When Donald Trump fires off 280 characters about securities law and reporting requirements, Wall Street notices. Even if the road from social media to policy is long, his latest target is quarterly earnings. In September 2025, the former president mused that U.S. companies should be able to report only twice a year. He argued this would cut paperwork and cool short-term thinking.
That revived an old debate: cost savings and long-term focus versus market transparency and investor confidence. The question is not whether companies would like less red tape. Many would. It is whether fewer reports would improve markets or simply blur the picture.
Why This Matters
Quarterly reporting has been baked into U.S. securities law since the 1970s. Exchange Act Rules 13a-13 and 15d-13 require domestic issuers to file Form 10-Q within 40 or 45 days after quarter-end. Earnings releases, typically furnished on Form 8-K, are not technically mandatory. Yet skipping them would rattle investors and widen spreads.
Changing that cadence would require formal SEC rulemaking. A proposal, public comment, and a final rule are needed, not just a presidential post. The Commission last examined reporting frequency in 2018 after Trump, then in office, asked whether quarterly filings and earnings releases were duplicative. Corporate commenters urged relief, particularly for small issuers swamped by compliance costs. Investor groups warned that longer gaps would leave markets flying blind.
What Other Markets Have Tried
Abroad, regulators have experimented rather than leapt. In the UK and across the EU, mandatory quarterlies were scrapped in 2014 following the Kay Review and changes to the Transparency Directive. Initially most companies kept reporting quarterly, but over time many shifted to semiannual statements. The notable outcome was not a surge in long-term investment. It was thinner analyst coverage and fewer forecasts, with little evidence of increased R&D.
Germany chose a middle lane. In the Deutsche Börse’s Prime Standard, companies still release quarterly statements. These are trimmed updates with key figures, cash flow, and short commentary instead of a full IFRS pack.
Japan has focused on eliminating duplication rather than interim disclosure itself. Starting in 2024 it abolished statutory Q1 and Q3 reports while keeping exchange-mandated “tanshin” updates.
Australia expects half-year and full-year results for most issuers. Resource explorers and cash-burning startups still file quarterly cash-flow reports. Canada retained quarterly reporting yet allows small “venture issuers” to use concise Quarterly Highlights in place of a full MD&A.
In Israel, certain early-stage R&D firms under size thresholds can file only twice a year. This eases burdens without abandoning timely updates. Even in the U.S., foreign private issuers already pair an annual 20-F with lighter interim 6-Ks. Hybrid models are not new to U.S. investors.
Who Wins, Who Loses
For cash-burning biotechs, cleantech ventures, and other pre-revenue innovators, producing four 10-Qs can feel like a tax on focus. Shifting to semiannual filings would free legal budgets and management bandwidth. It might also cool the penny-perfect EPS obsession.
But fewer official touchpoints widen information gaps and can raise volatility, especially for thinly covered names. The UK’s experience suggests that less frequent updates do not unlock bolder capital spending. They mainly reduce the information stream that supports valuations.
Frequent issuers such as SPAC veterans, serial secondaries, or shelf filers could also find fewer filings complicate registration and investor relations. Quarterly review work is also a significant source of revenue for audit firms, which would not welcome fewer cycles.
A Better Playbook
Rather than an all-or-nothing switch, the SEC could tailor the rhythm. Small reporting companies and R&D shops could be allowed full reports twice a year, with brief Q1 and Q3 updates focused on liquidity, burn, and milestones. Large-cap and index constituents could stay on full 10-Qs to preserve comparability.
Another path is a “10-Q lite.” This could include an unaudited balance sheet, cash-flow highlights, a short MD&A, and sector-specific metrics. It would resemble Germany’s quarterly statement. Whatever the form, Regulation FD and Form 8-K would continue to police selective disclosure.
Market discipline also matters. If asset managers or index providers demand quarterly detail, companies seeking capital or inclusion will comply whether rules require it or not.
What IR Teams Should Watch
IR leaders should map the tangible savings of semiannual reporting against potential hits to coverage, liquidity, and trust. For pre-revenue firms, a twice-yearly filing cadence paired with targeted KPI updates can produce a cleaner and more focused narrative than dense quarterlies.
If the SEC offers flexibility, many larger names courting institutional capital may still opt into quarterlies voluntarily. Transparency remains a hallmark of good governance.
What Happens Next
Trump’s 2025 post put the topic back on the SEC’s radar. Yet the wheels turn slowly. Drafting, comment, analysis, and adoption typically take a year or more. Implementation often lags further to give issuers time to adapt.
Exchanges could also enter the fray. As Germany’s split between Prime and General standards shows, U.S. venues such as Nasdaq or NYSE could set higher disclosure bars for premium tiers even if federal rules loosen.
This article was originally published on investing.com