Forrester Research - 10-K annual report

In this 2006 Annual Report onForm 10-K,Forrester Research, Inc. (“Forrester” or “the Company”, “we” or “our”) is restating its consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2005, and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the two years ended December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2004. We have also included under Item 6, “Selected Consolidated Financial Data”, restated financial information as of, and for each of the years ended, December 31, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, and in Footnote 16 to the consolidated financial statements included herein, restated financial information for the first three quarters of 2006 and all of the interim periods of 2005.

The Company expects to file shortly quarterly reports onForm 10-Qfor the three months ended March 31, 2007 (“Q1 2007”) and the three and six months ended June 30, 2007 (“Q2 2007”). The Q1 2007 and Q2 2007Form 10-Q’swill contain restated financial information for the comparable periods of the prior year.

Previously filed annual reports onForm 10-Kand quarterly reports onForm 10-Qhave not been amended and should not be relied upon.

On December 19, 2006, we announced that the Audit Committee of our Board of Directors had initiated a voluntary inquiry into the Company’s stock option granting practices and had hired the law firm of Ropes & Gray LLP in November 2006 to conduct an independent investigation of such practices. Independent counsel and outside forensic accounting experts, at the Audit Committee’s direction, conducted an extensive review of the Company’s historical stock option granting practices and related accounting. On February 14, 2007, we announced that the Audit Committee had reported to the Board of Directors certain findings of its investigation into the conduct of the Company’s officers, directors and former officers in connection with the granting of stock options, principally between 1997 and 2003. On March 5, 2007, we announced that the Audit Committee, after consultation with management and with BDO Seidman LLP, the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm, had determined that the Company’s historical consolidated financial statements included in the Company’s Annual Reports ofForm 10-K,Quarterly Reports onForm 10-Qand Current Reports on From8-K should no longer be relied upon.

As a result of the voluntary inquiry and the independent investigation, management has concluded, and the Audit Committee agrees, that incorrect measurement dates were used for financial accounting purposes for options to purchase approximately 16.99 million of the more than 19.16 million shares subject to stock option grants awarded from 1997 through 2006. Accordingly, revised measurement dates were determined for all grants with incorrect measurement dates, and we have recorded additional non-cash stock-based compensation expense and related tax effects based on the revised measurement dates for these past stock option grants. Previously filed financial statements are being restated in this annual report onForm 10-K.

The scope of the investigation included a review of the conduct of the Company’s current and former officers, directors and other employees in granting stock options as noted above, and a forensic review of (i) all Company-wide grants (those made to all employees or to a broad group of key employees, referred to as “Company-wide grants”) from 1997 — 2006, covering 13.34 million shares of common stock, (ii) a sample of “ad hoc” grants (stock options granted in connection with promotions or new hires or in special circumstances awarded between 1997 and

The Audit Committee’s report to the Board of Directors included the following key findings:

The investigation found that the responsibility for issuing, and establishing controls over, option grants during the period 1997 — 2003 was shared between Forrester’s finance and strategic growth (human resources) organizations. The individuals who led those organizations during that time period are no longer at the Company. Warren Hadley, the Company’s Chief Financial Officer from February 2002 — 2006 resigned in December 2006 as a result of irregularities discovered in the course of the investigation with respect to a stock option granted to him in 1999. Timothy Riley, the Company’s Chief People Officer since 1997, resigned in February 2007. Susan Whirty, the Company’s former Chief Financial Officer from 1998 until her resignation in January 2002, also served as General Counsel of the Company from the time of the Company’s initial public offering in November 1996 until her resignation in 2002.

The investigation uncovered no evidence of misconduct by George Colony, who has been Chief Executive Officer since he founded the Company in 1983. The investigation uncovered no evidence suggesting that Mr. Colony knew of any flexible dating or backdating of stock options.

The investigation also found no evidence that the members of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors or any of the other independent directors received mispriced options, or directed the granting of, or knew of, any flexible dating practice or backdating of options.

The Audit Committee and Company management concluded that the actual “measurement date”, as that term is defined in Accounting Principles Board (“APB”) Opinion No. 25, Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees(“APB No. 25”), was different from the measurement date recorded by the Company for certain option grants to purchase Company common stock which were awarded both to officers and other employees. From 1997 — 2006, stock options covering a total of 19.16 million shares were awarded, of which 17.29 million shares, or 90%, were selected for review. The results of the review were such that 89% of the stock options reviewed indicated that the actual measurement date was different than the recorded measurement date (original measurement date) as further discussed below. As a result of having identified these incorrect measurement dates, management concluded that the Company’s previously issued financial statements should be restated. The issues identified by the investigation as having given rise to the incorrect measurement dates fall into the following main categories:

Inadequate or inconsistent documentation.  For a number of the grants made to all or a large group of Company employees on an annual basis, there was inadequate or inconsistent documentation to establish that the requisite approvals had been obtained, or that the list of recipients was final as of the original measurement date. In addition, for many “ad hoc” grants awarded primarily to new hires or to individuals for promotions, documentation was lacking (or could not be located given the passage of time since the grant date), inadequate or insufficient to support the original measurement date.

Targeted pricing for certain Company-wide and ad hoc grants.  For two Company-wide grants (July 1999 and January 2002), and for certain ad hoc grants awarded primarily during 1999 and 2000, the original measurement date preceded the actual measurement date as determined under APB No. 25. It appears that the original measurement date was chosen in part because pricing was favorable on that date.

