Mark T. Uyeda is a Commissioner of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. This post is based on his recent statement. The views expressed in this post are those of Commissioner Uyeda and do not necessarily reflect those of the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff.
Quarterly reporting has its roots in post-World War II industrial recovery.[1] But is there any particular magic to quarterly reporting? Why not monthly? Or weekly? Or real-time reporting? Modern technology makes faster and more frequent reporting possible, but that does not necessarily mean it is better. On the other hand, should the Commission continue to mandate a quarterly reporting cycle at all? If investors are unsatisfied with the cycle of corporate financial reporting, they will attach higher risk to that company and raise the cost of capital.
Today, the Commission proposes changes to our reporting framework to give companies more options in fulfilling their reporting obligations. A framework built nearly 75 years ago, when public companies tended to be in manufacturing and the roles of institutional investors and asset managers in the markets were different, should not be presumed to serve all companies optimally in 2026. This proposal would permit companies that go—and remain—public to be subject to a more flexible SEC reporting framework. Specifically, the Commission proposes to allow companies to meet their Exchange Act interim reporting obligations[2] by filing semiannual reports on new Form 10-S, rather than quarterly reports on Form 10-Q. The Commission is also proposing corresponding amendments to Regulation S-X to facilitate this change.
