1.	You spout all these figures concerning—in your words, "The world's annual reports to shareholders"—yet has anyone ever actually seen your supposedly exclusive computer programs, which you say you conceived of 20 years ago? Answer: Interesting you should raise that question. More than a decade ago, an investor relations magazine sent an editor to spend a couple of days with me. I expressed nervousness—in my words, as I recall, "Maybe you won't find what I do terribly substantive, to your liking." She assured me "this is going to be a highly positive article." She expressed no misgivings at my logging in process, which made me feel better, indeed watched as I evaluated annuals, one at a time—on more than one sitting.
	2.	Every year, you complain about the poor quality of annual reports produced by companies on a fiscal basis. But this year's early annuals are a cut above the average. True or false? Answer: Nope—false. Annuals from fiscal-year firms tend to be the pits, with notable exceptions.
	3.	You seldom if ever make mistakes, so you have nothing to apologize for. Isn't that what you claim? Answer: False. As a responsible journalist, I'm obligated to present a minority viewpoint—in my words, "I may be wrong!" When in doubt, I put on the brakes. I took three months before I blasted the AB Volvo report—this, more than a decade ago. And three months before I criticized the body of work of Corporate Annual Reports, whose principals I have the greatest respect for. It's not adequate for me to apologize for a grievous mistake, even if rushed. But I do, I do. (Can you say "responsible journalism"?)
	4.	In your January newsletter, you blasted an annual report producer, apparently a woman, for forbidding you to quote her without prior approval of her legal department. True or false? Answer: True. I thought she was being not only silly, but unprofessional. As I said a month ago, what she shared with me reflected on her savvy concerning annual reports, her maturity in establishing priorities. All of this was contained in an email she sent me—of her own volition; not at my request. When I told her I was impressed, would like to use some of her observations in my newsletter, she responded in a manner I found shrill, saying that nothing she ever emails me or anyone else can ever be used without permission of her company's legal department. To which I disagreed, after a three-month cooling-off period. I used her comments, which I found substantive—though not her identity, of course. Typically, she responded by telling me I "violated her privacy," that she'd have nothing more to do with me—or words to that effect. I polled several journalists as well as annual report producers, asking them if they thought I had done her wrong. None agreed with her. Many suggested she was downright unprofessional, which was my frank assessment.
	5.	Finally, folks are getting with your program, as evidenced by the growing numbers of reports to achieve what you call "world-class" status, scoring at least 100 of a potential 135 points. True or false? Answer: False. The percentage is lower each year, the actual number of reports to score at least 100 of a potential 135 points less and less. Take 2002 reports: 24 scored at least 100 points. Among 1999 reports, three years earlier, 44 made the grade.
	6.	As more companies get comfortable with your criteria, fewer and fewer are falling back on the legalistic Form 10-K as the major portion of their report. True or false? Answer: False. Here are the numbers: Among early arriving 2003s, one in four (25%) has gone the down-and-dirty 10-K route; it's a legally required document never intended for public consumption. That's up from 22.3% a year ago, 18.5% among 2001 books—and but 7% among 1998 annuals. Going on four times as many 10-Ks this year to date vs. five years earlier.
	7.	So, based on what you've seen so far, this year's annuals aren't much improved over those of years past. True or false? Answer: True, I'm sorry to say. Do keep in mind that annuals produced by companies on a fiscal-year basis traditionally are the pits, with few exceptions. That's contrary to what a husband and wife writing team insisted; they were convinced absolutely no difference existed between fiscal-year annuals and those produced by companies on a more-traditional year end. Their stance was based on personal opinion. Mine is based on computer programs that take the personal element, as much as possible, out of the equation. Companies on a fiscal basis—well, their annuals tend to be the pits, with the notable exception so far this year of Tyson Foods.