Group 1 - The new American Job Quality Study indicates that only about 40% of American workers have quality jobs, defined by financial security, safety and respect, opportunities to grow, a voice in decisions, and a manageable schedule [2] - Many companies do not measure employee engagement or turnover rates, leading to high turnover and rehire rates, which negatively impacts safety and overall company performance [3] - High turnover rates result in wasted resources on recruiting, training, and onboarding, and can lead to increased costs related to workers' compensation and missed workdays [4] Group 2 - The study highlights a cycle where high turnover discourages investment in employee development, leading to disengaged workers who provide minimal effort in return [5] - Companies often view employees as interchangeable units of labor, which erodes empathy and fosters a short-term focus on quarterly results rather than long-term employee investment [5]

Core Viewpoint - The debate on the frequency of corporate earnings reporting in the US has resurfaced, with President Trump advocating for semi-annual reporting instead of quarterly, citing potential cost savings and improved management focus [1][7]. Group 1: Reporting Frequency Comparison - US companies are mandated to report earnings quarterly, while most international companies only require semi-annual filings [3][7]. - In a universe of 11,000 global equities, only 13% report twice a year, with 62% being North American companies, and only 1% of those are North American companies [4]. Group 2: UK Case Study - The UK transitioned from semi-annual reporting to quarterly reporting between 2007 and 2014, before reverting back to semi-annual reporting [5]. Group 3: Pros of Semiannual Reporting - Advocates argue that semi-annual reporting could reduce "short-termism" and allow companies to focus on long-term strategies [9]. - It is believed that less frequent reporting could revive IPO markets, as the current rigorous SEC requirements deter companies from going public; the number of publicly traded companies in the US has decreased by 17% over three years and nearly 50% since 1997 [10]. Group 4: Cons of Semiannual Reporting - Critics highlight that less frequent earnings reports could lead to reduced transparency and insights into company performance, which are crucial for investors and analysts [11]. - There are concerns that semi-annual reporting could increase opportunities for illegal activities within corporations due to fewer checkpoints for scrutiny [12]. Group 5: Fundamental Debate - The core of the debate revolves around whether public markets should prioritize transparency and up-to-date information for investors or create an environment that allows companies to focus on long-term growth without short-term pressures [13].

Core Viewpoint - Donald Trump's call to abandon quarterly corporate reporting has garnered cautious support from international investors advocating for a focus on long-term sustainability issues [1][2]. Group 1: Shift in Reporting Frequency - Trump proposed that companies should move to six-monthly updates, aligning with views from business leaders like Warren Buffett and Jamie Dimon, who argue that short-termism negatively impacts the economy [2]. - Transitioning away from quarterly reporting could align the U.S. with a global trend and assist investors in urging companies to address sustainability issues that increasingly affect corporate value [3]. Group 2: Investor Perspectives - Responsible investment advocates have historically opposed quarterly reporting due to its tendency to prioritize trading over effective ownership [4]. - Many European and international investors seek climate-related data, which is often omitted in a quarterly reporting framework [5]. Group 3: Long-term Strategy and Sustainability - Investors desire companies to assess the long-term impact of their strategies and manage sustainability-related risks, suggesting that reducing the frequency of reporting could be beneficial if it does not compromise transparency [6]. - A reduction in quarterly reporting obligations may encourage companies to enhance sustainability-related disclosures [7]. Group 4: Market Implications - Changing long-standing securities laws would represent a significant shift for the U.S. capital market, which includes over 4,000 companies with a total market capitalization exceeding $60 trillion [8]. - Many overseas investors are accustomed to six-monthly updates from companies in various regions, including the EU, UK, Australia, New Zealand, and Hong Kong [8].

Core Viewpoint - The debate over the frequency of financial reporting for publicly traded companies has resurfaced, with President Trump advocating for a shift from quarterly to semiannual earnings reports to reduce costs and allow management to focus on operations [1][3]. Historical Context - The SEC has mandated quarterly earnings reports for U.S. publicly traded companies since 1970, transitioning from a semiannual requirement established in 1955. Annual 10-K filings with audited financial statements have been required since the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [2]. International Comparison - Many developed markets, including the U.K. and EU countries, only require semiannual reporting. Trump previously proposed a return to this structure to mitigate short-termism and reduce corporate costs, although the SEC did not implement changes after seeking public comment in 2018 [3]. Debate on Reporting Frequency - The proposal to change to semiannual reporting has divided opinions within the financial community. Critics argue that current quarterly standards prioritize short-term profits over long-term strategy, while proponents believe that the existing system provides essential transparency and keeps investors informed in a fast-paced trading environment. Some suggest maintaining the current system but eliminating voluntary quarterly guidance that has become common since the 1990s [4].

