1.	No matter what companies claim, the summary annual report would be a huge cost savings—that is, over the "regular" annual report with all its pretty pictures. True or false? Answer: Untrue. First, the cost of a "regular" report isn’t all that outrageous: an average of $2.99 per copy, according to my 14th annual Producer Poll. When focus groups hear that (they assume a company might spend as much as $100 on each report), invariably they affirm their desire for the fuller-bodied version of the annual shareholder report. What’s more, a veteran producer with one of the world’s most famous companies, responsible for quarterlies as well as annuals, said (privately) he could guarantee the summary report didn’t save companies dollars—he had solicited bids from printers. In fact, he said that McKesson’s claim, when it produced the first summary annual report in history back in 1987, that it saved beau coup bucks—those assertions weren’t true. He said he had information first-hand from the printer of the McKesson summary annual report that the company was fudging on the cost figures it disclosed publicly to justify its action in producing the "down-and-dirty" version of the regular report.
	2.	Truth be told, virtually no chief executives are involved in their companies’ annuals. True or false? Answer: False. My exclusive, 14th annual Producer Poll indicates that 93% of CEOs are "actively involved" in the project, up from four in five. In fact, among those whose annuals are indicated Top 10 finishers worldwide, in every instance the producer said the boss was an active participant in the project. More than half credited the CEO with actually authoring his own letter.
	3.	Okay—let’s take that drivel about the annual report being hazardous, potentially, to the producers’ health—isn’t that a fabrication on your part to curry favor with producers so they’ll subscribe to your newsletter? Answer: Wrong again. I initially was surprised when, in tabulating the first results of our Producer Poll, back in 1985, I discovered the extent of trauma producers said they experienced. Some even said the project drove them to use drugs. Others complained of depression, inability to sleep, improper diet—in fact, one woman said "You left out, kicked the dog and hollered at my husband!" The figure was 91.5% two years ago—meaning just over nine in 10 said work on the project was a potential health hazard. It was off last year to 84%, is back up to a record-high 93% this time. Consistently, at least three or four so complain.
	4.	First off, isn’t it true you seldom (if ever) get invited back by an organization dumb enough to invite you in the first place? And one reason, isn’t it true, is that your message to audiences goes in one ear and out the other? Answer: False on both counts. For instance, Oct. 8, Sid Cato addresses the Wisconsin chapter of the National Investor Relations Institute (NIRI). We spoke to the group 12 years earlier. And since two attendees at that earlier speech—annual report producers with Manitowoc and Mosinee Paper—went out and did great things with their reports, that would indicate that not everyone ignores the advice given them.
	5.	If you’re so hot, why do so few attendees at your annual conference return? Isn’t it true you’re running through the market, as it were? Answer: False, I’d have to say—in view of the fact that lots come back, sign up for another conference. Manitowoc’s Steve Khail, for instance, just signed up (paid) for his 10th Cato conference. MDU Resources’ vice president Cathi Christopherson—her first conference was in Baltimore in 1993. She was in New Orleans a week ago, has paid to return for our Conference in the Millennium next fall. Same with Wells Fargo’s executive vice president, Larry Haeg: His first Cato conference was Baltimore in 1993, and he has indicated he’ll be back next fall. Chicagoland’s Steven Eckerstrom, already signed up for next fall—he was at our Chicago conference in 1990.