DB schemes will not vanish from FTSE 250 companies in the next 12 months according to PP research.
Their demise been exaggerated according to a majority of Pensions Buzz's 143 respondents in this week's survey.
The industry also thought members would ultimately suffer if a cap on early exit fees was imposed by different regulators.
There was also no single factor which could explain why there was a lack of progress on guaranteed minimum pension (GMP) reconciliation.
More than half of Pensions Buzz's 143 respondents believe that defined benefit (DB) schemes will not vanish from FTSE 250 companies within 12 months.
It was argued there was still a role for DB schemes while others said their decline had been greatly exaggerated.
One commentator observed companies were still dealing with the problem of legacy liabilities.
Meanwhile another said: "If the question is meant to refer to (a) DB schemes open to new members or (b) DB schemes still open to accrual, it should have been expressed differently."
However 27% agreed said they thought DB schemes would be gone within a year. A critic of policy in successive governments said: "Every nail in the coffin of DB provision has been hammered in by the government of the day, yet it still seems that employers get the majority of the blame from the general public."
One in five was undecided.
Almost half (48%) of respondents blamed the lack of progress on guaranteed minimum pension (GMP) reconciliation on a combination of issues including: lack of HMRC staffing; poor data; schemes underestimating the amount of work; and pace of industry change.
Respondents said some schemes were not really up to speed with what they needed to do while the general complexity of a member's situation could cause problems.
A commentator said: "To determine GMPs accurately requires a large volume of data and there are issues when employer and HMRC records do not agree - the amount of effort required to resolve such issues is considerable and is certainly underestimated by most."
Schemes underestimating the amount of work they had to do was single biggest problem according to 14% of those surveyed. "Trustees are too often not willing to invest in the process," said one.
Some 13% said the lack of HMRC staff was the culprit in sorting out GMPs.
One in 11 blamed it on poor scheme data while 6% said the pace of change was putting GMP reconciliation low on the pecking order.
Just under three in ten listed other reasons for problems in GMP reconciliation. "The lack of progress in GMP reconciliation is because nobody actually cares about GMPs," said one.
Members will ultimately suffer if a cap on early exit fees is imposed by different regulators according to 53% of respondents.
It follows the Chancellor's announcement that the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) will be responsible for implementing and overseeing the cap on excessive early exit charges levied on savers using the pension freedoms.
The FCA will only be responsible for contract-based schemes however, while a separate cap on trust-based schemes yet to be officially announced will be executed by The Pensions Regulator.
A common belief among respondents was that complicated arrangements always ended up costing ordinary members more, and only benefited regulators and administrators.
One commentator said of the FCA and TPR: "However much they may say they are working in tandem, we will see different outcomes."
Two separate regulators with different objectives how can that possibly go wrong, asked another.
Conversely 17% took the opposite view. One respondent said: "To pretend that DB and DC were ever on a level playing field in the first place is absurd."
Another took a different tack and said: "The real issue is those personal pension plans that were sold in the late 80s to mid-90s with weird and wonderful (by which I mean opaque and basically unfair) charge structures."
A different person said the only sensible solution was to bar exit fees altogether.
Three in ten were undecided.
Most people thought the government had already made up its mind on how to pool investments in the local government pension scheme (LGPS) with 46% stating this was the case.
It was argued that both the government and Chancellor George Osborne were short-sighted in how they viewed the scheme.
A respondent asked: "Does this government not see that we can see they are pretending to consult?"
Another said it made sense for the government to pool the assets however it wants as this would save money and that any objections should be ignored.
However 8% thought the government was open-minded about pooling options. "Consultation has to be meaningful, the government will no doubt have looked at possible options - so those responding have to be creative and persuasive, and have open debate," said one.
Just 7% thought the consultation would make no difference with a pundit saying: "As usual - the plans are in place. The consultation may fine tune [the plans] but [is] substantially a waste of time."
Just under four in ten were undecided.
People had mixed opinions on whether reforms over the past five years had improved defined contribution (DC) governance.
The 42% that thought changes had improved member outcomes, said governance and member communications continued to improve.
A pundit said: "The abolition of active members' discounts, caps on fees and the end of the forced annuity marriage should help to improve the perception of pensions and the wider industry once these seeds give fruit."
Only 5% replied the reforms had worsened member outcomes while 44% said the changes had made no difference to DC governance. "Maybe a few bad trustees have been forced to change as a result," observed a respondent. "But a great many more good trustees are being hampered by constantly increasing regulatory demands that just waste their time and the scheme's money - and it is the members who pay for that," the same person continued.
Roughly one out of ten were undecided.
To read the survey results, click here.
Nearly every trustee is confident of the next stage in their scheme’s strategy, despite almost an equal number being forced to consider replacing plans within the prior 12 months, according to research by Barnett Waddingham.
Companies could be overstating their pension liabilities by up to £60bn due to their life expectancy assumptions, according to XPS Pensions Group.
Defined benefit (DB) schemes that provide GMPs must revisit and, where necessary, top-up historic cash equivalent transfer values (CETVs) that have been calculated on an unequal basis, a landmark court judgment said last week.
Regulators must act now to impose some "proper regulation" to stop another defined benefit (DB) transfer advice disaster, saysTim Sargisson.
Opportunities for defined benefit (DB) schemes to pursue investment approaches that help repair the UK’s economy cannot stand in the way of improving member outcomes, Aegon says.