The SEC’s proposal to shift public companies from quarterly to semiannual earnings reports has been simmering since 2018, but 2026 is the year it could actually happen. SEC Chair Paul Atkins has committed to fast-tracking the rule change, and a detailed proposal for public comment is expected any month now. Whether you’re a long-term investor or someone who trades around earnings season, this potential shift could reshape how you evaluate stocks, time your moves, and think about corporate transparency.
Why Is the SEC Considering Killing Quarterly Reports in 2026?
The push to reduce earnings reporting frequency didn’t come out of nowhere. President Trump first floated the idea on social media back in 2018 during his first term, and the SEC collected public comments at the time. Nothing materialized. Then, in September 2025, Trump revived the idea on Truth Social, and this time the SEC responded with more urgency.
But this isn’t just a political pet project. There are real structural arguments behind the proposal:
- Short-termism is a documented problem. A study published in The Accounting Review examined U.S. public companies between 1950 and 1970, a period when many firms first adopted quarterly reporting. The researchers found that more frequent reporting was associated with a significant decline in long-term investment by those companies.
- The EU already did this. In 2013, the European Union dropped its mandatory quarterly reporting requirement. Companies there now report semiannually, and the European markets didn’t collapse.
- Heavy hitters support the change. Warren Buffett and Jamie Dimon have both publicly endorsed relaxing quarterly reporting requirements, arguing that the current cadence pressures executives to manage for 90-day cycles instead of multi-year strategies.
The counterargument is equally strong, though. More on that below.
What Exactly Would Change Under the SEC Proposal?
Let’s break down the practical differences between the current system and what’s being proposed:
| Feature | Current System (Quarterly) | Proposed System (Semiannual) |
|---|---|---|
| Reporting frequency | Every 3 months (4 reports/year) | Every 6 months (2 reports/year) |
| Earnings season impact | 4 volatility spikes per year | 2 volatility spikes per year |
| Data freshness for investors | Max 3 months old | Max 6 months old |
| Compliance cost for companies | Higher (4 audit cycles) | Lower (2 audit cycles) |
| P/E ratio calculation | Updated quarterly | Potentially less current |
| Information gap risk | Lower | Higher |
The price-to-earnings ratio, one of the most widely used valuation metrics, relies on trailing twelve-month earnings data. With quarterly reports, that data gets refreshed four times a year. Under semiannual reporting, you’d be working with older numbers for longer stretches, which could affect how accurately you assess whether a stock is overvalued or undervalued.
The Real Risk: What Happens When Information Gets Stale?
Srini Krishnamurthy, a finance professor at North Carolina State University’s Poole College of Management, published an analysis in late 2025 that captures the tension perfectly. He reviewed multiple academic studies and found a genuine tradeoff.
On one hand, a 2023 study in The Accounting Review examined U.S. public companies from 1962 to 2018 and found a strong link between reported results and share prices. Frequent reports, in other words, helped investors make better-informed decisions and served as a reliable predictor of future stock returns.
On the other hand, Krishnamurthy pointed out that reducing reporting frequency could:
- Reduce managerial opportunism – fewer chances for executives to manipulate short-term numbers
- Lower compliance costs – especially beneficial for smaller public companies
- Encourage longer-term strategic thinking – less pressure to hit arbitrary 90-day targets
But he also warned that making financial statements less available could “make the market less efficient and exacerbate volatility in prices.” That’s the part that should concern you if you’re an individual investor relying on public data to make decisions.
Who Wins and Who Loses If Quarterly Earnings Disappear?
Not everyone is affected equally by this SEC proposal. Here’s a realistic breakdown:
Winners
- Corporate executives get breathing room to focus on multi-year plans instead of managing Wall Street expectations every 90 days
- Small and mid-cap companies save meaningful money on compliance, audit fees, and investor relations costs
- Long-term buy-and-hold investors who already ignore quarterly noise may see less volatility in their portfolios
- Companies in cyclical industries (construction, agriculture, energy) that naturally operate on longer business cycles
Losers
- Active traders and short-term investors lose two of their four annual catalysts for price movement
- Retail investors face a wider information gap compared to institutional investors who have access to alternative data sources
- Financial analysts who build models around quarterly data would need to overhaul their processes
- Financial media – let’s be honest, earnings season drives a huge chunk of market coverage and engagement
The asymmetry here is worth paying attention to. Institutional investors with Bloomberg terminals, proprietary data feeds, and direct relationships with company management won’t be as affected by less frequent public reporting. Retail investors who depend on those quarterly filings as their primary source of company information could find themselves at a bigger disadvantage.
