Trump asks SEC to study potentially scrapping quarterly earnings reports

Are you a securities person? I don't know what this post means

I was just kidding, although happy to share my views from being a CFO with experience in SEC reporting. My father and brother was/is also one of the top stop brokers in my country. I am also a CPA, CA, CFE.

I don’t think the cost is the biggest issue, it’s the impact on the public reporting culture that it might help. Thinking on it.
 
I was just kidding, although happy to share my views from being a CFO with experience in SEC reporting. My father and brother was/is also one of the top stop brokers in my country. I am also a CPA, CA, CFE.

I don’t think the cost is the biggest issue, it’s the impact on the public reporting culture that it might help. Thinking on it.

(a) Chill-fucking-lax with the acronyms before I BML all over your MFT.

(b) Your country? No eres de los Estados Unidos? Are you actually Indian?
 
It's honestly not a bad idea at all, but the rationale for doing it is somewhat flaky. Does anyone really consider 6 months long-term? Is there a huge benefit to be gained if investors think in 6 month terms instead of 3? I don't see it.

It's already been said but there are obvious pros and cons. Businesses will like it, analysts/investors mostly won't.

And in case anyone was wondering, 10Qs are unaudited and require much less disclosure than a 10K. And given that a 6 month reporting period would replace them you wouldn't reduce headcount, reporting requirements and accounting fees by that much (certainly there are savings, but less than people probably imagine). For example, auditors use the quarterly reports to get some work done for the audit as well and that time will just be added to the year-end audit, so the savings is somewhat reduced. Companies will still close their books and analyze the numbers monthly. They will have the same size accounting teams, etc..

Again, it's worth exploring and there are benefits.
 
I'm conflicted as to this move. On one hand, moving American corporations away from short-term pressures and allowing greater emphasis on long-term development is a good thing.

On the other hand, I cannot imagine this move having any tangible effect on those incentives, other than a marginal reduction of administrative costs. In reality, this would seem to, more than anything, undermine transparency and allow more greater incidence of insider trading and ripping off investors generally.

While the purported objective - widening the scope of corporate decision making away from decisions based on quarterly earnings - has merit, I am skeptical that depriving investors of information is the proper avenue to achieve it. This smacks of more policy making for the powerful.

@JonesBones @PolishHeadlock @Jack V Savage - what say you?



https://www.ft.com/content/c1d133aa-a211-11e8-85da-eeb7a9ce36e4

Let's be real: Trump is doing it, so the Left will oppose it. If Trump moved to mandate biquarterly reports, they'd oppose that too.
 
Let's be real: Trump is doing it, so the Left will oppose it. If Trump moved to mandate biquarterly reports, they'd oppose that too.

And yet (a) you're quoting a post made by someone from the left who is not doing that and is openly conflicted, (b) you're posting in a thread in which multiple left-wing posters have voiced support, and (c) there is considerably more bipartisan crossing of the aisle by Democrats than vice versa.
 
And yet (a) you're quoting a post made by someone from the left who is not doing that and is openly conflicted, (b) you're posting in a thread in which multiple left-wing posters have voiced support, and (c) there is considerably more bipartisan crossing of the aisle by Democrats than vice versa.

Touché. Perhaps I have prejudged you Tokrtsy. Welcome to the Trump Train.
 
(a) Chill-fucking-lax with the acronyms before I BML all over your MFT.

(b) Your country? No eres de los Estados Unidos? Are you actually Indian?

Non mais je vienne du Quebec, Canada, mon ami.
 
Touché. Perhaps I have prejudged you Tokrtsy. Welcome to the Trump Train.

I think most critics of Trump, particularly ones who are politically inclined, give him a fair shake on policies and root him on in the super rare instances that he promotes defensible ones. I was a big fan of his rhetoric on lobbyist restrictions, closing tax loopholes, and spending on infrastructure. It just happened that those three things were bullshit, bullshit, and attempted swindling respectively.
 
