This is an awesome move. They’re not saying the reports go away—just moving them to every six months. After hating how each company runs on an internal quarterly cycle, I have to welcome it despite how the change originated. Six months is still short from the perspective of perverse incentives, but if you free up one week of charade from execs every 13 weeks, maybe they can focus better.
And it’s not just execs, but the whole corporate machinery that takes 3–6 weeks after quarter end to churn out reports. Of course, internally executives should be tracking performance daily, but the quarter-end panic could lessen. If you have a bad quarter, you’re not penalized as much if the surrounding months are good.
And anyway, if there is a material adverse change the companies should be expected to disclose, like they are expected now.
Ps: I posted the same on Reddit a couple of hours back. Not AI but if you do find the account don't mention them online in the same sentence.
> And it’s not just execs, but the whole corporate machinery that takes 3–6 weeks after quarter end to churn out reports.
Release early, release often.
If you want corporate machinery to run more smoothly with less effort, force it to operate more frequently not less: when TLS certs had 2-3 year lifespans there was all sorts of manual methods that people forgot how to do; then it was maximum one year. We then got free certs from LE (using ACME), but they were 90 days, so that made automation much more necessary.
Now with certs from public CAs having a max time of 47 days soon (not that I'm necessarily a fan) automation is all but a must.
So if you want less onerous effort on corporate reporting, your workflows and processes need to be much more automated: that's one of the reason why computers were invented after-all, to make computations faster.
And one way to force automation is to insist on more frequent reporting, not less; Barry Ritholtz:
> This is exactly backward: More frequent reporting makes the data less significant. In the real world, human behavior emphasizes what occurs less often—meaning doing something less frequently gives it an even greater significance than something that becomes routine or common.
> That is the difference between a New Year’s Eve celebration and a married couple’s weekly date night.
> Twice-a-year earnings reporting will make the event so momentous, with such focus on it, that any company that misses analysts’ forecasts will find their stock price shellacked. The twice-yearly focus on making the per-share number will become overwhelmingly intense.
Move from quarter / every-3-months to monthly reporting: companies will be forced to automate their "corporate machinery". And each report will be much less 'momentous' because the time between samples will be much less.
This sounds great on paper till you realize the amount of time and effort that goes into coordinating so many humans is significant. Also quarterly reporting and TLS certs are worlds apart. There are things like SOX compliance in public companies. It is a mandatory requirement that necessitates so much ceremony surrounding how information is captured and decisions signed off. Then for the execs themselves, it is at least a week of effort easy leading up to the quarterly result call. Prepping for the investor deck, QnAs, being open to more frequent regulator scrutiny. Doing this every month would have diminishing returns for everyone involved.
Source: worked at public companies, helped executives prepare for said calls.
I up you to continuous reporting. Audit should be inherent to the system, not a process after the fact. As a public company all owners should have access to daily closed books, and all companies should be able to close their books daily in 2026.
Every six months being the cadence we learn how our companies we own are doing is absurd. It leads to really long dark periods. Also for employees it means we can only divest in a semi annual window. Our carry risk is extensive and expanding.
This is about hiding truth longer, which is the MO of this administration top to bottom.
The problem with reporting often is that the reports must each be audited (which is time-intensive and expensive), and any errors subject the companies to class-action lawsuits (which only ever benefit the lawyers, but that is a separate matter).
I would also prefer more frequent reports, but only if they were less burdensome and risky.
The reports don't have to each be audited... reduce the auditing to twice a year, increase reporting to monthly... if your report requires remediation, you her bumped to quarterly audits
The company would probably be sued if there were any issues in one of the monthly reports; the money for the plaintiff lawyers is just too appealing. I think monthly 'informal' reports with some legal protections to allow for inaccuracies and inconsistencies, with biennial 'formal' reports would be wonderful. That said, I think allowing companies to select an appropriate reporting interval might be best.
Longer periods between audited (aka "accurate") results will lead to compounding errors. Fewer people at the company will have a clear idea of how the company is doing. Audits are like CI for finances.
I agree that would be preferable if reporting were less expensive and (legally) risky, and what you're describing is definitely closer to the original intent of the rule (that of giving investors the information available to management), but it would make being a public company even more burdensome than it already is, and the number of public corporations is already in decline.
> it would make being a public company even more burdensome than it already is
Every company doesn't have to be public. The US taxpayer underwrites US securities markets, and companies that trade on our public markets have access to some of the deepest pools of low-cost liquidity in the world. But companies are obviously free to list elsewhere.
> the number of public corporations is already in decline.
Separate problem. IIRC HBS studied this and basically the issue is we stopped enforcing our anti-competition laws a while back[1]. So we end up with a fraction of firms that each sector would financially support. Both because it creates giants that are much harder to compete against, and because it allows mergers between competing firms that AFAIK could be deemed illegal under existing laws.
1 - See, for example the Robinson-Patman Act, whose dormancy allows big box retailers to exist. This law has never been repealed.
When companies stay private longer, private capital stays tied up for longer, decreasing public liquidity and keeping bad private investments afloat for longer. Part of the creative destruction of the dot com bust was the legion of badly performing companies that went public and were thoroughly rejected by public investors, offering an exit to later investors and employees. Right now badly performing companies can limp along tying up liquidity and locking up employee equity only to head to an eventual bankruptcy or bad IPO.
> Part of the creative destruction of the dot com bust was the legion of badly performing companies that went public and were thoroughly rejected by public investors, offering an exit to later investors and employees.
That's not how I remember it. I remember lots of publicly traded company shares being gobbled even though their business plans[1] were essentially:
1. Collect underpants
2. ?
3. Profit
"Going for marketshare" and not making a profit was still popular as recently as Uber/DoorDash/etc. Cisco still (AIUI) hasn't reached back to is DotCom peak.
Are the current multiples of many tech stocks sensible?
I'm having a hard time responding to someone who's using a South Park episode as a discussion point. Like how can I debate a point made by a show that makes content reacting to the popular perception of certain ideas? That's like 2 levels removed from the actual true details.
Anyway the difference now is that those companies still exist they just take round after round of private investor capital and the employees are offered shares that will never be tradable. Where those businesses would go bankrupt in a few years before now they can take 5-10 years. Time value of money being a thing, your money will be locked up for longer in a bad investment than it would on the public markets.
Perhaps the auditing needs to be done on the workflow process and once the automated code is in place there needs to be a traceable chain of modifications to it that need to be justified.
The "audit" certifies a certain hash of a repo that produces known-good results, and if you use a different commit in that repo you have explain in an SEC filing why you modified things.
Basically reproducible builds for financial results:
I know a few accountants, and I do not think this is possible. There is an incredible amount of manual adjustments that have to occur to get the books in order. I suspect the official process is 100% GAAP approved and great, but the messy reality has thousands of tweaks that were massaged all over the place to correct for one thing or another.
