SEC proposal could reshape interim reporting for public companies
Executive summary: SEC proposal introduces optional semiannual reporting for public companies
The Securities and Exchange Commission has proposed allowing public companies to elect semiannual interim reporting instead of mandatory quarterly filings.
If adopted, the proposal would permit eligible Exchange Act reporting companies to file one Form 10‑S covering the first half of the fiscal year, followed by the annual Form 10‑K. Quarterly reporting would become optional rather than required.
For affected businesses, the proposal raises considerations that extend beyond filing frequency, including how interim reporting supports transparency and market confidence.
Overview: SEC proposal could change how public companies approach interim reporting
Quarterly interim reporting has been a fixed feature of the U.S. public company reporting framework for more than five decades. A SEC proposal published May 5 would change that by allowing companies to choose whether to report financial results quarterly or semiannually.
While the proposal is framed as an optional alternative, its implications extend beyond the number of filings made each year, influencing how companies approach transparency and interim reporting discipline.
Some companies may view the proposal as an opportunity to better align external reporting with their operating cycles. Others may conclude that quarterly reporting remains essential to meeting stakeholder expectations.
What the SEC’s proposed semiannual reporting rule would change
The SEC has proposed amendments that would allow Exchange Act reporting companies that currently file three quarterly reports on Form 10‑Q to instead elect semiannual interim reporting. Companies choosing this option would file a new Form 10‑S covering the first half of the fiscal year, followed by the annual Form 10‑K. Quarterly Forms 10‑Q would no longer be required for companies that make the election.
The proposed Form 10‑S would include interim financial statements and narrative disclosures generally comparable to those currently required in Form 10‑Q. However, they would cover a six‑month period rather than a quarter and would remain subject to data tagging requirements.
The proposal is optional, not mandatory, and would preserve several existing investor protection mechanisms.
Form 8‑K requirements would continue to apply for the timely disclosure of material events, and annual reporting on Form 10‑K would remain unchanged. Earnings releases and earnings calls would continue to be determined by each company rather than mandated by the SEC.
To support a semiannual reporting cadence, the SEC is also proposing targeted amendments to Regulation S‑X. These include updates to interim financial statement requirements, which would continue to require independent auditor review, and simplification of rules governing the age of financial statements in registration statements and other filings.
Companies involved in capital markets transactions should also note that comfort letter procedures, currently governed by PCAOB standards, will need to be conformed to address limited assurance on semiannual reviewed information—particularly where the financial information included or incorporated by reference is greater than 145 days old.
These changes are intended to align technical requirements with a semiannual model while preserving material, decision‑useful disclosure for investors.
Which public companies may be affected by the SEC’s semiannual reporting proposal
The proposal would apply broadly to domestic Exchange Act reporting companies that are currently subject to Form 10‑Q requirements, with existing exclusions for certain entities such as foreign private issuers and most registered investment companies. Asset‑backed issuers would continue to follow their existing reporting framework and are not a primary focus of this proposal.
How semiannual reporting could affect governance, controls and oversight
Although the proposal focuses on reporting frequency, a move to semiannual reporting would affect internal reporting processes and oversight.
Audit committees play a central role in overseeing financial reporting and disclosure. A change in interim reporting frequency could affect committee meeting cadence, review processes and coordination with external auditors.
With fewer required interim reviews, companies and their auditors may have an opportunity to pull forward planning, risk assessment and substantive procedures earlier in the fiscal year—maintaining a year-round audit cadence that supports timely identification of significant judgments and emerging issues.
Evaluating semiannual reporting through a governance lens
If the SEC’s proposal is finalized, electing semiannual reporting would be a governance and process decision, not simply a change in filing frequency.
Companies may benefit from evaluating how a different reporting cadence would interact with existing controls, disclosure committee processes and audit committee oversight. This includes considering whether governance structures support timely identification and escalation of material information between formal reporting periods, and whether committee meeting cadence and review processes remain fit for purpose.
As part of that evaluation, companies may want to consider whether:
- Existing controls support timely identification and escalation of material events
- Committee meeting schedules and documentation practices remain fit for purpose
- Interim review processes adequately address significant judgments or estimates arising outside traditional reporting cycles
Ensuring governance structures remain effective under a different rhythm can help preserve transparency and confidence in financial reporting.
Understanding how stakeholders use quarterly information
A useful starting point is assessing how investors, lenders and analysts rely on quarterly financial information today. For some companies, quarterly results are closely embedded in valuation models, operational cyclicality, financing arrangements or market communications.
For others, particularly those with longer operating or investment cycles, quarterly data may offer limited incremental insight.
Understanding these dynamics can help management anticipate market reaction and determine whether changes to external communication practices would be needed between formal reporting periods.
Weighing effort reduction against ongoing disclosure obligations
While fewer interim filings may reduce certain compliance burdens, semiannual reporting does not reduce the obligation to disclose material information on a timely basis.
Companies that bring forward audit-related work—such as risk assessment, interim testing and internal controls evaluation—can capture efficiencies even without Q1 and Q3 review requirements, while reinforcing a year-round audit cadence that improves quality and reduces peak-season pressure.
Form 8-K requirements would continue to apply, and many companies may still find value in maintaining quarterly reporting for performance management, risk monitoring or lender reporting.
As a result, companies may see less change in internal reporting discipline than in external filing cadence, a distinction that is important to consider when weighing anticipated efficiencies.
Addressing these considerations early can help finance leaders and audit committees maintain reporting discipline while evaluating whether optional semiannual reporting aligns with the company’s long-term objectives and stakeholder needs.
Related insights
- /insights/financial-reporting/coso-guidance-genai-governance-decision-confidence
- /insights/financial-reporting/sec-proposal-revised-filer-status
- /insights/financial-reporting/sec-proposal-registered-offering-reforms