TORONTO — The long-established rule that companies report their financial results four times a year is being questioned again by U.S. President Donald Trump, but experts doubt the wisdom of moving to less frequent disclosures. As he did in his first term, Trump on Monday called for the rules to be changed so companies only have to report every six months, both to save money and so management can focus more on running their companies for the long-term. “Did you ever hear the statement that, “China has a 50 to 100 year view on management of a company, whereas we run our companies on a quarterly basis???” Not good!!!” he said on Truth Social. But governance expert and York University professor Richard Leblanc says quarterly reporting isn’t such a burden for companies, with well- developed systems in place, nor should it distract from longer-term efforts. “The assertion by Trump that management somehow is being consumed with quarterly reporting, I just, I don’t think that bears out,” he said. The move to less-frequent reporting would mean shareholders would be less informed, said Leblanc. “If you ask most shareholders, generally, sunlight is a good disinfectant.” He said “a lot can go south in six months” that companies would be required to tell shareholders about in their quarterly reports. On the criticism that frequent reporting can make management focus on short-term profits over long-term projects, Leblanc said it’s more about setting the right expectations. Carol Schleif, chief market strategist at BMO Private Wealth, said she has at times wondered if a six-month frequency, as the U.K. maintains, would be a benefit. “I understand the allure for management because I, too, wish companies had the flexibility to think longer term.” But she said quarterly reporting doesn’t necessarily prevent that, it’s more a matter of how they set up guidance, while going with less-frequent reporting could lead to more muddied information. “Any time you pull information back, investors will make up information or make up stories in a vacuum.” The Canadian Coalition for Good Governance, which counts major investors like pension funds and asset managers as members, is generally in favour of the transparency provided by quarterly reporting, said chief executive Catherine McCall. “The less disclosure you get, the less comfort investors take out of it. It’s harder to assess the investment, it appears riskier,” she said. Institutional investors do have long-term horizons, but still value regular updates, she said. “You can take a very long term perspective, but that doesn’t mean you want a reporting vacuum for six months.” Other countries do manage with less frequency though. The European Union and the U.K. shifted to quarterly reporting in the mid-2000s, only to go back to six-month reporting requirements in the 2010s. Studies, however, showed many companies chose to keep some level of quarterly reporting even after the requirement lifted. One led by Tobias Bornemann, looking at the Vienna stock exchange ending quarterly requirements in 2019, found that few large-scale firms dropped quarterly reporting entirely, but that many reduced the content in their reports. Meanwhile, a paper by Suresh Nallareddy looking at the U.K. experience, which went to quarterly reporting in 2007 only to revert to biannually in 2014, found the shift to quarterly had virtually no impact on firms’ investment decisions. Meanwhile, companies that shifted away from quarterly, when allowed to, had a drop in analyst coverage and no detectable increase in levels of corporate investment. The move away from quarterly reporting in Europe doesn’t necessarily mean it was better for shareholders, said Leblanc. “Shareholder wealth maximization has got the greatest power in North America, and in the United States in particular, and that’s because of transparency and regular, robust reporting.” --- Ian Bickis, The Canadian Press With a file from Daniel Johnson in Toronto. This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 16, 2025.
