End of quarterly reports lights alert on Wall Street

Flexibility for cryptocurrencies increases the risk of fraud and collapses, reflecting a pro-delucro policy without worry about safety

As much as his defenders insist on presenting it as “pragmatic” or “pro-market”, the new direction of the United States Securities Commission (SEC) under the leadership of Paul Atkins-appointed by Donald Trump-not neutral, technical or depoliticized. It is first of all deeply ideological. It is a deliberate agenda of dismantling of financial supervision, disguised as regulatory efficiency, which places corporate interests above transparency, climate justice and protection of ordinary investors.

The recent proposal to eliminate quarterly financial reports – a basic requirement for transparency since the great depression – is only the tip of the iceberg of an economic policy that, since Trump’s first term, has as its north unrestricted deregulation.

Atkins’s promise to replace these reports with semiannual disclosures, alleging “cost reduction” and “flexibility”, purposely ignores the fundamental role that strict frequency plays in maintaining confidence in markets. Less information is no longer freedom; It is more opacity. And opacity, in the financial sphere, always benefits the same: large corporations, insiders and institutional speculators – not small investors, whose protection to SEC has vowed to defend.

Also read:
End of Quarterly Reports New Brand Era in the USA
Meet Stephen Miller, Donald Trump’s ‘Hand’
Socialists surround Macron and threaten to overthrow new prime Minister

Atkins’ criticism of European sustainability norms – labeled as “ideological” – is particularly revealing. Instead of recognizing that climatic risks are, in fact, real financial risks – as forested, flood, dried and collapses in the supply chain demonstrate – the new SEC president prefers to disqualify the entire socio -environmental transparency agenda as a progressive whim.

This stance not only denies science, but also ignores the fact that global institutional investors, including pension funds and asset managers, have been demanding clear data on emissions, governance and social impacts for years. Far from being “ideological”, these demands respond to a real market demand: to invest with responsibility and predictability in a climate crisis world.

SEC’s decision to abandon the defense of rules that would require the dissemination of climatic risks is, therefore, a not only regulatory but civilizing setback. It is the deliberate choice of protecting short -term profits over long -term stability – including financial. Companies that do not measure their exposure to global warming are, in practice, hiding future liabilities from their shareholders. This is not “investor protection”; It is facilitation of corporate irresponsibility.

In addition, the flexibility of the rules for the cryptocurrency sector – another pillar of SEC’s new orientation – raises serious concerns. Under Gary Gensler’s management, the agency sought to impose some order on a market marked by fraud, collapses and manipulations (such as FTX and Land/Luna cases). Atkins’ milder approach, although presented as “less hostile to innovation,” runs the risk of opening doors to new predatory schemes, especially against less informed investors. Recent history shows that, without firm supervision, the “market” does not self -regulate – it is devoured.

Atkins’ rhetoric that SEC must move away from “ideologues” and focus only on the “welfare of investors” is ironic, as its own agenda is deeply ideological: it is the ideology of late neoliberalism, which confuses deregulation with freedom and corporate profit with collective prosperity.

This view ignores that regulation is not an obstacle to the market, but its foundation. It was the creation of the SEC in 1934, just after the collapse of 1929, which allowed the construction of one of the most robust capital markets in the world – not despite the regulation, but because of it.

By suggesting that the ideal frequency of reports should be dictated “by the market”, Atkins delivers the game: in practice, who dictates the rules are the CEOs and advice of large corporations, not minority shareholders.

The British experience, cited as an example, is misleading: even after the adoption of the semiannual model in 2014, many companies kept quarterly reports by pressure from investors. In the US, however, without legal obligation, there is a real risk of a race to the background of transparency – especially among smaller companies, more vulnerable to manipulation and less scrutinized by the media.

Finally, criticism of Europe is not only geopolitical; It is a sign that the US under Trump seeks to become a regulatory paradise – a place where companies can operate with the least social, environmental or financial responsibility. This may attract short -term capital, but it removes long -term investors, compromises economic resilience and undermines democratic confidence in financial institutions.

Trump’s economic policy, now reincarnated in the new sec, is not “pragmatic”. It is a clear ideological choice: prioritizing corporate profit on transparency, immediate growth on sustainability, and financial elite about ordinary citizens. In the name of “efficiency”, the foundations are built for the next crisis – and, as always, will be the most vulnerable who will pay the bill.

With information from Financial Times*