1.	Despite how harsh you can be, companies still rush to send you their annuals for review. True or false? Answer: False. Each year, it seems, arrival of the new crop gets later and later—a month later a year ago, a month ADDITIONAL this year.
	2.	You’ve been monitoring the world’s annuals since the 1982 crop – for 16 years, now. True or false? Answer: It seems longer, frankly. But each year’s crop gets me turned on – both those that excel and those that are the pits. I do this full time, using computer programs whose creation I directed.
	3.	You select the world’s annuals, 10 best and 10 worst. Don’t you mean the U.S.’ best and worst? Answer: No, the world’s—annuals from Poland to Pakistan to the Philippines, from Taiwan to Singapore, Israel to Australia, New Zealand to the United Kingdom, Finland to (soon) the Czech Republic. Hong Kong, Japan, Africa—you name it, we see ’em. Plus, of course, annuals from Canada and Mexico. Mexico’s annuals are "on the fast track"—they’re making quantum leaps in quality.
	4.	Once you take a company to task for, say, obfuscation in the letter to shareholders, the CEO and others wisely take your criticism to heart. True or false? Answer: Sadly, seldom does a zinged company learn its lesson. One, for instance, has been deceitful (by my standards, of course) since its 1992 report. That’s Century Communications, a Connecticut cable television company.
	5.	But when you name an annual report to the list of world’s worst, management sits up and takes notice. Not true? Answer: No. Not true. First thing management does (I know from experience) is demand to learn "which idiot on our staff sent Cato our annual report?" Not, "What’d we do wrong and how can we improve?" Any report named world’s worst, or cited for absence of forthrightness—anyone can go from the depths to the heights. I’d dearly love to name a world’s-worst report world’s BEST the following year!