Yes, I know some accountants as well, as well as bookkeepers who have to do adjustments for things like 'timecards' and punching-in and -out: there's all sorts of adjusting that needs to be made.
But any "mistakes" that are made are simply corrected the next reporting period (whether that's monthly, fortnightly, weekly, or daily) in this more-frequent proposal.
The 'crunches' that occur at quarter/period-end are there because there is so much attention put on those reports because they're so infrequent. If the sampling rate is higher then errors are corrected that much sooner.
The reports are generated on the books in the state that they currently are in on a monthly/fortnightly/weekly/daily basis, and any adjustments will be "fixed" in the next reporting period. The reason why there's so much pressure to get them "correct" now is because of the (relatively) infrequent reporting. If you know that things will be 'sorted out' in a fortnight (two weeks), or whatever, there's less pressure now to get them "right".
There will be an expectation of less perfecttion and more corrections and better 'smoothing' due to the higher 'sampling rate'.
The reason for strong auditing and personal attestation is because left to their own devices, some companies will produce bullshit and hoodwink investors. Blame Enron.
> The reason for strong auditing and personal attestation is because left to their own devices, some companies will produce bullshit and hoodwink investors. Blame Enron.
Except Enron's results were audited. By (now defunct) Arthur Anderson:
I get where you're coming from but this is a rough transition for some. Ideally we would hope that more frequent reporting would necessitate development of more seamless systems... but we ain't there yet. There's a lot of flexibility in some systems but they allow that flexibility so that it can be tightened as needed. Be careful.
What will actually happen is that frauds and poorly run companies will opt for the 6 month schedule while well run ones will keep the 3 month.
To your point that "executives should be tracking performance daily", there's an argument that all that data should be publicly released daily. It would make it nearly impossible to hide mismanagement and actually remove most of the human overhead since it would be impossible to spin bad data on a daily basis.
Releasing data at regular intervals gives people time to review the data, identify mistakes and rectify them. Releasing financial data daily, you are much more likely to release incorrect info and then have to go back and correct it.
For certain types of firms, daily revenue figures are likely to reveal individual deals. Many B2B firms have a modest number of high value deals, a daily data feed might show $0 revenue one day $1.374 million the next, which is more likely a single deal of that size than two or more smaller deals-and that would reveal a lot to competitors-especially if those competitors are in other jurisdictions which haven’t mandated this form of extreme transparency
> Releasing financial data daily, you are much more likely to release incorrect info and then have to go back and correct it.
Why do you need to "go back"? The corrected data would be available the very next day (or month (or week or fortnight) if you don't want to go to that extreme).
This is not how corporate fraud usually happens. You don't tamper with the quarterly report, especially since it gets audited. You tamper with the input data close to the source. For example, you record revenue that hasn't happened yet or you delay the recording of losses.
If you have been public for >N years, and have had >X "clean" quarterly reports, no trouble with the SEC, etc, then sure, back off to 6mo (or even yearly, if your shareholders are ok with that).
But if you have an audit problem, violate SEC rules, get any kind of conviction, hell, even an inditement, then back to quarterly until you clean it up.
> If you have been public for >N years, and have had >X "clean" quarterly reports, no trouble with the SEC, etc
...staff changes happen, incentives change due to changes in business performance. Enron was apparently clean public company from 1985 until sometime after Andrew Fastow was hired in 1990.
If high-resolution transparency has any value, it doesn't make sense to do it a few times and then stop.
I have the opposite opinion. More information is always better. Absolutely the reporting requirements are onerous and there already are perverse incentives to chase things quarterly. Reducing reporting requirements is only going to make things worse though. The only solution I can imagine is to instead drop reporting requirements to instant. Make all public companies truly public. Reporting information should to be accessible via a feed 24/7. There can be no more perverse incentives if there’s no hiding. Insane and unlikely? Sure yea. But let’s not pretend that reducing information is going to help anything.
Or even start with monthly. The problem with quarterly reporting is the internal efforts to "game" the quarter. The more aggressive disclosures are, the less of a shell game people can play to "make the report come out right."
Moving it to bi-yearly does the opposite. CEOs can now do the same amount of gaming with half the effort. Or twice the gaming with the same effort.
> If you have a bad quarter, you’re not penalized as much if the surrounding months are good.
GE used to smooth their earnings to accomplish exactly what you describe here. This was not good for investors, or transparency, or ultimately GE itself[1].
There's ample reason to want more frequent, not less frequent, results from companies.
> the whole corporate machinery that takes 3–6 weeks after quarter end to churn out reports
> internally executives should be tracking performance daily
Executives would also be better served by having more timely access to the same data they will eventually disclose. Why would executives want to drive blind for more of the time?
There's also just a mathematical way to look at volatility here, which is that if you look at (say) the average monthly result as a statistic for the reporting period, longer reporting periods have lower variance than shorter reporting periods.
It's something of a diversification benefit - when you're able to smooth over months, as long as they're not all perfectly correlated (your shock just keeps hitting over and over and you can't stop it) - your results will have lower variance once normalized for elapsed time.
What I can't speak to is whether this is a benefit to economic stability. Say an industry is shifting rapidly in a certain direction. Companies less able to adapt would be less quickly "punished" for that lack of adaptation.
The question is whether that adaptation curve is "a company may need extra time and upfront investment in transformation, but can get back on the curve, so giving them grace helps to stabilize jobs and markets..." vs. "a company that falls off the curve will continue to fall behind, so faster reporting incentivizes companies to innovate and not get into an irrecoverable state that destroys value."
And I think this question varies so widely between situations that it's difficult to standardize. Perhaps economists have looked at this more thoughtfully. Either way, this is an incredibly significant change - how so is a much more difficult question.
> Arguably better for everyone. Too much focus on short-term profits can harm long-term growth.
If you think quarterly reporting 'season' is crazy now, wait until it becomes semi-annual and the pressure is really on to hit analyst numbers. It'll be like New Year's Countdown on Results Release Day.
this is an incompetent, corrupt change that will be reversed when Trump leaves office in 2029. Companies should likely not change their quarterly reporting since it will only be temporary.
If you want to discourage short-term thinking, make the vesting period longer on executive stock grants. Making companies' performance less transparent just opens up more opportunities for insider trading.
Could also price in negative externalities of short term trading with higher taxes for that behavior, nudging the markets to focus on value driving investments rather than speculation
Simultaneously they are opening up 0DTE options on certain stocks starting with large market caps but don't be surprised when this expands. Currently this was limited to large etfs like SPX. They are also extending trading hours towards 24/7 and eventually 365.
How they square increasing liquidity with delaying information is insane.
