As policymakers and corporate leaders debate the future of quarterly financial reporting in the US, a significant shift looms over how public companies communicate with investors and how they are held accountable.
Beginning in 1970, the US has required its public companies to report its earnings every three months. Any previous attempts to cut this back has been met with opposition from shareholders and industry groups who argue that the changes could threaten transparency and market volatility.
This time around the call to review this requirement was triggered by the Long-Term Stock Exchange, in the form of a petition to the SEC to allow public companies to report earnings semi-annually. They have argued it will lead to reduced regulation, greater long-term focus and alignment with non-US jurisdictions that have already ditched the quarterly rule.
Responses have been mixed. In its policy report Advancing the US public markets: Unlocking capital formation for a stronger American economy, Nasdaq says the processes and regulations around quarterly reporting should similarly evolve to become simpler, not more complex.
Specifically, Nasdaq writes: ‘the quarterly filing process is especially burdensome for small- and medium-sized companies that are forced to devote a disproportionate share of time and resources to meet these obligations,’ adding that companies could be given the option to report semi-annually – as is the case in the UK.
‘While quarterly reporting would likely remain the ideal vehicle for many larger companies, others would benefit from the flexibility to report less frequently in a manner already allowed in the US for foreign private issuers, which must provide their detailed annual report and an interim balance sheet and income statement as of the end of the second quarter.’
On the news that President Donald Trump was pushing for renewed calls to end quarterly reportingin September, Nasdaq CEO Adena Friedman wrote in a LinkedIn post: ‘Thank you, President Trump for shining a light on a key challenge that leaders of public companies face: short-termism, exacerbated by quarterly reporting.’
The Wall Street Journal described the proposal as ‘wrong in very possible way’ and dismissed the argument that it leads to short-term thinking as ‘utter tosh’.
‘The short‑term logic implies that US business[es] should be performing poorly today. But that is unequivocally not the case… As a fraction of gross domestic product, corporate profits are near all‑time highs,’ writes senior markets columnist, James Mackintosh.
Similarly, John Coates, professor at Harvard Law School and former SEC advisor, told The New York Times that that ‘quarterly earnings of publicly traded companies provide a benchmark for the entire economy’, adding in a later comment to Law.com that any inference that disclosure rules are to blame for the lack of public companies is ‘just false’.
‘It has to do with globalization and scale and the value of keeping information private for a founder of a company that wants to get to big scales,’ he said.
The evolving cadence of disclosure
As the debate wages on across the US capital markets, IR leaders are weighing what less frequent disclosure might mean for transparency, investor engagement and the long-standing culture of short-term performance. For many companies, quarterly reporting remains the backbone of investor communication.
Mike Houston, partner and US CEO at LLYC, makes this clear: ‘[Quarterly reporting] is integral, I would even use the word foundational. To me, it really provides an established, even proven cadence required to maintain the trust of investors.’ He stresses that this applies equally to institutional and retail investors in markets where ‘high-frequency traders, 24/7 media cycle algorithms’ amplify short-term noise. Quarterly touchpoints, he argues, are how companies ensure that the market ‘accurately sees and prices the value that they’re building.’
Mike Houston, partner and US CEO at LLYC
Houston is adamant that the core issue is not the number of reports but the discipline behind them. ‘Whether it’s quarterly or semi-annual, it’s not so much the frequency that’s important. It’s really about the message that you’re communicating and having a consistent rhythm.’ Without that rhythm, he warns, ‘companies lose control of the narrative and, as an IRO, that’s the most valuable asset you have in your toolbox.’
Phil Corbett, head of investor relations at UK-listed Jadestone Energy and member of the policy committee at the UK’s IR Society, echoes this sense of nuance but emphasizes variability across sectors. ‘This ultimately depends on the nature of the issuer’s business model, the sector in which they operate and any regulatory, contractual or statutory obligations.’ He notes that companies may be required to publish audited quarterly accounts due to debt covenants, while high-growth sectors like AI may benefit from quarterly reporting because it offers ‘a much better basis for an IR strategy.’ Conversely, he says, mature industries may not see the same emphasis on short-term trends. ‘So, in summary, it depends.’
