<?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: Serco Group leads 100 on 6 percent gain</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.financemarkets.co.uk/2009/08/26/serco-group-leads-100-on-6-percent-gain/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.financemarkets.co.uk/2009/08/26/serco-group-leads-100-on-6-percent-gain/</link>
	<description>Finance News &#124; UK Personal Financial News &#38; Daily Finance Market News</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 May 2012 17:44:18 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: BW</title>
		<link>http://www.financemarkets.co.uk/2009/08/26/serco-group-leads-100-on-6-percent-gain/comment-page-1/#comment-7443</link>
		<dc:creator>BW</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2009 21:46:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.financemarkets.co.uk/?p=12454#comment-7443</guid>
		<description>Interesting news regarding Serco.  Having recently completed a 9 month assignment there they are a decent enough company but not this good.  Sadly the majority of the financial data is unaudited &amp; doesn&#039;t it seem just a little too good to be true when its competitors are doing &quot;OK&quot;.  They are not the favoured outsourcing company for the government and have divisions which lose money hand over fist. Unfortunately the board have a hands off management policy so frankly the divisional executives can project any figure they like back to the board.  i think the picture would be very different under technical audit scrutiny.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting news regarding Serco.  Having recently completed a 9 month assignment there they are a decent enough company but not this good.  Sadly the majority of the financial data is unaudited &amp; doesn&#8217;t it seem just a little too good to be true when its competitors are doing &#8220;OK&#8221;.  They are not the favoured outsourcing company for the government and have divisions which lose money hand over fist. Unfortunately the board have a hands off management policy so frankly the divisional executives can project any figure they like back to the board.  i think the picture would be very different under technical audit scrutiny.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

