Should US businesses stop quarterly reporting?

Donald Trump has proposed that US-listed companies should no longer be required to report earnings every quarter, advocating instead for a shift to semi-annual disclosures. The president argues that reducing the frequency of financial reporting would cut costs and allow executives to focus on long-term strategy rather than short-term market pressures. However, the proposal has sparked controversy, with critics warning that it could erode transparency, hinder investor oversight – and increase the risk of corporate mismanagement.

Opponents – including some investors and corporate governance experts – argue that quarterly reporting keeps companies accountable and provides timely insights into performance. They fear that less frequent updates could tilt the balance of power toward insiders and make it harder for shareholders to detect early warning signs of trouble ahead. Supporters of Mr Trump’s plan, however, say the current system encourages short-termism and distracts management from sustainable, long-term growth.

The UK has been there

Handily, the UK offers a real-world case study. In 2007, the British government introduced mandatory quarterly reporting – only to scrap the requirement in 2014. Since then, companies have been required to publish only interim and annual reports, while promptly disclosing any price-sensitive developments. Larger companies often continue to report quarterly on a voluntary basis, reflecting investor expectations and the resources available to maintain transparency.

The shift was partly inspired by the 2012 Kay Review, a government-commissioned investigation led by economist Professor John Kay. The review concluded that short-termism – fuelled by misaligned incentives and a breakdown of trust in capital markets – was undermining long-term economic performance. It recommended reforms to encourage more sustainable corporate behaviour.

Subsequent studies suggest that the removal of mandatory quarterly reporting in the UK had a limited impact on corporate investment. A report by the CFA Institute found no significant change in capital expenditure, R&D, or asset investment. However, the introduction of quarterly reporting in 2007 had resulted in a rise in qualitative disclosures, managerial guidance, and analyst coverage – benefits that diminished when the requirement was lifted.

By the end of 2015, fewer than 10% of UK listed companies had stopped issuing quarterly updates. Those that did saw a decline in analyst coverage, making it harder for markets to assess their prospects. A 2019 study by Nallareddy, Pozen, and Rajgopal echoed these findings, noting that while investment patterns remained stable, transparency and visibility suffered.

Writing in Forbes in September 2025, Shivaram Rajgopal – one of the study’s authors – revisited the issue. He observed that most companies continued quarterly reporting to avoid signalling weakness or secrecy. Companies that dropped the practice tended to be in the energy sector or had previously avoided issuing earnings guidance. These businesses experienced reduced analyst coverage, complicating investor analysis.

Donald Trump’s renewed push to eliminate quarterly reporting in the US has reignited a long-standing debate over the trade-offs between transparency and efficiency. While the proposal may appeal to corporate leaders seeking regulatory relief, the UK’s experience suggests that the benefits may be overstated – and the risks to market confidence, investor protection, and corporate accountability should not be underestimated.