1.	I'll ask the same question as last month: Interviews with the boss in annual reports have pretty much faded into obscurity. True or false? Answer: False. Not only has Sweden's Saab had its CEO respond to 12 questions (as noted previously) in its 2000 report, but Colgate-Palmolive turned its traditional letter to shareholders into a Q&A involving the two top executives. I view it as a perfect way to humanize the boss; to get him or her to speak conversationally, like real people.
	2.	You tend to favor the same producers year after year. Isn't that true? Answer: DQE's hard-working producer—his cover letter always far superior to his actual print achievement—wouldn't agree with you. He heard me speak in Pittsburgh roughly 15 years ago, continues to subscribe to my criteria—and my monthly newsletter. His 1999 report belatedly made my list of world's best, scoring a fine 118 points. To be sure, initially I saw his latest product—though doing less well than the year-earlier version—achieving "world-class" status by scoring at least 100 of a potential 135 points. On repeat visits, though, I continued to find much that's lacking. For instance, not every last graph was captioned, the current standard. And I didn't find its top management sufficiently forthright—not to my way of thinking. That's why I discourage producers of the key corporate communiqué from pestering me with questions about "How'd I do?" That indeed may change—as in this instance.
	3.	Your background is absent any financial education or experience. (If so, where do you get off challenging corporate disclosure?) Answer: True. My background is as a journalist, as well as a hands-on producer of more than 50 annual reports during my career. But take my July newsletter: On Pg. 1 I challenge the numbers reported by a Wisconsin bank, Marshall & Ilsley, which focuses on favorable figures where I see a decline. They'll go to their graves maintaining they're honest, have presented the fairest picture to stockholders. But I'd have believed in their sincerity had they referred—even in passing—to a 33-cents-a-share year-to-year profit decline! Likewise, upon review I didn't find the DQE annual honest. Its top management invented a new way, "comprehensive earnings," of measuring its success. Indeed, it "explained" the validity of that measurement in a two-page Q&A with "DQE management," if not the CEO specifically. After numerous reviews, over nearly three weeks, I found a growing gap between what the producer thought he turned out, and what I saw. Neither, eventually, did I credit the report as honest in the shareholder letter, its overall net income off 24 percent, nearly 8 percent on a per-share basis.
	4.	I can't believe you're finding beau coup themes in annuals you're receiving. Companies pick just one—no? Answer: You'd think so. But more and more it seems they can't make up their minds. I know why: As I write in my July newsletter, "Producers are besieged by officers and/or their spouses with suggested themes. Result: a proliferation of reader-confusing approaches." I'd have to describe the situation as mind-boggling, not just annoying. Take American Home Products (whose designer I immediately guessed was one Arnold Saks, whose lone design approach is as prominent as—well, the nose on my face). There's not sufficient space here to list all the report's themes, starting with the cover's "Strong and Growing" and continuing through a litany of lines. Hello out there: Is anyone in charge?
	5.	What's with your preoccupation with identifying employees—surely that's not worthy of your time and talents. True or false? Answer: False. When a company pictures employees ("the common folk," I call us) but fails to identify them, its sincerity is called into question. Needless to say, no officer ever is allowed to remain anonymous. Yet, companies treat their employees as cannon fodder. They're just props, like a model and his or her clothing. Speaking of the rag trade: May Department Stores hailed its workers, but its identification lines were set far into the gutter between pages, and presented in small capital letters. But it did identify them, and the company acknowledged, on the inside back cover, those employees who provided props for the pictures, a nice touch. Newly created Progress Energy pictured employees, but didn't identify them until the inside back cover. No self-respecting officer would permit that approach. The producer would be placed on probation, if not sent packing. The same treatment should be accorded workers. If you're going to picture them (which I advocate—to humanize an otherwise-inanimate entity), tell us who they are and their jobs. Act like you really care.
	6.	Let me get this straight: If a company (like May, or Colgate) properly "celebrates the individual," as you call it—then they're pretty much home free? It's all uphill thereafter. True or false? Answer: False. Glad you asked. After hailing St. Louis-based May in my July newsletter, I reiterated my severe reservations concerning the "industry-associating euphemism." (May's: "This was a particularly challenging year for the retail industry and May.") Then the company cites its "26th year of record performance," but picks sales and earnings per share to focus on. Thus forewarned, what do you suppose I discovered? Total profits off just over 7 percent, and the lowest net as a percent of revenues in eight years!