Public companies in the United States could soon choose to report their financial results twice a year instead of four times, if a Securities and Exchange Commission proposal is adopted. This explainer covers what the plan says, what would stay the same and why people disagree about it.
What Has the SEC Actually Proposed?
On May 5, 2026, the SEC announced a proposal that would let companies subject to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act file semiannual reports instead of quarterly ones. Today those companies file a quarterly report on Form 10-Q. Under the proposal, a company that opts in would file a new Form 10-S instead.
According to the SEC’s press release, a company electing the semiannual route would file one semiannual report and one annual report each fiscal year, rather than three quarterly reports and one annual report. The proposal would also amend Regulation S-X, the rule set governing the form and content of financial statements, to reflect the semiannual option and simplify some existing financial statement requirements.
Where Does the Proposal Stand Today?
The proposal is still a proposal. The SEC’s rulemaking page for the file (S7-2026-15, Release No. 33-11414) shows it was published in the Federal Register on May 7, 2026, with public comments due July 6, 2026. As of the page’s last review on July 31, 2026, the SEC said it had received a large number of comments and was working on posting them.
Nothing changes for any company until the Commission votes on a final rule. Until then, every public company continues to file Form 10-Q for each of its first three fiscal quarters.
How Would a Company Choose Semiannual Reporting?
The press release says the semiannual report would be due 40 or 45 days after the end of the first half of the fiscal year, depending on the company’s filer status. The SEC describes the change as a choice for companies rather than a requirement, so the exact mechanics of making that election will matter and should be read from the final rule if one is adopted. The proposal is framed as optional, which means companies that prefer the current rhythm can simply keep filing Form 10-Q.
What Would Change and What Would Stay the Same?
The proposal changes how often the periodic report arrives, not what companies owe investors in the way of material news. Commissioner Mark Uyeda noted in his statement that Form 8-K filings for material events would still apply. Chairman Paul Atkins noted that the proposal does not change the frequency of earnings calls or earnings releases, which remains each company’s own decision.
| Feature | Today | Under the proposal (if a company opts in) |
|---|---|---|
| Interim reports | Three Form 10-Q filings a year | One Form 10-S filing a year |
| Annual report | Form 10-K | Form 10-K |
| Total periodic filings per year | 4 | 2 |
| Event-driven disclosure | Form 8-K continues | Form 8-K continues |
| Earnings call and release timing | Company’s choice | Company’s choice |
The arithmetic is simple: three quarterly reports plus one annual report is four filings, while one semiannual report plus one annual report is two. For an opting-in company, that is half as many scheduled filings.
Why Do Supporters Say Quarterly Reporting Should Be Optional?
The SEC’s leadership frames the change as flexibility. Atkins argued that rigid rules keep companies and investors from choosing the interim reporting frequency that suits them, and tied the proposal to his agenda of encouraging companies to go and stay public. In his statement he listed factors a company might weigh, including preparation costs and management time, investor expectations, cost of capital, business stage, other disclosure channels such as earnings calls and Form 8-K, and research coverage.
Commissioner Hester Peirce said some companies may see the combination of reporting frequency and the detailed content required as a reason to stay out of the public markets. Uyeda pointed to differences between businesses, contrasting an established pharmaceutical company with a pre-revenue biotech awaiting drug approval, and argued that markets can police the choice because investor dissatisfaction would raise risk and the cost of capital. He also cited former SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt’s 1998 call for Wall Street to focus less on quarterly earnings and more on a company’s long-term health.
Is Quarterly Reporting Really a Long-Standing Rule?
Less than it may seem. According to Peirce’s statement, annual reporting began shortly after the Securities Act and Exchange Act were passed, semiannual reporting arrived in 1955, and the current quarterly framework took shape about fifteen years later. She adds that Form 10-Q requires more detailed information than the earlier semiannual framework did. Uyeda described the broader framework as nearly 75 years old and designed for a different corporate and investor landscape.
That history is why the debate is not simply old versus new. The United States has already used a semiannual interim system before; the question is whether to offer it again, as a choice.
What Are the Concerns About Less Frequent Reports?
The proposal asks questions as well as offering answers. Peirce noted that a company keeping quarterly reports would not necessarily be endorsing every Form 10-Q requirement, which many companies find onerous, and asked commenters whether the burden should be adjusted rather than the frequency, either in this rulemaking or in the SEC’s broader review of disclosure requirements.
Questions a less frequent schedule naturally raises include:
- Information gaps. With a longer stretch between reports, investors may know less about a company’s finances between filings.
- Uneven choices. If some companies in a sector report quarterly and others twice a year, comparing them becomes harder.
- Signaling. A company moving to semiannual reporting could be read as confident or as having something to hide, and markets may react accordingly.
Atkins’s own list of considerations, including investor expectations and cost of capital, acknowledges that these trade-offs are real. Uyeda’s answer is that those costs would fall on companies that choose poorly.
How Could This Affect Everyday Investors?
Most people who own index funds or retirement accounts hold dozens or thousands of companies, so the effect would be indirect. If many large companies stayed quarterly, as investor expectations might encourage, little would visibly change. If a meaningful share switched, analysts and fund managers would have fewer scheduled data points and might rely more on earnings calls, press releases and event filings. The mechanics of how funds hold companies are covered in index funds versus individual stocks.
For smaller companies, a lighter schedule could mean lower preparation costs, which supporters say might make listing more attractive. Whether those savings are large or small is an empirical question the comment process is meant to test; the SEC’s press release gives no dollar estimate.
Why reporting rhythms matter to business owners
Reporting frequency shapes how managers run a company. Two cadences of attention, to the next quarter and to the next half-year, produce different planning habits, a theme that echoes in coverage of how small businesses are adjusting when every cost matters. Private firms face their own versions of the same trade-off between frequent reporting and long-term planning.
For readers following company formation more broadly, the pipeline from startup to public company is a long one, as Census business applications data shows: most new filings never become employers, let alone listed companies. A rule aimed at making public markets more appealing speaks to a very small share of that pipeline.
A Choice Still Waiting to Be Made
The SEC’s proposal would not abolish quarterly reporting; it would let companies decide. As of the SEC’s rulemaking page last reviewed July 31, 2026, the plan remained a proposal after a comment period that closed July 6, 2026. The practical test will be whether the final rule keeps the opt-in design and how many companies, if any, actually give up their quarterly reports.
This article is for general information only and is not financial or investment advice.
Sources: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
