What Is the Proposed SEC Move to End Quarterly Reporting — And What It Means for Your Business

Public companies might soon file results only twice a year. The SEC is weighing a September 2025 petition that argues quarterly reporting is due for reform.

SEC Chair Paul Atkins has publicly supported revisiting quarterly reporting, and recent legal and media briefings show momentum is building. The SEC’s Spring 2025 agenda also flags reporting cadence as a potential deregulatory item.

If adopted, semiannual reporting could shift when investors see results, alter audit schedules, and affect credit or covenant monitoring. Business leaders who review reporting processes and stress-test timelines now can avoid last-minute disruptions and maintain investor confidence when the SEC finalizes the rule.

The Proposal — What the SEC Is Actually Considering

The SEC is reviewing a petition asking public companies to have the option to file comprehensive financial statements semi-annually instead of quarterly, while retaining Form 8-K obligations for timely disclosure of material events. Companies that opt in would still submit an annual Form 10-K, but the 10-Q safe-harbor cadence would no longer apply, meaning firms must decide whether to maintain voluntary quarterly updates or adopt the semiannual regulatory floor.

The petition, filed in September 2025, has already received public support from SEC Chair Paul Atkins. The SEC’s agenda for Spring 2025 shows a focus on reporting flexibility as part of its deregulatory efforts. If the rule moves forward, there will be a public comment period (typically 30–60 days) before any final decision, which means it could take 6–12 months to implement. Business leaders can use this period to pilot changes in their internal reporting processes and prepare for the potential shift to semiannual filings.

How Markets and Investors Are Likely to Respond

The SEC’s move to reconsider quarterly reporting could reshape how often companies engage with investors and how consistently they stay on the market’s radar.

If updates go from four times a year to two, how do investors price your stock between reports? And how much market attention does your business lose in that silence?

Analyst coverage & liquidity implications

Experience from the UK after the 2014 end of mandatory quarterly reporting shows that fewer than 10 % of companies stopped issuing quarterly updates. Among those that did, analyst coverage declined. While there is less consistent data on trading volume, bid–ask spreads or valuation anchoring, the reduced transparency suggests possible liquidity implications.

That’s why for U.S. firms, this proposal isn’t just about regulatory relief. It’s a choice between saving reporting costs and staying visible in the market.

What your CFO should be evaluating:

• Track analyst coverage and trading volume around each earnings cycle.

• Compare bid–ask spreads and liquidity trends within your peer group.

• Decide whether voluntary quarterly guidance is worth maintaining to protect investor confidence.

In short, liquidity now hinges less on compliance and more on communication. The firms that keep investors informed—even when not required—will likely remain the ones investors trust most.

Big-ticket stakeholder positions — buy-side, rating agencies, proxy advisors, CEOs

The early responses show no single consensus. Some CEOs and buy-side investors see fewer reporting cycles as a way to curb short-term market pressure and focus on strategy. But rating agencies, proxy advisors, and large institutional funds have pushed back, warning that reduced frequency could weaken transparency and complicate credit monitoring.

For CFOs, that mix signals a shift from compliance-driven disclosure to relationship-driven transparency. If semiannual reporting becomes the norm, expect rating agencies and major lenders to seek compensating visibility, through covenant certificates, interim liquidity dashboards, or bespoke investor updates. It’s worth planning early engagement with top investors and credit partners to pre-empt any confidence gap.

Operational & Audit Impacts — What Finance Teams Must Rework

If the SEC moves ahead, finance teams will have to rebuild the entire scaffolding that keeps quarterly reporting on time and audit-ready. The challenge isn’t skipping a quarter; it’s deciding what still runs quarterly behind the scenes and what can safely slow down without losing control visibility.

Interim close cadence & internal control adjustments

Think of the close cycle as a three-gear system, quarterly closes, monthly checks, and continuous monitoring. The proposal effectively removes one gear, meaning CFOs must re-engineer how the machine runs without friction. Debevoise and CAQ guidance both point out that scaling back 10-Q prep doesn’t remove the need for SOX validations or 8-K vigilance, it simply shifts where the effort lands. How to rebuild the it:

• Re-draw the close calendar: Classify all activities into three buckets, must stay quarterly (like internal management packs), can go semiannual (10-Q equivalents), and must be continuous (revenue cut-offs, covenant checks, impairment triggers).

