Not sure where to post this, but has anybody been struck by the utterly transparent opacity of the slick campaign to get people to push the SEC to retain quarterly reporting? It's clearly well-funded, yet disingenuously conceals the motives of its funders while arguing as if it represented some selfless force for the good of small investors. Who is making a lot of money via the current requirement? Accounting firms? Reporting has a cost, and presumably some benefits, but I don't see much acknowledgement of the tradeoffs or argument why the status quo is just the right set-point. If reporting is an unalloyed good, perhaps it should be done monthly. Perhaps quarterly is in fact the optimal rhythm, for the people employed in creating the reports, anyway. I mean, it's steady work.
I haven't analyzed the thing in detail from first causes and have no opinion on that basis, but the signal I get from this campaign is one of hidden interests pretending to be selfless defenders of someone else's interests, without disclosing their own possible conflicts of interest. This signal alone pushes me closer to the view that if slick interests oppose the move, then maybe it's actually a good idea that would remove some economic deadweight, inadvertently carrying the opposite of the intended message. As an old boss memorably put it, don't piss iny face and tell me that it's raining.
Might want to reengineer that PR campaign.