Broad Range of Industry, Institutional Investors, Regulators and Consumer Groups OPPOSE SEC Ending Quarterly Reporting Rule
The comment period for the SEC proposed rulemaking to effectively end quarterly reporting, replacing it with a semiannual reporting requirement, closed on July 6, 2026, sparking a chorus of dissent from industry, institutional investors, regulators, and investor protection groups. Highlights of comments submitted to the Commission illustrate widespread opposition to eliminating the longstanding disclosure framework.
Industry Groups
Citadel: “The Commission’s proposal to upend the longstanding quarterly reporting framework (the “Proposal”), however, would severely undermine, rather than strengthen, our markets. It would make the U.S. capital markets less transparent, less efficient, and less competitive, deprive investors of timely information, increase the cost of capital, and erode one of the core features that has helped make the U.S. public markets the gold standard globally. It should be withdrawn.”
https://www.sec.gov/comments/S7-2026-15/s7202615-954201-2944226.pdf
CFP Board: “CFP Board respectfully urges the Commission to withdraw the rule proposal and retain mandatory quarterly reporting for public companies. CFP® professionals and the investors they serve rely on timely, standardized quarterly reports to make informed financial planning recommendations and decisions. Reducing that cadence would not meaningfully advance the Commission’s stated goal of encouraging companies to go and stay public; instead, it would weaken transparency, widen information gaps between insiders and retail investors, and make it harder for retail investors and their financial professionals to assess risks and make timely and informed recommendations and decisions.”
“A stronger public market is best achieved not by reducing transparency, but by maintaining the investor protections that allow retail investors, financial professionals, and institutions to participate with confidence.”
https://www.sec.gov/comments/S7-2026-15/s7202615-945000-2916567.pdf
Investment Advisor Association: “Less frequent reporting requirements would deprive investment advisers that act as fiduciaries to their clients of material, standardized, and comparable information that is important to their ability to make informed investment decisions in those clients’ best interest. It also could disproportionately disadvantage smaller and mid-sized advisers, which often lack the resources and alternative information channels available to larger firms, potentially further increasing information asymmetries in the public markets.”
https://www.sec.gov/comments/S7-2026-15/s7202615-945439-2917786.pdf
Investment Company Institute: “Members who oppose this proposal—the majority—have concerns about the proposal’s potential impact on investment decision making, comparability of information across issuers, volatility, price discovery, and information asymmetry in the marketplace, among other factors.”
https://www.sec.gov/comments/S7-2026-15/s7202615-945279-2917407.pdf
Institutional Investors
Vanguard: “While we understand that the proposed filing flexibility could result in marginal benefits for registered companies, we do not believe the Proposal would materially increase the number of IPOs nor reduce short-termism. Furthermore, we are concerned the proposal could have meaningfully negative effects on the market and investors.”
“While Vanguard recognizes the rationale for reassessing longstanding disclosure requirements, we do not believe the evidence supports eliminating the existing quarterly reporting requirements. Quarterly disclosure has long supported transparency, investor confidence, and stakeholder feedback, particularly from active managers. Experience of stakeholders and academic studies both offer evidence that quarterly reporting may support lower costs of capital, reduced information asymmetry, and faster incorporation of information into prices.”
https://www.sec.gov/comments/S7-2026-15/s7202615-954119-2916876.pdf
Colorado Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA): “While PERA agrees that companies should be focused on long-term strategy and performance, we respectfully disagree that short-termism is appropriately addressed through reduced frequency of financial reporting. We ask that the Commission maintain existing requirements for companies to report quarterly.”
“As an institutional investor, PERA relies on timely, accurate information from listed companies about their financial and operational results. Our professional investors utilize quarterly filings to analyze the intrinsic value of companies and make informed investment decisions on behalf of the members we serve. The board and staff of Colorado PERA have long advocated for market transparency and audit integrity and deeply value the regulatory oversight that underpins the strength of the U.S. capital markets. This framework has lowered the cost of capital for companies while increasing risk-adjusted value for investors. We believe the most robust and investable markets are those that protect long-term investor interests by holding companies accountable to fair and transparent dealings, including through timely, audited, and decision-useful disclosures about financial and operational performance.”
https://www.sec.gov/comments/S7-2026-15/s7202615-945219-2917191.pdf
California State Teachers' Retirement System (CalSTRS): “CalSTRS is very concerned with the Proposed Rule as drafted. While we appreciate the Commission's stated goal of reducing regulatory burden, we believe that optional semiannual reporting, as proposed, would materially harm investors by increasing information asymmetry, weakening corporate accountability, reducing market liquidity, and impairing our ability to fulfill our fiduciary obligations as a steward of public retirement assets. We urge the Commission to withdraw or substantially narrow the Proposal and instead pursue targeted reforms that address the legitimate burden-reduction concerns of smaller public companies without compromising the informational foundation of U.S. equity markets.”
https://www.sec.gov/comments/S7-2026-15/s7202615-945379-2917667.pdf
Regulators
State AGs and Securities Regulators: “Quarterly reporting remains an essential part of the total mix of information available to the market and to law enforcement. Investors, financial analysts, and the general public have material interests in the continuation of quarterly reporting. Under the Proposed Rule, individual investors would be faced with a higher burden and higher cost of gathering information on actual or prospective investments from various sources in order to analyze and compare company changes. A minimal decrease in disclosure costs has not been shown to increase capital formation or influence companies to think longer term. Rather, the lack of quarterly filings will create gaps in information for investors. The Commission has not adequately considered its investor protection mandate in evaluating the soundness of this Rule.”
https://www.sec.gov/comments/S7-2026-15/s7202615-949259-2924155.pdf
Investor/Consumer Protection Groups
AFR, CFA, AAJ, and Coalition: “The undersigned 24 investors, labor unions, and public interest organizations write to urge the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to refrain from allowing companies to opt into filing semiannual reports in lieu of mandatory quarterly reports. Contrary to the SEC’s contentions, finalizing this proposed rule would not result in more companies going public or encourage more focus on long-term strategy. Instead, the proposed reforms would impose unwarranted significant new costs on investors and make markets less transparent and less efficient, thereby undermining capital formation.”
“We see no middle ground with respect to this proposal. We ask the Commission to refrain from adopting the proposals in their entirety and maintain the current system of mandatory quarterly reporting for all reporting companies.”
https://www.sec.gov/comments/S7-2026-15/s7202615-947460-2921313.pdf