Trump to Pull the Plug on Quarter Measures?
Quarterly reports have become the latest aspect of financial markets to draw the ire of President Trump – and his call for US firms to move to biannual reporting looks like one of his less hare-brained suggestions.
The case for reporting every six months rather than every three is that it would encourage longer-term thinking and discourage companies from promoting immediate revenue to convince shareholders and analysts that they are on the right track.
Join buy side heads of FX in London at FMLS25.
Listed entities are particularly vulnerable to unfavourable analyst notes, but moving away from quarterly reports could also take some pressure off early-stage companies as they attempt to scale, potentially encouraging greater innovation and risk-taking.
Treasury and finance teams spending less time on compliance tasks would have more bandwidth to find solutions that could improve their balance sheets.
It has been reported that the Long-Term Stock Exchange intends to make representations to the SEC to the effect that biannual reporting could encourage more companies to go or remain public. Recent noises from the SEC suggest that it will take any opportunity to curry favour with Trump.
“Moving to a six-month reporting schedule would actually increase volatility in share prices because you would have increasingly outdated assumptions.”
CFRA Research’s @StovallCFRA on Trump’s proposal that public companies should report semiannually rather than quarterly. pic.twitter.com/94J1FAadwH— Quest Means Business (@questCNN) September 17, 2025
So, is it a good idea? Quarterly cycles often drive firefighting metrics rather than sustainable value and highlight the threat to mid-market enterprises. There is also a motivation to manipulate figures by reducing headcount, halting recruitment and accelerating or delaying expenditure – all of which might contribute to growth over the longer term.
The flip side is reduced scrutiny. Investors like transparency, and some will be spooked by having to wait half a year to see how their portfolio companies are performing, particularly in fast-moving industries where revenues can soar or crash rapidly. This could precipitate larger stock moves and lead to increased market volatility.
Then there is the example of the technology companies that dominate the US stock market. These big beasts are investing huge amounts into long-term projects despite having to report their results quarterly, and the same could be said of firms in the energy sector.
Sceptics also point out that corporate investment has never been higher.
Whether these concerns would be outweighed by increased innovation in the US economy will only become clear over time. With any change unlikely to happen before the first quarter of 2026 at the earliest, the debate is far from over.
Read more on Trump:
Rate Cuts Might Not Move Markets
Many analysts believe US rate cuts will boost equities. But there is a school of thought that much deeper cuts will be required to support markets and that a recession could also rattle a market that is priced for the optimal outcome.
Battle lines have been drawn at the Federal Reserve, with Stephen Miran (Trump’s new man on the interest rate-setting board) suggesting that rates need to be cut more aggressively, while Jerome Powell states that further cuts this year are not inevitable.
The chair of the commission is in the majority at the moment – Miran was the only member to vote for a half-point cut last week. But if he is the president’s Nipper (kids, ask your dad about HMV), the board will come under increasing pressure to move rates closer to 3% quickly.
The US dollar is having the worst year in decades.
And if the Fed cuts the rates, the USD will fall further.
This also means higher inflation and bigger trade deficit.
Trumponomics looking not very good. pic.twitter.com/SWaDc69Opo
— S.L. Kanthan (@Kanthan2030) September 21, 2025
The argument against the predicted modest rate reductions giving equity markets a boost is that 3% has already been priced in, so unless Miran gets his way there will not be much relief.
Then there is the economic consideration. One macro investment strategist suggests that equities are underpricing the risk of both rates falling further than priced because of a recession, and the risk of there being no recession but rates falling by less than is priced. Markets are currently priced for the ‘Goldilocks’ scenario of 3% rates and economic growth.
Investors often overlook the mechanism by which markets discount. Any shift in expectations regarding the future trajectory of interest rates – and the implications of that shift for corporate profitability – would be significant.
Much will depend on the extent to which investors believe inflation is under control, which could be boosted by favourable labour market data over the next few months.
Europe Requires (Ex)Change of Focus
Over recent months we have examined some of the steps the UK in particular has taken to encourage more domestic firms to list on their home exchange rather than in the US.
But is it time for European financial centres such as London to accept that they are fighting a losing battle to persuade every European firm to list outside the US? And as America’s domination of the global equity market continues to grow, should the UK and other major European economies focus on creating a more compelling domestic offer for firms in high-growth, high-valuation sectors?
Read more: London Stock Exchange Wants to Launch 24-Hour Trading: Can It Save the Dying Demand?
The UK government has been under pressure of late, much of it self-inflicted. However, there is little it can do about the growing dominance of the US when it comes to equity market value, which has accelerated over the last decade on the back of the so-called Magnificent Seven tech stocks.
When it comes to pools of equity and the investor base, Europe cannot compete. Where it could find growth is by doing more to encourage the sort of high-potential firms that have come to dominate indices on the other side of the Atlantic.
Europe actually compares relatively favourably in terms of the number of listed companies – it is just that the US is home to companies with revenues equivalent to those of entire countries.
European exchanges need to make the case that bigger is not always better. A study published by Deutsche Numis this week found that 99% of FTSE leaders believed the UK was an attractive market for launching an IPO or raising capital, up from 87% in 2024.
When asked how the appeal of the UK had changed as an investment destination during the past 12 months compared with other regions, almost three-quarters of the FTSE leader participants said its appeal had increased significantly.
