SEC proposes letting public companies report earnings twice yearly

The Securities and Exchange Commission moved to give public companies the option of reporting earnings twice a year instead of every quarter, a change that would ease the disclosure burden for management but leave investors with longer gaps between updates. The proposal would end a 55-year-old quarterly reporting requirement for companies that opt in and create a new semiannual filing, the 10-S, to replace the familiar 10-Q.

The commission said companies choosing the new schedule would still file full annual reports, but they would face less frequent interim reporting obligations. That would be a meaningful shift in how Wall Street gets information, especially for analysts and traders who rely on quarterly results to track sales, margins, cash flow and management guidance. If adopted, the rule would reshape the timing of earnings releases and corporate commentary across the U.S. market.

Supporters of the change argue that quarterly reporting can encourage short-term thinking, forcing executives to focus on the next 90 days instead of longer-range investment, hiring and product development. They also say fewer reporting cycles could reduce costs and free management from a relentless compliance rhythm that can distract from strategy. President Donald Trump has pushed the idea during both of his presidencies, underscoring that the debate is as political as it is procedural.

Critics are likely to argue that the opposite is true: less frequent disclosure could make it harder for ordinary investors to detect problems early, weaken price discovery and reduce accountability when businesses begin to stumble. The central question is whether quarterly reporting really fuels short-termism more than it protects shareholders. For many investors, the answer may turn on whether a six-month wait is a reasonable tradeoff for lower reporting costs, or a step backward that lets bad news surface too late.

The proposal is likely to meet resistance from some investors, setting up a broader fight over transparency, market pressure and corporate time horizons. What happens next will matter well beyond Washington, because the final rule could change how public companies explain themselves to the market, and how quickly the market can explain them back.