Trump Pushes to End Quarterly Reports, Could Semi-Annual Reporting Reshape U.S. Markets?

Proposal to shift from quarterly to semi-annual reporting reignites debate over transparency, short-termism, and regulatory burden

President Donald Trump has once again proposed that U.S. publicly traded companies report financial results just twice a year rather than every three months, arguing the change would reduce costs and dampen short-term corporate behaviour. The idea has been revived through a post on Truth Social and appears to be prioritised by the Securities and Exchange Commission under his direction.

Background and Current Proposal

• The U.S. currently mandates quarterly earnings reports via SEC rules established in 1970.
• Trump argues that semi-annual reporting would align the U.S. more closely with countries like the UK and many in the European Union, easing compliance costs and allowing executives to focus on long-term strategy.
• Nasdaq CEO Adena Friedman has publicly supported giving companies a choice between quarterly or semi-annual reporting, citing reduced burden, cost savings, and less “short-termism.”

Supporters vs Critics

Supporters see the change as beneficial in several ways:

• Lower reporting frequency could free leadership to focus on long-term investments rather than managing earnings expectations each quarter.
• Some companies, especially smaller ones with tighter reporting resources, might welcome reduced compliance and disclosure burdens.

Critics warn of significant downsides:

• Reduced transparency: Investors rely on timely financial reports to assess performance, risk, and manage portfolios. Slower reporting may increase information asymmetry.
• Market volatility: Delaying bad news could lead to steeper drops when disclosures finally come.
• Investor confidence: Part of the premium for U.S. equities is built on strong regulatory disclosure. Weakening that could harm valuations or make U.S. markets less attractive.

Market Implications

• Equity pricing might shift: Stocks of companies where earnings surprises are frequent could see higher risk premiums. Investors may demand additional disclosure or updates even if quarterly reports are eliminated.
• Liquidity & analyst coverage: Analysts and institutional investors often rely on quarterly results to model earnings, issue guidance, and adjust expectations. Less frequent data could hinder forecasting and raise uncertainty.
• Regulatory costs vs corporate behaviour: Cost savings for some companies could be real, but the cost in terms of market trust and investor protection may offset them.
• Comparative regulation: U.S. policy changes could influence disclosure regimes globally; other jurisdictions may respond with their own reforms or tighten up in contrast.

Risks & What to Watch

• How the SEC proceeds: rulemaking, public comments, and legal challenges could slow or alter the proposal.
• Market reaction: whether investors begin demanding voluntary intermediate updates (through press releases, earnings guidance) to fill gaps.
• Effects on smaller companies and IPOs: will they face increased challenges in capital raising if frequent financial updates are seen as less reliable?
• Relationship with other regulatory pressures: ESG reporting, environmental/climate disclosures, and supply chain transparency may face similar pressure, amplifying regulatory risk.

In summary, Trump’s push to end mandatory quarterly reports renews an old debate over how public companies balance short-term pressure with long-term strategy. While backed by some corporate leaders who see cost savings and reduced regulatory burden, the proposal raises serious concerns about transparency, investor protection, and market efficiency. The core theme: reducing reporting frequency could reshape how companies are judged, and how global capital flows into U.S. markets.