My dad spent 40 years operating heavy machinery on construction sites around Chicago. He was proud of his work and of his union card, but I wouldn’t call what he had a quality job. No one listened to him. He didn’t feel respected. He could never get ahead financially. Around the dinner table, he’d tell stories about fighting over wages or whether the lunch hour was paid or unpaid. What stayed with me wasn’t just the frustration; it was how obviously bad that dynamic was for everyone involved. I remember wo ...

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].