President Trump has reignited the debate on how often publicly traded companies should share their financial performance. In a recent post on Truth Social, Trump called for an end to the long-standing requirement that companies report earnings every quarter. Instead, he suggested companies report their results every six months, with the idea that this would save money and allow executives to focus more on managing their businesses rather than meeting short-term investor expectations.
Currently, U.S. public companies must disclose detailed financial statements every 90 days under Securities and Exchange Commission rules established under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This quarterly reporting schedule has been a fixture for decades, dating back to a shift mandated by regulators in 1970, moving from a semiannual to quarterly disclosure cycle (Reuters, 2025). President Trump’s proposal would effectively roll back this practice, bringing U.S. reporting timelines closer in line with Europe, where many nations require companies to report financials only twice a year.
Trump argues the change would reduce the burden and cost associated with constant financial reporting. He suggested that quarterly updates encourage an unhealthy fixation on short-term results within corporate leadership, which can lead to decisions focused more on meeting immediate earnings targets than fostering sustainable long-term growth. He contrasted this with business practices in China, which he described as having a “50 to 100 year view” on management rather than a quarterly focus. Allowing companies to report semi-annually, he said, would empower managers to run their companies more effectively and strategically.
However, the idea is not without controversy. Investors and regulators emphasize that quarterly reports play a key role in maintaining market transparency and providing timely insights into company performance. Critics worry that moving to less frequent reporting could reduce transparency, making it harder for investors to monitor risks and react to changes promptly. This could potentially increase market volatility and information asymmetries, particularly affecting smaller companies that rely heavily on regular investor communication.
Studies on the impact of ending quarterly reports suggest that while companies may benefit from a reduced compliance burden and have more freedom to focus on long-range strategy, investors could experience diminished liquidity and face challenges in evaluating company value. Behavioral biases, such as delayed reactions to earnings surprises and prolonged mispricing, might become more pronounced without regular updates. Analysts also depend on quarterly data to adjust forecasts and maintain accurate valuations, so removing these touchpoints could complicate market assessments.
This is not the first time President Trump has floated this concept. During his first term, he indicated a similar preference for a six-month reporting cycle after discussions with business leaders who claimed it would better support job growth and reduce costs. Yet, despite the ongoing debate, there has been no definitive regulatory movement to alter the quarterly earnings system. Such a change would require formal approval from the SEC and a reassessment of longstanding U.S. financial rules.
If implemented, the shift could redefine the rhythm of corporate America and investor interaction. The U.S. markets currently trade at a valuation premium partly because of stringent and frequent reporting standards. For example, the S&P 500 trades at a price-to-earnings ratio significantly higher than many European indexes, which reflect less frequent disclosure requirements. Reducing how often companies must report could alter these dynamics, potentially leading to market repricing, shifts in investor confidence, and new approaches to company valuation.
Overall, President Trump’s call to end quarterly earnings reports highlights an ongoing tension between the desire for regulatory ease and long-term business planning versus the need for timely, transparent financial information that supports informed investment decisions. The debate touches on fundamental questions about how markets should balance the interests of companies and investors in an ever-evolving economic landscape.