Evidence developed during the investigation suggests that principally in 1999 and 2000, the date of an employee’s promotion (and therefore the corresponding date on which the stock option relating to that promotion was granted) subsequently would be changed to a date on which the Company’s stock price was lower. Although the evidence did not establish that such changes were uniformly made, they did occur, particularly in the case of promotion grants, on numerous occasions, principally in 1999 and 2000 when the Company’s stock price was fluctuating substantially. In several such instances, two promotion letters were generated for the same promotion,

Grants without evidence of proper authorization.  These grants included stock options awarded without approval of the Compensation Committee of the Board even when such approval was required (i.e., a grant to an executive officer or a grant that exceeded the scope of the delegation of authority to the chief executive officer). In many instances, particularly with ad hoc grants, the Compensation Committee procedures were not followed, or, where the award was made pursuant to delegated authority, there was no evidence of the chief executive officer’s approval.

Upon the conclusion of the independent investigation into the conduct of certain officers, directors and employees, the Company completed an assessment of the actual measurement dates for all stock options granted between 1997 and 2006 under applicable accounting principles. This assessment included a review of a substantial volume of contemporaneous documentation to determine the actual measurement date for stock options. In certain cases, the documentation supported the original measurement date, and in other cases, the documentation supported an alternative measurement date. However, for many stock option grants, no reliable documentation could be found to support the original or any alternative measurement date. For those cases, we determined that the most appropriate source of information to determine the actual measurement date is the date of entry of the applicable grant into the Company’s stock option database, since the entry into the database constituted an acknowledgment by the Company of the grantee’s legal entitlement to the stock option grant.

Based on the results of the Company’s comprehensive assessment, the measurement dates, as adjusted, for all of the stock options granted by the Company from1997-2006are categorized as follows:

Our approach wherever practicable was to determine the actual measurement date for each grant based on available documentary evidence and to apply the default approach of date of entry into the stock option database only in those cases where documentation with respect to the grant was either unavailable or unreliable. As noted above, the available documentation supported the original measurement or an alternative measurement date for a majority of the option shares, consisting principally of certain program option grants and ad hoc grants to executive officers and new hires on and after 2003. The available evidence relied upon to support the original or alternative measurement date for the program grants consisted of minutesand/orunanimous written consents of the board of directors or compensation committee of the board where available, ande-mails to the stock option administrator containing detailed listings of individuals and the related grants where available. For the ad hoc grants, in the case of executive officers, the documentary evidence consisted of minutes of meetings or unanimous written consents of the compensation committee of the board of directors detailing the specific new hire or promotion grant, as well as employment offer letters, recorded start dates in the applicable employee data base, and the filing dates of Form 4 stock transaction reports for section 16 officers. For ad hoc grants to non-officer new hires, the documentary evidence relied upon consisted of the employment offer letters and the recorded start dates in the applicable employee data base. However, for a substantial number of grants, documentation was either unavailable or unreliable, particularly for stock options granted in earlier years. For those grants, we concluded that the most appropriate approach was to default to the date of entry into the stock option data base, as noted above.

We considered various alternative approaches to establishing the actual measurement dates for stock options granted during the stated period and believe that the approach we used was the most appropriate under the circumstances. The use of a different approach may have resulted in different measurement dates, which could have resulted in substantially higher or lower cumulative stock-based compensation expense. This in turn would have caused net income to be different than amounts reported in the restated consolidated financial statements included in this Annual Report onForm 10-K.

In addition to the restatement adjustments resulting from the Company’s historical stock option granting practices (“the Stock Option Investigation Restatement Adjustments”), the Company is restating its consolidated financial statements to recognize a deferred tax liability associated with the book tax difference relating to the write-off of goodwill for tax purposes during 2002 (“the German Deferred Tax Liability Adjustment”). Previously, the Company had not recognized the deferred tax liability for the difference in book and tax basis for goodwill, as required under Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 109, Accounting for Income Taxes (“SFAS No. 109”), The Company is also restating its interim quarterly financial information for 2006 to reverse stock-based compensation expense resulting from the failure to appropriately update management’s estimate of the applicable pre-vesting forfeiture rate, which resulted in the recognition of excess stock-based compensation expense under SFAS No. 123 (revised 2004), “Share-Based Payment”(“SFAS No. 123R”) during 2006 interim periods (“the 2006 Forfeiture Rate Adjustments”).

As a result of the errors identified, the Company restated its historical statements of income from 1998 through 2005 to record $37.4 million of additional non-cash stock-based compensation expense and associated payroll tax expense, net of related income tax effects, together with the recognition of a deferred tax liability related to the different basis for book and tax purposes of goodwill associated with an acquisition in Germany in 2000, a significant portion of which was written down to net realizable value for tax purposes in 2002. For 2005 and 2004, these errors resulted in an after tax benefit to the consolidated statements of income of $596,000 and $731,000, respectively. The cumulative effect of the related after-tax expenses for periods prior to 2004 was $38.7 million.

The Company determined that it was more likely than not that it would realize the benefits of the future deductible amounts related to non-cash stock-based compensation expense. As a result, we recorded a cumulative tax benefit through 2005 of $16.3 million related to stock-based compensation expense. Previously, the Company had recorded the deferred tax asset from the net operating losses related to the exercise of stock options as a benefit to additional paid-in capital within stockholders’ equity. As a result of the restatement, a portion of the benefit previously recorded as a benefit to additional paid-in capital was reclassified to income tax benefit. The cumulative effect of the tax benefit recorded as adjustments to periods prior to 2004 was $15.8 million.

