On September 15, President Trump took to Truth Social, his social media platform, to revive his call to end quarterly reporting for public companies. As the President wrote, his proposal would “save money and allow managers to focus on properly running their companies.” He made a similar push during his first term, but after soliciting public comment, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) took no action. This time, however, may be different.
Within two weeks of the President’s announcement, SEC Chair Paul Atkins said the agency would fast-track a proposal to shift from quarterly to semi-annual financial reporting. A day later, the Long-Term Stock Exchange (LTSE)—a securities exchange focused on long-term value creation—filed a petition urging the SEC to adopt semi-annual reporting requirements.
Quarterly reporting requirements in the United States date back to the 1970s, and disclosure obligations became more robust in 2002 as lawmakers and the SEC responded to massive investor losses stemming from the Enron and WorldCom accounting scandals. The goal of quarterly reports is to provide investors with timely insight into the financial health of publicly traded companies. That transparency has long been cited as a key factor in the stability of U.S. capital markets and their global appeal to investors.
Roughly a decade ago, the United Kingdom and the European Union moved from quarterly to semi-annual corporate reporting. In the UK, however, many companies continue to voluntarily issue quarterly reports even though the mandate was dropped. Today, the decision to forgo a quarterly update is sometimes seen by investors as a “red flag.”
While reducing the frequency of reporting could save companies compliance costs, opponents argue that it would come at the expense of transparency. That concern is particularly acute in fast-moving sectors such as technology, biopharma, and artificial intelligence, where corporate fundamentals can shift rapidly. If investors must rely on information that is, at best, six months old, critics warn, they will have a harder time assessing changes in revenue, expenses, growth, and other key metrics. Senator Elizabeth Warren, a vocal opponent, argues that reducing reporting obligations could allow companies to conceal or delay negative developments and provide fewer data points for investors. Critics also caution that it could slow disclosure of how macroeconomic changes—such as shifts in tax policy or tariffs—are affecting companies’ financial positions.
Supporters of the change, by contrast, argue that less frequent reporting would not only reduce compliance costs but also encourage longer-term thinking in the markets. LTSE founder Eric Ries called the move “a longtime dream of the business community” and “the culmination of efforts by many long-term investors, companies, and policymakers over decades,” adding that “the time has come to create a capital markets system that rewards patient capital and long-term thinking.” Proponents also point to academic research suggesting that quarterly reporting can undermine long-term value creation.
While few dispute that a myopic focus on short-term, quarter-by-quarter results runs counter to the long-term perspective favored by most institutional investors, the proposed change would mark a significant shift. The bedrock of U.S. securities regulation is disclosure, and reducing the number of mandated reports would inevitably widen the information gap between corporate insiders and investors. Under the current regime, quarterly updates permit investors to recalibrate their portfolios more quickly. A six-month reporting lag would allow companies to postpone revealing key information—what some investors are calling a “critical delay.”
The coming months will reveal how investors, corporations, and market professionals respond to the President’s proposal as they submit public comments. Even if the SEC ultimately votes to eliminate quarterly reporting, U.S. public companies could still choose to provide quarterly updates voluntarily. Time will tell whether we are witnessing the beginning of the end for quarterly reporting—or, to paraphrase Mark Twain, whether reports of its death are greatly exaggerated.