President Donald Trump floated the idea Monday of companies no longer providing earnings reports on a quarterly basis and switching to semiannual instead, reviving a debate that has simmered for years on Wall Street.
In a Truth Social post, Trump said the idea is “subject to SEC approval” and would “save money, and allow managers to focus on properly running their companies.”
“Did you ever hear the statement that, ‘China has a 50 to 100 year view on management of a company, whereas we run our companies on a quarterly basis??? Not good!!!’” Trump said.
During his first term, Trump had asked the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to study the issue, but no recommendations came of the matter, according to CNBC.
The wisdom of quarterly reports has long been under scrutiny. In a 2018 op-ed piece for The Wall Street Journal, noted by CNBC, Berkshire Hathaway’s Warren Buffett and JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon advocated doing away with quarterly guidance, though not earnings reports.
“In our experience, quarterly earnings guidance often leads to an unhealthy focus on short-term profits at the expense of long-term strategy, growth and sustainability,” Buffett and Dimon wrote.
Currently, U.S. regulations require companies to report earnings every quarter, though providing forecasts is voluntary. Those rules could be changed either by the SEC or by Congress. Logistically, the move would not require congressional approval, but rather a majority vote on the SEC, where Republicans currently hold a 3-1 majority with one open seat.
The process could take six to 12 months, said Sarah Bianchi, chief strategist of international political affairs and public policy at Evercore ISI.
“Administrations have to varying degrees given policy steers to the SEC, and with Trump’s directive this is now something that has to be taken seriously as a possibility,” Bianchi, a former U.S. deputy trade representative, said in a note. “However, the SEC has also historically been able to operate with some measure of independence.”
SEC Chair Paul Atkins has not spoken on the issue.
Bianchi noted that “if the effort at the SEC to reconsider quarterly reporting gains steam, it could also prompt conversations around when and how companies issue guidance and communicate with investors that would have important ramifications for public markets.”
Supporters of the current quarterly system argue that it provides investors with timely updates and transparency.
“When you weigh this out and put it on a whiteboard, the pros of quarterly reporting outweigh the cons,” said Art Hogan, chief market strategist at B Riley Wealth Management. “Having to wait six months for official results, I just think would cause more difficulties than it would add benefits.”
While corporate executives have faced criticism for reporting misleading earnings, the use of generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) has provided guardrails for standardization, making U.S. reporting among the most transparent and reliable in the world.
Despite Trump’s comparison to China, companies there face reporting requirements similar to those in the U.S., if not more stringent. Chinese firms must file quarterly earnings reports as well as semiannual and annual reports. Companies listed on the Hong Kong exchange, however, only report every six months.
Trump’s proposal would align U.S. practice more closely with the U.K. and European Union, where companies are required to file semiannually but can issue quarterly reports if they choose. But Hogan dismissed the comparison.
“How many companies in the European markets have trillion-dollar market caps and are growing revenues at 60% a year or have gross margins that are north of 50%?” he asked. “The investor is better suited to having more information than less or more frequent information.”
Earlier this year, Norway’s sovereign wealth fund proposed switching to semiannual reporting, reasoning that lengthening the timeframe would allow companies to focus on the longer term. The Long-Term Stock Exchange trading platform has also supported less frequent reporting.
Pros and Cons of Semiannual vs. Quarterly Reporting
If the U.S. were to adopt semiannual reporting, as Trump suggested, the structure of the markets could shift in several ways.
Under semiannual reporting, companies might gain breathing room to focus on strategy and innovation rather than chasing quarterly targets. Advocates say this could curb the tendency toward “earnings management,” where executives cut costs or delay investments simply to meet Wall Street expectations.
More breathing room might also help companies in industries with longer product cycles — such as pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and aerospace — communicate performance in a way that reflects long-term value creation rather than short-term volatility.
But there are risks. Investors accustomed to a steady flow of information would face longer gaps between updates, potentially leading to higher market volatility when reports finally arrive. With fewer official updates, the market might rely more heavily on alternative signals such as analyst notes, leaks, or management commentary at conferences, which could privilege institutional investors over retail ones. Critics warn that less frequent reporting could make markets less efficient and increase the risk of mispricing stocks.
By contrast, under quarterly reporting, the U.S. maintains its reputation for transparency and timely disclosure, helping investors price risk with precision. While the system can pressure companies to chase short-term profits, quarterly updates reduce uncertainty, especially in fast-moving industries like tech and e-commerce. Investors argue that the frequency helps U.S. capital markets remain the deepest and most liquid in the world.
Globally, the U.S. would be sending a signal if it pivoted toward semiannual reporting. Such a shift could encourage other markets to reconsider their own rules. But skeptics note that many of the largest, most innovative companies in the world are U.S.-based precisely because of the confidence fostered by frequent, standardized disclosure.
As Bianchi put it, the question is not just about saving companies money or aligning with global peers, but about how the very nature of communication between companies and investors could evolve — with long-term consequences for market trust and efficiency.