Under section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”), stock options that are in-the-money at the time of grant do not qualify as performance-based compensation and therefore the Company is not entitled to a deduction for the compensation expense related to the exercise of those options held by officers who are covered by IRC section 162(m). The Company previously recognized deferred tax assets as a benefit to additional paid-in capital related to covered officers whose grants were in-the-money, totaling approximately $5.4 million for the years 1999 through 2002. Those benefits have been reversed through a reduction of the Company’s deferred taxes and a reduction of additional paid-in capital and are included in the cumulative effect of restatement recorded as of December 31, 2003.

The Company reviewed the tax effects associated with stock options for which the original measurement date was corrected (“Adjusted Options”). Many of the Adjusted Options were originally intended to be incentive stock options (“ISOs”) under U.S. income tax regulations. However, by definition, ISOs may not be granted with an exercise price less than the fair market value of the underlying stock on the date of grant. Due to the impact of the measurement date changes on the qualified status of affected ISOs, they may no longer qualify as ISOs under the regulations. Therefore, the affected ISOs were accounted for as if they were non-qualified stock options for income tax accounting purposes. The Company recorded a liability for the unpaid income and employment taxes due plus potential penalties and interest based upon the change in status of the affected options in the amount of $5.8 million for the periods 1998 through 2006. The Company recorded reversals of this accrual in the amount of $5.3 million through 2006 due to the expiration of the payroll tax statute of limitations for years 2003 and prior. These adjustments resulted in a net charge to expense of approximately $202,000 over the restatement period. The net expense recorded during 2006 was approximately $326,000.

If the Company’s assumptions with respect to unpaid taxes due based upon the change in status of the affected options were challenged, including with respect to the expiration of the statute of limitations, the Company’s liability for unpaid taxes could be materially higher, which in turn would cause net income to be materially different

The following is a summary of the restatement adjustments by year (in thousands):

The vestingand/orexercise of certain stock options that were granted on a discounted basis (exercise price is less than the fair market value of the stock on the date of grant) may be subject to Internal Revenue Code section 409A. In February 2007, the Company filed a notice of participation in the voluntary program described in Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Announcement2007-18, theCompliance Resolution Program for Employees other than Corporate Insiders for Additional 2006 Taxes Arising under Section 409A due to the Exercise of Stock Rights. The Company also participated in the similar program prescribed by the California Franchise Tax Board. Under these programs, employers pay the requisite additional tax and associated interest and penalties on behalf of employees (and former employees) who exercised discounted stock options in 2006. During 2007, Forrester paid a total of $362,000 to the Internal Revenue Service and the California Franchise Tax Board under these programs.

Forrester Research, Inc. conducts independent technology and market research and provides pragmatic and forward-thinking advice to global leaders in business and technology. We offer products and services in four major areas: Research, Data, Consulting, and Community. Our products and services are targeted to specific roles, including principally senior management, business strategists, and marketing and technology professionals at $1 billion-plus companies who collaborate with us to align their technology investments with their business goals.

Research serves as the foundation for all our offerings and consists primarily of annual memberships to our syndicated research offering RoleView^tm, formerly known as WholeView^®2, that provides comprehensive access to our core research on a wide range of business and technology issues of interest to the specific roles our products and services address. In addition to RoleView, we also provide several client-focused products and services in our Data, Consulting, and Community offerings. Each of these allow our clients to interact directly with analysts and explore in greater detail the issues and topics covered by RoleView on a client-specific basis.

We were incorporated in Massachusetts on July 7, 1983 and reincorporated in Delaware on February 16, 1996. In February 2003, we acquired Giga Information Group, Inc., or Giga, a global technology advisory firm. Giga’s

Our Internet address is www.forrester.com. We make available free of charge, on or through the investor information section of our website, annual reports onForm 10-K,quarterly reports onForm 10-Q,and current reports onForm 8-Kand amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the Securities and Exchange Commission. Our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, which is applicable to our officers, directors and employees, including our principal executive, financial and accounting officers, is posted on the investor information section of our website. We intend to post any amendment to, or waiver from, a provision of the Company’s Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, and that relates to a substantive amendment or material departure from a provision of the Code, on our Internet website at www.forrester.com. We will provide a copy of the Code, free of charge, upon request.

Emerging technologies play a central role in companies’ and their employees’ efforts to remain both competitive and cost-efficient in an increasingly complex global business environment. Developing comprehensive and coordinated business strategies is difficult because as the economy and technology change, consumers and businesses adopt new methods of buying and selling, and markets grow increasingly dynamic.

Consequently, companies and the professionals who are in the roles we focus on rely on external sources of expertise that provide independent business advice spanning a variety of areas including technology, business strategy, and consumer behavior. We believe there is a need for objective research that is thematic, prescriptive, and executable, and that provides a comprehensive perspective on the integrated use of technology in business.

In early 2007, Forrester accelerated execution of a role-based strategy to focus attention on serving leaders in multiple roles across its client base. Forrester’s syndicated RoleView research provides clients with more relevant research, easier access to the insights individual leaders need to make them successful in their roles and new community tools to provide a more comprehensive view of the problems they face.

