Paul Atkins endorsed President Donald Trump’s push to end quarterly earnings reports, calling it a “timely call” as regulators weigh long-term growth against Wall Street short-termism. Speaking on the Fox Business program Mornings with Maria, the former securities regulator said shifting the reporting calendar could redirect corporate focus from meeting three-month targets to building durable value.
The debate comes as market watchdogs consider whether frequent disclosures fuel short-term trading and executive decision-making at the expense of investment in research, workers, and productivity. Supporters argue that fewer reports would reduce costs and volatility. Critics warn that cutting updates could limit transparency for investors and raise the risk of surprises.
Long-Term Goals Versus Quarterly Pressures
Atkins framed the issue as a trade-off between clarity for investors and the drag of constant earnings guidance. He said the current system nudges executives to prioritize near-term results, sometimes at the cost of capital spending and strategic bets that take longer to pay off.
“It’s a timely call,” Atkins said, citing the need to curb Wall Street “short-termism.”
Corporate leaders have often made similar points. Many CEOs have criticized the cadence of quarterly guidance, saying it encourages cost-cutting over innovation. Some companies have stopped offering quarterly forecasts, even while maintaining required financial reports, to reduce that pressure.
What Changing The Calendar Could Mean
Moving from quarterly to semiannual reporting would mark a major shift for U.S. markets. Public companies now file reports every three months, providing revenue, profit, and cash-flow data, along with management commentary. Earnings season drives stock moves and sets expectations for the rest of the year.
A change could lower compliance costs for companies and reduce the noise of short-term trading. But fewer updates could make it harder for investors to track performance, especially for fast-changing businesses. It could also expand the gap between what insiders know and what the market learns in public filings.
- Potential benefits: lower costs, reduced volatility, more focus on long-term plans.
- Potential risks: less transparency, more uncertainty, and wider swings when results arrive.
Regulatory Context And International Comparisons
Regulators have examined the role of quarterly reporting and guidance in market behavior. They have asked whether adjustments could encourage investment in growth while preserving investor protections. That could include easing guidance practices, altering the frequency of formal reports, or improving how companies share strategic updates.
Other markets offer a guide. European regulators scrapped mandatory quarterly reporting for many companies, arguing that frequent updates were not always useful for long-term decision-making. Some firms there still report more often, but they are not required to do so.
Investor Concerns And Market Stability
Investor advocates say regular reporting helps prevent surprises and protects smaller shareholders who lack direct access to management. They argue that quarterly data gives early warning signs on earnings quality, debt levels, and cash flow. Cutting that flow of information, they say, could raise the cost of capital and increase risk.
Fund managers and analysts also rely on frequent disclosures to model corporate performance. With fewer data points, they may demand higher returns to compensate for uncertainty. That could offset any savings companies gain from filing less often.
Searching For A Middle Ground
A compromise could focus on guidance rather than filings. Some policymakers and executives have urged companies to end quarterly earnings guidance while keeping the reporting schedule intact. That approach would maintain transparency while easing the pressure to hit near-term targets.
Atkins’ support signals momentum for examining these options. He suggested regulators should aim for rules that reward investment time horizons measured in years, not months, without leaving investors in the dark.
What Comes Next
Any change would likely come after a public comment process and extensive analysis of market effects. Regulators would need to weigh how different sectors might be affected, from fast-growing technology firms to steady utility companies. They would also consider how to guard against insider trading during longer gaps between reports.
For now, the comments put fresh attention on how reporting rules shape corporate behavior. The question is whether fewer earnings reports would help companies invest and grow, or whether less frequent disclosures would make markets less fair and more volatile.
Atkins’ stance adds a prominent voice to a long-running debate. The main test will be whether policy can balance investor protection with the push for long-term growth. Investors, boards, and regulators will watch closely for any proposal that changes how America’s public companies report their results.
