On Friday, President Trump announced via Twitter (naturally) that he had asked the SEC to study the possibility of moving from quarterly to semi-annual reporting for public companies. As we’ve previously blogged, this isn’t a new idea. Less frequent reporting also dovetails with recent calls from a “Who’s Who” of business groups & CEOs to eliminate the practice of providing quarterly earnings forecasts – but even many of these business leaders continue to endorse quarterly SEC reporting.
But if the SEC did move to a semi-annual reporting system, would that really help promote a longer-term focus? Would it even change the practice of releasing quarterly results? This MarketWatch editorial from last year by a group of B-school profs who studied the issue suggests that the answer to both questions may be “no.” Here’s an excerpt:
In 2014, the U.K. followed the E.U.’s directive and eliminated the requirement for quarterly reporting. Yet, less than 10% of all U.K. public companies have so far moved to semi-annual reporting. These were mainly companies involved in the energy and utility sectors, where investments of 20-30 years are typical. However, the investment level of companies moving back to semiannual reporting did not increase more than those companies continuing to report quarterly.
Accordingly, our research strongly suggests that moving from quarterly to semi-annual reporting is not an effective response to concerns about the undue corporate emphasis on short-termism. If quarterly reporting focuses company executives on profit maximization in the upcoming three months, then semi-annual reporting might logically focus these executives on attractive investments in the upcoming six months — not over the next three to five years.
In contrast, another recent study suggests that less frequent reporting may help reduce short-termism – but that study was based on a review of the effect of changes in reporting mandates that occurred long before the advent of the 24-hour news cycle, the Internet & social media.
In our current information-saturated environment, it might be a stretch to conclude that the behavior of public companies & investors would change much based solely on the SEC’s decision to reduce the frequency of mandatory reporting. I doubt companies would alter their internal accounting cycle or stop generating quarterly financials for internal use (and many probably would also voluntarily file 10-Qs). My guess is that our experience would mimic the UK’s – although you never know…
Investor groups are likely to strenuously oppose any effort to move to semi-annual reporting – this press release from the CII in response to the President’s announcement is a case in point. Also see this Vox article – and Cooley blog.
”The Accountable Capitalism Act”: Attacking Short-Termism From the Left
Meanwhile, in a parallel universe, Sen. Elizabeth Warren introduced her own prescription for short-termism – ”The Accountable Capitalism Act”. Under her proposal, all companies with $1 billion in annual revenues would be required to be chartered by the federal government. As this New Republic article explains, those federally-charted companies would also have some pretty unusual governance provisions:
Under the federal charter, companies would be required to consider the interests of workers, customers, communities, and society before making major decisions. Employees would elect at least 40% of all company directors, giving them representation on corporate boards.
That would involve worker representatives in decisions like whether to engage in political spending, which would require sign-off from 75% of all directors and shareholders. Finally, executives who receive shares of stock as compensation would have to hold them for at least five years.
Sen. Warren explained the rationale for her legislation in this WSJ editorial. Here’s an excerpt:
As recently as 1981, the Business Roundtable—which represents large U.S. companies—stated that corporations “have a responsibility, first of all, to make available to the public quality goods and services at fair prices, thereby earning a profit that attracts investment to continue and enhance the enterprise, provide jobs, and build the economy.” This approach worked. American companies and workers thrived.
Late in the 20th century, the dynamic changed. Building on work by conservative economist Milton Friedman, a new theory emerged that corporate directors had only one obligation: to maximize shareholder returns. By 1997 the Business Roundtable declared that the “principal objective of a business enterprise is to generate economic returns to its owners.”
That shift has had a tremendous effect on the economy. In the early 1980s, large American companies sent less than half their earnings to shareholders, spending the rest on their employees and other priorities. But between 2007 and 2016, large American companies dedicated 93% of their earnings to shareholders. Because the wealthiest 10% of U.S. households own 84% of American-held shares, the obsession with maximizing shareholder returns effectively means America’s biggest companies have dedicated themselves to making the rich even richer.
I’m no pundit, but I’ll still go out on a limb and say that in the current political climate, my beloved Cleveland Browns have a better chance of winning the Super Bowl than this legislation does of getting enacted.
Poll: What’s The Longest Longshot?
Please take a moment to participate in our anonymous poll:
– John Jenkins