The Information Inequality Problem No One’s Talking About
Think of quarterly earnings reports like a public utility: they give every investor, regardless of size, access to the same standardized financial data at the same time. It’s like a public water tap. Everyone gets a drink.
If you reduce that to twice a year, the people with private wells (institutional investors, hedge funds, insiders) keep drinking. Everyone else waits longer between refills.
This is the part of the debate that deserves more attention. The SEC’s mission includes protecting investors and maintaining fair, orderly markets. A move to semiannual reporting could undermine both goals if it widens the gap between what sophisticated investors know and what you know.
Some potential red flags to watch for if the rule change moves forward:
- Increased insider trading risk during the longer gaps between public disclosures
- More reliance on management guidance (which is voluntary and often optimistic)
- Greater weight placed on alternative data that retail investors typically can’t access or afford
- Potential for larger earnings surprises when reports do come out, leading to sharper price swings
How the Math Actually Works: Volatility Under Semiannual Reporting
Here’s a simplified scenario. Imagine you own $10,000 worth of a stock that typically moves 5% on earnings day.
Under quarterly reporting, you’d experience four of these events per year. Your portfolio might swing by roughly $500 each time, giving you four opportunities to reassess your position based on fresh data.
Under semiannual reporting, those same financial results get compressed into two reports. Each report now covers six months of activity instead of three. If surprises accumulate over the longer period, the price reaction could be larger: maybe 8-10% instead of 5%. That $10,000 position could swing $800 to $1,000 on each of the two reporting days.
This isn’t guaranteed, of course. Past performance and historical patterns don’t guarantee future results. But the European experience after 2013 does show some evidence of increased volatility around the remaining reporting dates.
What Should You Actually Do Right Now?
The rule hasn’t changed yet. As of mid-2026, the SEC is still in the proposal and comment phase. But here are some practical steps worth considering:
- Don’t panic or make portfolio changes based on a rule that doesn’t exist yet. The 2018 attempt went nowhere, and this one could stall too.
- Diversify your information sources. If you rely solely on quarterly filings, start familiarizing yourself with other data: monthly revenue trackers, industry reports, and company investor presentations.
- Consider your investment time horizon. If you’re investing for retirement 20 years from now, this change is unlikely to affect your outcomes meaningfully. If you’re trading around earnings, it could fundamentally alter your strategy.
- Talk to a financial advisor. Seriously. A qualified professional can help you assess how this potential change interacts with your specific portfolio and goals.
Take 15 minutes this week to review how much of your investment decision-making depends on quarterly earnings data. That self-assessment alone will tell you how much this change matters to you personally.
Frequently Asked Questions
Has the SEC officially ended quarterly earnings reporting?
No. As of 2026, the SEC is still developing a formal proposal. SEC Chair Paul Atkins has said his agency would fast-track the process, and a detailed proposal for public comment is expected soon. Even after a proposal is released, there would be a public comment period and potential revisions before any rule takes effect. Nothing has been finalized, and it’s possible the effort could stall, as it did in 2018.
Would companies still be allowed to report quarterly if they choose to?
Most likely, yes. The proposal focuses on removing the requirement for quarterly reporting, not banning it. Many large companies would probably continue reporting every three months voluntarily because institutional investors and analysts expect it. Smaller companies with tighter budgets are more likely to take advantage of reduced reporting requirements. The EU’s experience after 2013 supports this: many large European companies kept reporting quarterly even after the mandate was dropped.
How could the end of quarterly earnings affect stock prices?
Research suggests two competing effects. Less frequent reporting could reduce short-term volatility by removing two of the four annual earnings catalysts. But each remaining report could trigger larger price swings because it covers a longer period and may contain bigger surprises. The net effect on your portfolio depends heavily on what you own and how you trade. Long-term, diversified investors may barely notice the difference, while active traders could see significant changes to their strategies.
What happened in Europe when they dropped quarterly reporting?
The EU eliminated mandatory quarterly reporting in 2013. The results were mixed. Some studies found that companies invested more in long-term projects, which was the intended benefit. But researchers also observed that information asymmetry increased: sophisticated investors with access to alternative data gained an edge over retail investors who depended on public filings. Market liquidity for some smaller stocks decreased as well. The European experience offers useful data points, but the U.S. market is structurally different, so outcomes here may vary.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. All investments carry risk, and you should consult a qualified financial advisor before making investment decisions based on potential regulatory changes.
