1.	Despite the awful economy, companies are toeing the line where producing their key corporate communiqué is concerned. True or false? Answer: False—if, that is, they ever truly "toed the line." I'm convinced most CEOs view the annual report as an unwelcome requirement, mandated by the stock exchanges the company's common (and preferred) stock is listed on. Give most CEOs an out, and they'll gleefully welcome it—that's been my contention over the years. This year, more than ever, that appears the case.
	2.	Every trick that exists has been tried by companies here and abroad. True or false? Answer: False. My conviction is that few corporate chieftains truly care about communicating with those pesky stockholders. If they had their way—most of them, that is—they'd do away with holders of a few shares and deal only with Wall Street bigwigs. I'm convinced most CEOs are ever seeking to downplay the annual report. In my experience, many if not most CEOs will say, "I don't care what it costs, just so I don't have to be bothered with it any more than is absolutely necessary. I'm not about to go to jail for you, Cato." (I'm not making that up; such conversations occurred when I was a corporate officer.)
	3.	Over the years, you've found that things seldom change—for instance, the flow of annuals doesn't vary significantly year to year. True or false? Answer: False, again. So slow are 2001 annuals arriving, I've had to drag my feet in turning out my monthly newsletter. February, for instance, was out a week late—not because of my laziness or busy schedule, but because I lacked sufficient fodder. This month, it's even worse: too few reports in and analyzed to fill up my March issue.
	4.	This being your 19th year at this stand—monitoring the world's annual reports to shareholders of publicly held companies—annuals generally have reached new heights of excellence. True or false? Answer: False. I've even gone so far as to toss out some 2001 reports I don't view as worthy of inclusion. Chicago-based Oil-Dri Corp., for instance, has slapped a page-long "President's Letter" onto the legalistic Form 10-K and tried to pass it off as an annual report. (Not to my way of thinking.) "When is an annual report NOT an annual report?" That's the headline I scribbled upon confronting Oil-Dri's drivel—concerning "an incredibly challenging year," in the CEO's words. After heaving such a disgrace (and it's not alone; Canada's Scotiabank has put out two documents; a corporate review and a financial review, neither or both of which I view as worthy of being credited), 2001 annuals have yet to enter the positive category; they average a negative, -0.7% positive/negative rating. 100% of course indicating an annual report contains all 36 elements I think imperative.
	5.	Putting it another way: After years at this stand, you're finally reaching the "hearts and souls" of the annual report industry. True or false? Answer: False, I'm afraid. Too often, I'm convinced, I've been preaching to the converted. The sinners out there—and there are far more sinners than the converted—continue to weasel, take any way out of doing a decent job. Of the hundreds of reports I see and analyze in depth each year, maybe three or four dozen of them—for sure, no more than half a hundred—are worth the paper they're printed on.
	6.	For 222 issues, you've published your monthly Newsletter on Annual Reports on time, pretty much. True or false? Answer: True. But February, Issue No. 222, was a week late—because of absence of sufficient material, what with the slowness with which 2001 reports have been arriving. (Which some no doubt will blame on the mails.) And the March issue has barely gotten off the dime; again, there's little fodder for comment, either praiseworthy or critical. Part of the problem I'm sure is fallout from 9-11.