Every few years the debate resurfaces: should public companies report results four times a year or two? The latest round has been rekindled by fresh calls in Washington to let companies move to semiannual reporting—framed as a way to curb “short-termism” and compliance cost bloat. Critics counter that fewer touchpoints mean thicker fog for investors. As with most fights over disclosure, the answer isn’t one-size-fits-all. But the evidence has gotten clearer on when more (or less) reporting helps—or hurts.

What the evidence says—on both sides

Start with a rigorous new study from Europe. Using Germany’s implementation of the EU’s 2013 Transparency Directive (which loosened quarterly-reporting content requirements), researchers hand-coded the detail level of thousands of interim reports and linked changes to market outcomes. When companies used the deregulation to reduce the content of their quarterly updates, information asymmetry rose and valuations fell—effects that were strongest for large, index-member firms. In short: dialing back quarterly detail impaired price discovery and value, especially for firms that matter most to diversified investors.

That isn’t the whole story. Other causal evidence—this time from Singapore’s 2003 rule that mandated 10-Q-style reporting for small caps—found the opposite sign on valuation: a roughly 5% drop in value for newly mandated quarterly reporters. The study concludes that, for small firms at the regulatory threshold, the net burden of quarterly compliance outweighed any information benefits.

And then there’s the “short-termism” channel. A landmark archival study that tracks U.S. companies’ transition from annual to semiannual to quarterly reporting in 1950–1970 finds that more frequent reporting is associated with meaningfully lower investment—consistent with managers cutting long-gestation projects to meet near-term numbers. The underlying theory, developed in a widely cited analytical paper, is straightforward: frequent scorekeeping can amplify myopia if markets overweight short-run signals.

What happened when Europe tried “less”?

Policy makers in Brussels aimed to curb short-term pressure when they scrapped mandatory quarterly “interim management statements” in 2013. The Directive explicitly said that abolishing quarterly updates would “encourage sustainable value creation and long-term investment”. The U.K. moved first: from November 7, 2014, the FCA removed the requirement—while allowing voluntary quarterlies. What followed was instructive: the vast majority of U.K. issuers kept reporting quarterly anyway. A CFA Institute review found fewer than 10% stopped within a year, and those that stopped saw a relative drop in analyst coverage even as corporate investment didn’t significantly diverge from peers. Similar evidence from Vienna’s prime market shows that after full deregulation in 2019, only a handful terminated quarterly reports; most simply trimmed notes and narrative detail.

The takeaway: when regulators take the stick away, markets often re-create the norm with carrots and expectations. If your investor base and lenders want quarterlies, you’ll keep them—mandate or not.

The investor’s trade-off

From an investor’s seat, the trade-off is clarity versus cost—and the balance shifts with firm size and visibility. For large, widely held names, quarterlies reduce information asymmetry and bid-ask spreads, support timelier price discovery, and provide discipline for management communications. The recent German evidence suggests markets penalize big firms that dilute their quarterly update content. For small issuers, meanwhile, the Singapore experience underscores that the fixed cost of 10-Q-quality reporting—internal close processes, reviews, controls—can be material, with little incremental benefit if sell-side coverage is thin and trading is already sporadic.

Short-termism is real—but it’s not solely a function of the calendar. Studies that document myopic cuts to R&D and capex under more frequent reporting also emphasize context: incentive plans with short vesting horizons, intense earnings-surprise cultures, and investor bases dominated by high-turnover funds exacerbate the effect. Where boards set multi-year metrics and communicate explicit investment arcs, the risk is lower even with quarterlies.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has explored easing the 10-Q regime before—floating ideas like allowing the earnings press release to substitute for parts of the Form 10-Q, or giving firms more flexibility on timing. The agency’s 2018–2019 “request for comment” elicited hundreds of submissions from issuers and investors; while there was interest in reducing duplicative paperwork, there was little appetite among investors for fewer information updates. With political winds again pushing the idea of semiannual reporting in 2025, the same fault lines are back: cost relief vs. market transparency.

So which cadence is “better”?

For large, followed companies (the S&P-style names and local index constituents), quarterly reporting with meaningful content looks value-enhancing on average by keeping information asymmetry low and capital costs in check. Slashing detail after deregulation has been associated with wider spreads and lower valuations.

For smaller, lightly covered issuers, semiannual reporting plus robust earnings press releases and occasional voluntary trading updates can be a sensible equilibrium—avoiding a pure compliance tax without starving investors. The Singapore threshold evidence suggests mandatory 10-Q-quality reporting can be net costly here.

For all firms, the format may matter more than the raw frequency. A lean quarterly update that focuses on KPIs, cash generation, and progress on long-dated projects—paired with an investor day deck once a year—can mitigate myopia while preserving transparency. That was the drift of many responses in the SEC’s 2019 docket: reduce duplication, not touchpoints.

The practical playbook

Boards shouldn’t wait for rule changes. If you keep quarterlies, slim the boilerplate and emphasize strategy and unit economics; if you consider semiannuals, commit to intermediate KPI updates and guidance guardrails. Tie executive pay to multi-year value creation (ROIC, free cash flow per share, innovation milestones) rather than the next quarter’s EPS dot. And if you’re a small cap with limited coverage, run the math: the cost of full-dress quarterlies may be real; the cost of investor uncertainty can be, too. In other words, frequency is a tool—not a religion. Use the cadence your investor base rewards, and make every touchpoint count.