Sid Cato -- April 2005 Quiz Answers

(Answers for April 2005)

1. Annual reports for 2004, just arriving, are shaping up to be far superior to prior years. True or false?
Answer: True—somewhat. A year ago at this stage of the judging, annuals worldwide averaged a 3.3% Cato Positive Index, indicative of a report's positive or negative nature. Currently, the CPI is three times higher—which would indicate this year's crop is greatly improved.

2. Some say you cater to the big companies and ignore the small corporations—in analyzing annuals, that is. True or false?
Answer: We calls 'em as we sees 'em. I've evaluated annuals from the likes of Wells Fargo and IBM—as well as from companies I've never heard of. Were I to pick, say, big companies' books, that would distort the results; same with the opposite: picking the tiny firms, which tend to turn out awful annuals, would give a completely erroneous indication/implication to the reader.

3. You have yet to come upon any 2004 books that seem destined for what you call "world-class" status. True or false?
Answer: False. Five by actual count have scores exceeding 100—of a potential 135 points, that is. None, though, is a huge conglomerate—like GE or IBM, say.

4. I don't understand (see Question 1) why if this is 2005, you're just getting to 2004 annuals. Isn't that a typo? True or false?
Answer: It's accurate. Companies finished their 2004 year essentially December 31. It takes about a quarter for auditors and others to put a book together. So 2004 annuals for the most part don't arrive until 2005. Unless, of course, a company is on a fiscal-year basis. A corporation's fiscal year might have ended June 30, 2004, in which case I'd probably have received its 2004 book during 2004. Make sense?

5. Annual reports tend to be far, far longer than, say, a decade earlier. True or false?
Answer: I began monitoring this element back among 1983 books—21 years ago, by my count. Know I don't get paid to peddle false data. Here's what my one-of-a-kind figures indicate: Among 1983 books, number of pages averaged 40. It rose, on average, to 42 among 1990 and 1991 books, up to 44 pages a year later. The figure stood at 46 among 1994 annuals, nearly 50 among 1997s, 52 two years later. Back, currently, to 42.8 pages average.

Return to April 2005 quiz page

Test your knowledge by taking previous monthly quizzes


	1.	Annual reports for 2004, just arriving, are shaping up to be far superior to prior years. True or false? *Answer:* True—somewhat. A year ago at this stage of the judging, annuals worldwide averaged a 3.3% Cato Positive Index, indicative of a report's positive or negative nature. Currently, the CPI is three times higher—which would indicate this year's crop is greatly improved.

	2.	Some say you cater to the big companies and ignore the small corporations—in analyzing annuals, that is. True or false? *Answer:* We calls 'em as we sees 'em. I've evaluated annuals from the likes of Wells Fargo and IBM—as well as from companies I've never heard of. Were I to pick, say, big companies' books, that would distort the results; same with the opposite: picking the tiny firms, which tend to turn out awful annuals, would give a completely erroneous indication/implication to the reader.

	3.	You have yet to come upon any 2004 books that seem destined for what you call "world-class" status. True or false? *Answer:* False. Five by actual count have scores exceeding 100—of a potential 135 points, that is. None, though, is a huge conglomerate—like GE or IBM, say.

	4.	I don't understand (see Question 1) why if this is 2005, you're just getting to 2004 annuals. Isn't that a typo? True or false? *Answer:* It's accurate. Companies finished their 2004 year essentially December 31. It takes about a quarter for auditors and others to put a book together. So 2004 annuals for the most part don't arrive until 2005. Unless, of course, a company is on a fiscal-year basis. A corporation's fiscal year might have ended June 30, 2004, in which case I'd probably have received its 2004 book during 2004. Make sense?

	5.	Annual reports tend to be far, far longer than, say, a decade earlier. True or false? *Answer:* I began monitoring this element back among 1983 books—21 years ago, by my count. Know I don't get paid to peddle false data. Here's what my one-of-a-kind figures indicate: Among 1983 books, number of pages averaged 40. It rose, on average, to 42 among 1990 and 1991 books, up to 44 pages a year later. The figure stood at 46 among 1994 annuals, nearly 50 among 1997s, 52 two years later. Back, currently, to 42.8 pages average.