• Align controls to cadence: For each bucket, assign control owners and evidence cycles. A slower cadence means stronger real-time checkpoints, not weaker oversight.

• Test the system before adoption: Run one “pilot half-year close” while still on quarterly reporting to expose timing gaps or data dependencies that could fail under a slower cycle.

• Re-document SOX testing: Update risk matrices, testing schedules, and rationales to reflect the cadence change before external auditors review them.

Semiannual reporting isn’t operational relief, it’s a re-architecture of time and control. The CFO’s edge lies in how efficiently the team rebuilds that internal rhythm before the regulation even arrives.

Audit committee & auditor relationships

When quarterly reviews disappear, the auditor relationship doesn’t shrink, it redistributes. Under the current regime, interim reviews help smooth audit pressure and keep control environments consistent throughout the year. 

Audit partners often note that a substantial share of total audit effort, sometimes as much as one-third to one-half, occurs during these interim cycles, where teams validate revenue recognition, expense cut-offs, and control testing ahead of year-end.

If the SEC moves to a semiannual cadence, that workload won’t vanish; it will compress into fewer, heavier review windows, concentrating risk and effort. 

In practice, CFOs can expect denser review periods, deeper walkthroughs of control design, and expanded year-end assurance procedures. While total cost may stay broadly level, the timing and intensity of audit scrutiny will shift, with longer closed windows and more simultaneous audit testing across business units.

Action plan for CFOs:

1. Re-negotiate the audit map early: Ask auditors to outline what “two interim reviews” will look like, in scope, hours, and fee structure. Expect roughly a 20–25% reallocation of time from interim reviews into the annual audit phase.

2. Get audit committee buy-in: Present a revised cadence calendar, showing how fewer reviews could affect issue detection lag.

3. Build compensating control checkpoints: For key areas (revenue recognition, impairment triggers, cash forecasts), introduce mid-cycle assurance reviews run internally to bridge the 6-month gap.

4. Document everything: Auditors will likely request a memo explaining compensating controls and timing rationale; this keeps PCAOB reviewers satisfied if cadence changes trigger inspection questions.

Systems & Reporting (ERP, SEC Tagging, XBRL)

Even if the SEC loosens reporting frequency, your systems won’t. ERP stacks, consolidation engines, and XBRL workflows are hard-coded around quarterly events, changing that cadence isn’t as simple as flipping a switch. The challenge for CFOs is to de-tune without disrupting.

Here’s how to think about it:

• Step 1 – Map the dependency grid. Most ERP and close stacks touch the reporting cycle in at least four points, period close, consolidation, tagging, and filing. Identify which automations are time-triggered (every 90 days) and which are event-triggered (material-event or ad hoc requests).

• Step 2 – Run a 0-90-180-day test loop. In the first quarter post-change, simulate a semiannual close but force the system to output a quarterly internal pack. This exposes scripts or data feeds that break without a Q-based schedule.

• Step 3 – Keep ad hoc readiness. Even if filings go semiannual, markets and lenders will still ask for interim snapshots. Retain the ability to generate “unscheduled” XBRL packages or compliance certificates on demand, treat this as a stress-test, not extra work.

• Step 4 – Validate tagging accuracy. Re-tagging errors typically spike 15–20% when cadence changes. Before your first semiannual report, perform a dry run through the SEC tagging workflow and reconciliation scripts.

Bottom line: shifting cadence changes how often you report, not how precisely. Your reporting stack must stay audit-ready 365 days a year, even if filings happen only twice.

Quick Takeaways for Your Business

• The SEC proposal may allow semiannual financials, but material events still require immediate Form 8-K filings, so timely reporting remains critical.

• Market and analyst coverage could shift: firms with limited followings risk wider valuation dispersion, affecting liquidity and investor confidence.

• Internal processes, close calendar, SOX testing, ERP/XBRL workflows, will need adjustment to maintain accuracy and compliance.

Navigating these changes can be complex, but CFOBridge, as a U.S.-based virtual CFO, helps businesses adapt seamlessly. From redesigning your reporting cadence and stress-testing internal controls to preparing audit-ready systems and ad hoc reports, we ensure your business stays compliant and investor-ready.

Contact our expert today to get tailored guidance and make sure your reporting processes are ready, before regulators or markets force a scramble.