The majority of contributors said schemes they know of intended to cut their UK equity allocations. Just one in five respondents said this was not the case.
A lot of commentators bemoaned this move away from equities in principle, which was labelled "a mistake", and the timing, with stock markets seemingly on the rise.
"It is wrong," said one critic. "The extreme matching of liabilities reduces potential for investment outperformance."
Another equity advocate said: "I wish they would increase their holdings of equity. There is nothing wrong (and a lot right) with holding plenty of boring, dividend-paying UK equities. Investment strategy is driven too much by worries about the accounting treatment of pension liabilities, without enough focus on what actual pays in the long run."
This contributor was not alone in blaming accounting standards and regulation for driving the shift away from equities, with others blaming the focus on gilt-based liability measures.
But some thought the trend was understandable given the maturity of many schemes. One contributor said: "All schemes, trustees and companies want to get away from their liabilities and they would buy an annuity tomorrow if it was affordable."
"Looking at recent past performance, we need to look elsewhere," said another commentator. "The longer-term argument doesn't necessarily stand up to scrutiny either."
"Within our scheme we believe equities have had a good rally recently, and we are now looking to disinvest as part of our de-risking plan," said a trustee.
But some respondents warned that getting out of equities would just "crystallise the underfunded position of schemes".
"This is a "non-issue" stirred up by those offering other forms of investment," warned one respondent. "Jump on board this obvious and flimsy band wagon at your peril."