We seek to maintain and enhance our position as a leading independent technology and market research firm and to capitalize on demand for our research by:

Identifying and Defining New Business Models, Technologies, and Markets.   We seek to differentiate ourselves from other research firms by delivering pragmatic and forward-thinking research and analysis on the impact of technology on business models and technology infrastructure. We believe that our research methodology and our creative culture allow us to identify and analyze rapid shifts in the use of technology before these changes appear on the horizons of most users, vendors, and other research firms. Our early identification of these shifts enables us to help our clients capitalize on emerging business models and technologies.

Leveraging our RoleView Research.  Our business model, technology platform, and research methodologies allow us to sell existing products and to rapidly introduce new products and services without incurring significant incremental costs. We intend to continue to use our business model, technology platform, and research methodologies to both increase sales of our existing RoleView research and introduce innovative new products. Our Data, Consulting, and Community offerings complement, enhance and supplement our RoleView research offering, and many are designed to address clients’ customized needs.

Using Targeted, Global Sales Channels.  We sell our products and services directly through our global sales force in various locations in North America, Europe, Asia and Australia. We also sell our products and services through independent sales representatives in select international locations. In 2006, our business was managed through three geographic regions — Americas, EMEA (Europe, Middle East and Africa) and Asia Pacific. Effective January 2007, we reorganized our business into global client groups to more closely align with our client base: the IT Client Group, the Marketing & Strategy Client Group, and the Technology Industry Client Group.

Growing Our Client Base Worldwide and Increasing Sales to Existing Clients.  We believe that our products and services can be successfully marketed and sold to new client companies worldwide and to new roles and additional units and divisions within our existing client companies. We believe that within our client base of over 2,300 client companies as of December 31, 2006 there is opportunity to sell additional products and services. In addition, we intend to expand our international presence as the growing impact of technology on business innovation creates demand for external sources of objective research.

Developing and Retaining Outstanding Research Professionals.  The knowledge and experience of our analysts are critical elements of our ability to provide high-quality products and services. We employ outstanding research professionals from varied backgrounds and a wide range of industries. We believe that our culture, which emphasizes quality, cooperation, and creativity, helps us to develop and retain high-caliber research professionals. We provide a competitive compensation structure, as well as recognition and rewards for excellent individual and team performance.

Our business and technology expertise enables us to offer our clients the best available research on changing business models and technologies, technology investments, implementation changes, and customer trends. Our solution provides our clients with:

A Unified Set of Services to Build Business and Technology Strategies.  We offer clients a comprehensive and unified view of technology’s impact on business. The primary component of this view is RoleView. Clients may combine RoleView with our Data, Consulting, and Community offerings to obtain access to the research, data, analysts, and peer insights they need to:

Expertise on Emerging Technologies.  We started our business in 1983 and have a long history of, and extensive experience in, identifying technology trends and providing research and executable advice on the impact of technology on business. Our research analysts have many years of industry experience, are frequent speakers at business and technology conferences, and are often quoted in the media. They enjoy direct access to the leaders and decision-makers within large enterprises and technology vendors. We provide our research analysts with training to ensure that they have the skills to challenge conventional viewpoints and provide prescriptive, executable insight and research to our clients.

We offer our clients a selection of engagement opportunities in the areas of Research, Data, Consulting, and Community which are organized for and directed toward the multiple professional roles we cover.

Our primary syndicated research product, renamed RoleView in February 2007 (formerly known as WholeView2), is a holistic, unified offering that provides clients with comprehensive access to our core syndicated research designed to inform their strategic decision-making. Like WholeView2, RoleView consists of a library of cross-linked documents that interconnects our reports, data, product rankings, best practices, evaluation tools, and research archives and allows clients to move barrier-free across our research, but RoleView access is provided through role-based websites that facilitate client access to research and tools that are most relevant to their professional roles. Through this access structure, RoleView addresses the interplay of an individual client’s

Clients subscribing to RoleView may choose between two membership levels:

Both Member and Reader clients receive access to our Research Help Desk, which is a call center dedicated to providing additional information about our research, methodologies, coverage areas, and sources. The Research Help Desk is available to help clients navigate our website, find relevant information, and put clients in contact with the appropriate analyst for inquiries.

Our Data products and services focus on consumers’ and business users’ attitudes about and behavior toward technology, including ownership, future purchases, and adoption trends. These products incorporate extensive survey research designed and analyzed by our staff. Clients can leverage our Technographics research or choose to have us conduct data analysis on their behalf. Our Data products include:

Our Consulting services leverage RoleView to deliver customized research to assist clients in executing technology and business strategy, assessing viable initiatives for competitive technology gains, and making large technology investments. Specifically, we help our clients, via custom research with:

We also offer Website Reviews that provide targeted, action-oriented assessments of clients’ websites, extranets, or intranets. Feedback is based on comprehensive examination of the clients’ website and web strategies.

Our Community offerings are designed to foster effective connections between peers in the same or similar roles, our analysts, and the relevant research. Our Community programs provide exclusive networking opportunities, advice on best practices, and targeted analysis. Community products and services include the Forrester Leadership Boards, participation in Workshops, and attendance at Forrester Events.

We report our revenue from client contracts in two categories of revenue: (1) research and (2) advisory services and other. All the product and service offerings listed above are comprised of research, advisory services and other, or some combination of the two. Research offerings principally generate research revenues, and Consulting offerings consist solely of advisory services revenues. We classify revenue from our Consumer Technographics Data & Services and Business Data and Services as research services revenue. Within Community, revenue from memberships to the Forrester Leadership Boards is classified as research services revenue, and revenue from Workshops and Forrester Events is classified as other revenue in our advisory services and other revenue classification.