Trump to Pull the Plug on Quarter Measures?
Quarterly reports have become the latest aspect of financial markets to draw the ire of President Trump – and his call for US firms to move to biannual reporting looks like one of his less hare-brained suggestions.
The case for reporting every six months rather than every three is that it would encourage longer-term thinking and discourage companies from promoting immediate revenue to convince shareholders and analysts that they are on the right track.
Join buy side heads of FX in London at FMLS25.
Listed entities are particularly vulnerable to unfavourable analyst notes, but moving away from quarterly reports could also take some pressure off early-stage companies as they attempt to scale, potentially encouraging greater innovation and risk-taking.
Treasury and finance teams spending less time on compliance tasks would have more bandwidth to find solutions that could improve their balance sheets.
It has been reported that the Long-Term Stock Exchange intends to make representations to the SEC to the effect that biannual reporting could encourage more companies to go or remain public. Recent noises from the SEC suggest that it will take any opportunity to curry favour with Trump.
“Moving to a six-month reporting schedule would actually increase volatility in share prices because you would have increasingly outdated assumptions.”
CFRA Research’s @StovallCFRA on Trump’s proposal that public companies should report semiannually rather than quarterly. pic.twitter.com/94J1FAadwH— Quest Means Business (@questCNN) September 17, 2025
So, is it a good idea? Quarterly cycles often drive firefighting metrics rather than sustainable value and highlight the threat to mid-market enterprises. There is also a motivation to manipulate figures by reducing headcount, halting recruitment and accelerating or delaying expenditure – all of which might contribute to growth over the longer term.
The flip side is reduced scrutiny. Investors like transparency, and some will be spooked by having to wait half a year to see how their portfolio companies are performing, particularly in fast-moving industries where revenues can soar or crash rapidly. This could precipitate larger stock moves and lead to increased market volatility.
Then there is the example of the technology companies that dominate the US stock market. These big beasts are investing huge amounts into long-term projects despite having to report their results quarterly, and the same could be said of firms in the energy sector.
Sceptics also point out that corporate investment has never been higher.
Whether these concerns would be outweighed by increased innovation in the US economy will only become clear over time. With any change unlikely to happen before the first quarter of 2026 at the earliest, the debate is far from over.
Read more on Trump:
Rate Cuts Might Not Move Markets
Many analysts believe US rate cuts will boost equities. But there is a school of thought that much deeper cuts will be required to support markets and that a recession could also rattle a market that is priced for the optimal outcome.
Battle lines have been drawn at the Federal Reserve, with Stephen Miran (Trump’s new man on the interest rate-setting board) suggesting that rates need to be cut more aggressively, while Jerome Powell states that further cuts this year are not inevitable.
The chair of the commission is in the majority at the moment – Miran was the only member to vote for a half-point cut last week. But if he is the president’s Nipper (kids, ask your dad about HMV), the board will come under increasing pressure to move rates closer to 3% quickly.
The US dollar is having the worst year in decades.
And if the Fed cuts the rates, the USD will fall further.
This also means higher inflation and bigger trade deficit.
Trumponomics looking not very good. pic.twitter.com/SWaDc69Opo
— S.L. Kanthan (@Kanthan2030) September 21, 2025
The argument against the predicted modest rate reductions giving equity markets a boost is that 3% has already been priced in, so unless Miran gets his way there will not be much relief.
Then there is the economic consideration. One macro investment strategist suggests that equities are underpricing the risk of both rates falling further than priced because of a recession, and the risk of there being no recession but rates falling by less than is priced. Markets are currently priced for the ‘Goldilocks’ scenario of 3% rates and economic growth.
Investors often overlook the mechanism by which markets discount. Any shift in expectations regarding the future trajectory of interest rates – and the implications of that shift for corporate profitability – would be significant.
Much will depend on the extent to which investors believe inflation is under control, which could be boosted by favourable labour market data over the next few months.
Europe Requires (Ex)Change of Focus
Over recent months we have examined some of the steps the UK in particular has taken to encourage more domestic firms to list on their home exchange rather than in the US.
But is it time for European financial centres such as London to accept that they are fighting a losing battle to persuade every European firm to list outside the US? And as America’s domination of the global equity market continues to grow, should the UK and other major European economies focus on creating a more compelling domestic offer for firms in high-growth, high-valuation sectors?
Read more: London Stock Exchange Wants to Launch 24-Hour Trading: Can It Save the Dying Demand?
The UK government has been under pressure of late, much of it self-inflicted. However, there is little it can do about the growing dominance of the US when it comes to equity market value, which has accelerated over the last decade on the back of the so-called Magnificent Seven tech stocks.
When it comes to pools of equity and the investor base, Europe cannot compete. Where it could find growth is by doing more to encourage the sort of high-potential firms that have come to dominate indices on the other side of the Atlantic.
Europe actually compares relatively favourably in terms of the number of listed companies – it is just that the US is home to companies with revenues equivalent to those of entire countries.
European exchanges need to make the case that bigger is not always better. A study published by Deutsche Numis this week found that 99% of FTSE leaders believed the UK was an attractive market for launching an IPO or raising capital, up from 87% in 2024.
When asked how the appeal of the UK had changed as an investment destination during the past 12 months compared with other regions, almost three-quarters of the FTSE leader participants said its appeal had increased significantly.