I know there is a lot of manipulation to make quarterly numbers and the tax code is convoluted but if companies reported dollars in and dollars out live to shareholders at least we would have an idea of how the company is doing in a general sense. And over time would learn the flow of the company and be able to make informed predictions on the overall health of the company. More information is usually better than less with very few exceptions.
If they want to delay the earnings call to every 6 months to talk about the business I have no problems with that.
One of my favorite stories about logistics and quarterly earnings deadlines (from when I worked at a pharmaceutical company:
"In our business, a truckload of various drugs can easily reach $10-$15 million. Now, if that truck arrives at the depot at 11:59pm March 31st then it's first quarter earnings. If it arrives at 12:01am April 1st then it's second quarter earnings.
$15 million is a BIG shortfall, even for us, so you better believe those truck drivers will roll the stop signs, blow red lights etc to make sure that truck arrives before 11:59pm"
I worked at a previous listed company where a single $6MM order of hardware being pushed out a week made quarterly p&l positive. Im absolutely sure the same situation occurred every other quarter as well in some part of the business I didnt see.
this kind of deal timeline management happens at all companies. this is why contracts get structured in complicated pricing structures to make it easier for revenue recognition to occur in the quarter it’s supposed to. the timeline can move from 3 months to 6 it’s still going to be a huge focus area for a lot of
people at every company
Likewise, if you know you've already got the current quarter in the bag, but the next quarter is looking soft, you tell that truck driver to slow down!
Early in my career I worked at a place where the sales people would half-joke about signing deals on December 40th -- to claim it in the previous quarter/year.
At least what I saw, which might be inaccurate, is that in countries with 6 month mandatory reporting, most companies still choose to report quarterly or investors start to get nervous.
Hard to disentangle that from quarterly being the US standard, what with it being the most robust capital markets and nexus of major financial transactions.
Interesting timing given the SEC is also considering changes to 13F disclosure windows. Less frequent earnings could mean more information asymmetry for retail investors - institutions with proprietary data will have even more edge.
The SEC is not the only one who gets a say. Their are rules that SEC does not require that have been required for certain exchanges or indices. For example, no dual class shareholders or certain board compositione have been required for listing.
Let's have an exchange or heck , even an ETF require quarterly reporting. I would invest in that and I am sure many wouldn't. It will trade at a premium or it won't.
What company doesn’t produce monthly financial statements, let alone quarterly. I could understand this for small caps.
I also don’t see how less granularity in financials is a good thing, yes if you have bad quarter that bad (but at least you can make it up the next quarter vs a bad six months likely introduces more volatility (I think?). Also I think one of the biggest complaint is “short termism” in markets, but I hardly think that will make much of a difference.
There is no law regarding how and when (non-exec) employees can sell company stock. The SEC only restricts insider trading, and some companies voluntarily enforce blackout periods to reduce the chance of insider trading. Plenty of public companies (e.g. Microsoft) let employees trade whenever they want.
I think the effect is actually backwards: there may only be 2 windows instead of 4 but the total amount of time window per year should theoretically go up significantly. The 2 removed reports should make both of those quarters less subject to insider trading and therefore more tradeable.
In companies I've been in, insider trading windows close because there's been a certain amount of time since the last report. So less frequent reports = more time for insider to know things that aren't public yet = more time unable to trade, not less.
however the bigger issue here - is this is a ruse - there is a reason quarterly reporting brought transparency to companies - now they can easily hide nasty things.
you as an employee with stock options - yeah those are close to worthless since the price hit you can take can vary a lot.
For 6 months instead of 3. One could argue the need to show quarterly growth forces companies to do nastier things. Long term thinking is definitely needed these days when all companies are only focusing on short term gains.
Before 1970, the reporting was twice a year and in the first half of the twentieth century it was once a year.
Would that necessarily be a bad thing? I remember how that would drive short-termism on the part of regular employees. Since stock comp was a major part of many companies' salaries, people would hope for a bump in the earnings report. We complain about short-termism in the markets, but you can't say one thing and then do something else.
It would be bad in that it makes employees' stock less liquid. Stock-based compensation is a huge part of many employees' comp packages.
I think a small subset of people might adopt a short-term approach to equity ownership. I think a much larger subset would simply be selling to access the money they rightfully earned or to diversify their holdings instead of having the bulk of their stock portfolio in a single company.
What if someone froze half of your paycheck and said you can't touch it except for the two months out of the year that they say you can?
I hear there's no legislation called "Protecting Unified Monetary Products & Distributing Usury Monetary Profits."
In this new legislation, some stocks will not be associated with any corporations. There will be no reporting requirements. The stock will move as the market dictates.
And people who have more money than you can buy access to trade it seconds faster than you can.
Good luck everyone! I hope the PUMP & DUMP bill works out!
It would be interesting to see if reducing reporting requirements allows more startups to go public earlier in their journey, hence opening up more opportunities for public to participate in the upside!
I think it’s still fine. I’ve invested a lot into some SPAC’s. I’m good on 1, break even on the other. And I’ll keep holding it, since these companies are still pre-revenue and I hope they 100X.
The overall idea of SPAC’s is not bad, even if Chamath only created them to exit his sh*t investments. There are very few other ways for retail investors to invest in potential 100-1000X companies (which are generally pre-revenue). Of course the flip side, is that most SPAC’s might close down and cause you to lose money. That is the decision for the investor to make, risky opportunities are fine! Sadly chamaths shitty tactics to close out his investments have tainted a completely fine idea.
> even if Chamath only created them to exit his sh*t investments. There are very few other ways for retail investors to invest in potential 100-1000X companies
"I have this exciting bag-holding opportunity for you."
Have you tried reaching out privately to those companies you want to invest in? Stock trading doesn't only happen on stock markets, and the rationale for publicly traded companies being so regulated is because they're so easy to invest in.
That’s much harder. If it’s a big private company like OpenAI, you need a minimum 50k investment. For smaller companies, the number is much higher I assume.
Dude. SPACs are structurally a _terrible_ idea for any non-privileged investor. The sponsors 20-25% comp, the early warrants, etc. All of those costs are taken out of the bag-holder, sorry “investors”, expected value. The entire thing is setup to maximise info asymmetry and perverse incentives for the sponsors at the cost of bag holders. The “shitty tactics” _are why SPACs exist_.
Even so, VRT has gone up 2000% since it SPACC’ed. RKLB was also a SPAC. A SPAC is a just a way to satisfy regulations as a pre-revenue early stage company. Most early stage companies fail, and that’s fine.
If such a company succeeds and still retail investors, don’t get paid back, I would consider that fraudulent, but that’s not the case with SPAC’s. I would like to see SPAC deals be better to investors as opposed to banning them entirely.
Some people argue that the requirements placed on public companies (like mandatory quarterly reporting) add operational overhead that might cause a company to postpone an IPO until they're larger or more established.
