SEC Moves to End Mandatory Quarterly Reporting, Proposes Optional Semiannual Filing on New Form 10-S

The Securities and Exchange Commission has formally proposed scrapping the requirement that U.S. public companies file quarterly financial reports, a structural change that has been debated for years and championed by President Trump. Under the proposal issued May 5, 2026, registrants could elect to file one semiannual report on a new Form 10-S—covering the first six months of the fiscal year—plus an annual Form 10-K, in place of three Form 10-Q filings and the 10-K. Companies would make the election by checking a box on the cover page of their annual report; those that prefer the status quo could continue reporting quarterly. Form 10-S would carry the same narrative disclosures and financial information as the 10-Q, simply adjusted to a six-month period. Filing deadlines would run 40 days after the first semiannual period for large accelerated and accelerated filers, and 45 days for all other filers. Comments on the proposed rule are due July 6, 2026, 60 days after Federal Register publication. SEC Chairman Paul Atkins, who flagged the initiative as a priority in September 2025, frames the move within a broader reform agenda emphasizing reduced regulatory burden and capital formation. Proponents, including the President, argue mandatory quarterly reporting fuels short-termism, drives up compliance costs, and distracts executives from long-term value creation. The change could be especially welcome to smaller issuers for whom quarterly filing costs weigh heaviest. The practical impact, however, may be muted. The proposal makes semiannual reporting optional, not mandatory. Market and analyst demand for timely information, debt covenant requirements, index inclusion expectations, and investor relations pressures mean many large-cap companies are likely to keep reporting quarterly regardless. Legal commentators at firms including Cooley and Sidley, and academics writing for the Harvard corporate governance forum, note the transition is 'easier said than done,' citing entanglements with earnings guidance practices, Regulation FD, financial statement staleness rules for capital raises, and existing exchange listing standards. Investor advocates warn that less frequent mandatory disclosure could reduce transparency and widen information gaps, potentially increasing volatility around the two annual data points. The Cato Institute, while supportive of ending the mandate, characterized it as 'the right step for the wrong reason,' arguing the decision should rest on deregulatory principle rather than short-termism claims. For markets broadly, the proposal signals a more issuer-friendly SEC posture but introduces near-term uncertainty over disclosure norms. Because quarterly reporting remains permitted and adoption is voluntary, the immediate effect on most widely held stocks is expected to be limited, with the bigger questions—around guidance, comparability, and information flow—likely to dominate the comment period and any final rulemaking.