U.S. public companies suddenly freed from the relentless grind of quarterly earnings deadlines—only to grapple with a vacuum of fresh financial insights that could rattle investors and executives alike. As President Donald Trump and SEC Chairman Paul Atkins push to replace the 55-year-old mandate with optional semiannual filings, the shift promises long-term focus but threatens immediate transparency hurdles in America’s $50 trillion stock market.
This seismic proposal, reignited by Trump’s September 15, 2025, Truth Social post, calls for companies to report every six months instead of every 90 days. “Subject to SEC Approval, Companies and Corporations should no longer be forced to ‘Report’ on a quarterly basis… but rather to Report on a Six (6) Month Basis,” Trump wrote, echoing his 2018 pitch. Atkins quickly followed, announcing the SEC would fast-track a rule allowing firms to choose their cadence, potentially by early 2026. The move aims to curb “short-termism,” where CEOs chase quick wins to beat Wall Street forecasts, often at the expense of bold investments.
Quarterly reporting on Form 10-Q has been a cornerstone since 1970, evolving from semiannual norms in the 1950s and ’60s. Proponents argue it drives myopic decisions: A 2025 Nasdaq white paper highlighted how the U.S. public company count plummeted from 8,000 in 1996 to under 4,000 today, partly due to the compliance burden pushing firms private. Switching to semiannual aligns with the EU— which ditched quarterly mandates in 2013—and the UK, fostering parity for foreign issuers who already file less often.
Yet, the end of mandatory quarterly reporting would unleash a cascade of challenges for U.S. public companies. First, compliance costs could plummet—saving millions in accounting, legal, and audit fees—but at what price? Big Four firms like Deloitte and PwC warn of “unstructured” earnings releases lacking auditor scrutiny, complicating investor comparisons. Sarbanes-Oxley certifications and quarterly disclosure controls would ease, but boards might redirect those gains unevenly, risking oversight gaps in volatile sectors like tech and biotech.
For smaller firms, the relief is tantalizing. Micro-cap and emerging growth companies, often biotech startups burning cash on R&D without steady revenue, could slash preparation time for 10-Qs and investor calls. “This flexibility would let management zero in on execution, not endless filings,” says securities attorney Spencer G. Feldman of Olshan Frome Wolosky LLP. But larger accelerated filers, handling complex global operations, face trickier transitions: How do they fill the informational void without voluntary quarterly updates?
Expert opinions split sharply on the risks. Wharton finance professor David Zaring cautions that investors, especially retail ones, would suffer from delayed data, amplifying market swings on rumors or 8-K filings. “The pros of quarterly reporting—timely risk alerts and accountability—outweigh the cons,” agrees B. Riley Wealth’s Art Hogan. Conversely, University of Chicago’s M. Todd Henderson predicts most firms will stick with quarterly disclosures anyway, driven by shareholder demands and bank covenants requiring frequent checks. Public reactions echo this divide: On X, users like @InvestorWatchdog decried it as a “gift to insiders, nightmare for everyday stockholders,” while @LongTermCEO cheered, “Finally, room to build empires, not quarterly excuses.”
The ripple effects hit U.S. readers across the board. Economically, easing the burden could lure more IPOs, reversing the private market boom where unicorns like SpaceX hoard talent and capital offshore. Nasdaq estimates a semiannual shift might boost listings by reducing “regulatory fatigue,” injecting vitality into a stagnating exchange. Politically, it fits Trump’s deregulatory playbook, mirroring first-term efforts that solicited comments but stalled. Yet critics fear uneven enforcement: Wealthy execs might exploit longer windows for creative accounting, eroding trust in a system already scarred by Enron-era scandals.
Technology and lifestyle angles add intrigue. In an AI-driven era, automated tools could bridge gaps with real-time dashboards, but without standardized quarterly benchmarks, algorithmic trading—now 80% of volume—might amplify volatility, jacking up retirement 401(k)s’ daily drama. For working Americans, less frequent reports mean tuning into fewer earnings calls, but potentially wilder stock dips that hit family portfolios harder. Sports fans? Think NFL teams ditching weekly stats for mid-season recaps—coaches adapt, but bettors and scouts scramble.
Implementation hurdles loom large. The SEC must overhaul rules on 8-K current reports, earnings guidance, and interim reviews, possibly mandating enhanced semiannual depth to compensate. Foreign private issuers, exempt from 10-Qs, offer a preview: Many voluntarily go quarterly for U.S. investors, suggesting market forces could sustain the status quo. Still, a 2019 SEC roundtable flagged overlaps between 10-Qs and press releases, hinting at streamlined alternatives.
Norway’s sovereign fund and the Long-Term Stock Exchange back the pivot, citing reduced short-term pressure. But as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce once urged ditching earnings guidance altogether, the core tension persists: Balance innovation with vigilance.
In summary, ending quarterly reporting could unshackle U.S. public companies for bolder strategies, but only if they navigate transparency pitfalls and investor pushback. Looking ahead, expect a hybrid regime—optional quarterly for some, semiannual for others—shaping a more resilient, if unpredictable, capital market by mid-2026.
By Mark Smith
Follow and subscribe to us for push notifications on the latest business and regulatory updates.
quarterly reporting, semiannual reporting, SEC reporting changes, public companies challenges, end quarterly earnings, short-termism in business, Trump SEC proposal, financial disclosure reform, investor transparency risks, U.S. capital markets impact