In practice, companies like Stripe, OpenAI, etc have stayed private because they've been able to access the cash they need at valuations they're happy with and because no one wants to open their books unless they have to. They aren't staying private because being a public company is hard.
Combining this with a SPAC a startup would be able to have a six month runway as a public company before having to disclose finances. I imagine that would be attractive to some firms.
Weird, why wouldnt this fantastic startup want to report on their performance in a standardized and accountable manner for six months after collecting public money to pay out insiders and “sponsors”?
Surely they wouldnt mind bragging about their fantastic GAAP P&L in their filing docs. Maybe its the pesky quiet period theyre trying to avoid, so they can be even more transparent about finances and equity holders.
This idea goes back several years, and Barry Ritholtz had thoughts on it back in 2015:
> Back to quarterly earnings. Why do we even require them in the first place? The answer is that thanks to the transparency provided by regularly reported earnings and profits, investors can make informed decisions about which stocks to own or avoid. Owners of public companies have hired managers to run the businesses for them, and they want to see with some consistency how healthy the companies that they own actually are. If there are issues with how the business is being managed by the hired corporate executives, the owners want to know sooner rather than later -- and to have a chance to make course corrections. Quarterly numbers allow that to happen.
And in 2018 he suggested going in the opposite direction—more frequent—to even daily reporting:
> This is exactly backward: More frequent reporting makes the data less significant. In the real world, human behavior emphasizes what occurs less often—meaning doing something less frequently gives it an even greater significance than something that becomes routine or common.
> That is the difference between a New Year’s Eve celebration and a married couple’s weekly date night.
> Twice-a-year earnings reporting will make the event so momentous, with such focus on it, that any company that misses analysts’ forecasts will find their stock price shellacked. The twice-yearly focus on making the per-share number will become overwhelmingly intense.
> This is counterproductive.
> My proposal: Report earnings monthly, with the goal of eventually moving to a near real-time, daily, fundamental update. Technology is improving to the point where business intelligence software and big data analyses will make this automated. Indeed, some companies already do much of this internally.
> Once financial reporting becomes daily, the short-term earnings obsession will all but disappear. In its place will be a focus on broader profit trends and deeper analytics.
[…]
> The bottom line is so obvious: To make quarterly earnings less important, we should be exploring ways to report results more often, not less.
I have worked in an industry (QSR) where it is commonplace that damn near the entire company is copied on a DAILY email of system-wide sales reports, and let me tell you you, it was NOT A GOOD THING.
Does anyone have any guesses about how most companies would react to this? Will most keep publishing quarterly reports, will most switch to semiannual reports, or will it be a 50/50 split? Or are the major stock exchanges likely to continue mandating quarterly reports?
I think they'll keep the status quo of quarterly, bc if any announce switching I'd expect their stock value to fall (bc in my mind the decision would transmit more bad potential than positive potential for future earnings). ie- I don't buy that quarterly reporting drives too short-term decision-making (or that it's generally too short).
Most large companies will continue quarterly reporting because institutional investors will not accept anything else. For a company with market cap of $500m spending $1-2m yearly on quarterly audits is non-trivial. For a company that’s $5b and up that’s not much at all.
This is also not a done deal and large pension funds will oppose this hard during the public comment portion of this process.
> The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is preparing a proposal to scrap the requirement for companies to report their earnings every quarter and giving them the option to share results twice a year
So, at least twice a year would still be mandatory until this change.
> Beginning in 2007, UK public companies were required to issue quarterly, rather than semiannual, financial reports. But the UK removed this quarterly reporting requirement in 2014. We studied the effects of these regulatory changes on UK public companies and found that the frequency of financial reports had no material impact on levels of corporate investment. However, mandatory quarterly reporting was associated with an increase in analyst coverage and an improvement in the accuracy of analyst earnings forecasts.
While this will hopefully stop incentivizing companies to focus on super short term results its also going to increase the amount of financial reporting fraud because the remaining reports will become even more important.
Congratulations to the CEOs of fraudulent companies.
> 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.
Having less information does not change one's time horizon. It just means large investors paying for proprietary data will have more edge.
If you have earnings too frequently, it encourages companies to become hyper focused on earnings and make less long term investments. But if there is too much gap in between earnings, there is potential for grifting. What to do?
This is an awesome move. They’re not saying the reports go away—just moving them to every six months. After hating how each company runs on an internal quarterly cycle, I have to welcome it despite how the change originated. Six months is still short from the perspective of perverse incentives, but if you free up one week of charade from execs every 13 weeks, maybe they can focus better.
And it’s not just execs, but the whole corporate machinery that takes 3–6 weeks after quarter end to churn out reports. Of course, internally executives should be tracking performance daily, but the quarter-end panic could lessen. If you have a bad quarter, you’re not penalized as much if the surrounding months are good.
And anyway, if there is a material adverse change the companies should be expected to disclose, like they are expected now.
Ps: I posted the same on Reddit a couple of hours back. Not AI but if you do find the account don't mention them online in the same sentence.
> And it’s not just execs, but the whole corporate machinery that takes 3–6 weeks after quarter end to churn out reports.
Release early, release often.
If you want corporate machinery to run more smoothly with less effort, force it to operate more frequently not less: when TLS certs had 2-3 year lifespans there was all sorts of manual methods that people forgot how to do; then it was maximum one year. We then got free certs from LE (using ACME), but they were 90 days, so that made automation much more necessary.
Now with certs from public CAs having a max time of 47 days soon (not that I'm necessarily a fan) automation is all but a must.
So if you want less onerous effort on corporate reporting, your workflows and processes need to be much more automated: that's one of the reason why computers were invented after-all, to make computations faster.
And one way to force automation is to insist on more frequent reporting, not less; Barry Ritholtz:
> This is exactly backward: More frequent reporting makes the data less significant. In the real world, human behavior emphasizes what occurs less often—meaning doing something less frequently gives it an even greater significance than something that becomes routine or common.
> That is the difference between a New Year’s Eve celebration and a married couple’s weekly date night.
> Twice-a-year earnings reporting will make the event so momentous, with such focus on it, that any company that misses analysts’ forecasts will find their stock price shellacked. The twice-yearly focus on making the per-share number will become overwhelmingly intense.
* https://www.fa-mag.com/news/reporting-profits-daily-would-en...
Move from quarter / every-3-months to monthly reporting: companies will be forced to automate their "corporate machinery". And each report will be much less 'momentous' because the time between samples will be much less.
This sounds great on paper till you realize the amount of time and effort that goes into coordinating so many humans is significant. Also quarterly reporting and TLS certs are worlds apart. There are things like SOX compliance in public companies. It is a mandatory requirement that necessitates so much ceremony surrounding how information is captured and decisions signed off. Then for the execs themselves, it is at least a week of effort easy leading up to the quarterly result call. Prepping for the investor deck, QnAs, being open to more frequent regulator scrutiny. Doing this every month would have diminishing returns for everyone involved.