Phil Corbett, head of investor relations at Jadestone Energy
Asked how less frequent reporting might affect investor engagement, Houston says IROs would initially gain room to strengthen relationships: ‘In the short term, it would enable IROs to look at other facets of their job that maybe needed some attention.’ But he quickly pivots to long-term risk. ‘Over the medium and longer term, less frequency of reporting would fundamentally change their job from that of proactive communication and narrative building to one of constant defense against misinformation and maybe even speculation.’ Without regular updates,’ he warns that ‘in a vacuum of silence’ uncertainty grows and ‘uncertainty is never the friend of an IRO.’
Corbett imagines that reduced frequency could provide time to spotlight what often gets crowded out: ‘I would like to think that less frequent reporting would allow for more time to be spent on discussing strategy, governance and the wider investment case.’
Transparency, trust and the tools that sustain them
On the question of market transparency, Houston provides one of the strongest warnings in the debate: ‘The net of it, especially for that middle market of smaller companies that we often work with, [is that] longer term, it weakens market transparency.’ He contrasts these issuers with the largest firms: ‘It wouldn’t do so for the Googles and Teslas of the world that everybody’s paying attention to.’ For others, however, ‘that primary function of frequent disclosure is to help level the playing field… so that we protect the retail investors.’
Houston frames transparency and predictability as market fundamentals: ‘Those two items, in my view, are the currency of confidence.’ Reduce them, he argues, and analysts cannot ‘build the record with frequent, useful data to model trends and risks.’ Less data leads to ‘less informed analysis, which is the antithesis of a transparent market.’
Corbett takes a more flexible view, reiterating that transparency does not disappear with reduced frequency. ‘Issuers will usually have some form of continuous disclosure obligation’ and can issue-trading statements as milestones or signposts ‘replacing Q1 and Q3 reports.’ These updates can maintain visibility on key drivers without requiring full quarterly accounts.
If quarterly reporting becomes less common, Houston argues strongly for modernizing – rather than minimizing – investor communication. ‘If companies are needing to scale back on compliance frequency, for me it’s all about fixing that framework and not ditching it.’ He points to structured data, interactive dashboards and an IR website designed as ‘the place to go,’ where investors can easily understand the narrative. He also urges companies to ‘stop the obsession with that quarterly earnings-per-share guidance’ and instead share forward-looking commentary on ‘fundamental business drivers, capital allocation priorities and long-term milestones.’
Volatility remains a concern. Houston points out the need to ‘eliminate that catalyst for short termism’ and focus on ‘regular, candid, forward looking communication’ even outside of filing dates. Corbett agrees that the transition carries risk and says it would be ‘really difficult to isolate’ how volatility might change relative to the current quarterly rhythm. Periodic updates, however, can help ‘fill any perceived information gap.’
Rethinking oversight and long-term focus
From a governance perspective, semi-annual reporting has been framed as a way to improve quality over quantity. Bill Harts, CEO of the Long-Term Stock Exchange points to research in both the UK and EU showing that when companies shift to semi-annual reporting, ‘the quality of their disclosure is better.’ He explains that the direction companies give to investors more often aligns with actual outcomes because the disclosures are clearer, less rushed and more deliberate.
Bill Harts, CEO of the Long-Term Stock Exchange
Harts argues that this shift can strengthen oversight: it ‘could be a really positive thing – it’ll free the board to spend more time thinking about long-term strategy.’ At the same time, he stresses the continuity of investor protection, saying that ‘all material events will still have to be disclosed immediately on form 8K… we don’t think that’s really a reason not to do this.’
Asked whether reduced reporting leads to less scrutiny or healthier long-term thinking, Harts is unequivocal. ‘We certainly hope that it will cause companies, as well as boards, to think in a longer-term fashion.’ He notes that board members repeatedly say their greatest value is setting long-term policy, not reviewing every minor operational detail.
For IR teams, he sees continuity rather than disruption: ‘Good IR teams are in constant contact with their investors… there may be even more impetus to reach out in between semi-annual reporting periods.’
As SEC commissioner Caroline Crenshaw observed in her Brookings remarks, a robust governance framework rests not only on the cadence of formal filings but also on the visibility and transparency of market activity itself.
