President Donald Trump has proposed that U.S. companies shift from quarterly to biannual earnings reports, subject to SEC approval, aiming to reduce costs and promote long-term strategic focus.

Supporters argue that less frequent reporting would lower compliance costs, especially for smaller companies, and could encourage more companies to go public, while critics warn it might diminish transparency.

The proposal has gained renewed attention after the Long Term Stock Exchange in San Francisco petitioned the SEC to remove the quarterly reporting mandate, emphasizing the importance of long-term growth.

Monitoring SEC responses will be crucial, as this proposal tests the balance between deregulation and transparency amid a volatile economic environment.

This debate reflects a broader tension between promoting sustainable growth and maintaining transparency and accountability in financial reporting.

Currently, U.S. regulations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 require quarterly disclosures to ensure transparency, a practice in place since 1970.

The SEC has the authority to change reporting requirements, but any shift would involve rulemaking and public comment, with some industry leaders and analysts concerned about potential impacts.

Quarterly reports are closely monitored on Wall Street for assessing company performance and economic health, influencing investor decisions and market stability.

Opponents argue that quarterly earnings provide essential timely financial insights and help identify emerging risks, supporting transparency in public markets.

Supporters, including figures like Warren Buffett and Jamie Dimon, have previously voiced concerns about quarterly capitalism, advocating for less emphasis on short-term results to foster long-term planning.

Globally, other markets such as the European Union and Singapore have already moved toward semiannual or less frequent reporting to promote longer-term strategic focus.

Implementing such a change would require SEC rulemaking, involving public comment periods and potential legal pushback from stakeholders concerned about reduced market efficiency.