1.	You preach to the high heavens how honest you are, but you couch your message when it's somebody important or influential. True or false? Answer: False, at least to my way of thinking (I don't get paid to tell you what you want to hear). Two companies that recently retained Cato Communications, Inc., to review their annuals in depth—both were chided for insufficient forthrightness, especially for a reliance on EBITDA, which I have strong reservations about. I do everyone an injustice when I don't tell the whole truth...were I to pander.
	2.	Writing in annual reports this year is the best ever. True or false? Answer: False. Only one in five annuals currently meets my test of readability, off from an already-awful 22.7 percent a year earlier.
	3.	EBITDA means all things to all people and/or companies. True or false? Answer: True. Companies can interpret EBITDA pretty much as they wish. In fact, one financial advisor cited EBITDA as meaning something different than various companies defined it in their 2001 annuals. (God love Bell Canada, which admitted in a footnote that EBITDA didn't meet Canadian GAAP—the country's generally accepted accounting principles.)
	4.	Who is at the helm—in other words, who's CEO—has little effect on how good an annual report is. True or false? Answer: False, I say. A good CEO recognizes that his or her communications professional should be relied on to provide direction; to shepherd the print project to a successful conclusion. A good CEO relies on the professional communicator to provide direction in his or her area of expertise. Only stupid CEOs turn to the bean-counters, CFOs, accountants, for direction concerning this key corporate communiqué. Let the financial types mess with the legalistic Form 10-K, not an external document earmarked for popular consumption.
	5.	Once a company does well in your competition, it tends to finish high up ever afterward. True or false? Answer: Somewhat true, I concede—but that's the producer's "fault," not my prejudice. I often savor the prospect of an annual report that has traditionally (meaning, over the years) done well, only to be disappointed at the actual document. Producers will ask which annuals I foresee as making it to the top, and I'm almost always wrong. A few years ago, the Eastman Chemical report was a world-beater, and I wouldn't have been surprised to see it go all the way. When its dedicated producer left, the report tanked, today is as bad as they come. Currently, St. Paul Companies—a perennial finisher among the world's 10 best, including No. 1—has dropped all the features that contribute to its showing. I understand why. Regardless, it's no longer the report I learned to love.
	6.	Truth be told, even those CEOs whose annuals do well year after year aren't entirely responsible for the high-up finish of the report on their watch. True or false? Answer: Not entirely true. I'm convinced that, over time, a company's annual report will do well primarily because of quality of the producer on its staff, rather than top management—though, obviously, a CEO who's into communicating can make the producer's job a lot easier. And when a good CEO leaves, for whatever reason, chances are the previously outstanding annual report will tank. That's what happened to St. Paul Companies. Under Douglas Leatherdale, his annual report was a pioneer dating back more than a decade. In his absence, now, it's an also-ran.