US SEC Preparing To Scrap Quarterly Reporting Requirement (reuters.com)
- Reference: 0181014070
- News link: https://slashdot.org/story/26/03/17/039203/us-sec-preparing-to-scrap-quarterly-reporting-requirement
- Source link: https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/us-sec-preparing-eliminate-quarterly-reporting-requirement-wsj-says-2026-03-16/
> The SEC will vote on the proposal once it is published, after a public comment period which typically lasts at least 30 days, the report said. The WSJ report added that the rule is expected to make quarterly reporting optional and not eliminate it altogether. The proposed change in the reporting standard would allow listed companies to publish results every six months instead of the current mandate to report figures every 90 days.
>
> Trump, who first floated the idea in his first term as president, has argued the change in requirements would discourage shortsightedness from public companies while cutting costs. Skeptics, however, caution delaying disclosures could reduce transparency and heighten market volatility.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/us-sec-preparing-eliminate-quarterly-reporting-requirement-wsj-says-2026-03-16/
[2] https://www.wsj.com/finance/regulation/sec-prepares-proposal-to-eliminate-quarterly-reporting-requirement-1d700bbb
Why not yearly? (Score:3)
Why not just switch to yearly reporting? Companies can still report more often, but if it allows companies to hire managers that aren't constantly chasing quarterly results at the expense of long term prospects, it's better for everyone other than investors that like to profit off of valuation swings from quarterly earnings reports. Those people aren't creating anything of real value anyway so why should I care if they have to find something more useful to do?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
You may be onto something. The peons are starting to tire of record quarterly profits while at the same time being told by the company that higher wages cannot be afforded.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you expect a publicly traded company to pay wages any higher than they have to? Do you regularly pay more than the sticker price for something at the store? Of course not.
The only thing that can reliably create higher wages is competition. When workers have a choice of where to work, companies must naturally compete for their labor. It's no different when you go to the store and have a variety of products available for purchase. Do you think the price would still be as low if there weren't alte
Re: (Score:2)
[1] Publicly traded companies constitute less than 1 percent of all U.S. firms and about one-third of U.S. employment in the non-farm business sector. [nber.org]
> The only thing that can reliably create higher wages is competition.
This is true but also if we are going to use market principles here we have to accept that there is a form of market failure in labor that has to be accounted for in that people have to work .
Unless you qualify for disability or SS you need a job to survive or its out on the street. A key aspect of a competitive market is the ability for the buyer to walk away
[1] https://www.nber.org/digest/apr07/changing-business-volatility?page=1&perPage=50
Re: (Score:3)
It does widen the gap for insider information and trading on it -- which does screw the little guy (or at least little guy traders). If you're a long term investor this really should not make a difference.
Bad Idea (Score:1)
This is an impossibly bad idea. Maybe the worst idea ever. You can't imagine how bad of an idea this is. Believe me. I've seen a lot of bad ideas, and this one knocks them all out of the park.
Re: (Score:2)
How about decadely reports, then? It's so much hassle reporting all the time; just do it once every ten years!
Banning shorting too couldn't hurt (Score:2, Troll)
Shorting brings nothing of value but can destroy the value of a company due to diluting confidence just so some fucking hedge fund can make a killing.
Information Hiding (Score:3)
Corporations are already engaged in pretty heavy information hiding that really limits the ability of investors to evaluate businesses. For example one would think that the number of iphones sold would be pretty important to know.
Mixed feelings.. (Score:2)
I have mixed feelings on this.
On the one hand, reducing modern businesses chasing short-term results over longer term goals is a good thing.
On the other hand, reporting less often to share holders feels like " Trust me, bro. "
Overall, I think that for most businesses, detailed annual reporting is the sweet spot. It gives enough time to actually accomplish something -or at least make meaningful progress. It is not so long that we (as investors) forget what they promised in the previous report.
It's All Bullshit Anyway (Score:2)
It's all bullshit anyway.
I find the quarterly reporting to be too fast of a cadence. It introduces a lot of market volatility. So, shifting to biannually seems like a good idea.
But, the reality is that it probably won't matter much. Just as we have now, the important information always gets leaked to insider "analysts" and the trading takes place before the earnings announcement. So, I'm not sure how much volatility will actually be reduced since companies will probably leak more frequently than biannually.
Because (Score:1)
The economy is going to shit and now you'll only have to think about it twice a year