I think most critics of Trump, particularly ones who are politically inclined, give him a fair shake on policies and root him on in the super rare instances that he promotes defensible ones. I was a big fan of his rhetoric on lobbyist restrictions, closing tax loopholes, and spending on infrastructure. It just happened that those three things were bullshit, bullshit, and attempted swindling respectively.

If it's true that you were a "big fan" of Trump on any policy for any length of time, that puts you in a microscopic minority. "Most critics" of Trump will blame him for the weather, and praise Obama for the strong economy.
 
If it's true that you were a "big fan" of Trump on any policy for any length of time, that puts you in a microscopic minority. "Most critics" of Trump will blame him for the weather, and praise Obama for the strong economy.

I don't think that's true. There were a lot on the left and nearer to the center that were hopeful with some of Trump economic populism and anti-corruption talks, and his talks about cracking down on corporate overstepping. It just happened that those rays of hope were bullshit and he ended up being the furthest right economically, the least economically populist, and the most corrupt president of our lifetime - by far.

I don't think any of us made any pretenses about supporting him on a personal basis: because he's a dim-witted, incompetent, and ill-tempered douche.

Also, I don't think he deserves any sort of praise for the economy. He has done nothing good via policy (and he's done plenty bad). The only thing that he can really hang his hat on is consumer confidence, but that can be expected to bump up any time an administration changes, particularly if it is a Republican administration. Maybe he got a bump beyond what a Cruz or Kasich would have received, and he certainly registered numbers higher than Clinton would have by the sheer power of propaganda, but that's about all I can credit to him. And it's not policy-based at all.
 
This is not going to happen. Wall Street and just about every investor will go apeshit...including me.

Without Quarterly reports it will make finding worthy companies to invest in nearly impossible and greatly increase the risk being taken. Most people do not understand just how much investing changed for the better when they were introduced and how much companies and the general population benefited from that.

The 10-Q is one of the single most important things to keep a company from screwing over investors...its so much harder to cook the books when the books are being gone over 4 times a year instead of one.
 
I don't think that's true. There were a lot on the left and nearer to the center that were hopeful with some of Trump economic populism and anti-corruption talks, and his talks about cracking down on corporate overstepping. It just happened that those rays of hope were bullshit and he ended up being the furthest right economically, the least economically populist, and the most corrupt president of our lifetime - by far.

I don't think any of us made any pretenses about supporting him on a personal basis: because he's a dim-witted, incompetent, and ill-tempered douche.

Also, I don't think he deserves any sort of praise for the economy. He has done nothing good via policy (and he's done plenty bad). The only thing that he can really hang his hat on is consumer confidence, but that can be expected to bump up any time an administration changes, particularly if it is a Republican administration. Maybe he got a bump beyond what a Cruz or Kasich would have received, and he certainly registered numbers higher than Clinton would have by the sheer power of propaganda, but that's about all I can credit to him. And it's not policy-based at all.

You think the economy is only doing well because of consumer confidence? You honestly think Trump is "the least economically populist" and "the most corrupt?" Based on what? The fact that he's not trying to expand entitlements? Can you think of any other candidate that would use tariffs to keep American jobs in the USA? Can you think of any other candidate with the courage to renegotiate NAFTA and walk about from the nation-ending disaster that was TPP? There's a reason presidents don't do things like that: they're afraid to piss off the lobbies that got them elected. Trump is the only president who doesn't owe favors to various lobbies and power brokers. He got himself elected with all the force of corporate America pushing against him. So how is he "corrupt?" Are you basing it off this discredited "Russian collusion" hack job narrative?

And frankly, Trump's performance speaks for itself. Obviously the economy is doing well, but unemployment is down (including Black unemployment), and wages are finally rising. Trump is singlehandedly reviving industries that Obama's government attempted to murder. You might not care about that, but workers in the Rust Belt sure do. Face it: Trump is a great President, and we are damn lucky he came along when he did.
 
You see, this is where I stop giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Obviously the economy is doing well, but unemployment is down (including Black unemployment)

No.

