1.	Fewer companies today are seen to exclude women and/or minorities from their boards of directors. True or false? Answer: True. By comparison to five years earlier, far fewer companies are seen to engage in such discrimination. When monitoring this element of annuals was begun, among 1993 reports, one in four firms pictured their directors in the annual report, of which a hefty 35% were seen to exclude women and/or minorities. Today’s showing: Nearly two in five, as advocated, picture directors. But only half so many—17.6%—are seen to be malefactors, Neanderthal types. None so guilty can make my list of 10-best reports.
	2.	While the summary annual report may be shorter, and indeed management can "pick and choose" what to include and what to leave out, the fact remains that it’s generally far superior to the "traditional" annual report. True or false? Answer: False. Last year (1997 reports), only 2.2% qualified as summary reports, indeed picking and choosing what to include, what to leave out. While annuals overall did superbly—a 14.1% Cato Positive Index, indicating presence or absence of three dozen indicators of a report’s positive or negative nature—the summary annual report (SAR) averaged a positive rating three-quarters less: 3.2%. Crystallizing my objections to the document: the 1998 Magellan Health Services summary report, though not so identified until the inside back cover (dirty pool, indeed). And the CEO, a physician, who suffers from a severe case of denial, wasn’t honest. I rest my case. (http://www.sidcato.com/sar.shtml)
	3.	Despite all your palaver to the contrary, in reality few men and women come back for more. I’m referring now to your annual Annual Report Conference. True or false? Answer: False. Each year, of the 75-attendee lid arbitrarily established, four dozen persons have attended previously. Currently, for instance, coming back for more are annual report producers from the likes of Dana, Ford, the U.K.’s Reuters, Norfolk Southern, Conoco. There’s also a repeat-visitor from Australia, as well as Germany. Sweden’s Bengt Hane, for another, has attended as far back as New Orleans in 1992 as has someone from Reuters.
	4.	If you really cared about seeing annual reports improve, you would share your secrets on what’s involved in producing an award-winner. Isn’t that true? Answer: Of course—and I do! In the February 1999 print version (Issue No. 186) of my Newsletter on Annual Reports, I show how easy it is to make the world’s-best list. Most of the 10 best last year touched all the bases; that is, adhered to my copyrighted (since 1984) criteria on what makes a good annual report. (http://www.sidcato.com/criteria.htm).
	5.	First off, no company has ever produced a "perfect" report to your highly critical way of thinking. True or false? Second, were any company to achieve that, it’s not likely it would be able to duplicate the effort, to repeat its "perfection." True or false? Answer: False on both counts. Ameritech among a handful of others came closest to perfection with its 1997 report, as indicated by (1) a perfect score of 135 points as well as (2) a perfect, 100% Cato Positive Index. Based on what I’ve seen so far, it appears in line to repeat with its ’98 product. Bruncor with its 1997 report duplicated Ameritech’s effort. I haven’t seen its 1998 document yet.