Source: worked at public companies, helped executives prepare for said calls.
I up you to continuous reporting. Audit should be inherent to the system, not a process after the fact. As a public company all owners should have access to daily closed books, and all companies should be able to close their books daily in 2026.
Every six months being the cadence we learn how our companies we own are doing is absurd. It leads to really long dark periods. Also for employees it means we can only divest in a semi annual window. Our carry risk is extensive and expanding.
This is about hiding truth longer, which is the MO of this administration top to bottom.
> Release early, release often
Release unrequired. This is the purpose of an 8-K. We don’t need every public firm to constantly release quarterly.
These rules arose in 1970. Granting more flexibility, now, makes sense. (Post SOX, earnings require senior management.)
The problem with reporting often is that the reports must each be audited (which is time-intensive and expensive), and any errors subject the companies to class-action lawsuits (which only ever benefit the lawyers, but that is a separate matter).
I would also prefer more frequent reports, but only if they were less burdensome and risky.
The reports don't have to each be audited... reduce the auditing to twice a year, increase reporting to monthly... if your report requires remediation, you her bumped to quarterly audits
The company would probably be sued if there were any issues in one of the monthly reports; the money for the plaintiff lawyers is just too appealing. I think monthly 'informal' reports with some legal protections to allow for inaccuracies and inconsistencies, with biennial 'formal' reports would be wonderful. That said, I think allowing companies to select an appropriate reporting interval might be best.
[delayed]
In the us, quarterly financials are not audited, only annual financials
Longer periods between audited (aka "accurate") results will lead to compounding errors. Fewer people at the company will have a clear idea of how the company is doing. Audits are like CI for finances.
I agree that would be preferable if reporting were less expensive and (legally) risky, and what you're describing is definitely closer to the original intent of the rule (that of giving investors the information available to management), but it would make being a public company even more burdensome than it already is, and the number of public corporations is already in decline.
> it would make being a public company even more burdensome than it already is
Every company doesn't have to be public. The US taxpayer underwrites US securities markets, and companies that trade on our public markets have access to some of the deepest pools of low-cost liquidity in the world. But companies are obviously free to list elsewhere.
> the number of public corporations is already in decline.
Separate problem. IIRC HBS studied this and basically the issue is we stopped enforcing our anti-competition laws a while back[1]. So we end up with a fraction of firms that each sector would financially support. Both because it creates giants that are much harder to compete against, and because it allows mergers between competing firms that AFAIK could be deemed illegal under existing laws.
1 - See, for example the Robinson-Patman Act, whose dormancy allows big box retailers to exist. This law has never been repealed.
When companies stay private longer, private capital stays tied up for longer, decreasing public liquidity and keeping bad private investments afloat for longer. Part of the creative destruction of the dot com bust was the legion of badly performing companies that went public and were thoroughly rejected by public investors, offering an exit to later investors and employees. Right now badly performing companies can limp along tying up liquidity and locking up employee equity only to head to an eventual bankruptcy or bad IPO.
> Part of the creative destruction of the dot com bust was the legion of badly performing companies that went public and were thoroughly rejected by public investors, offering an exit to later investors and employees.
That's not how I remember it. I remember lots of publicly traded company shares being gobbled even though their business plans[1] were essentially:
1. Collect underpants
2. ?
3. Profit
"Going for marketshare" and not making a profit was still popular as recently as Uber/DoorDash/etc. Cisco still (AIUI) hasn't reached back to is DotCom peak.
Are the current multiples of many tech stocks sensible?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnomes_(South_Park)
I'm having a hard time responding to someone who's using a South Park episode as a discussion point. Like how can I debate a point made by a show that makes content reacting to the popular perception of certain ideas? That's like 2 levels removed from the actual true details.
Anyway the difference now is that those companies still exist they just take round after round of private investor capital and the employees are offered shares that will never be tradable. Where those businesses would go bankrupt in a few years before now they can take 5-10 years. Time value of money being a thing, your money will be locked up for longer in a bad investment than it would on the public markets.
how much of that decline is due to mergers vs failing vs new private companies being formed instead?
You could report every month and audit every 6 months
Perhaps the auditing needs to be done on the workflow process and once the automated code is in place there needs to be a traceable chain of modifications to it that need to be justified.
The "audit" certifies a certain hash of a repo that produces known-good results, and if you use a different commit in that repo you have explain in an SEC filing why you modified things.
Basically reproducible builds for financial results:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducible_builds
I know a few accountants, and I do not think this is possible. There is an incredible amount of manual adjustments that have to occur to get the books in order. I suspect the official process is 100% GAAP approved and great, but the messy reality has thousands of tweaks that were massaged all over the place to correct for one thing or another.
Yes, I know some accountants as well, as well as bookkeepers who have to do adjustments for things like 'timecards' and punching-in and -out: there's all sorts of adjusting that needs to be made.
But any "mistakes" that are made are simply corrected the next reporting period (whether that's monthly, fortnightly, weekly, or daily) in this more-frequent proposal.
The 'crunches' that occur at quarter/period-end are there because there is so much attention put on those reports because they're so infrequent. If the sampling rate is higher then errors are corrected that much sooner.
The reports are generated on the books in the state that they currently are in on a monthly/fortnightly/weekly/daily basis, and any adjustments will be "fixed" in the next reporting period. The reason why there's so much pressure to get them "correct" now is because of the (relatively) infrequent reporting. If you know that things will be 'sorted out' in a fortnight (two weeks), or whatever, there's less pressure now to get them "right".
There will be an expectation of less perfecttion and more corrections and better 'smoothing' due to the higher 'sampling rate'.
Isn't that the kind of toil that tends to get automated away with CI/CD?
I'm generally with the report often camp. It forces automation all the way down even the auditing.
The reason for strong auditing and personal attestation is because left to their own devices, some companies will produce bullshit and hoodwink investors. Blame Enron.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Sarbanes-Oxley-Act
Like the building and electrical code, these regulations were written in blood.
> The reason for strong auditing and personal attestation is because left to their own devices, some companies will produce bullshit and hoodwink investors. Blame Enron.
Except Enron's results were audited. By (now defunct) Arthur Anderson:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_scandal
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Andersen#Collapse
The auditing already existed and didn't stop Enron (or WorldCom; see also the silliness of GE under Jack Welch).
Sure SOx added more rules, but it's not like folks were flying without a net before.
https://www.acquisition.gov/gsam/552.216-75
I get where you're coming from but this is a rough transition for some. Ideally we would hope that more frequent reporting would necessitate development of more seamless systems... but we ain't there yet. There's a lot of flexibility in some systems but they allow that flexibility so that it can be tightened as needed. Be careful.
