KPMG Q2 outlook flags SEC proposals, tariff uncertainty and FASB changes

On May 5, SEC Chair Paul Atkins issued a statement on a proposed release for semiannual reporting, part of a 2026 rulemaking push that has made KPMG’s second-quarter outlook far noisier than its March edition. Financial reporting, tax and advisory teams are preparing for more SEC proposals, tariff-related accounting questions and a refreshed FASB agenda that is already changing client conversations.

What changed since the first quarter

In March, KPMG framed the first quarter as a period shaped by “geopolitical developments” and a relatively quieter stretch in rulemaking and standard-setting, even as the SEC previewed coming activity and the FASB recalibrated its agenda. By June, the tone had changed. The SEC had issued a flurry of proposals, and the FASB’s refreshed agenda was taking shape.

At KPMG, the firm’s technical teams are not just tracking headlines. They are translating proposals into reporting judgments, tax accounting positions, control updates and disclosure decisions. When the regulatory calendar speeds up, the work does not stay in one lane. Audit teams, Washington National Tax specialists and advisory professionals all get pulled into the same questions from different angles.

The SEC is moving on multiple fronts

The most immediate pressure point is the SEC’s 2026 rulemaking push. On May 19, Atkins issued a statement on proposed releases covering enhanced emerging growth company accommodations, simplification of filer status for reporting companies and registered offering reform. Then on July 7, Atkins issued a statement on the SEC’s 2026 Regulatory Agenda.

These are not isolated technical tweaks. Optional semiannual reporting would change the cadence of disclosure work for public companies that choose to use it, while filer status simplification could affect which reporting burdens attach to different issuers. Registered Offering Reform is aimed at facilitating capital formation by making Form S-3 and shelf offerings available to significantly more issuers, which could alter the timing and structure of capital markets activity for clients that are ready to access the market more often.

For KPMG professionals, that means more time spent on practical questions. Which clients are eligible, which disclosures change, which processes need to be redesigned and which controls need to be retested are the kinds of issues that quickly move from policy discussion to billable work. The regulatory agenda also gives technical teams a new briefing load, since clients will want an early read on how the proposals could affect quarterly reporting, registration statements and transaction timing.

Semiannual reporting is more than a calendar change

The SEC’s proposal to permit optional semiannual reporting by public companies would change the rhythm of work for both issuers and the teams that support them. Fewer formal reporting dates would not mean less work so much as different work, with greater emphasis on the periods that remain and more pressure on interim disclosure quality. That would create new demands around forecasting, controls over estimates and the drafting of management discussion and analysis.

For auditors and advisory teams, the practical issue is not simply whether a company can report twice a year. It is how a different cadence affects internal reporting packs, audit planning, review procedures and the amount of support management needs to defend judgments between reporting periods. If a client starts asking whether it should opt in, the answer will usually run through legal, finance and audit committees before it lands on the accounting team’s desk.

Tariffs have become an accounting topic

KPMG’s April 2026 Accounting for Income Taxes bulletin treated tariffs as a significant development with accounting implications, and the firm followed that with separate 2026 resources on the effects of tariffs on financial reporting and on SEC quarterly disclosures. Tariffs are no longer just a procurement or trade-policy issue. They cut into tax accounting, forecast assumptions and the reliability of estimates used in financial statements.

The pressure points are familiar to technical teams: income statement volatility, income tax accounting, fair value measurements, impairment testing and the timing of recognition for new law or rate changes. Tariffs can reshape supply chains, alter margins and force companies to revisit assumptions that had looked stable only a quarter earlier. Once that happens, the conversation shifts from abstract policy risk to whether a reserve, valuation allowance, impairment analysis or disclosure update is needed.

For KPMG staff, the practical workload lands across service lines. Tax teams may be asked to evaluate how tariff changes flow into tax provision work and uncertain positions. Audit teams may need to challenge management’s assumptions and test whether estimates still hold. Advisory professionals may be asked to help clients model different sourcing scenarios or explain the financial statement consequences of moving production, changing vendors or absorbing costs.

The FASB agenda reset raises the technical bar

The FASB’s refreshed agenda is taking shape. A shifting standard-setting agenda creates a moving target for preparers and reviewers at the same time. Even without a single blockbuster standard, an updated agenda changes which topics are likely to consume technical bandwidth over the next several quarters.

In practice, that affects how KPMG teams prioritize client questions. If the agenda is changing, the first job is not to memorize every item. It is to understand which accounting topics are likely to trigger new guidance, training, drafting updates or disclosure review changes. That kind of work tends to fall hardest on specialists who can connect standard-setting activity to the actual line items and footnotes that clients have to defend.

Where the pressure lands inside the firm

Changes to the rulebook shift work across technical accounting, tax and advisory teams. Technical accounting specialists, tax accountants and advisory teams will need to stay in close contact because one policy change can affect all three areas at once. That is especially true when tariffs intersect with disclosures, tax estimates and impairment or fair value judgments.