Why the SAR shortchanges the stockholder Weigh in with your opinion. Tell us what you think Sid Cato's Poll How do you feel about the summary annual report? For it (24.4 %) Against (62.7 %) Not sure (12.7 %) 86 Total Votes   View Results 25% for the summary report 63.89% against 11.11% not sure

Reader Question: I see that you are vehemently opposed to summary annual reports. Can you outline your objections to this format? Have you noticed more companies—albeit still a small percentage—switching to summaries in the last couple of years? The Summary Annual Report (SAR) format is one I—as well as others, including the likes of college professors and securities analysts—view as shortchanging the stockholder. As Thornton L. ("Quality of Life") O’glove observed when the SAR was first being bandied about, "It presents the potential for massive manipulation" of facts. Likewise, the SAR means investors will be comparing apples and kumquats—it won’t be a level playing field, in other words, with every corporation presenting comparable data. Moreover, were the summary report to gain a foothold—and it most definitely hasn’t—it would sound the death knell for the officer-level corporate communicator. The financial types easily could convince an already-unsure-of-himself CEO, wading into uncharted waters, that they would handle the financials. "And let those people in public relations do their thing, with color pictures and expense account lunches and the like." The financial types thus would have succeeded in dividing and conquering. Better, I say, is a full-bodied disclosure of what a company’s all about and where it’s headed. Meantime, the SAR is headed—nowhere! Perhaps in part because it's only a fraction so positive (0.7% vs. an overall 9.9%) as annuals worldwide. Besides, printing a summary report, rather than a "real" one, really doesn't save companies $$$, despite what you may think. I’ve monitored relegation of annuals worldwide to that down-and-dirty state since the first one, in 1987. Here, graphically, is their insignificance: 1987     1.5% 1988     2.2% 1989     0.9% 1990     1.5% 1991     2.7% 1992     2.1% 1993     0.6% 1994     2.1% 1995     3.7% 1996     2.5% 1997     2.1% 1998     4.6% 1999     6.1% 2000     4.7% 2001     3.4% 2002     3.0% 2003     11.5% So far among 2004s, 4.7% (only six).