…huh?
What does any of this have to do with too-soon reports poorly representing positive trends that can’t be tracked in 1-3 month timelines?
What will actually happen is that frauds and poorly run companies will opt for the 6 month schedule while well run ones will keep the 3 month.
To your point that "executives should be tracking performance daily", there's an argument that all that data should be publicly released daily. It would make it nearly impossible to hide mismanagement and actually remove most of the human overhead since it would be impossible to spin bad data on a daily basis.
Releasing data at regular intervals gives people time to review the data, identify mistakes and rectify them. Releasing financial data daily, you are much more likely to release incorrect info and then have to go back and correct it.
For certain types of firms, daily revenue figures are likely to reveal individual deals. Many B2B firms have a modest number of high value deals, a daily data feed might show $0 revenue one day $1.374 million the next, which is more likely a single deal of that size than two or more smaller deals-and that would reveal a lot to competitors-especially if those competitors are in other jurisdictions which haven’t mandated this form of extreme transparency
> Releasing financial data daily, you are much more likely to release incorrect info and then have to go back and correct it.
Why do you need to "go back"? The corrected data would be available the very next day (or month (or week or fortnight) if you don't want to go to that extreme).
This is not how corporate fraud usually happens. You don't tamper with the quarterly report, especially since it gets audited. You tamper with the input data close to the source. For example, you record revenue that hasn't happened yet or you delay the recording of losses.
IMO, it would be ok if it was not unconditional.
If you have been public for >N years, and have had >X "clean" quarterly reports, no trouble with the SEC, etc, then sure, back off to 6mo (or even yearly, if your shareholders are ok with that).
But if you have an audit problem, violate SEC rules, get any kind of conviction, hell, even an inditement, then back to quarterly until you clean it up.
> If you have been public for >N years, and have had >X "clean" quarterly reports, no trouble with the SEC, etc
...staff changes happen, incentives change due to changes in business performance. Enron was apparently clean public company from 1985 until sometime after Andrew Fastow was hired in 1990.
If high-resolution transparency has any value, it doesn't make sense to do it a few times and then stop.
I have the opposite opinion. More information is always better. Absolutely the reporting requirements are onerous and there already are perverse incentives to chase things quarterly. Reducing reporting requirements is only going to make things worse though. The only solution I can imagine is to instead drop reporting requirements to instant. Make all public companies truly public. Reporting information should to be accessible via a feed 24/7. There can be no more perverse incentives if there’s no hiding. Insane and unlikely? Sure yea. But let’s not pretend that reducing information is going to help anything.
Or even start with monthly. The problem with quarterly reporting is the internal efforts to "game" the quarter. The more aggressive disclosures are, the less of a shell game people can play to "make the report come out right."
Moving it to bi-yearly does the opposite. CEOs can now do the same amount of gaming with half the effort. Or twice the gaming with the same effort.
Should be obvious who this change is for.
Yes, reporting should be a non event. This move will encourage bad behavior imo
And now I know why surgeons spend more time filling out paperwork than treating patients.
Now I know why I have to stand for 15 minutes at the hotel reception desk to check in to my already paid room, while the receptionist is typing away.
Now I know why projects which should take one week to complete instead take 5 years.
> If you have a bad quarter, you’re not penalized as much if the surrounding months are good.
GE used to smooth their earnings to accomplish exactly what you describe here. This was not good for investors, or transparency, or ultimately GE itself[1].
There's ample reason to want more frequent, not less frequent, results from companies.
> the whole corporate machinery that takes 3–6 weeks after quarter end to churn out reports
> internally executives should be tracking performance daily
Executives would also be better served by having more timely access to the same data they will eventually disclose. Why would executives want to drive blind for more of the time?
1 - https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/warren-buffe...
There's also just a mathematical way to look at volatility here, which is that if you look at (say) the average monthly result as a statistic for the reporting period, longer reporting periods have lower variance than shorter reporting periods.
It's something of a diversification benefit - when you're able to smooth over months, as long as they're not all perfectly correlated (your shock just keeps hitting over and over and you can't stop it) - your results will have lower variance once normalized for elapsed time.
What I can't speak to is whether this is a benefit to economic stability. Say an industry is shifting rapidly in a certain direction. Companies less able to adapt would be less quickly "punished" for that lack of adaptation.
The question is whether that adaptation curve is "a company may need extra time and upfront investment in transformation, but can get back on the curve, so giving them grace helps to stabilize jobs and markets..." vs. "a company that falls off the curve will continue to fall behind, so faster reporting incentivizes companies to innovate and not get into an irrecoverable state that destroys value."
And I think this question varies so widely between situations that it's difficult to standardize. Perhaps economists have looked at this more thoughtfully. Either way, this is an incredibly significant change - how so is a much more difficult question.
I see how it helps you and the company. What about investors who you borrowed money from.
Arguably better for everyone. Too much focus on short-term profits can harm long-term growth.
> Arguably better for everyone. Too much focus on short-term profits can harm long-term growth.
If you think quarterly reporting 'season' is crazy now, wait until it becomes semi-annual and the pressure is really on to hit analyst numbers. It'll be like New Year's Countdown on Results Release Day.
this is an incompetent, corrupt change that will be reversed when Trump leaves office in 2029. Companies should likely not change their quarterly reporting since it will only be temporary.
If you want to discourage short-term thinking, make the vesting period longer on executive stock grants. Making companies' performance less transparent just opens up more opportunities for insider trading.
Could also price in negative externalities of short term trading with higher taxes for that behavior, nudging the markets to focus on value driving investments rather than speculation
Agree and make it two years for long term capital gains.
Harder to attract talent though (not saying you’re wrong)
Simultaneously they are opening up 0DTE options on certain stocks starting with large market caps but don't be surprised when this expands. Currently this was limited to large etfs like SPX. They are also extending trading hours towards 24/7 and eventually 365.
How they square increasing liquidity with delaying information is insane.
I know there is a lot of manipulation to make quarterly numbers and the tax code is convoluted but if companies reported dollars in and dollars out live to shareholders at least we would have an idea of how the company is doing in a general sense. And over time would learn the flow of the company and be able to make informed predictions on the overall health of the company. More information is usually better than less with very few exceptions.
If they want to delay the earnings call to every 6 months to talk about the business I have no problems with that.
One of my favorite stories about logistics and quarterly earnings deadlines (from when I worked at a pharmaceutical company:
"In our business, a truckload of various drugs can easily reach $10-$15 million. Now, if that truck arrives at the depot at 11:59pm March 31st then it's first quarter earnings. If it arrives at 12:01am April 1st then it's second quarter earnings.
