This report is based on a survey of CFA Institute members around the world working as investment analysts and portfolio managers. The survey found strong support for retaining mandatory quarterly reporting, as well as significant concerns about the implications of reducing reporting frequency.
The report also highlights that the debate regarding quarterly reporting is not only about reporting frequency but also about the information investors need to allocate capital effectively, as well as the implications of changing disclosure requirements for capital formation and investor protection.
Analysis and insight from CFA Institute Research and Policy Center, delivered to your inbox.
Abstract
The debate regarding quarterly versus semiannual reporting in the United States has once again returned to the policy agenda. Prompted by a 2025 social media post by President Trump, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is again considering whether public companies should be required to continue quarterly reporting or whether the required reporting frequency should be reduced to every six months.
At a glance:
- Those surveyed broadly support maintaining mandatory quarterly reporting, viewing it as essential to market transparency, comparability, liquidity, and investor confidence.
- Reducing reporting frequency is seen as a solution in search of a problem, with limited evidence that semiannual reporting would improve capital formation or public market participation.
- Those surveyed expect less useful information under a voluntary quarterly reporting regime, including fewer Form 10-Q filings and less comparable, less structured disclosures.
- Earnings releases are not viewed as substitutes for Form 10-Q filings. Survey respondents value the structure, financial statement detail, auditor involvement, certifications, and legal accountability of quarterly reports.
- Long-termism is viewed as driven more by management incentives than reporting frequency, with more than 8 in 10 survey respondents identifying management compensation structures and incentives tied to long-term goals as significantly more important drivers of long-term decision-making than changes in reporting frequency. There was no consensus that companies and investors in semiannual jurisdictions are more long-term oriented than those in quarterly reporting jurisdictions or that extending reporting periods would increase long-termism.
You might also like:
- Investors Should Be Watching More Than Just the SEC’s Proposal on Semiannual Reporting - Market Integrity Insights Blog
- Preliminary Response to Semiannual Reporting Proposed Rule - Comment Letter
- Financial Reporting Survey 2019: The Case for Quarterly & ESG Reporting Requirements - Survey Report