Trump Revives Push to End Quarterly Earnings Reports, Sparking Fresh Debate Over Transparency and Short-termism

Trump Revives Push to End Quarterly Earnings Reports, Sparking Fresh Debate Over Transparency and Short-termism

President Donald Trump renewed a high-profile campaign on Sept. 15 urging the United States to abandon mandatory quarterly earnings reports and move to semiannual disclosures, a proposal that immediately rekindled a long-running debate among regulators, exchanges, corporate leaders and investors over transparency, costs and short-term pressure on management.

Trump made the call on his Truth Social platform and at campaign events, arguing that requiring companies to publish financial results every three months imposes unnecessary burdens on management, encourages short-term decision-making, and should be replaced by six-month reporting. The idea echoes a similar push he advanced during his first administration and comes as the Long-Term Stock Exchange (LTSE) prepares formal petitions to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) seeking permission for less frequent reporting. The SEC has required quarterly filings since 1970.

The proposal drew quick support from some market players and immediate skepticism from investor-protection advocates. Nasdaq’s chief executive, Adena Friedman, said the exchange backed allowing companies the option to report less frequently in order to reduce listing friction and the regulatory burden on public firms. The LTSE has already signalled plans to petition the SEC to permit semiannual reporting as a standard for companies that choose that route. Proponents argue that fewer mandated reporting windows would let executives focus on long-term strategy and cut compliance costs.

But critics warned the change could weaken market transparency at a time when timely information matters to investors. Public-health and investor-advocacy groups, some academics and many portfolio managers said quarterly filings and interim disclosures are essential for detecting emerging risks — from sudden balance-sheet stress to legal liabilities — and that slower reporting would increase information asymmetries and volatility for smaller, retail investors. They noted that many modern market-safety nets, including short-selling and rapid trading desks, rely on the cadence of regular disclosures. Regulators and some market veterans also warned that a move away from quarterly reporting could reduce the attractiveness of U.S. capital markets if transparency standards diverge from investor expectations.

The SEC would have the authority to change reporting rules, but doing so would entail a formal rule-making process — including notice, public comment and legal review — that could take months or years. Officials at the agency have been briefed on the renewed debate, and market participants said any substantial change would likely be phased and optional rather than abrupt. Even if the SEC relaxed the frequency requirement, many companies might continue to provide quarterly updates voluntarily to satisfy investors and creditors, analysts added.

Financial markets and corporate treasuries reacted with caution. Some analysts said the mere prospect of less frequent reporting could alter trading patterns and corporate behavior: with fewer disclosure points each year, earnings surprises might be larger and enforcement of insider-trading safeguards would face new tests. Others argued that the effect on major, liquid stocks would be muted because large investors routinely demand regular updates; the biggest practical impact could fall on smaller public companies and on retail investors who rely on frequent information to make allocation decisions.

Industry groups and prominent executives were split. Supporters from some corners of corporate America said the change would reduce compliance costs and pressure to meet quarterly targets — a criticism echoed over the years by figures such as Warren Buffett and Jamie Dimon, who have warned against short-termism. Opponents, including investor-rights groups and some academics, argued that lowering disclosure frequency risks hiding adverse developments until they become crises, and could disproportionately disadvantage smaller shareholders who cannot access private channels of information. 

Beyond the domestic policy battle, the debate also has an international dimension. Major capital markets differ in reporting cadence — many European and some Asian markets operate on semiannual reporting cycles — and proponents say allowing flexibility could align U.S. practice with global peers. Skeptics counter that the U.S. market’s premium valuation is in part rooted in higher transparency and liquidity; any perceived dilution of disclosure standards could raise questions among global investors about the relative safety of listing in the United States.

Analysis — trade-offs between cost, clarity and investor trust

At its core, the debate is about balancing regulatory cost and managerial latitude against investor protection and market efficiency. The argument for semiannual reporting is persuasive as a policy aim: it targets the very real pressure on executives to meet short-term earnings targets and the growing cost of compliance. But the counterargument is equally robust: financial markets function only if information flows with predictable frequency and quality. Reducing that cadence without compensating measures — stronger real-time disclosure rules, tougher insider-trading enforcement, or mandatory event-driven reporting — risks tilting the information advantage toward professional and institutional players.

Practically, any material loosening of quarterly requirements would probably be optional and gradual. Exchanges and the SEC are likely to craft safe-harbour provisions, phased pilots, or opt-in regimes (as LTSE has proposed) rather than a blunt, across-the-board repeal. The key political question is whether the administration and bipartisan congressional leaders will press for accelerated change; for now the conversation is largely at the level of advocacy and agency review.

For investors, the takeaway is to expect prolonged consultation, a lot of industry lobbying, and selective pilot programs rather than an immediate overhaul. And for corporate managers, the debate signals that governance and investor relations will remain central to market access — even in a world with fewer mandated reporting dates, credible, frequent voluntary communication would remain a practical necessity.