensions Buzz believe Britain has made an error in voting to leave the European Union (EU).
Many called it a complete disaster while others argued it is was short sighted decision.
A commentator said: "A rushed campaign from both sides meaning that the public did not understand what they were voting for."
Another added they would prefer UK to stay in and play a part in shaping the EU and its future.
Ignorant people have been hoodwinked by unscrupulous politicians, another observed.
However 24% said they believe it is the correct decision and offered several reasons why. "I'd rather be governed by our own bunch of lying incompetents than by a bunch of lying incompetents from other countries," said one.
Meanwhile a different respondent saw Brexit as "a brilliant protest vote against ruling elites who don't listen, against globalisation that has just made the rich richer".
Around one in ten were undecided.
Brexit will be negative for UK schemes in the medium to long term according to just over half (51%) of respondents.
Creating uncertainty in the economy does not help UK pensions which need stability to thrive. "If we hit recession, the affordability of state pensions comes into question. Private pension funding is hit by market downturns due to lower growth. And falling gilts affect those retiring. It's a mess, and it was totally avoidable," said one.
A different pundit listed the outlook for UK pension schemes: lower interest rates; poor yields; market volatility; lower annuity rates, harder cross-border possibilities, worsening company results meaning lower contributions, inflation, unemployment and lower state benefits.
Conversely 22% took the opposite view, arguing the outlook is not so pessimistic. "Higher gilt yields should reverse recent funding pressures, assuming short-term issues don't sink schemes or sponsors, and that trustees and sponsors engage appropriately in relation to the impact of wider changes on the covenant," they said.
Some 27% did not know.
Almost half (47%) of respondents do not believe maturing defined benefit (DB) schemes should be more aggressive with investment risk compared to 30% who said they should be.
Definition of investment risk changed with varying scheme funding levels and the individual context in which it is examined.
A commentator argued the current environment does not reward a risky strategy. "Unfortunately those kinds of bets do not look like coming off anytime soon and the need to achieve better funding is becoming more pressing due to the increasing maturity of closed schemes."
Furthermore trustees have a requirement to provide the benefits to members when due and should not indulge in an aggressive investment strategy without the sponsoring employers support as they put at risk those benefits, another said.
However a pundit in the 30% camp thought DB schemes should have been taking more risks for some time.
Up to 23% sat on the fence.
Some 57% of respondents said they have not been surprised by how much light the parliamentary select committees have shed on the collapse of British Home Stores (BHS).
One said it was the job of politicians to ask the right questions while another reflected the Work and Pensions Committee had done a "reasonable job" under the leadership of MP Frank Field.
However many also said MPs did not ask the best questions and others were surprised at how little politicians know about pensions. "I have been surprised at the lack of command of their portfolios of most of the members of the pensions select committee and how little they were actually able to determine," said one.
Nonetheless a third answered they are surprised by how well MPs have done. "I'm not generally in favour of trial by parliamentary committee, but this one was quite revealing," said a commentator.
One in ten sat on the fence.
What is your single biggest pensions-related fear over Brexit? What is your single biggest pensions related hope with regards to Brexit?
These were two open questions which generated a plethora of answers.
When it came to concerns, these included the investment environment and general market uncertainty.
A commentator said: "Downward jolts in the market that prevent people from retiring in the next few years. Some of these people are having to rearrange plans at very short notice with no realistic expectations of when they can actually stop working. We are becoming a nation of penguins waiting on the ice floe."
Others said they are concerned about the weakness of sterling and the disintegration of the EU.
Less regulation and accessing new markets were among the greatest hopes for some.
One respondent said: "Politicians need to become more positive. We shall be trading on the bigger global arena and not being restricted to euro restrictions to what and when we can do things."
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.
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.
Local Pension Partnership Administration (LPPA) has become the latest organisation to join the Pension Scams Industry Group (PSIG) forum.
Two-thirds of UK fund managers are reducing investments in companies that fail on diversity and inclusion scores, according to a survey by Edelman.