It would be inappropriate to name and shame schemes which do not sign up to the Star Initiative, a majority of Pensions Buzz respondents said in backlash to comments made by the pensions minister.
This week's 97 participants also answered questions on the impact on schemes of a gilt yield curve inversion and on how seriously pensions administration is taken.
The vast majority of respondents (61%) did not agree that schemes that do not sign up to the Star Initiative should be named and shamed, as suggested by pensions minister Guy Opperman.
The organisation, which now has 46 providers on board, aims to improve the standards of pension transfers and reduce the time taken to conduct them.
However, several argued it was a "political gimmick", with one who disagreed with Opperman's idea stating it had "dubious value and could lead to misrepresentation".
Another said it was "an appalling idea which is symptomatic of the mindless viciousness of social media". They added: "Unless you actively want to excoriate schemes in this manner for your own vicarious pleasure, simply make it a legal requirement."
Another questioned why, noting: "Schemes are not named and shamed for much more important regulatory breaches than this."
Just 13% agreed with Opperman, with one noting: "It's essentially avoiding good practice."
Nearly half of this week's 97 Pensions Buzz respondents felt defined benefit (DB) scheme funding would be ‘slightly' impacted by the yield curve inverting.
It comes after 10-year gilts yielded less than two-year gilts for a short period in mid-August, which some commentators said could signal a looming recession.
However, of those who said there would be a slight impact, several said schemes should have been prepared.
"DB schemes should now be well-hedged against this scenario," one said.
Another added: "This is not something that has happened overnight so preparations should have been made so as to lessen the impact."
Others questioned whether schemes should still be using gilts to measure their liabilities.
Another 19% said schemes would be ‘significantly' impacted, with one arguing: "The only real issue is cashflows. Gilt yields should not be the driver for this, particularly as it's now been shown, through quantitative easing, that yields are subject to intervention to make them artificial."
Just one in 10 respondents said there would be no impact.
Respondents were almost equally split on whether pension administration was being taken seriously enough, with 46% saying it was not, while 42% took the opposing opinion.
"Most management is happy to throw money at investment consultants, actuaries, and legal advisers but believe the word ‘administration' implies that it can be done by any passing idiot and the odd monkey - and they couldn't be more wrong! An experienced administrator is worth their weight in gold," said one in the first group.
Another added: "Pension administration continues to be done by the lowest bidder with inevitable consequences for quality."
On the other hand, one who felt it was being taken seriously enough said: "Most schemes that I have had contact with take admin very seriously - certainly our members are quick to report any issues on the subject. Having said that, outsourcers can be slow to respond and need to be regularly monitored and reviewed by trustees."
Another said there was room for improvement: "Those unloved Cinderellas are essential, but often the least well-rewarded."
Schemes rated as ‘weak' by The Pensions Regulator (TPR) should expect harsher interventions, according to 44% of respondents.
"It's about time that TPR stepped up to the plate and said that they are there to regulate," one said. "If the scheme doesn't improve within a certain timeframe, it's automatically transferred into some sort of centralised arrangement."
Another said it would be a "small price to pay" to avoid members entering the Pension Protection Fund.
However, 38% disagreed with the idea, with several questioning the definitions of both ‘weak' and ‘harsher'.
"In most cases, schemes are weak because they are underfunded and the sponsor can't afford to contribute more," argued one respondent. "In these instances, being harsh just imposes more costs on stretched schemes but doesn't magic up any relief unless the trustees are incompetent."
Noting many ‘weak' schemes are sponsored by small or family-owned businesses, another added: "‘Harsher' intervention could end up having unintended consequences, such as forcing those businesses into insolvency as they cannot (and probably never will) be able to support the scheme."
The majority (61%) of respondents agreed that so-called mid-life MOTs need to be tailored to each individual employee in order to be effective.
It comes after the Centre for Social Justice think-tank, in a report last month, said the financial planning tool "currently fails to be a holistic tool and is ill-suited to initiate a meaningful conversation between employers and employees".
The mid-life MOT was first suggested by Jon Cridland in his review of the state pension age two years ago, and has since been adopted by Aviva and Legal & General, among others.
"‘Advice' is usually far more useful than ‘guidance' - and is, therefore, far more costly," one said.
Another added: "If they aren't, it will be like all other generic ‘put more in your pension' advice, and be ignored as nagging. If it was personalised, it would be seen as more relevant."
Just 21% disagreed, with one arguing: "Individuals should have responsibility for their affairs instead of relying on others nannying them."
Redington is in the process of securing private equity backing from Phoenix Equity Partners for an undisclosed amount.
The Pension Protection Fund (PPF), in partnership with Dun & Bradstreet (D&B), has published its plans for updated insolvency risk services and is consulting on its approach to insolvency risk measurement from 2021.
The Pensions Regulator (TPR) has published research on leverage and liquidity to better gauge the potential risks for defined benefit (DB) pensions and inform the Bank of England’s Financial Stability Report.
The first formal review of the Local Government Pension Scheme (Scotland) (LGPS) has revealed all 15 of its funds are in a strong financial position.
In this week’s Pensions Buzz, we want to know if you think defined benefit trustees should help their members source financial advice.