$15 million is a BIG shortfall, even for us, so you better believe those truck drivers will roll the stop signs, blow red lights etc to make sure that truck arrives before 11:59pm"
I worked at a previous listed company where a single $6MM order of hardware being pushed out a week made quarterly p&l positive. Im absolutely sure the same situation occurred every other quarter as well in some part of the business I didnt see.
this kind of deal timeline management happens at all companies. this is why contracts get structured in complicated pricing structures to make it easier for revenue recognition to occur in the quarter it’s supposed to. the timeline can move from 3 months to 6 it’s still going to be a huge focus area for a lot of people at every company
Likewise, if you know you've already got the current quarter in the bag, but the next quarter is looking soft, you tell that truck driver to slow down!
Early in my career I worked at a place where the sales people would half-joke about signing deals on December 40th -- to claim it in the previous quarter/year.
Quick, hide the data. Bury the bad news.
This will delay the market crash an extra quarter.
The norm in other countries is 6 months. That's enough time to get the mid-year numbers to be reviewed by an auditor.
I don't think malice of the decision.
I don't understand arguments like this.
Universal healthcare? Democratic rule of law? Affordable living wage?
Nah, I'll bang the drum of international equality for corporate malfeasance.
At least what I saw, which might be inaccurate, is that in countries with 6 month mandatory reporting, most companies still choose to report quarterly or investors start to get nervous.
Hard to disentangle that from quarterly being the US standard, what with it being the most robust capital markets and nexus of major financial transactions.
Please read the article.
> The WSJ report added that the rule is expected to make quarterly reporting optional and not eliminate it altogether.
So companies can still do their quarterly reporting if they and their investors want that.
And allow more insider trading.
This seems like bad news for regular investors, and good news for insiders.
Reporting is burdensome, sure, but being listed on public exchanges is not a requirement.
Interesting timing given the SEC is also considering changes to 13F disclosure windows. Less frequent earnings could mean more information asymmetry for retail investors - institutions with proprietary data will have even more edge.
The SEC is not the only one who gets a say. Their are rules that SEC does not require that have been required for certain exchanges or indices. For example, no dual class shareholders or certain board compositione have been required for listing.
Let's have an exchange or heck , even an ETF require quarterly reporting. I would invest in that and I am sure many wouldn't. It will trade at a premium or it won't.
Why yes, I love having less information to critical financial decisions on.
I wonder who this benefits, the people with non public information, or the every day person?
What company doesn’t produce monthly financial statements, let alone quarterly. I could understand this for small caps.
I also don’t see how less granularity in financials is a good thing, yes if you have bad quarter that bad (but at least you can make it up the next quarter vs a bad six months likely introduces more volatility (I think?). Also I think one of the biggest complaint is “short termism” in markets, but I hardly think that will make much of a difference.
This means that employees would only be able to sell their stock 2 windows a year where they currently can sell 4 windows a year, correct?
There is no law regarding how and when (non-exec) employees can sell company stock. The SEC only restricts insider trading, and some companies voluntarily enforce blackout periods to reduce the chance of insider trading. Plenty of public companies (e.g. Microsoft) let employees trade whenever they want.
I think the effect is actually backwards: there may only be 2 windows instead of 4 but the total amount of time window per year should theoretically go up significantly. The 2 removed reports should make both of those quarters less subject to insider trading and therefore more tradeable.
In companies I've been in, insider trading windows close because there's been a certain amount of time since the last report. So less frequent reports = more time for insider to know things that aren't public yet = more time unable to trade, not less.
That depends on your company, not the SEC. I work for a publicly traded company and have very few blackouts, mostly around earnings, for selling.
in the UK this is kinda the policy.
however the bigger issue here - is this is a ruse - there is a reason quarterly reporting brought transparency to companies - now they can easily hide nasty things.
you as an employee with stock options - yeah those are close to worthless since the price hit you can take can vary a lot.
> now they can easily hide nasty things.
For 6 months instead of 3. One could argue the need to show quarterly growth forces companies to do nastier things. Long term thinking is definitely needed these days when all companies are only focusing on short term gains.
Before 1970, the reporting was twice a year and in the first half of the twentieth century it was once a year.
Much larger windows though no? Blackout periods are prior to reporting dates.
Rather, trading periods are for a limited time after reports are released. Before employees accrue too much non public information.
That's not how it works at my company. Trading is only blocked around 3 weeks each quarter.
10b5-1 plans would presumably still be a thing if you wanted to sell more often.
Would that necessarily be a bad thing? I remember how that would drive short-termism on the part of regular employees. Since stock comp was a major part of many companies' salaries, people would hope for a bump in the earnings report. We complain about short-termism in the markets, but you can't say one thing and then do something else.
It would be bad in that it makes employees' stock less liquid. Stock-based compensation is a huge part of many employees' comp packages.
I think a small subset of people might adopt a short-term approach to equity ownership. I think a much larger subset would simply be selling to access the money they rightfully earned or to diversify their holdings instead of having the bulk of their stock portfolio in a single company.
What if someone froze half of your paycheck and said you can't touch it except for the two months out of the year that they say you can?
Twice a year is the current requirement in the UK and still provides a regular cadence.
I hear there's no legislation called "Protecting Unified Monetary Products & Distributing Usury Monetary Profits."
In this new legislation, some stocks will not be associated with any corporations. There will be no reporting requirements. The stock will move as the market dictates.
And people who have more money than you can buy access to trade it seconds faster than you can.
Good luck everyone! I hope the PUMP & DUMP bill works out!
This certainly has nothing to do with money furnace AI companies incoming IPO and iminent private credit crash.
It would be interesting to see if reducing reporting requirements allows more startups to go public earlier in their journey, hence opening up more opportunities for public to participate in the upside!
Just look at the track record of SPACs for a preview of how that will turn out.
I think it’s still fine. I’ve invested a lot into some SPAC’s. I’m good on 1, break even on the other. And I’ll keep holding it, since these companies are still pre-revenue and I hope they 100X.
The overall idea of SPAC’s is not bad, even if Chamath only created them to exit his sh*t investments. There are very few other ways for retail investors to invest in potential 100-1000X companies (which are generally pre-revenue). Of course the flip side, is that most SPAC’s might close down and cause you to lose money. That is the decision for the investor to make, risky opportunities are fine! Sadly chamaths shitty tactics to close out his investments have tainted a completely fine idea.
> even if Chamath only created them to exit his sh*t investments. There are very few other ways for retail investors to invest in potential 100-1000X companies
"I have this exciting bag-holding opportunity for you."
Have you tried reaching out privately to those companies you want to invest in? Stock trading doesn't only happen on stock markets, and the rationale for publicly traded companies being so regulated is because they're so easy to invest in.
