President Donald Trump has turned his attention to a long-standing Wall Street practice, reviving a debate that could reshape the flow of information for both companies and investors. His latest proposal: U.S. public companies should report earnings every six months instead of every quarter.
Trump argued on Truth Social that such a change would reduce costs for corporations and allow executives to spend less time preparing filings and more time running their businesses. The idea isn’t new—he floated a similar suggestion back in 2018—but the conversation carries fresh weight as market dynamics evolve and more companies weigh the tradeoffs of staying private versus going public.
For wealth advisors and RIAs, this debate goes beyond political talking points. The cadence of corporate earnings is central to how investors digest information, allocate capital, and manage risk. A shift from quarterly to semi-annual reporting would touch nearly every aspect of portfolio construction, from fundamental analysis to client communications.
A Familiar Debate, Revived
The frequency and format of earnings reports have been hotly debated over the past decade. Prominent voices in finance—including BlackRock’s Larry Fink, JPMorgan’s Jamie Dimon, and Warren Buffett—have criticized certain elements of the quarterly reporting regime. Their chief concern: the system rewards short-term thinking, encouraging both executives and investors to prioritize near-term results at the expense of long-term value creation.
Yet while Fink, Dimon, and Buffett have called for reforms, they’ve stopped short of endorsing fewer reports. Their criticisms largely target corporate earnings guidance—the forward-looking forecasts that executives provide to Wall Street analysts. Forecasts can amplify volatility, as investors often react sharply to even minor deviations from expectations. That cycle can tempt management teams into focusing narrowly on quarterly “beats” rather than investing in strategies that may take years to bear fruit.
Trump’s proposal to cut reporting in half speaks to those frustrations, but it also raises new concerns about transparency and market efficiency. For RIAs who rely on timely financial data, less frequent reporting could complicate everything from equity research to performance attribution for clients.
Transparency Versus Efficiency
One of the biggest questions surrounding semi-annual reporting is how it would affect investor visibility. While large institutions have access to alternative datasets—from credit card transactions to satellite imagery—that can provide real-time insights into company performance, retail investors and smaller advisory firms depend heavily on quarterly filings for standardized, comparable financial information.
Cutting that cadence in half could leave many market participants at a disadvantage. Advisors serving mass affluent and high-net-worth clients would likely face tougher conversations about why their portfolios appear more volatile or why key data points are harder to pin down between earnings seasons. For fiduciaries, who are tasked with ensuring decisions are made in the client’s best interest, that gap in information flow could become a structural challenge.
At the same time, advocates argue that reducing reporting would free companies from the resource-intensive process of preparing filings four times a year. For corporate executives, that could mean fewer distractions, lower compliance costs, and more time spent executing long-term strategy. Supporters also suggest that semi-annual reporting might encourage companies to stay public longer, or even prompt more private firms to go public, knowing they won’t face the same relentless quarterly spotlight.
Who Really Benefits from Earnings Season?
Even as many executives complain about the burden of quarterly reporting, other corners of Wall Street thrive on the system. Earnings season generates enormous trading volume, which in turn fuels revenue for banks, broker-dealers, and exchanges.
One CFO recently put it bluntly: while companies might resent the process, quarterly earnings aren’t just about disclosure—they’re also about liquidity. Every surprise beat or disappointing miss creates catalysts that drive buying and selling activity. That churn benefits the intermediaries that facilitate trades, not to mention asset managers who use volatility as an opportunity to reposition portfolios.
For advisors, that liquidity has value. Volatile moments around earnings can provide rebalancing opportunities, create entry points for clients sitting on cash, or accelerate tax-loss harvesting strategies. A reduction in reporting frequency could reduce those tactical openings, making it harder to implement short-term portfolio adjustments.
An NFL Analogy
To understand the tension, consider an analogy from professional sports. In the NFL, coaches are required to disclose player injuries every week. Many hate the rule—Bill Belichick famously listed Tom Brady on the injury report for years regardless of his actual health status—but the league enforces it because the information is crucial to maintaining the integrity of the system.
Sportsbooks, television networks, and fans all rely on injury reports to make informed decisions, from setting betting lines to preparing game coverage. Without standardized disclosure, the ecosystem that surrounds professional football would function with far less efficiency and fairness.
Quarterly earnings play a similar role in financial markets. Like injury reports, they may frustrate participants who feel burdened by disclosure requirements, but they provide the transparency needed to keep the broader system running smoothly. Investors, analysts, regulators, and even policymakers use earnings data as a common reference point. Removing half of those touchpoints would fundamentally alter the rhythm of markets.
Implications for Advisors and RIAs
For wealth advisors and RIAs, the prospect of semi-annual reporting raises several critical considerations:
-
Research and Analysis: With fewer standardized data releases, advisors would need to rely more heavily on alternative data, third-party research, and management commentary between earnings periods. This could increase costs and raise barriers to entry for smaller firms.
-
Portfolio Volatility: Longer gaps between disclosures could lead to more dramatic market reactions when earnings are finally released. Advisors would need to prepare clients for sharper price swings and possibly greater dispersion among sectors and individual names.
-
Client Communication: Quarterly reporting provides advisors with a natural cadence to update clients on portfolio holdings, reinforce long-term strategy, and contextualize short-term moves. Shifting to semi-annual updates may make it harder to anchor conversations in fresh, standardized data.
-
Fiduciary Responsibility: Transparency is central to fiduciary duty. Advisors will need to carefully evaluate whether fewer disclosures could impair their ability to meet regulatory obligations around diligence, monitoring, and suitability.
-
Capital Formation: A more lenient reporting regime could encourage more companies to go public, expanding the investment universe. For advisors, that could create new opportunities for diversification, particularly in mid-cap and growth-oriented sectors.
The Bigger Picture
The debate over quarterly versus semi-annual reporting reflects a larger tension in capital markets: how to balance efficiency with accountability. Companies want relief from the compliance grind, while investors need reliable, timely data to allocate capital effectively. The truth may lie somewhere in the middle—perhaps through reforms that reduce the emphasis on guidance while maintaining the quarterly cadence of actual results.
For advisors, the key takeaway is that any change to reporting frequency would reshape the information landscape. Fiduciaries who pride themselves on disciplined research and transparent client communication would need to adapt their playbooks. Some may see opportunity in less frequent reporting, using it as a way to emphasize patience and long-term thinking with clients. Others may struggle with the reduced flow of actionable information.
Preparing for Possible Change
Whether Trump’s proposal gains traction remains uncertain. Shifting the reporting cycle would require significant regulatory and possibly legislative changes, not to mention buy-in from the SEC and major market participants. Historically, similar efforts have faced resistance, both from investor advocacy groups and from those who benefit directly from the quarterly churn.
Still, the idea taps into a real frustration felt by executives and investors alike. Advisors should pay close attention to this debate, not only because of the political spotlight it attracts but also because of the practical implications for client portfolios.
In the meantime, quarterly earnings remain the bedrock of corporate transparency in U.S. markets. Advisors can use this debate as an opportunity to engage clients on broader themes: the value of patience, the dangers of short-termism, and the importance of focusing on fundamentals rather than headlines.
For now, quarterly reporting is here to stay. But as the political and economic environment shifts, advisors should be prepared for the possibility that even Wall Street traditions aren’t set in stone.
