Sid Cato -- September 2003 Quiz Answers

(Answers for September 2003)

1. Today's annual reports can't compare with those of, say, 1990. True or false?
Answer: Not true. The facts are these: Annuals worldwide are going-on twice so positive, overall, than a dozen years earlier. And half again as many (from a percentage standpoint, that is) are achieving greatness. So there.

2. You've found that annuals of public utilities seem to celebrate their employees—more than some others. True or false?
Answer: True—certainly in the case of NW Natural, its 2002 annual flirting with 10-best status. Its emphasis on employees left no doubt of its sincere interest in, and concern for, the men and women who make any company what it is—a fact so many forget, it seems.

3. Among your "pets," some design firms can do no wrong. True or false?
Answer: Try telling that to Chicago-based Meta-4 Design, Inc. It's the lone design firm to submit its entire body of work, year after year. All are well designed (secret of any design firm's success), though the companies themselves have mixed results: Most didn't do well against my longstanding, copyrighted criteria. One did, though: Manitowoc, whose 2002 book as of now is tied for world's fourth best.

4. You tend to suck up to the big companies that can do you the most good. True or false?
Answer: If that were true, Ford Motor Co., world's best for 2000, would finish higher up in my 2002 standings. And Chicago-based BorgWarner (see my September Sid's Soapbox) would be praised to the heavens. Instead of being taken to task for—well, failing miserably to meet our standards.

5. Each year's results seem to celebrate different companies; in other words, few long-time winners make your list. True or false?
Answer: Untrue. Manitowoc's a classic example: Its producer heard me speak in 1990, promptly vowed to achieve "world-class" status—if not ranking among the world's 10 best—which it succeeded at every year but one. Can you say "con-sis-ten-cy"?

6. Whether you like government regulations or not, you'll have to concede the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOx) has helped return annuals to some semblance of glory. True or false?
Answer: False, most definitely. SOx has simply enabled the bad guys—and, sadly, they outnumber the good ones—to latch onto a loophole that makes it possible to mouth support for the shareholder's right to know, while deep-sixing full disclosure. Companies saw a hole in the fence—cleverly latching onto the legalistic Form 10-K, which never was intended or envisioned for public consumption, and foisting it on increasing numbers of stockholders. This year, for instance, the legalistic Form 10-K appears in more than one in five reports, a record. Worse, more than four of five to go that down-and-dirty route failed to warn stockholders the document they were receiving wasn't tailored for other than accountants, lawyers, bean-counters, others possessing green eyeshades.

Return to September 2003 quiz page

Test your knowledge by taking previous monthly quizzes


	1.	Today's annual reports can't compare with those of, say, 1990. True or false? *Answer:* Not true. The facts are these: Annuals worldwide are going-on twice so positive, overall, than a dozen years earlier. And half again as many (from a percentage standpoint, that is) are achieving greatness. So there.

	2.	You've found that annuals of public utilities seem to celebrate their employees—more than some others. True or false? *Answer:* True—certainly in the case of NW Natural, its 2002 annual flirting with 10-best status. Its emphasis on employees left no doubt of its sincere interest in, and concern for, the men and women who make any company what it is—a fact so many forget, it seems.

	3.	Among your "pets," some design firms can do no wrong. True or false? *Answer:* Try telling that to Chicago-based Meta-4 Design, Inc. It's the lone design firm to submit its entire body of work, year after year. All are well designed (secret of any design firm's success), though the companies themselves have mixed results: Most didn't do well against my longstanding, copyrighted criteria. One did, though: Manitowoc, whose 2002 book as of now is tied for world's fourth best.

	4.	You tend to suck up to the big companies that can do you the most good. True or false? *Answer:* If that were true, Ford Motor Co., world's best for 2000, would finish higher up in my 2002 standings. And Chicago-based BorgWarner (see my September Sid's Soapbox) would be praised to the heavens. Instead of being taken to task for—well, failing miserably to meet our standards.

	5.	Each year's results seem to celebrate different companies; in other words, few long-time winners make your list. True or false? *Answer:* Untrue. Manitowoc's a classic example: Its producer heard me speak in 1990, promptly vowed to achieve "world-class" status—if not ranking among the world's 10 best—which it succeeded at every year but one. Can you say "con-sis-ten-cy"?

	6.	Whether you like government regulations or not, you'll have to concede the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOx) has helped return annuals to some semblance of glory. True or false? *Answer:* False, most definitely. SOx has simply enabled the bad guys—and, sadly, they outnumber the good ones—to latch onto a loophole that makes it possible to mouth support for the shareholder's right to know, while deep-sixing full disclosure. Companies saw a hole in the fence—cleverly latching onto the legalistic Form 10-K, which never was intended or envisioned for public consumption, and foisting it on increasing numbers of stockholders. This year, for instance, the legalistic Form 10-K appears in more than one in five reports, a record. Worse, more than four of five to go that down-and-dirty route failed to warn stockholders the document they were receiving wasn't tailored for other than accountants, lawyers, bean-counters, others possessing green eyeshades.