Contract pricing for annual memberships for research only is principally a function of the number of licensed users at the client. Pricing of contracts for research and advisory services is a function of the number of licensed users, and the amount and type of advisory services. The average contract for annual memberships for research only at December 31, 2006 was approximately $43,500, an increase of 7% from $40,600 at December 31, 2005. The average contract for an annual membership for research which also included advisory services at December 31, 2006 was approximately $87,900, an increase of 2% from $85,800 at December 31, 2005.

We track the agreement value of contracts to purchase research and advisory services as a significant business indicator. We calculate agreement value as the total revenues recognizable from all research and advisory service contracts in force at a given time (but not including advisory-only contracts), without regard to how much revenue has already been recognized. Agreement value increased 16% to $172.8 million at December 31, 2006 from $148.6 million at December 31, 2005.

We employ a structured methodology in our research that enables us to identify and analyze technology trends, markets, and audiences and ensures consistent research quality and recommendations across all coverage areas. We seek to provide relevant research that will contribute to the success of our clients in their professional roles.

We ascertain the issues important to technology users through thousands of interactions and surveys with vendors and business, marketing, and IT professionals, and accordingly, the majority of our research is focused on the issues our clients face each day. We use the following primary research inputs:

Our Consumer Technographics and Business Data and Services research combines our qualitative research methodology with traditional survey research methodologies such as correlation, frequency distribution, cross-tabulation, and multivariate statistics to produce research reports, quantitative survey data, and data briefs. Third-party data vendors are frequently used for data collection and tabulation.

The Forrester Wave combines in-depth product test results and user interviews with market and strategic analysis to score attributes of emerging technologies. We then apply this research and strategic analysis to determine the weighting of each attribute and create interactive spreadsheets, databases, and reports.

Collaboration among analysts is an integral part of our process, leading to higher-quality research and a unified perspective. All RoleView research begins either with a client or vendor catalyst or with discussion sessions among analysts to generate ideas for research. Analysts test ideas throughout the research process at both informal and weekly research meetings. Our reports are consistent in format, and we require our analysts to write in a structure that combines graphics with easy-to-read text to deliver concise, decisive, relevant, and objective research to our clients. At the final stage of the research process, senior analysts meet to test the conclusions of each research report.

We sell our products and services through a direct sales force in various locations in North America, Europe, and Asia. We also sell our products and services through independent sales representatives and suppliers in select international locations. We employed 303 salespersons as of December 31, 2006, an increase of 15% from 263 as of December 31, 2005. We also sell our research products directly online through our website.

For information on our international operations, see Note 14 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included herein.

Our marketing activities are designed to increase awareness of the Forrester brand and further our reputation as a leader in role-based emerging technology research. We actively promote brand awareness via our website,

As of December 31, 2006, our research was delivered to more than 2,300 client companies. No single client company accounted for more than 2% of our 2006 revenues.

We believe that the principal competitive factors in our industry include the following:

We believe that we compete favorably with respect to each of these factors. We believe that our early focus on emerging technologies is a significant competitive advantage. Additionally, we believe that our role-based strategy, research methodology, easy-to-read formats, and portfolio of complementary product offerings distinguish us from our competitors.

We compete principally in the market for research and advisory services about and relating to technology and its impact on business. Our principal direct competitors include other providers of similar services, such as Gartner Group, as well as providers of peer networking services and Internet and digital media measurement services. In addition, our indirect competitors include the internal planning and marketing staffs of our current and prospective clients, as well as other information providers such as electronic and print publishing companies, survey-based general market research firms, and general business consulting firms. Our indirect competitors could choose to compete directly against us in the future. In addition, there are relatively few barriers to entry into our market, and new competitors could readily seek to compete against us in one or more market segments addressed by our research. Increased competition could adversely affect our operating results through pricing pressure and loss of market share. There can be no assurance that we will be able to continue to compete successfully against existing or new competitors.

As of December 31, 2006, we employed a total of 779 persons, including 298 research staff and 270 sales personnel.

Our culture emphasizes certain key values — including client service, quality, and creativity — that we believe are critical to our future growth. We promote these values through training and frequent recognition for achievement. We encourage teamwork and promote and recognize individuals who foster these values. New employees participate in athree-daytraining process that focuses on our products and services, corporate culture, values and goals.

We are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause our actual future activities and results of operations to be materially different from those set forth in forward-looking statements made by us. These risks and uncertainties include:

Fluctuations in Our Operating Results.  Our revenues and earnings may fluctuate from quarter to quarter based on a variety of factors, many of which are beyond our control, and which may affect our stock price. These factors include, but are not limited to:

As a result, our operating results in future quarters may be below the expectations of securities analysts and investors, which could have an adverse effect on the market price for our common stock. Factors such as announcements of new products, services, offices, or strategic alliances by us or the technologies services industry may have a significant impact on the market price of our common stock. The market price for our common stock may also be affected by movements in prices of stocks in general.

