People should receive their wake up packs earlier to make good retirement decisions according to PP research.
Elsewhere most of Pensions Buzz 129 respondents thought unions were wrong to campaign to keep the steel pension scheme open.
Also 55% were not surprised by research from The Pensions Advisory Service (TPAS) showing only 4.5% of people described pensions as trustworthy.
The greatest number of respondents thought people should receive wake-up packs five years (25%) or ten years before retirement (20%).
Members need a decent period of time to make decisions about what they want to do when they stop working. "Realistically you need to be looking at the 'decumulation' phase at least five years before retirement to examine such aspects as whether you can afford to stop working, whether you should take a partial pension, and whether and how you should be aligning your portfolio for your future needs," said a pundit.
A slightly smaller portion, 19%, said a year is adequate while 18% thought six months is enough time. "Six months is about right, any longer and the recipient may take the view that there is still plenty of time and not bother with it," said a commentator.
A sizeable segment (18%) did not pick any of these options.
A pundit said: "A flawed starting premise. You're assuming 'retirement' happens at a fixed age, predictable in advance. It isn't."
Unions were wrong to fight to keep the British Steel Pension Scheme (BSPS) open if it ended up costing jobs according to almost 60% of respondents.
Some criticised the unions for not understanding business and others argued it was inevitable defined benefit (DB) would close to new members or future accrual.
A pundit said: "Fighting to keep DB open with a failing employer is just ignoring common sense."
Meanwhile another said jobs should be prioritised and that nearly all companies now have defined contribution (DC) schemes with DB legacies. "Why should British Steel be any different?" the same person asked.
However 19% disagreed with a respondent describing the question as "loaded".
Another said the BSPS is "not the only reason Tata Steel is in trouble" and "the same would be happening if the scheme was in surplus."
Over a fifth sat on the fence, with one respondent saying the unions are in a "no-win situation": "They would have been wrong to battle to keep the BSPS open and then have jobs lost. If they had fought to keep the jobs then then the pension scheme was in great danger."
More than half (55%) of respondents were not surprised by research from The Pensions Advisory Service (TPAS) revealing only 4.5% of people described pensions as trustworthy.
Many reasons were given including the poor reputation of the financial services industry, vested interests within the pensions sector and government meddling.
A respondent said: "Far too many people with vested interests making negative comments about one aspect of pensions or another, knowing negative pension headlines sell newspapers."
Another suggested far too many people had seen the amount of charges which are levied against the schemes apart from the 'raids' by various chancellors.
Conversely 43% admitted surprise. "People want high value and security at low cost, so there is a consumer perception problem," said one. "Regulation increases security, but comes at the cost. Insurers make healthy profits. The government changes things too often. The press are addicted to printing sensational horror stories. I'm surprised the number is that high."
Only 2% were undecided.
Michael Johnson's idea for a new workplace ISA sitting alongside the lifetime ISA (LISA) would undermine automatic enrolment (AE) said 43% of respondents.
The industry does not need another financial product and ISAs penalise long-term saving, it was argued. "Expanding the range of options available to those that can save for the future is pointless if people are unable to earn enough to make it viable. The myth that earnings are increasing currently is simply not true and is a slap in the face for hardworking families that are trying to make ends meet," said one.
Only 12% thought it would be good for AE with much depending on how the two were integrated.
Roughly a quarter thought it would make no difference with one thinking it would benefit the financially astute.
Another said: "Won't there be a whole mix of responses at the individual level."
Just over a fifth was undecided.
More than half (53%) do not believe improving longevity has made saving adequately for retirement impossible for most people.
People just have to save more and attitudes to saving also have to change, it was said. "Consumerism has put adequate saving out of reach for some people. I don't believe it is true for the majority: they just need to be more realistic and stop buying new sofas/cars/iPhones," said a pundit.
Others said the issue is not longevity but rather inadequate saving for retirement underpinned by apathy.
A person's definition of retirement was also important.
Nonetheless 39% took the opposite view. "Yes, at the moment because the schemes were started too long ago and 'catch-up' is the order of the day. Recent schemes have already taken this into account when the calculations were being done," said a pundit.
Current DC saving rates would leave the state picking up the tab for more and more living to late old age, another added.
Just 8% did not know.
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.