Crenshaw warns of a concerning trend of markets ‘moving out of the light and into darkness,’ where transparency erodes both in corporate disclosure and trading venues. One core example she mentions is the shift away from lit trading – trading on public exchanges with displayed quotes – toward less transparent venues. Crenshaw explains that lit trading is vital because it provides public price transparency that benefits all investors. Displayed quotes help inform trading decisions, establish security valuations and support index calculations. Exchange trading, with its regulatory oversight and visible price discovery, is an essential element of a fair, efficient market. But in recent years, trading activity has increasingly migrated to dark markets, a shift that can ‘obscure the true prices of stocks, raise the cost of trading, and by extension, damage investor confidence.’
For this reason, she argues it is ‘fundamentally important to support displayed liquidity and carefully consider any interventions that might impact transparency in our equity market structure’, including policies like the Order Protection Rule that help ensure visibility in trading.
This focus on market-wide transparency complements the governance debate: robust disclosure regimes and transparent market structures together help ensure that investors, particularly retail and long-term holders, can make informed decisions based on real fundamentals, rather than stale data or opaque trading flows.
Regulatory arguments and global lessons
The SEC’s potential move toward semi-annual filing has stirred discussion across Wall Street. Ryan Adams of Morrison Foerster underscores the uncertainty: ‘It’s too early to say definitively… this could go a variety of ways.’ A flexible system could result in many companies adopting less frequent schedules or could leave the landscape largely unchanged.
Ryan Adams, partner atMorrison Foerster
On regulatory arguments, Adams notes strong views on both sides. Supporters believe reducing mandatory quarterly reporting can help de-emphasize short-termism and lower costs. Critics highlight the long-standing role of quarterly reporting in promoting transparency around not only financial results but ‘legal risks and potential trends that could affect the business in the future.’
International comparisons show encouraging signs. Harts references research into the UK shift to semi-annual reporting: ‘What the paper found is it got better and that’s a real positive outcome for investors.’ However, he notes that evidence is still developing on whether the change fostered longer-term corporate thinking. Houston cautions that ‘cultural differences in the way that we work’ and the exceptional liquidity of US markets may limit the transferability of EU or UK models.
Competitiveness of US capital markets
Opinions differ on whether US markets would become more or less attractive without quarterly reporting. Houston sees risk: ‘For the masses, it would become less attractive.’ The global reputation of US markets as the ‘gold standard for depth, efficiency and disclosure’ could be weakened by removing quarterly mandates. To him, the shift ‘would be perceived as a substantial weakening of that disclosure standard’ and potentially reduce confidence in market integrity.
Corbett offers a different interpretation, shaped by his UK experience. He doubts the frequency of reporting is solely what makes US markets attractive and believes most issuers would hesitate to abandon quarterly reporting until it was proven safe to do so. ‘Not many issuers would want to be leading that move in case of a backlash.’
Adams adds that many investors already rely more on earnings reports and calls than on form 10-Q itself. ‘It remains to be seen whether companies would completely abandon the current earnings call cadence.’ His view is that many would not.
Harts argues that semi-annual reporting could strengthen US markets by lowering barriers for smaller companies, saying that ‘most smaller companies in the US confirm that the costs of complying with the quarterly reporting regime are tremendous.’ By reducing the burden, he believes more young companies would consider going public, enabling investors to participate in their growth.
What motivates companies to seek reduced reporting?
Adams rejects the idea that companies can simply go private to avoid scrutiny. ‘That’s not necessarily true, as SEC reporting is required for companies once they reach a certain size.’ Instead, he argues that the SEC is trying to stimulate IPOs, but abundant private capital limits the impact of policy changes.
Harts highlights a fundamental imbalance, noting ‘the requirements for a $100 mn market-cap company are pretty much the same as requirements for a $10 bn market-cap company. That just doesn’t make sense.’ He stresses that the burden is not only monetary but operational. ‘Every minute that they’re spent on this reporting is a minute that they’re not spending on growing their company.’ Reducing required frequency, she believes, could help restore equilibrium.
In the end, the shift toward semi-annual reporting poses a simple but consequential question: can companies maintain transparency while freeing space for long-term strategy? How IR teams, boards and investors answer it will shape whether reduced cadence becomes progress or a step back for market confidence.