Key Takeaways
- • MFA submitted a formal comment letter to the SEC opposing its proposal to replace quarterly Form 10-Q reports with semiannual Form 10-S reports, arguing the change would harm investor decision-making and market quality.
- • The alternative asset management industry contends that reducing reporting frequency would widen information gaps, weaken price discovery, dampen liquidity, reduce comparability across public companies, and increase reliance on voluntary disclosures and market rumors.
- • MFA warned that less frequent reporting could raise compliance costs for both investors and issuers despite the SEC's estimates suggesting savings, as the regulatory agency's economic analysis allegedly fails to account for full investor and market costs.
- • Craig Lewis, former SEC Chief Economist and Emeritus Professor at Vanderbilt University, and MFA Head of Research Ron Alquist submitted a separate economic assessment challenging the SEC's cost-benefit analysis of the proposed rule change.
- • MFA recommended the SEC consider public company reporting requirements holistically, integrating anticipated Regulation S-K reforms, filer status changes, and Form S-3 eligibility proposals to optimize issuer compliance costs and information disclosure quality.
Summary
The Managed Funds Association (MFA) has formally urged the Securities and Exchange Commission to reconsider its proposal to permit public companies to shift from quarterly Form 10-Q filings to semiannual Form 10-S reports. In a comment letter submitted to the SEC, MFA President and CEO Bryan Corbett stated that while the alternative asset management industry supports efforts to enhance the attractiveness of U.S. public markets, the proposed reduction in reporting frequency presents material risks to market integrity and investor protection.
MFA's core objection centers on the information asymmetries that would result from less frequent mandatory disclosures. The organization argues that quarterly reporting provides investors with regular, timely material information essential for evaluating companies, allocating capital efficiently, monitoring risk exposures, and maintaining accountability over management actions. Reducing this cadence to semiannual filings would create wider information gaps that could undermine price discovery mechanisms, reduce trading liquidity, diminish comparability across the public company universe, and force investors to rely more heavily on voluntary disclosures and market rumors—all outcomes that ultimately increase systemic risk and cost of capital.
A critical component of MFA's challenge involves the adequacy of the SEC's economic analysis supporting the proposal. Craig Lewis, former Chief Economist of the SEC and Emeritus Professor of Finance at Vanderbilt University, along with Ron Alquist, MFA's Head of Research, submitted a separate assessment concluding that while the SEC estimates compliance savings from reduced reporting, the agency's analysis does not fully capture the investor and market costs inherent in reducing disclosure frequency. This gap in the SEC's economic methodology suggests the net benefit calculation may be materially overstated.
MFA further advocated for a more comprehensive regulatory approach, recommending that the SEC evaluate public company reporting requirements holistically rather than in isolation. The organization flagged anticipated reforms to Regulation S-K, proposed changes to filer status classifications, and modifications to Form S-3 eligibility standards as interrelated policy initiatives that collectively affect issuer compliance costs and information quality. A coordinated approach to these reforms, MFA contends, could deliver greater benefits to market participants while more accurately assessing the true compliance burden on companies.
MFA's core objection centers on the information asymmetries that would result from less frequent mandatory disclosures. The organization argues that quarterly reporting provides investors with regular, timely material information essential for evaluating companies, allocating capital efficiently, monitoring risk exposures, and maintaining accountability over management actions. Reducing this cadence to semiannual filings would create wider information gaps that could undermine price discovery mechanisms, reduce trading liquidity, diminish comparability across the public company universe, and force investors to rely more heavily on voluntary disclosures and market rumors—all outcomes that ultimately increase systemic risk and cost of capital.
A critical component of MFA's challenge involves the adequacy of the SEC's economic analysis supporting the proposal. Craig Lewis, former Chief Economist of the SEC and Emeritus Professor of Finance at Vanderbilt University, along with Ron Alquist, MFA's Head of Research, submitted a separate assessment concluding that while the SEC estimates compliance savings from reduced reporting, the agency's analysis does not fully capture the investor and market costs inherent in reducing disclosure frequency. This gap in the SEC's economic methodology suggests the net benefit calculation may be materially overstated.
MFA further advocated for a more comprehensive regulatory approach, recommending that the SEC evaluate public company reporting requirements holistically rather than in isolation. The organization flagged anticipated reforms to Regulation S-K, proposed changes to filer status classifications, and modifications to Form S-3 eligibility standards as interrelated policy initiatives that collectively affect issuer compliance costs and information quality. A coordinated approach to these reforms, MFA contends, could deliver greater benefits to market participants while more accurately assessing the true compliance burden on companies.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.