Do you have any evidence for any of this? Including Wall Street being against lower reporting requirements, unless if by “Wall Street” you’re excluding the sell side?
Wall Street wants the quarterly reporting requirements because it lets them make more money.
I've worked in the industry for over two decades and the #1 thing I've seen that drives insanity is the quarterly reporting cycle. It's stupid and destructive and inefficient. It seems to exist only to line the pockets of a few wealthy people, and not much utility for anyone else.
Paradoxically, the 10-Q form introduced in the 1970s was intended to prevent insider trading. Obviously reporting less frequently creates enormous headaches on this front. But what it led to is everyone feverishly chasing "number go up" every 3 months, a total disincentive to long-term thinking.
Do you have a source? I’m struggling to find this.
> Wall Street wants the quarterly reporting requirements because it lets them make more money
How are you defining Wall Street? Investment banks have historically—as in post-War—been against reporting requirements for obvious reasons. (IPO bankers don’t care for more restrictions. IBs sell research and access, which compete with public filings.)
The 1970 SEC rule was pushed for by SEC staff, exchanges, institutional investors and accountants. I’d be curious if you have a source showing a single investment bank coming out in support of Sarbanes-Oxley.
> Paradoxically, the 10-Q form introduced in the 1970s was intended to prevent insider trading
Genuinely curious for a source for this claim, too. Ideally contemporaneous. I don’t recall the Wheat Report [1] or Special Study focusing on insider trading when pushing for tighter reporting requirements.
[1] https://www.sechistorical.org/museum/galleries/tbi/gogo_d.ph...