Big changes could be coming for public companies. The SEC is preparing a proposal that might make quarterly reporting optional. If it passes, companies could choose to report twice a year instead of four times — reducing compliance costs, easing administrative burden, and theoretically giving management more room to focus on long-term strategy.
But for IR teams, the implications run deeper than the filing schedule.
Quarterly reporting has always done two things at once: it satisfies a regulatory requirement, and it gives IR teams a built-in reason to communicate. Remove the requirement, and what happens to the flow of information, investor trust, and the role of IR? This looming change would be a massive shift from the routine we’ve all gotten used to.
We spoke with industry experts Philip Mazurek, Professional Services Manager, Irwin, and Matthew Kerkhoff, Senior Manager, Professional Services, Irwin, about what all this could mean. One thing is clear: transparency isn’t going out of style. It may just be getting a makeover.
More Flexibility = More Responsibility For IR Teams
The assumption behind the SEC proposal is that less frequent reporting means less burden. That might be true for the finance and legal teams preparing the documents. For IR, it's more complicated.
As Philip pointed out, investors aren’t going to stop wanting updates. Companies that choose not to report quarterly may need to work even harder and more creatively to keep investors in the loop.
“The demand for ongoing communication and information from issuers is not going to cease at all. If anything, it will become more important than ever for companies that do not choose to report quarterly.”
— Philip Mazurek, Professional Services Manager, Irwin
Quarterly reports are a goldmine for investors. They help everyone see where a company’s been and where it’s headed. Investors use these reports to spot trends, set expectations, and make decisions. Remove that structure, and investors will find other ways to fill the gap. With fewer mandated disclosures, creative data gathering will only become more common.
Don’t Lose the Mic
Quarterly filings create a communication floor that every public company has to meet, regardless of how sophisticated its IR program is. That floor could become optional, and the gap between strong IR programs and weak ones will widen as a result.
IR teams that have been using the quarterly calendar as their primary communication strategy will feel this most acutely. The filing mandate does more work than you realize — structuring investor touchpoints, maintaining narrative consistency, and giving the market a regular signal that the company is engaged. Without it, all of that has to be intentional.
“The SEC’s move to make quarterly reporting optional doesn’t reduce the need for transparency; it reshapes it. While companies gain flexibility, investor demand for timely, actionable information will persist, shifting the focus to continuous, strategic communication.”
— Matt Kerkhoff, Senior Manager, Professional Services, Irwin
Different Industries, Different Impact
The urgency of the shift depends on the sector. Philip explained that not all industries will feel this change the same way. Real estate and mining companies, for example, operate on longer development cycles and are used to milestone-based communication. But in fast-moving sectors like tech or manufacturing, investors expect frequent check-ins.
“For industries that move extremely quickly, for example, anything within software, or select manufacturing sectors, more communication is valued than less.”
— Philip Mazurek
In those sectors, a six-month gap in formal disclosures gives institutional investors less to work with and analysts less reason to stay engaged. For companies where coverage and visibility are already hard-won, that's a meaningful risk.
Higher Expectations for IR Professionals
The proposal, if adopted, will sort IR programs into two groups quickly. The first group will treat semi-annual reporting as a reduction in workload and pull back on communication cadence accordingly. The second will treat it as an opportunity to build something more durable — a proactive investor relations program driven by long-term narrative and consistent relationship management rather than regulatory deadlines.
That's what the SEC proposal is really testing. Not whether companies can comply with less frequent reporting, but whether their investor communication is strong enough to stand without the structure that quarterly filings provided.