A Decline in Renewals for Our Membership-Based Research Services.  Our success depends in large part upon renewals of memberships for our research products. Approximately 77%, 78%, and 76% of our client companies with memberships expiring during the years ended December 31, 2006, 2005, and 2004, respectively, renewed one or more memberships for our products and services. These renewal rates are not necessarily indicative of the rate of future retention of our revenue base. Any future declines in renewal rates could have an adverse effect on our results of operations.

Ability To Develop and Offer New Products And Services.  Our future success will depend in part on our ability to offer new products and services. These new products and services must successfully gain market acceptance by addressing specific industry and business organization sectors and by anticipating and identifying changes in client requirements and changes in the technology industry. The process of internally researching, developing, launching and gaining client acceptance of a new product or service, or assimilating and marketing an acquired product or service, is risky and costly. We may not be able to introduce new, or assimilate acquired, products or services successfully. Our failure to do so would adversely affect our ability to maintain a competitive position in our market and continue to grow our business.

Loss of Key Management.  Our future success will depend in large part upon the continued services of a number of our key management employees. The loss of any one of them, in particular George F. Colony, our founder, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, could adversely affect our business.

The Ability To Attract and Retain Qualified Professional Staff.  Our future success will depend in large measure upon the continued contributions of our senior management team, research analysts, and experienced sales and marketing personnel. Thus, our future operating results will be largely dependent upon our ability to retain the services of these individuals and to attract additional professionals from a limited pool of qualified candidates. We experience competition in hiring and retaining professionals from developers of Internet and emerging-technology products, other research firms, management consulting firms, print and electronic publishing companies and financial services companies, many of which have substantially greater ability, either through cash or equity, to attract and compensate professionals. If we lose professionals or are unable to attract new talent, we will not be able to maintain our position in the market or grow our business.

Failure To Anticipate and Respond To Market Trends.  Our success depends in part upon our ability to anticipate rapidly changing technologies and market trends and to adapt our research to meet the changing information needs of our clients. The technology and commerce sectors that we analyze undergo frequent and often dramatic changes. The environment of rapid and continuous change presents significant challenges to our ability to provide our clients with current and timely analysis, strategies and advice on issues of importance to them. Meeting these challenges requires the commitment of substantial resources. Any failure to continue to provide insightful and timely analysis of developments, technologies, and trends in a manner that meets market needs could have an adverse effect on our market position and results of operations.

Competition.  We compete in the market for research products and services with other independent providers of similar services. We may also face increased competition from Internet-based research firms. Some of our competitors have substantially greater financial, information-gathering, and marketing resources than we do. In addition, our indirect competitors include the internal planning and marketing staffs of our current and prospective clients, as well as other information providers such as electronic and print publishing companies, survey-based general market research firms and general business consulting firms. Our indirect competitors may choose to compete directly against us in the future. In addition, there are relatively few barriers to entry into our market, and new competitors could readily seek to compete against us in one or more market segments addressed by our products and services. Increased competition could adversely affect our operating results through pricing pressure and loss of market share.

Material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting could lead to errors in our financial statements and a lack of investor confidence in us and a resulting decline in our stock price.  We had a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting at December 31, 2005 relating to the proper accounting for non-cash stock option expense that resulted in restatements of our financial statements for two quarters in 2005. We also report in Item 9A that material weaknesses existed at December 31, 2006 in our internal control over financial reporting relating to stock option accounting, and to income tax accounting for goodwill and intangible assets. Internal controls that do not meet applicable accounting and auditing standards could result in errors in our financial statements and lead investors to question the reliability and accuracy of our reported financial information. Any such lack of confidence in the financial information that we produce could cause investors to sell our stock and result in a decline in our stock price.

We face risks related to the restatement of our financial statements and the ongoing SEC investigation regarding our historical stock-based compensation practices.  The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) has commenced a formal inquiry into our historical stock-based compensation practices. We are cooperating with the SEC and will continue to do so as the inquiry moves forward. At this point, we are unable to predict what, if any, consequences the SEC investigation may have on us. However, the investigation has resulted in considerable expenses, is diverting management’s attention from other business concerns, and could harm our business. If the SEC were to commence legal action, we could be required to pay significant penaltiesand/or fines and could become subject to an administrative orderand/or a cease and desist order. The filing of our restated financial statements will not resolve the SEC investigation. Further, the resolution of the SEC investigation could require the filing of additional restatements of our prior financial statements,and/or our restated financial statements, or require that we take other actions not presently contemplated. In addition, there can be no assurance that the SEC will accept the Company’s approach for establishing the correct measurement dates for stock options granted during the restatement period or that the Company’s assumptions with respect to the related tax effects will not be challenged by the Internal Revenue Service.

This list of uncertainties and risks is not exhaustive. Certain factors that could affect our actual future activities and results and cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking statements made by us include, but are not limited to, those discussed above as well as those discussed in other reports filed by us with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

We have not received written comments from the Securities and Exchange Commission that remain unresolved.

Our headquarters are located in approximately 125,000 square feet of office space in Cambridge, Massachusetts, all of which is currently occupied by the Company. This facility accommodates research, marketing, sales, technology, and operations personnel. The lease term of this facility expires in September 2011. We have the option to extend this lease for an additional five-year term.

We also have leased office space in Foster City, California, Amsterdam, Dallas, Denmark, Frankfurt, London and Paris.

We believe that our existing facilities are adequate for our current needs and that additional facilities are available for lease to meet future needs.

We are not currently a party to any material legal proceedings.

