1.	Annual reports to shareholders seldom (if ever) contain humor. True or false? Answer: True. That's why the Cognex book, this year and last, warranted such prominence in our July newsletter. It filled all of Pg. 1. Plus its covers for the 2002 and 2003 books are reproduced on Pg. 3. Off the top of my head, I can't recall another such laugh-out-loud approach.
	2.	Once a company has fallen into your—well, bad graces, shall we say...it seldom if ever is treated royally again. True or false? (In other words, isn't it true you hold grudges?) Answer: False, to my way thinking (obviously, I'm prejudiced). PepsiCo comes to mind. Its annuals over the years have fallen into two categories: outstanding, which has been publicized in my writings, and—well, off the wall (a sumo wrestler is one approach featured that comes to mind). This year, as last, though, the Pepsi book has been somewhat more mainstream, and accordingly has been hailed—not just by us, but by a pair of college accounting profs.
	3.	You make a big to-do over your annual conference, but if it were such a big deal, why don't attendees ever return—that is, come back for more? And they don't, do they? (Once with Cato is more than enough?) Answer: I believe that's false; companies do return. Take Sonoco, for instance: It sent Joyce Beasley to our 1995 conference at Charleston, and she's returning this fall to San Antonio. Bill Ferguson spoke at Baltimore in 1993, and while many reports Inc Design has done have been taken to task—not for design, but for content/approach—he's going to be with us again this fall.
	4.	More than three in 10 annuals fail to warn the recipient theirs is an incomplete (that is, truncated) book. True or false? Answer: True. I maintain that if a company doesn't warn, on the report cover, its book isn't complete—that is, pretty much falls back on the legalistic Form 10-K, never intended for public consumption, but doesn't warn the reader he or she is getting a greatly abbreviated book—it deserves to be taken to task. As I've done in my July newsletter. Strangely enough (can you guess why?), many of the short-changers are Wisconsin-based. (Same auditors, or all male members of the same club, where they share secrets—that's my guess.)
	5.	If an annual's producer registers for your fall conference, your policy is to ignore how he or she did; that is, keep hands off reviewing a potential attendee's book. True or false? Answer: False. KeySpan's report is wanting, which would account for why its producer is signed up for this fall—to learn what he's doing wrong. And that criticism of its annual is, properly, presented in my newsletter—same as if the producer weren't attending my conference. Like or not, I have to be fair, to tell it like it is—such as the time I was ushered into an executive VP's office, and before I could sit down, he asked, "Well, what'd you think of our annual report?" To which I responded, "It's gorgeous but dishonest," which caused its producers to sputter aplenty, as you might imagine. For days.
	6.	If a company's annual report does well, making your "world-class" list, unless it subscribes to some of your many services, it's never to be heard from again. Not true? Answer: Not true. Two years running, New Orleans-based Entergy has made my list of "world-class" books, scoring at least 100 of a potential 135 points. It made the list both last year and this, yet remains not a subscriber to my newsletter, among other of our services.