1.	Admit it: More times than not you err in naming annual reports to your list of world's worst? True? Or do you claim that's false? Answer: False, I'm convinced. I'm proudest, as an ethical journalist, that never once have I unfairly attacked a CEO. Take Monsanto: Its producer is convinced I have a vendetta against her and her company (at least, that's what she charged in a phone call), which made my world's worst list two years in a row, as did its acquisition, DeKalb Genetics. Yet, who can be unaware of the awful problems Monsanto has encountered, resulting in its merger of unequals, as I call it, with Pharmacia Upjohn. The Wall Street Journal did a huge takeout on Monsanto's problems, not least its CEO's miscalculations, his fake-casual approach to show he was just a good ole boy. Let me tell you: Seldom, if ever, does this approach ring true—or work.
	2.	You have pets among the graphic design firms that work on annuals. True or false? Answer: False. Take RKC! I've raved about Robinson Kurtin Communications and its work on the Knight Ridder (with no hyphen now) report for 1998, one of my favorites among those to made the current list of 10 best. Yet, in my January 2000 issue, I said while its design work was "fine" for Kimberly-Clark, the book was absent elements I believe RKC! could and should have insisted on. Like a contents listing, if not action-filled. Sufficient financial highlights items. Fully captioned graphs. You get both sides of the sword—praise, where it's due, criticism when it's warranted.
	3.	You like annual reports whose covers are laden with action-oriented words. True or false? Answer: Well, true—and false. I advocate a cover that demands the recipient become reader. I also decry covers like on the 1999 Woodward Governor report. It contains words overprinting words overprinting words. Words like "Responsive," "Growth," "Focused," "Experienced," "Innovative," "Solutions" (or is that supposed to be read as "Innovative Solutions"?) And, not least, "Performance." Uncle!
	4.	You decry letters to shareholders that are, as you put it, "interrupted." True or false? And what's that mean? Answer: True. I can't believe the number of CEOs who permit—perhaps encourage?—interruptions of their letters in the annual report. Pacific Financial made my list of 1998 world's worst for interruptions too numerous to count. Its letter ended up spread over 16 interminable, never-ending pages. In Luby's 1999 report, its too-long five-pager is spread over nine pages—as I wrote, "effectively precluding readership." (I advocate a letter running no longer than the year-after-year three pages average.)
	5.	You consult for companies on their annuals. Don't you tend to favor those? And don't you hide the potential "conflict-of-interest"? True or false? Answer: True on the first part, false on the remainder. Take Lucent Technologies. It knows that even though I've advised on what it should do to turn out a winner, how it scores is up to the company. It's treated the same as anyone else. Its 1999 report, for instance, barely qualified for "world-class" status, by scoring at least 100 of a potential 135 points. Its score? 103 points. That's nice, but I'm sure the company expected to finish much higher. That's not my problem—I calls 'em as I sees 'em. They score what they score. Period. And anyone retaining me to consult on its report knows I must be free to reveal our relationship—so my analysis of its report will be with that knowledge in hand for the reader. In case you're still not convinced, know that SPX, Tenneco and Armstrong World Industries all retained me to do a full-scale analysis of their annuals a couple of years back. Each ended up on my list of world's worst.