In June, 2007, the SEC notified us that it had commenced a formal inquiry into our historical stock option granting practices. In December 2006, prior to the resignation of our chief financial officer in connection with irregularities involving a stock option grant awarded to him in 1999, we advised the SEC of our voluntary internal investigation. We have been cooperating fully with the SEC since then and will continue to do so as the inquiry moves forward. We are unable to predict what, if any, consequences the SEC investigation may have on us or on our results of operations.

Not applicable.

Our common stock is traded on the Nasdaq Stock Market under the symbol “FORR.” We did not declare or pay any dividends during the fiscal years ended December 31, 2005 and 2006. We anticipate that future earnings, if any, will be retained for the development of our business, and we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future.

As of October 22, 2007 there were approximately 48 stockholders of record of our common stock. On October 22, 2007, the closing price of our common stock was $24.48 per share.

The following table represents the ranges of high and low sale prices of our common stock for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2006:

The following table summarizes, as of December 31, 2006, the number of options issued under our equity compensation plans and the number of shares available for future issuance under these plans:

The following graph compares the cumulative stockholder return on our common stock during the period from December 31, 2001 through December 31, 2006 with the cumulative return during the same period for the Nasdaq Stock Market (U.S. Companies) and the Russell 2000, and assumes that dividends, if any, were reinvested.

We recently completed an inquiry into and review of our historical stock option granting practices. The review, which included option grants made since our initial public offering in November 1996 through the end of 2006, was directed by the Audit Committee of our Board of Directors with the assistance of independent counsel and forensic accountants. In March 2007, we reported that based on the preliminary findings of this review, we would need to restate our historical financial statements to record additional non-cash charges for compensation expense related to past stock option grants and related tax impacts, and accordingly, that our financial statements for the periods1998-2006,and all selected financial data, press releases and other communications with respect thereto, including any interim periods, should no longer be relied upon.

Based on the results of the completed review, the Audit Committee concluded that the actual measurement dates for many stock option grants were different from the original measurement dates for such awards. As a result, revised measurement dates were applied in those cases and we have recorded additional stock-based compensation expense for the years 1998 through 2006, and related tax adjustments.

The selected consolidated financial data has been restated as a result of the review, as well as with respect to the failure to properly account for the difference between tax and book basis for goodwill related to an acquisition in Germany in 2000, of which a significant portion was written down for tax purposes in 2002. See the Explanatory Note included on page 2, the discussion included in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” included in Part II, Item 7, and Note 2 to “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements,” all included in this Annual Report onForm 10-K.

The selected consolidated statements of operations data presented below for the three years ended December 31, 2006, and the selected consolidated balance sheet data as of December 31, 2006 and December 31, 2005, is derived from, and qualified by reference to, the audited restated financial statements appearing elsewhere in this Report, and should be read in conjunction with those financial statements. The consolidated statements of operations data for the years ended December 31, 2003 and December 31, 2002, and the consolidated balance sheet data as of December 31, 2004, December 31, 2003 and December 31, 2002, are derived from unaudited financial statements not included herein that have also been restated.

The following table reconciles selected historical consolidated financial data from the previously reported results to the restated results for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2002 and 2003. See Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements included in the Annual Report onForm 10-Kfor similar reconciliations for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2005.

In this 2006 Annual Report onForm 10-K,we are restating our consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2005, and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the two years ended December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2004. We have also included under Item 6, “Selected Financial Data”, restated financial information as of, and for each of the years ended, December 31, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005. Restated financial information for the first three quarter of 2006 and all interim periods of 2005 is included below and in Footnote 16 to the consolidated financial statements included in this Annual Report onForm 10-K.

The Company expects to file shortly quarterly reports onForm 10-Qfor the three months ended March 31, 2007 (“Q1 2007”) and the three and six months ended June 30, 2007 (“Q2 2007”). The Q1 2007 and Q2 2007Form 10-Q’swill contain restated financial information for the comparable periods of the prior year.

Previously filed annual reports onForm 10-Kand quarterly reports onForm 10-Qhave not been amended and should not be relied upon.

See the Explanatory Note on page 2 of this Annual Report onForm 10-Kand Footnote 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements included herein for a further discussion of the restatement of our prior period financial statements.

We derive revenues from memberships to our research products and from our advisory services and events available through what we refer to as Research, Data, Consulting, and Community offerings. We offer contracts for our research products that are typically renewable annually and payable in advance. Research revenues are recognized as revenue ratably over the term of the contract. Accordingly, a substantial portion of our billings are initially recorded as deferred revenue. Clients purchase advisory services offered through our Data, Consulting and Community products and services to supplement their memberships to our research. Billings attributable to advisory services are initially recorded as deferred revenue and are recognized as revenue when the services are performed. Event billings are also initially recorded as deferred revenue and are recognized as revenue upon completion of each event. Consequently, changes in the number and value of client contracts, both net decreases as well as net increases, impact our revenues and other results over a period of several months.

Our primary operating expenses consist of cost of services and fulfillment, selling and marketing expenses, general and administrative expenses, depreciation, and amortization of intangible assets. Cost of services and fulfillment represents the costs associated with the production and delivery of our products and services, and it includes the costs of salaries, bonuses, and related benefits for research personnel, non-cash stock based compensation expense, and all associated editorial, travel, and support services. Selling and marketing expenses include salaries, bonuses, employee benefits, non-cash stock-based compensation expense, travel expenses, promotional costs, sales commissions, and other costs incurred in marketing and selling our products and services. General and administrative expenses include the costs of the technology, operations, finance, and strategy groups and our other administrative functions, including salaries, bonuses, employee benefits, and non-cash stock-based compensation expense. Overhead costs are allocated over these categories according to the number of employees in each group. Amortization of intangible assets represents the cost of amortizing acquired intangible assets such as customer relationships.

