• Glide@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    10 hours ago

    I feel like this is one of those rare cases where Trump and I agree on something, but it’s still ultimately for completely different reasons. I suspect not having to report quarterly will make it easier for his companies to cook the books.

    • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      44
      ·
      9 hours ago

      No, this is a horrible idea through and through. Delayed reporting only benefits those with insider information. It isn’t going to change the fundamental problem of so many companies existing solely to enrich investors nor is it going to change all of the bullshit accounting “tricks” that boil down to “fire your staff and say you did more with less”

    • waddle_dee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      10 hours ago

      May I inquire how this could be a good thing? I feel like it could exacerbate problems, but I’m not well versed enough in macroeconomics to make an accurate assessment.

      • Justas🇱🇹@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        9 hours ago

        Quarterly reporting makes company leadership focus on short term gains over the long term health of the company, leading to frequent layoffs, selloffs and other actions that hurt both the employees and the economy as a whole.

        • aesthelete@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          56 minutes ago

          Quarterly reporting itself does not force this.

          Relatedly, people compensated mostly through stock options will continue to think short term with an emphasis on the stock price of the company for the duration of their particular vesting period.

        • Dagnet@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          9 hours ago

          but then you would need to have reports once every 5 years to actually see much change in their strategies.

        • atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          8 hours ago

          We are talking about when they are required to release earnings not the only time they can. I’m pretty sure that lengthening the time wouldn’t really change anything as far as short term profit gain is concerned.

          Like I doubt the quarterly earnings calls would go away, shareholders wouldn’t want to go a whole year without hearing from the company, they would just be a lot more lies and fluff.

    • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      9 hours ago

      I assume it is because they draw attention to companies struggling. Easier for him to deflect once a year than it is 4 times a year. If people don’t know what to expect they can blindly throw money into companies all year and not realize they haven’t hit projections in 9 months.

    • Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 hours ago

      This was my first half sec thought, too, but it would actually be pretty bad. A lot more economic ticket would be happening behind closed doors for months before it would ever have to be released to the public. Insider trading would increase.

      And it wouldn’t actually change the short term incentives that drive CEOs to make short term decisions that hurt the long term.