PP research reveals lack of confidence in politicians to develop sensible policies.
This week there were 98 respondents who answered questions about who they will vote for in the general election and their expectations about pensions policy in party manifestos.
A majority of respondents was either sceptical (40%) or very sceptical (33%) that the party manifestos would produce solid policy proposals in their manifestos.
A quarter was neither confident nor sceptical on the matter while only 2% were either confident or very confident the manifestos would contain good ideas.
Among the sceptics, one commentator argued that no party would want to upset the "grey vote" and they all know there is no free money to spend.
Another said: "Politicians tend only to think in five year terms, not terms of up to 45 years. This mismatch causes real issues, as do the periodic tax grabs politicians make on pensions."
In the neither confident nor sceptical group, a pundit observed the election would not be decided by pensions.
Another added: "I don't expect any party to outline any pension policy in their manifestos - not at this election."
The Conservatives are the party the majority of respondents (52%) said they plan to vote for.
This was followed by Liberal Democrats at 21%, Labour at 9%, UKIP and the Green Party both scored 2%. Some 14% selected other.
A Tory supporter said: "I am the type who would vote for a Labrador if it wore a blue rosette."
A different respondent said: "No party is going to deliver fully, and we need to be realistic as to what any Brexit outcome will look like, and we have to balance the books and not just spend, spend, spend! Any party who says it isn't about a leader is really deluding itself and says little for its policies."
Those who replied they would vote for the Liberal Democrats provided several reasons - notably that they could not bring themselves to vote for Jeremy Corbyn, that they believed the Lib Dems were the only pro-EU party and they were concerned Theresa May was "worryingly dangerous".
Trustees should not update their schemes' life expectancy assumptions more frequently according to 57% of respondents.
Checking assumptions every three years is sufficient while too much tinkering is a waste of time and money it was argued.
A pundit asked: "Should we react more frequently to potential short term blips in a long term trend? Let me think about that for a micro-second. No!"
Updating assumptions at each valuation seems to be sufficient, another added.
One commentator said: "More frequently than every three years? Certainly we can look at experience more frequently, but not just take a one year view. It needs a significant trend over several years to consider a change."
However 23% disagreed and believed assumptions do need to be looked at more regularly. "Prudence requires trustees to update their assumptions immediately when evidence of improved life expectancy is available. They should be willing to do the same whenever life expectancy is shown to be falling (or its rate of improvement is declining," said one.
Just under half (47%) of those surveyed thought defined contribution (DC) savers should not be automatically enrolled into Pensions Wise.
The move would be too prescriptive and go against the Freedom and Choice agenda.
A respondent was incredulous and asked: "Why is it always assumed people coming up to retirement are stupid and incapable of doing their own research on the internet? My SIPP fund beats the FTSE All-Share every year and I haven't been near an IFA, let alone Pensions Wise."
A different one changed their mind and explained why: "At first this looked like a good idea, but then I stopped to think about the cost. The presumption must be that people with DC pots under £100,000 will be buying an annuity unless there are good reasons to do otherwise."
Nonetheless 37% replied the opposite; they argued any assistance should be welcomed and Pensions Wise is a reasonable starting point to help someone.
There is not a case for less stringent requirements on private sector DB schemes open to new members according to 67%.
In fact, several argued the case for tighter controls on open DB schemes as they as are a potential liability for the Pension Protection Fund (PPF).
A commentator said: "Let schemes have bigger deficits simply because they are continuing to build up new underfunded liabilities? No case whatsoever for such a stupid idea."
There is no reason to keep trying to add complication and separation - either the current (or any future) rules are sufficient or they are not, another said.
Conversely 21% thought differently. "There is a case for re-examining the funding requirements for all DB schemes. Only the most blinkered of accountants could believe they are reasonable," said one.
One in eight sat on fence with one saying it "depends" on the scheme. "Public sector and private sector are different in their approach (as in many things). Although some relaxation may be possible, it would be unwise to make it too prescriptive."
PMI president Lesley Alexander and the institute's immediate past-president Lesley Carline talk about the challenges of Covid-19 and the opportunities and challenges the industry faces in the future.
The Pensions Administration Standards Association (PASA) has announced global consultant Deloitte as its expert knowledge provider for data.
This week’s top stories included further support for an overhaul of the pension tax regime, while the Treasury confirmed the Retail Prices Index will be reformed by 2030.
Tim Shepherd and Beth Brown look at the legal implications of working from home and how pension professionals can mitigate the risks.
XPS Pensions posted a 9% increase in revenues during the six months to 30 September – a rise driven by a number of large client wins.