President Donald Trump is once again shaking up Wall Street’s rule book. This week, he called for U.S. companies to ditch quarterly earnings reports and switch to a six-month schedule instead. "This will save money and allow managers to focus on properly running their companies," he wrote on Truth Social.
If that sounds familiar, it's because Trump floated the same idea back in 2018 during his first term. The SEC even opened a comment period at the time, though nothing came of it. This time, with a pro-business SEC leadership signaling support, the idea might have legs.
So, what would it mean if America moved to semiannual reporting?
It would be cheaper. Reporting quarterly is expensive and also forces management to work on a three-month schedule, pressuring teams into cutting R&D or shelving big capital projects just to hit Wall Street's numbers.
Cost Vs. Transparency
Bill Harts, CEO of the Long-Term Stock Exchange, told Bloomberg Law reporters that biannual reporting "can be better not only for companies but for investors as well" because it gives managers more breathing room and allows more complete data to come through.
There's also precedent abroad. Many European countries, along with the U.K., already run on semiannual reporting, and their markets function just fine. Trump even pointed to China's "50- to 100-year" mindset as a contrast to the U.S.'s quarterly obsession.
But not everyone is buying the idea. BlackRock, one of the world's largest asset managers, warned in a comment to the SEC that "the potential loss in transparency and timely availability of information to investors would outweigh the potential benefits." And that's the tip of the debate: companies want flexibility; investors want information.
Balance Of Power
Without information, things get tricky. Less frequent reporting means a wider gap between insiders and the rest of the market. Executives will still track their own numbers every quarter (if not more frequently), but ordinary shareholders won't see them. That raises fairness concerns—and could make activist investors even more nervous about accountability.
Then there's volatility. With fewer scheduled disclosures, earnings days could become much bigger events. Instead of four jolts a year, investors would get two shockwaves. That makes stocks harder to model, which leads to higher equity risk premiums—the extra return investors demand to hold riskier assets.
In layman's terms, less information equals more uncertainty, and more uncertainty equals higher costs of capital for companies.
Spying On Parking Lots
Let’s not forget the rise of alternative data. If companies stop sharing quarterly results, hedge funds and asset managers will lean even harder on creative ways of gauging performance—think satellite imagery counting cars in Walmart parking lots or credit card swipes being scraped for spending trends. Active managers with the best data will thrive, while passive investors and retail shareholders could fall further behind.
Some of the legendary Wall Street returns came from alternative data. In 2020, Hindenburg Research exposed Lucking Coffee fraud by collecting disposed receipts and physically counting store customers. The stock fell nearly 80%.
So yes, companies might save money on reporting costs, but the market as a whole could become more uneven, more volatile, and more insider-driven.
Trump's revival of this debate comes at a moment when shareholder rights are already under pressure. The SEC has recently rolled back disclosure rules and backed companies in their fights against activist investors. Cutting reporting frequency would further tilt the balance toward corporate boards and away from ordinary investors.
Still, don't expect a quick resolution. The SEC would need to go through a formal rulemaking process, including a proposal and public comment period. The business community is split, and institutional investors like BlackRock, State Street, and CalPERS remain staunchly opposed.
Read Next:
Image: Shutterstock
