<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
xmlns:rawvoice="http://www.rawvoice.com/rawvoiceRssModule/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Directors May Want to Look at That CEO Succession Plan</title>
	<atom:link href="http://tcbblogs.org/governance/2009/10/15/directors-may-want-to-look-at-that-ceo-succession-plan/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://tcbblogs.org/governance/2009/10/15/directors-may-want-to-look-at-that-ceo-succession-plan/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:20:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gary Larkin</title>
		<link>http://tcbblogs.org/governance/2009/10/15/directors-may-want-to-look-at-that-ceo-succession-plan/#comment-24</link>
		<dc:creator>Gary Larkin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:31:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tcbblogs.org/governance/?p=102#comment-24</guid>
		<description>I am afraid it looks like we&#039;re in for some additional volumes of control schemes. To date the written and accepted systems of checks and balances were sufficient to ensure reduced incidents of financial monkey business in the public markets. Sadly, as with any common sense goal, the &quot;why and &quot;how&quot; get clouded, and eventually the purpose of initial legislation gets buried in tomes of writ which few ever read through to the end with the exception of legal staff preparing for the proscution or defense after the fact. 
Effective, successful and utilized regulation usually tends towards simplicity and clarity. Expanding and layering upon a system which in application was too complex in retrospect to work nimbly leads me to believe it will again not work any better. If memory serves, and, upon subsequent investigation, almost each &quot;loud financial scandal&quot; of recent times which has lowered the investor confidence level have in their own realtime evolution sent signals (at times repeatedly) to the regulatory bodies which then were not acted upon, shelved or ignored....for whatever reasons. Devil is in the details, no? 

Paul Goncharoff</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am afraid it looks like we&#8217;re in for some additional volumes of control schemes. To date the written and accepted systems of checks and balances were sufficient to ensure reduced incidents of financial monkey business in the public markets. Sadly, as with any common sense goal, the &#8220;why and &#8220;how&#8221; get clouded, and eventually the purpose of initial legislation gets buried in tomes of writ which few ever read through to the end with the exception of legal staff preparing for the proscution or defense after the fact.<br />
Effective, successful and utilized regulation usually tends towards simplicity and clarity. Expanding and layering upon a system which in application was too complex in retrospect to work nimbly leads me to believe it will again not work any better. If memory serves, and, upon subsequent investigation, almost each &#8220;loud financial scandal&#8221; of recent times which has lowered the investor confidence level have in their own realtime evolution sent signals (at times repeatedly) to the regulatory bodies which then were not acted upon, shelved or ignored&#8230;.for whatever reasons. Devil is in the details, no? </p>
<p>Paul Goncharoff</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