Core Viewpoint - Nasdaq CEO Adena Friedman supports allowing public companies to choose between quarterly and semi-annual reporting to alleviate the reporting burden and combat short-termism in corporate America [1][2]. Group 1: Reporting Frequency - Friedman advocates for the option of semi-annual reporting, which could reduce the friction and costs associated with being a public company [2]. - Currently, U.S. regulations require companies to report financial statements every 90 days, while half-yearly reporting would align the U.S. with the UK and several EU countries [3]. Group 2: Economic Impact - Reducing the reporting burden could energize U.S. capital markets and stimulate economic growth [2]. - Previous discussions among top Wall Street executives have highlighted the need for reforms to ease regulations for public companies [3]. Group 3: Historical Context - In 2018, corporate leaders like Jamie Dimon and Warren Buffett expressed concerns that short-termism, driven by quarterly reporting, was detrimental to the U.S. economy [5]. - Nasdaq has previously proposed streamlining reporting requirements and standardizing earnings press releases to potentially replace the quarterly Form 10-Q [2].

Core Viewpoint - The president proposed changing the frequency of corporate reporting from quarterly to semi-annually, suggesting it would save costs and allow management to focus on long-term strategies [1][5][10]. Group 1: Impact on Companies - Companies may benefit from less frequent reporting, as the current quarterly system pressures them to focus on short-term results rather than long-term growth [3][16]. - The current quarterly reporting system is seen as a hindrance to long-term planning, with executives feeling pressured to deliver results every 90 days [6][16]. - Some companies, like Under Armour, have faced downgrades due to not meeting quarterly expectations, highlighting the brutal nature of quarterly assessments [2][7]. Group 2: Industry Perspectives - There is a debate within the industry about the necessity of quarterly reports, with some arguing that they create a short-term focus detrimental to overall economic health [11][14]. - The average holding period for mutual funds is reportedly less than nine months, indicating a trend towards short-term investment strategies [14]. - The notion of moving to semi-annual reporting has been discussed as a way to alleviate the pressure on companies and allow for more strategic decision-making [5][17]. Group 3: Regulatory Considerations - Any change to the reporting frequency would require approval from the SEC, and there are questions about the feasibility of such a change without legislative action [1][4]. - The discussion around this topic reflects broader concerns about short-termism in the market and its impact on capital allocation [16]. Group 4: CEO and Shareholder Interests - CEOs may prefer less frequent reporting due to the time and resources required for quarterly disclosures, which can detract from operational focus [17]. - Shareholders, on the other hand, may desire more frequent updates to stay informed about company performance [10][14].

Core Viewpoint - The debate over the frequency of public company earnings reports has been revived, with President Trump suggesting a shift from quarterly to semiannual disclosures to reduce costs and allow for a focus on long-term priorities [2][3]. Group 1: Current Reporting System - The current requirement for quarterly earnings reports has been in place since 1970, established by the SEC, and is seen as a foundation for a transparent reporting environment [4]. - Other markets have different reporting requirements, with Europe and the U.K. mandating disclosures twice a year, while Hong Kong firms report every six months [5]. Group 2: Arguments For and Against - Proponents of semiannual reporting argue it could reduce compliance costs and allow executives to concentrate on long-term strategies [2][7]. - Critics contend that reducing the frequency of reports may not alleviate short-term pressures, as boards and incentive structures often drive a short-term focus more than disclosure rules [6]. Group 3: Market Reactions and Implications - A transition to fewer filings could potentially increase market volatility due to wider information gaps, posing a challenge for finance chiefs in maintaining investor trust [7]. - Even with regulatory changes, many investors are likely to continue expecting quarterly transparency, raising questions about market reactions to any new reporting structure [6].