A majority of 170 respondents to this week's Pensions Buzz believe The Pensions Regulator (TPR) should make Sir Philip Green pay money into the BHS Pension Scheme.
Elsewhere in Pensions Buzz 51% said sponsors are most to blame for the likelihood of the scheme falling into the Pension Protection Fund (PPF).
Respondents were also divided about whether defined benefit (DB) schemes should take on more risky investments to plug deficits.
Former British Home Stores (BHS) owner Sir Philip Green should be made to put more money into the company's two pension schemes by The Pensions Regulator (TPR) according to almost 70% of respondents.
Some said employers have to be sent a clear message while others argued it is important to wait until the facts of the case are established.
A commentator said: "Philip Green should have ensured adequate pension funding before selling on his company responsibility without due care to his employees."
Another defined Green as the archetypal businessman and called on the regulator to haggle with him as statutory powers give TPR the stronger hand.
However a different respondent said: "Without knowing the details then it's hard to say, but superficially they have to try. TPR doesn't have a good track record in these situations. It's time they changed that."
One in eight disagreed with a pundit observing, "it is always nice to find a scapegoat but that doesn't make it fair".
Just over half of people believed sponsors are most to blame for the likelihood of the BHS Pension Scheme falling into the Pension Protection Fund (PPF).
Oher groups or factors respondents could choose to blame were the trustees (15%), TPR (5%), low gilt yields (8%) and other (21%).
One commentator suggested the law should be changed to prevent any sponsor from shirking their responsibility to a scheme. In the case of BHS, the same person said: "It is clear that without breaking the law, maximum profits have been taken out of the company when more could have been done to shore up the deficit."
Of the 15% who pointed the finger at the trustees, a respondent said: "Trustees are ultimately responsible for the scheme, so they have to bear that responsibility."
Among the fifth which chose ‘other', a combination of these factors best explained the trouble at BHS.
Respondents were almost evenly split with slightly more, 38%, saying it is inadvisable for defined benefit (DB) schemes to invest in riskier assets in the era of low returns. This compared to 34% of respondents who said trustees should invest in riskier assets.
Many said it was reckless to gamble when markets were so volatile and unpredictable. "Trustees should establish a long term plan to ensure they deliver the benefits to their members," said a respondent. "This may or may not require investment in more risky assets, it will reflect their risk appetite, how long they can take to reach their objective, the hedging of liabilities they want and the strength of their sponsor's covenant as well as the investment risk they take."
Among those who thought it was worth taking a risk, a commentator said: "Given that the safety of low risk investments seems to be proving an illusion and merely providing inadequate investment returns, [they should] go back to taking risks."
There were 28% who sat on the fence. They said an investment strategy depended on multiple factors such as the strength of the sponsor covenant and individual circumstances of the scheme.
Nearly a third of those surveyed said it is not feasible for the British Steel Pension Scheme (BSPS) to be put on the bulk annuity market.
Respondents said such a venture would be ridiculously expensive and the scheme is far too big for any bulk annuity provider to take on.
A pundit asked: "Where will the money come from?"
Another said: "It will distort the market too much and any such buyout would put undue pressure on the provider."
Among the 53% who did not have a firm view, a respondent said: "That is very tricky because arguments can be made in support for both sides."
Just 17% said =it was possible, but pointed out similar challenges to doing so. "Feasible yes but who is going to pay the profit margin required by an insurance company to put the annuities in place?" asked one.
There are various ways to manage the process including using multiple providers and reinsurers to provide the necessary capital, another added.
The uncertainty of Brexit on UK pensions was reflected by 49% saying they did not know if it would lead to a rise in fees for default investment funds.
Conflicting rumours and conjecture is making the estimated effect of Brexit difficult to forecast. "It all depends on who you listen to and which economist had guessed/predicted the right projection. I suspect no one knows!" said a respondent.
Another thought the question was stupid and asked: "Do you think we need to heat up the swimming pool in case the tsunami makes it too cold?"
Just under a third believed the cost of default investment funds would not go up. "While Brexit would undoubtedly be a negative outcome for the UK, it's difficult to see how this would have any material impact on DC pensions," said a respondent.
A fifth thought costs would go up.
Tim Shepherd and Beth Brown look at the legal implications of working from home and how pension professionals can mitigate the risks.
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.