Reduction in unemployment has slowed under Trump, including black unemployment. And that's despite the hugely irresponsible and costly deficit spending.

and wages are finally rising

LOL NO. Are you serious, dude?

Real wages fell in 2017 by a measure greater than at any point since 2009. It's hard to really blame Trump since the drop seems like it almost has to be some sort of anomaly, but wages are not "finally rising."


Based on what? The fact that he's not trying to expand entitlements? Can you think of any other candidate that would use tariffs to keep American jobs in the USA? Can you think of any other candidate with the courage to renegotiate NAFTA and walk about from the nation-ending disaster that was TPP?

(i) Anti-populist based on: passing giant tax cuts for the rich after promising that he would raise taxes on the rich and that his tax plan would not be good for him personally, shifting the tax burden onto the middle class and with his party's express objective of cutting social security later, union busting and going after labor rights and worker protections, gutting consumer protections and cutting oversight of predatory lenders and swindlers, gutting protections for pensioners and retirees by deregulating Wall Street, saying he would crack down on lobbyists and then going the complete opposite direction, deregulating polluters and chemicals that have sickened millions, privatizing and profit-izing the public sector to the benefit of the Betsy DeVos of the world, the mere appointing of corrupt cunt executives to the government in the first place.

All of those things are to the tangible benefit of the rich and to the tangible detriment of the poor.

(ii) Do you have any evidence that those tariffs have kept American jobs in the country?

(iii) The only basis that you could say TPP was a "nation-ending disaster" that is policy-coherent is a far-left perspective about the effect on labor protections and the international value of, and ability to anchor, human capital. I'd be very interested to hear your right-wing critique of how TPP was "nation-ending" since it was largely a right-wing, free-market brain-child.

There's a reason presidents don't do things like that: they're afraid to piss off the lobbies that got them elected. Trump is the only president who doesn't owe favors to various lobbies and power brokers. He got himself elected with all the force of corporate America pushing against him. So how is he "corrupt?" Are you basing it off this discredited "Russian collusion" hack job narrative?

His corruption has nothing to do with Russia. It has to do with blatant and unprecedented conflicts of interest in the administration and complete opaqueness of its intersection with the private sector. And that's without considering the agency of his myriad of corrupt stooges: Tom Price, Scott Pruitt, Ben Carson, Betsy DeVos, Steve Mnuchin, Ryan Zinke, and all the ones being carried out in shackles.

Honestly, if you think Trump's corruptness stops at Russia, then that's all I need to know about taking you seriously.

https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/january-february-march-2018/a-year-in-trump-corruption/
https://sunlightfoundation.com/tracking-trumps-conflicts-of-interest/


And frankly, Trump's performance speaks for itself. Obviously the economy is doing well, but unemployment is down (including Black unemployment), and wages are finally rising. Trump is singlehandedly reviving industries that Obama's government attempted to murder. You might not care about that, but workers in the Rust Belt sure do. Face it: Trump is a great President, and we are damn lucky he came along when he did.

Yeah, you went full retard.
 
I think most critics of Trump, particularly ones who are politically inclined, give him a fair shake on policies and root him on in the super rare instances that he promotes defensible ones. I was a big fan of his rhetoric on lobbyist restrictions, closing tax loopholes, and spending on infrastructure. It just happened that those three things were bullshit, bullshit, and attempted swindling respectively.
Exactly. I rooted for Trump (in the WR as well) for about 3 days on the idea that we should put price controls on certain drugs to get prices to more affordable levels. Of course I jumped off the Trump bandwagon on that issue after he completely changed his mind. I also agreed with him on the issues you raised here, but as you know Trump is not big on details (too stupid and easily bored to be bothered with them) and the details are everything. But supporting high quality reliable infrastructure isn't partisan, for example, and the regular WR lefties are consistent on this stuff.

But for guys like JR it's just much easier to assume people who disagree are just being partisan than actually confronting the truth and analyzing policy based on the merits.
 
Back
Top