<?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/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Proposed SEC Custody Rules Could Cost Advisers Extra $8,100</title>
	<atom:link href="http://fppad.com/2009/05/21/proposed-sec-custody-rules-could-cost-advisers-extra-8100/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://fppad.com/2009/05/21/proposed-sec-custody-rules-could-cost-advisers-extra-8100/</link>
	<description>Your source for technology insights in the financial planning community</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Mar 2010 23:05:50 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: FP Pad &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Surprise Audit Provision Dropped From New SEC Custody Regulations</title>
		<link>http://fppad.com/2009/05/21/proposed-sec-custody-rules-could-cost-advisers-extra-8100/comment-page-1/#comment-1540</link>
		<dc:creator>FP Pad &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Surprise Audit Provision Dropped From New SEC Custody Regulations</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:05:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fppad.com/?p=531#comment-1540</guid>
		<description>[...] previous posts on FPPad: Proposed SEC Custody Rules Could Cost Advisers Extra $8,100 and SEC Surprise Audit Proposal Likely to be Dropped According to [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] previous posts on FPPad: Proposed SEC Custody Rules Could Cost Advisers Extra $8,100 and SEC Surprise Audit Proposal Likely to be Dropped According to [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: FP Pad &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Surprise Audit Costs Severely Underestimated by SEC According to SIFMA</title>
		<link>http://fppad.com/2009/05/21/proposed-sec-custody-rules-could-cost-advisers-extra-8100/comment-page-1/#comment-1356</link>
		<dc:creator>FP Pad &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Surprise Audit Costs Severely Underestimated by SEC According to SIFMA</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2009 02:06:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fppad.com/?p=531#comment-1356</guid>
		<description>[...] wrote back in May about the SEC&#8217;s proposal to require surprise audits of Registered Investment Advisers who have custody of client assets. The proposal also clarified [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] wrote back in May about the SEC&#8217;s proposal to require surprise audits of Registered Investment Advisers who have custody of client assets. The proposal also clarified [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: FP Pad &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Surprise Audit Proposal Likely to be Dropped According to FPA</title>
		<link>http://fppad.com/2009/05/21/proposed-sec-custody-rules-could-cost-advisers-extra-8100/comment-page-1/#comment-1232</link>
		<dc:creator>FP Pad &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Surprise Audit Proposal Likely to be Dropped According to FPA</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2009 19:25:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fppad.com/?p=531#comment-1232</guid>
		<description>[...] week I wrote about the proposed changes published by the SEC to require surprise audits of investment advisers who debit fees directly from clients&#8217; accounts, falling under the [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] week I wrote about the proposed changes published by the SEC to require surprise audits of investment advisers who debit fees directly from clients&#8217; accounts, falling under the [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill Winterberg</title>
		<link>http://fppad.com/2009/05/21/proposed-sec-custody-rules-could-cost-advisers-extra-8100/comment-page-1/#comment-1211</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill Winterberg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2009 02:41:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fppad.com/?p=531#comment-1211</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;Tim,

I added the link to the comment page.&lt;/blockquote&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Tim,</p>
<p>I added the link to the comment page.</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TimK</title>
		<link>http://fppad.com/2009/05/21/proposed-sec-custody-rules-could-cost-advisers-extra-8100/comment-page-1/#comment-1210</link>
		<dc:creator>TimK</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2009 01:04:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fppad.com/?p=531#comment-1210</guid>
		<description>the retainer fee provision that I added to my ADV earlier this year is looking better all the time...

can you add a link to the SEC comment form, if it&#039;s online?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>the retainer fee provision that I added to my ADV earlier this year is looking better all the time&#8230;</p>
<p>can you add a link to the SEC comment form, if it&#8217;s online?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
