Sid Cato -- February 2002 Quiz Answers

(Answers for February 2002)

1. Despite what many no doubt predicted, the subject of Sept. 11's terrorist attacks hasn't come up in this year's annual reports. True or false?
Answer: No, that's not true. Among the first half-hundred reports in and analyzed—from companies on a fiscal-year basis, obviously—three make mention of 9-11.

2. I seem to recall you have little good to say about reporters in general. I'm assuming the same applies to newspaper columnists. True or false?
Answer: The first part is true, though to be fair, much if not most of the blame has to rest with their editors; my experience has indicated they tend to muck up a reporter's work. Newspaper columnists tend to be a breed apart—which perhaps is why they're promoted. One such is the Twin Cities' Dave Beal, whose recent column quoted me accurately. Will miracles ever cease!

3. Speaking of which: The Twin Cities—Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota—have a reputation for producing the world's best annuals year after year. True or false?
Answer: True. Which fact columnist Dave Beal referenced in his aforementioned interview with me. St. Paul Companies adhered to my criteria as far back as a decade ago, much to my delight. Another thing: I was surprised to learn, in searching on 1999 letters I found insufficiently forthright, that the Twin Cities' Ecolab encountered a pitfall (that is, wasn't sufficiently forthright). To show I'm not prejudiced, that I don't bear grudges: I cited the 2000 Ecolab annual as achieving world-class status—this, on Pg. 6 of my January 2002 newsletter. Obviously, then, its current letter met my standards for honesty.

4. If you were half so courageous as you seem to think you are, you'd name those companies whose CEOs you think dishonest in their letters to shareholders. True or false?
Answer: That's true, and if you'll read earlier questions and my responses, you'll see I've done just that in the February newsletter. Including AT&T, which has to bear deep grudges at my disparaging its too-tall CEO. I cite 35 annuals for 2000 I found insufficiently forthright—that didn't live up to my standards of honesty. And 39, by name, among 1999 reports. And, even, this year's seven to date who played loose, by my standards, with the truth. (Including, would you believe, one from the Twin Cities—Lifecore Biomedical.)

5. You didn't begin monitoring honesty in annual reports until several years after you began following this industry. True or false?
Answer: True. It wasn't until the 1988 crop—five years after I began at this stand, and the sixth run of annual reports—that I factored in honesty among elements monitored. That year, I assessed 88% as sufficiently forthright. Peak year for honesty was among 1995 reports, when 91% (in my words) "did good."

6. One last question: You perform critiques, for pay, for companies whose annuals you then review. In some instances, a company will lay out big bucks to have you come to its headquarters. Yet this never gets disclosed in conjunction with your reviews. True or false?
Answer: False again. If you'll check out the February 2002 newsletter, you'll see that I fully disclose any conflicts—either positive or negative. By that, I mean I've named companies like Waste Management to my list of world's worst, so that "prejudice" should be—and is—revealed. Also, that two Mexican companies who commissioned critiques last year—that their letters weren't perceived as sufficiently forthright. I even reveal that I played tennis on the Chicago Tribune team, and it's part of the corporate monster that is Tribune Co., its tentacles everywhere...and whose annual I didn't find honest last year.

Return to February 2002 quiz page

Test your knowledge by taking previous monthly quizzes


	1.	Despite what many no doubt predicted, the subject of Sept. 11's terrorist attacks hasn't come up in this year's annual reports. True or false? *Answer:* No, that's not true. Among the first half-hundred reports in and analyzed—from companies on a fiscal-year basis, obviously—three make mention of 9-11.

	2.	I seem to recall you have little good to say about reporters in general. I'm assuming the same applies to newspaper columnists. True or false? *Answer:* The first part is true, though to be fair, much if not most of the blame has to rest with their editors; my experience has indicated they tend to muck up a reporter's work. Newspaper columnists tend to be a breed apart—which perhaps is why they're promoted. One such is the Twin Cities' Dave Beal, whose recent column quoted me accurately. Will miracles ever cease!

	3.	Speaking of which: The Twin Cities—Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota—have a reputation for producing the world's best annuals year after year. True or false? *Answer:* True. Which fact columnist Dave Beal referenced in his aforementioned interview with me. St. Paul Companies adhered to my criteria as far back as a decade ago, much to my delight. Another thing: I was surprised to learn, in searching on 1999 letters I found insufficiently forthright, that the Twin Cities' Ecolab encountered a pitfall (that is, wasn't sufficiently forthright). To show I'm not prejudiced, that I don't bear grudges: I cited the 2000 Ecolab annual as achieving world-class status—this, on Pg. 6 of my January 2002 newsletter. Obviously, then, its current letter met my standards for honesty.

	4.	If you were half so courageous as you seem to think you are, you'd name those companies whose CEOs you think dishonest in their letters to shareholders. True or false? *Answer:* That's true, and if you'll read earlier questions and my responses, you'll see I've done just that in the February newsletter. Including AT&T, which has to bear deep grudges at my disparaging its too-tall CEO. I cite 35 annuals for 2000 I found insufficiently forthright—that didn't live up to my standards of honesty. And 39, by name, among 1999 reports. And, even, this year's seven to date who played loose, by my standards, with the truth. (Including, would you believe, one from the Twin Cities—Lifecore Biomedical.)

	5.	You didn't begin monitoring honesty in annual reports until several years after you began following this industry. True or false? *Answer:* True. It wasn't until the 1988 crop—five years after I began at this stand, and the sixth run of annual reports—that I factored in honesty among elements monitored. That year, I assessed 88% as sufficiently forthright. Peak year for honesty was among 1995 reports, when 91% (in my words) "did good."

	6.	One last question: You perform critiques, for pay, for companies whose annuals you then review. In some instances, a company will lay out big bucks to have you come to its headquarters. Yet this never gets disclosed in conjunction with your reviews. True or false? *Answer:* False again. If you'll check out the February 2002 newsletter, you'll see that I fully disclose any conflicts—either positive or negative. By that, I mean I've named companies like Waste Management to my list of world's worst, so that "prejudice" should be—and is—revealed. Also, that two Mexican companies who commissioned critiques last year—that their letters weren't perceived as sufficiently forthright. I even reveal that I played tennis on the Chicago Tribune team, and it's part of the corporate monster that is Tribune Co., its tentacles everywhere...and whose annual I didn't find honest last year.