1.	People take having their annual reports named to the list of 10 worst reports pretty well—rather calmly, actually. True or false? Answer: False. Either they beg for an explanation or, more likely, attack the messenger. The stratagem of choice: having a surrogate send a nasty letter impugning my motives; charging, for instance, that ours is nothing more than a ploy to extort funds: In other words, they pay me $$$ and buy my silence evermore. I respond to such diatribes with a copy of my policy, which specifies we're prohibited from taking money from anyone whose report is named to the list of world's worst. That indeed would smack of blackmail.
	2.	Once a company makes your list of world's worst reports, it sees the light—without paying you big bucks. True or false? Answer: False. That would be so in an ideal world, but among corporations here and abroad, things are never so perfect. Many inhabitants of the world's-worst list are repeat-offenders, among them Time Warner, No. 1 worst three years in a row. Tenneco, on last year's "worst" list, is a strong candidate for a repeat visit. Wm. Wrigley Jr., the Chicago-based chewing gum company, and CNA, another Chicago-based firm, this one into insurance—they easily could make the list any given year. OMC (née Outboard Marine Corporation) has made the list at least twice over the years. Some folks never learn.
	3.	Many companies make claims in their reports that can't be substantiated. True or false? Answer: False, at least in one instance that recently came to light: Baldor Electric Co. in its 1992 report played up its belief it "has the best employees in the industry." That claim, it seems to me, was buttressed now by its being named (by Fortune) among the "100 Best Companies to Work for in America."
	4.	Try as you might, it's not often you're able to effect real change in the annual report industry. True or false? Answer: To be sure, I'm often discouraged at how long it takes to effect change. In an ideal world, improvements would be instant. But this isn't an ideal world. Then I look at a key Cato soapbox (most unpopular one with many major companies here and abroad) and see progress: I refer to the exclusion of women and minorities from boards of directors. I think that's wrong, reflects poorly on the guilty parties. I began to advocate that women and minorities not be excluded from boards, as pictured, among 1993 reports. That year, more than one in three companies (35%) were seen to be guilty. That declined to 29% (three in 10) a year later, remained at that level among 1995 reports. A year later, the number declined slightly to one in four (26%). So far among 1997s? It's off to one in five (19%)! So I guess the answer would have to be "false." At least on this score.
	5.	Okay—how's about designed financials. Hardly any companies are extending design look throughout the book. True or false? Answer: True, sort of. Among 1994 reports, only 1.1% had designed financials—that is, the entire book appearing attractive, readership-attracting. That rose ever-so-slightly a year later to 1.4%, up a smidgen to 1.6% last year. So far among early 1997s it's up to 5.4%. In the annual report industry, certainly, that's major progress.