The government should not impose a blanket ban on members transferring their defined benefit (DB) funds, according to an overwhelming 90% of Pensions Buzz respondents.
It comes after reports savers might try to move funds if schemes are converted from the retail price index (RPI) to the consumer price index (CPI). This has prompted concerns a ban might be introduced to prevent a flood of members transferring out of DB.
More than half of respondents (53%) rejected the idea completely.
One respondent who rejected the idea said: "This feels like a knee jerk reaction. If a switch would currently require member consent, why should members have a reduction imposed on them with no other alternatives?"
Of the 37% who said there should be no blanket ban but there needs to be some restrictions, one said: "There may be situations where it is beneficial, but they are limited and certainly we need to have serious restrictions."
Just 8% were supportive of a ban, and one commentator said: "The idea you can somehow get better benefits by transferring out of a DB scheme is as false as it's ever been."
Only 2% of respondents were unsure.
A majority of respondents (67%) said the triple-lock guarantee for state pensions should be dropped, although not all agreed with Baroness Ros Altmann's suggestion of a double-lock replacement.
One of the 50% of respondents who agreed with the former pensions minister said: "It is just not sustainable. In other sectors, there are no such guarantees. Let's get realistic. Double lock is still generous."
However, 17% doubted Altmann. One respondent said: "I don't understand why the 2.5% guarantee is given when the Bank of England is required to keep inflation at 2%. CPI means pensions are not eroded by price inflation, so this is all that should have been promised."
Of the 30% who defended the triple lock, one commentator said: "If it is dropped or altered in any way, you are condemning a whole tranche of people to poverty with no way of being able to do anything about it."
Just 3% of respondents said they were undecided.
Respondents were split on this question, with 38% saying the Pensions Regulator (TPR) was duly or unduly criticised either way.
One commentator who believed MPs were right not to aim criticism at TPR said: "The villain here is the employer, not the regulator. While I'm normally all for kicking regulators, it's unjustified in this case."
On the other side of the argument, one respondent said the regulator has been exposed as "sluggish" and "needs proper powers and reform".
Another said: "TPR should have taken an active role in getting the various reports and information rather than wait for it to be given."
However, 24% were unsure. One such respondent said: "Who knows what goes on behind the scenes? I've had good and bad experiences with the regulator.
"The main problem is the service you get very much depends on the case team, which should not matter."
The vast majority (68%) agreed companies should have to clear mergers and acquisitions with the regulator.
One respondent said: "Absolutely. Sadly, the measures put in place post-Maxwell are still not addressing the potential abuse of pension scheme governance."
Another added: "As usual, the few will spoil things for the many but action is needed to prevent this happening again."
Of the 21% who disagreed, one voiced concerns over the impact on TPR's workload: "TPR would be inundated. Most corporate activity is nothing like what happened with BHS. The last thing we need is a knee jerk reaction that results in legislation being introduced that does not add value."
A second respondent said: "I prefer statutory restrictions on corporate transactions for employers with schemes that are underfunded on an ongoing basis."
Only 11% of respondents were unsure. One said: "It feels like a bit too much of a blunt instrument."
The PP confidence tracker rose this week to 0.00.
Out of the 136 respondents, 30% said it was neither likely nor unlikely that assets would grow in value over the next six months, while 29% said it was likely.
The Pensions Regulator (TPR) has substantially increased the usage of its powers against trustees – posting a sharp rise in the use of formal information gathering powers and High Court production orders during the three months to the end of September....
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.
England and Wales have seen a fourth successive week of increasing excess death figures as the countries battle through the second wave of the coronavirus pandemic.
LGBT Great and Incisive Media are excited to announce they have signed a new and exclusive partnership to work together to accelerate progress of the LGBT+ agenda across the investment, pensions, wealth management and savings industry.