UK - Not a single respondent to an online poll thinks that liability driven investing is a useful term for pension funds - with most thinking it should be scrapped altogether.
The findings follow a survey last month by Aon Consulting which found the implementation of LDI strategies remains limited among pensions funds.
Exactly 0% replied "yes" to the question of whether Liability Driven Investing is useful in the latest anonymous web poll on the Financial Times' pensions web site.
Thirty-three percent replied that "no" it isn't useful and that it needed more clarification.
But a majority of respondents, 67%, agreed with the suggestion that LDI means different things to different people and should be renamed or scrapped as a term.
Aon had surveyed 150 UK companies operating defined benefit schemes and found that just 11% had adopted some form of LDI strategy in 2006.
"A key factor is the perceived cost of such a strategy," said Paul McGlone, principal and senior actuary at the consultant in London.
Earlier this year Todd Ruppert, chief executive at T. Rowe Price Global Investment Services said LDI is not a panacea for European pension funds - or a profitable business for asset managers.
Asset manager Henderson Global Investors earlier this month became the latest to disclose it plans to shift its own defined benefit pension scheme into an LDI structure.