Tell the SEC: Keep Quarterly Reporting

I write to express serious concern regarding the proposed policy shift that would eliminate mandatory quarterly financial reporting for publicly traded companies under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. At stake is not an abstract regulatory detail, but the informational foundation upon which millions of households make decisions about retirement savings, pensions, college funds, and long-term investment portfolios. For most ordinary investors, timely financial disclosure is not optional—it is the primary mechanism through which market fairness and accountability are maintained. 1. Investor Protection and Household Financial Security Quarterly reporting provides a structured, recurring window into corporate performance. Removing this cadence would materially reduce the frequency with which investors can evaluate risk, reassess valuation, and respond to material changes in company health. For households relying on index funds, retirement accounts, or diversified portfolios, reduced transparency increases exposure to delayed information asymmetries—where insiders, institutional actors, and executives possess materially superior knowledge for longer periods of time. This imbalance is not theoretical; it directly affects entry and exit timing, portfolio allocation, and retirement security outcomes. 2. Market Integrity and the Risk of Delayed Accountability Financial markets function efficiently only when information is widely, rapidly, and equitably distributed. Extending reporting intervals to six months creates a structural information gap during which material risks may remain undisclosed. Such delays can allow adverse developments—declining revenues, liquidity stress, governance failures, or accounting irregularities—to compound without timely external scrutiny. History demonstrates that when disclosure windows widen, the opportunity for misrepresentation and delayed correction increases, often culminating in sharper and more destabilizing market adjustments once information is finally released. 3. Volatility and Systemic Risk Contrary to the assumption that fewer reports would reduce short-term market “noise,” reduced transparency frequently produces the opposite effect. When information is withheld for longer periods, markets tend to adjust in larger discontinuous shocks when disclosures eventually occur. This increases price volatility, undermines confidence, and can amplify systemic stress during periods of economic uncertainty. Regular reporting acts as a stabilizing mechanism by distributing information shocks across time rather than concentrating them. 4. Transparency as a Core Principle of Fair Markets Transparency is not merely an administrative requirement; it is a foundational principle of fair capital markets. The legitimacy of the financial system depends on the perception—and reality—that no class of participants is structurally advantaged through information delay. Reducing disclosure frequency risks signaling a shift away from this principle. Even if some sophisticated investors rely less on quarterly filings, the broader ecosystem—including retail investors, advisors, analysts, and pension fiduciaries—depends on predictable and standardized reporting intervals. 5. Governance and Public Trust Finally, regulatory policy must account for public confidence. Any perception that disclosure obligations are being weakened in favor of reduced corporate oversight risks eroding trust in capital markets. Once diminished, such trust is difficult to restore and can have long-term consequences for market participation and capital formation. ⸻ For these reasons, I urge Congress to oppose any regulatory change that would eliminate or materially reduce quarterly reporting requirements for public companies. The costs of reduced transparency would be borne disproportionately by ordinary investors whose financial security depends on timely and accurate information.