Deferred revenue, agreement value, client retention, dollar retention and enrichment are metrics we believe are important to understanding our business. We believe that the amount of deferred revenue, along with the agreement value of contracts to purchase research and advisory services, provide a significant measure of our business activity. Deferred revenue reflects billings in advance of revenue recognition as of the measurement date. We calculate agreement value as the total revenues recognizable from all research and advisory service contracts in force at a given time (but not including advisory-only contracts), without regard to how much revenue has already been recognized. No single client accounted for more than 2% of agreement value at December 31, 2006. We calculate client retention as the number of client companies who renewed with memberships during the most recent twelve-

The increase in deferred revenue and agreement value from 2005 to 2006 is primarily due to increases in the number of clients and in the average contract size. The average contract for annual memberships for research only at December 31, 2006 was approximately $43,500, an increase of 7% from $40,600 at December 31, 2005. The average contract for an annual membership for research which also included advisory services at December 31, 2006 was approximately $87,900, an increase of 2% from $85,800 at December 31, 2005. Increases in average contract sizes and enrichment in 2006 reflect increasing demand for our products, reduced discounting and increased prices.

The increase in deferred revenue and agreement value from 2004 to 2005 is primarily due to an increase in the number of clients. The increase in client retention and dollar retention reflects an improving economic environment. The decrease in enrichment from 2004 to 2005 reflects more clients renewing memberships at the same level as the prior year, coupled with an increase in advisory-only contracts purchased by clients during the membership term and not in connection with the renewal.

Management’s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations are based upon our consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”). The preparation of these financial statements requires us to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses, and related disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities. On an ongoing basis, we evaluate our policies and estimates, including but not limited to, those related to our revenue recognition, non-cash stock-based compensation, allowance for doubtful accounts, non-marketable investments, goodwill and other intangible assets and income taxes. Management bases its estimates on historical experience and various other assumptions that are believed to be reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.

We consider the following accounting policies to be those that require the most subjective judgment or those most important to the portrayal of our financial condition and results of operations. If actual results differ significantly from management’s estimates and projections, there could be a material effect on our financial statements. This is not a comprehensive list of all of our accounting policies. In many cases, the accounting treatment of a particular transaction is specifically dictated by GAAP, with no need for management’s judgment in its application. There are also areas in which management’s judgment in selecting any available alternative would not produce a materially different result. For a discussion of our other accounting policies, see Note 1 in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8 of this Annual Report onForm 10-K,beginning on page   .

On September 26, 2006, we completed the sale of our Ultimate Consumer Panel (“UCP”) product line to Lightspeed Online Research, Inc. for $2.5 million in cash, of which $2.25 million was paid at the closing date subject to a working capital adjustment, with the remainder due nine months after the closing date. The sale resulted in a gain on the disposal (net of $1.0 million of income tax expense) of $1.4 million. The sale included the transfer of certain assets, including all UCP customer contracts, historical data, intellectual property, six employees, and licenses as well as certain liabilities arising in the normal course of business. Forrester sold the product line as it was no longer a strategic fit with its core focus on broad, global business and consumer technology data. The UCP product line had gross revenues for the years 2006, 2005, and 2004 of $1.8 million, $1.8 million, and $854,000, respectively. Net income from the discontinued operations was $300,000 (net of $204,000 of income tax expense) for the year ended December 31, 2006, and net loss from the discontinued operations was $318,000 (net of $219,000 of income tax benefit) and $815,000 (net of $552,000 of income tax benefit) for the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively. The financial results of the UCP product line are reported as a single line item of ‘‘(Loss) income from discontinued operations” for all periods presented. The gross revenue and net income numbers noted above for UCP for 2006 only include amounts recorded through September 26 as UCP was disposed of on September 26, 2006.

The following table sets forth selected financial data as a percentage of total revenues for the years noted.

The following tables set forth a summary of our unaudited quarterly operating results for each of our eight most recently ended fiscal quarters. We have derived this information from our unaudited interim consolidated financial statements, which, in the opinion of our management, have been prepared on a basis consistent with our financial statements contained elsewhere in this Annual Report onForm 10-Kand include all adjustments, consisting only of normal recurring adjustments, necessary for a fair presentation in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States when read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in this annual report. Historically, our total revenues, operating profit, and net income in the fourth quarter have reflected the significant positive contribution of revenues attributable to advisory services performed. As a result, we have historically experienced a decline in total revenues, operating profit, and net income from the quarter ended December 31 to the quarter ended March 31. Our quarterly operating results are not necessarily indicative of future results of operations. Each of the quarterly periods in 2005 and 2006 have been restated to reflect additional stock-based compensation expense and related tax effects, as well as the correction of the errors identified by the Company related to forfeitures in 2006, as required under SFAS No. 123R, and failure to appropriately account for the difference in book and tax basis of goodwill, a significant portion of which was written down to net realizable value for tax purposes in 2002. See Note 2 to our consolidated financial statements for further discussion of the restatement and see Note 16 for reconciliations between the as reported and as restated results of quarterly operations.