That’s much harder. If it’s a big private company like OpenAI, you need a minimum 50k investment. For smaller companies, the number is much higher I assume.
Dude. SPACs are structurally a _terrible_ idea for any non-privileged investor. The sponsors 20-25% comp, the early warrants, etc. All of those costs are taken out of the bag-holder, sorry “investors”, expected value. The entire thing is setup to maximise info asymmetry and perverse incentives for the sponsors at the cost of bag holders. The “shitty tactics” _are why SPACs exist_.
Even so, VRT has gone up 2000% since it SPACC’ed. RKLB was also a SPAC. A SPAC is a just a way to satisfy regulations as a pre-revenue early stage company. Most early stage companies fail, and that’s fine.
If such a company succeeds and still retail investors, don’t get paid back, I would consider that fraudulent, but that’s not the case with SPAC’s. I would like to see SPAC deals be better to investors as opposed to banning them entirely.
Can you connect the dots for me, why would reduced reporting requirements allow more startups to go public earlier?
Some people argue that the requirements placed on public companies (like mandatory quarterly reporting) add operational overhead that might cause a company to postpone an IPO until they're larger or more established.
In practice, companies like Stripe, OpenAI, etc have stayed private because they've been able to access the cash they need at valuations they're happy with and because no one wants to open their books unless they have to. They aren't staying private because being a public company is hard.
Combining this with a SPAC a startup would be able to have a six month runway as a public company before having to disclose finances. I imagine that would be attractive to some firms.
Weird, why wouldnt this fantastic startup want to report on their performance in a standardized and accountable manner for six months after collecting public money to pay out insiders and “sponsors”?
Surely they wouldnt mind bragging about their fantastic GAAP P&L in their filing docs. Maybe its the pesky quiet period theyre trying to avoid, so they can be even more transparent about finances and equity holders.
But mostly downside
This idea goes back several years, and Barry Ritholtz had thoughts on it back in 2015:
> Back to quarterly earnings. Why do we even require them in the first place? The answer is that thanks to the transparency provided by regularly reported earnings and profits, investors can make informed decisions about which stocks to own or avoid. Owners of public companies have hired managers to run the businesses for them, and they want to see with some consistency how healthy the companies that they own actually are. If there are issues with how the business is being managed by the hired corporate executives, the owners want to know sooner rather than later -- and to have a chance to make course corrections. Quarterly numbers allow that to happen.
* https://web.archive.org/web/20151008083649/http://www.bloomb...
* Via: https://ritholtz.com/2015/08/worst-idea-ever/
And in 2018 he suggested going in the opposite direction—more frequent—to even daily reporting:
> This is exactly backward: More frequent reporting makes the data less significant. In the real world, human behavior emphasizes what occurs less often—meaning doing something less frequently gives it an even greater significance than something that becomes routine or common.
> That is the difference between a New Year’s Eve celebration and a married couple’s weekly date night.
> Twice-a-year earnings reporting will make the event so momentous, with such focus on it, that any company that misses analysts’ forecasts will find their stock price shellacked. The twice-yearly focus on making the per-share number will become overwhelmingly intense.
> This is counterproductive.
> My proposal: Report earnings monthly, with the goal of eventually moving to a near real-time, daily, fundamental update. Technology is improving to the point where business intelligence software and big data analyses will make this automated. Indeed, some companies already do much of this internally.
> Once financial reporting becomes daily, the short-term earnings obsession will all but disappear. In its place will be a focus on broader profit trends and deeper analytics.
[…]
> The bottom line is so obvious: To make quarterly earnings less important, we should be exploring ways to report results more often, not less.
* https://www.fa-mag.com/news/reporting-profits-daily-would-en...
Imo, this makes much more sense...
But this is Trump's SEC.. so expect backwards progress like with everything else.
I have worked in an industry (QSR) where it is commonplace that damn near the entire company is copied on a DAILY email of system-wide sales reports, and let me tell you you, it was NOT A GOOD THING.
I assume you mean that employees had daily goals? This is both not unusual and unrelated to investor reporting requirements.
Does anyone have any guesses about how most companies would react to this? Will most keep publishing quarterly reports, will most switch to semiannual reports, or will it be a 50/50 split? Or are the major stock exchanges likely to continue mandating quarterly reports?
I think they'll keep the status quo of quarterly, bc if any announce switching I'd expect their stock value to fall (bc in my mind the decision would transmit more bad potential than positive potential for future earnings). ie- I don't buy that quarterly reporting drives too short-term decision-making (or that it's generally too short).
Most large companies will continue quarterly reporting because institutional investors will not accept anything else. For a company with market cap of $500m spending $1-2m yearly on quarterly audits is non-trivial. For a company that’s $5b and up that’s not much at all.
This is also not a done deal and large pension funds will oppose this hard during the public comment portion of this process.
> The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is preparing a proposal to scrap the requirement for companies to report their earnings every quarter and giving them the option to share results twice a year
So, at least twice a year would still be mandatory until this change.
European companies report every 6 months and it doesn't seem to do any harm
The UK went back and forth on it:
> Beginning in 2007, UK public companies were required to issue quarterly, rather than semiannual, financial reports. But the UK removed this quarterly reporting requirement in 2014. We studied the effects of these regulatory changes on UK public companies and found that the frequency of financial reports had no material impact on levels of corporate investment. However, mandatory quarterly reporting was associated with an increase in analyst coverage and an improvement in the accuracy of analyst earnings forecasts.
* https://rpc.cfainstitute.org/research/foundation/2017/impact...
So it seems that if you want more accurate analysis for investors (and current stock holders), more frequent is better.
This is a really key point - it’s already working fine elsewhere.
so all EDGAR APIs need to be updated to support either 10-Q or 10-H per firm?
Lol. This is the correct take.
While this will hopefully stop incentivizing companies to focus on super short term results its also going to increase the amount of financial reporting fraud because the remaining reports will become even more important.
I could give the benefit of the doubt to any other administration doing it.
This one? I really have a hard time thinking it's nothing else then another grifting scheme.
Sadly same.
That was easy.
Congratulations to the CEOs of fraudulent companies.
> 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.
Having less information does not change one's time horizon. It just means large investors paying for proprietary data will have more edge.
If you have earnings too frequently, it encourages companies to become hyper focused on earnings and make less long term investments. But if there is too much gap in between earnings, there is potential for grifting. What to do?
Encourage more smaller privately owned companies rather than massive megacorps.
They all grow by acquisitions, if you want smaller privately owned companies then you also need a strong anti-trust body.
We could keep making companies they want to acquire until they run out of money to acquire them with.
Yes. That is what I want.
Report very frequently, then use a moving-window average for any sharp questions of tax and legislation?
I highly doubt semi-annual reporting will shift the focus from the short term profits at all costs thinking that prevails today.