For over half a century, the quarterly report has functioned as the metronome of American capitalism. Companies pause, gather, and disclose their performance every three months, investors recalibrate portfolios, and analysts update their models. This cadence has been so deeply embedded that it does more than provide data: it sets the rhythm for management behaviour, investment strategies, and how capital markets interact with corporate life.

But reporting rhythms ripple far beyond Wall Street. In corporate real estate, the quarterly cycle shapes when budgets are reviewed, when occupancy costs are scrutinised, and when capital expenditure for new offices, factories, or warehouses is approved. The financial and real estate calendars have been synchronised - both locked into the quarterly beat.

Now, the metronome may be about to slow.

Slowing the Beat: Trump’s Call for Semi-Annual Disclosure

President Trump has renewed his call to end mandatory quarterly reporting in the United States, urging the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to move to a semi-annual cadence. The argument is framed as one of efficiency: Companies, particularly smaller ones, spend excessive time and resources preparing quarterly disclosures when they should focus on creating value and jobs. Trump and his allies argue that quarterly reporting fuels "short-termism"—the obsession with meeting Wall Street's expectations every 90 days—at the expense of long-term investment.

The proposal is not entirely new. Trump floated the idea in 2018, but it failed to gain traction. This time, however, it is backed by a deregulatory mood and a sympathetic SEC leadership. Supporters range from Nasdaq's CEO to business figures such as Warren Buffett and Jamie Dimon, who have long argued that the quarterly treadmill distorts decision-making.

Yet the timing is significant.

The U.S. is simultaneously imposing sweeping tariffs, contesting ESG reporting norms, and retreating from multilateral tax frameworks. A shift in disclosure cadence fits this broader narrative: an assertion of U.S. sovereignty over global rules, even if it risks discord with long-established international expectations.

Europe’s Experiment: A Precedent in Slower Time

To understand the implications, it is instructive to look back across the Atlantic. Europe has already experimented with easing the beat. In 2013, amendments to the EU's Transparency Directive abolished mandatory quarterly reporting for listed companies, arguing that such requirements imposed unnecessary burdens and encouraged short-termism. The UK followed in 2014, scrapping its own quarterly reporting obligation.

The outcomes were nuanced. On the one hand, companies saved time and resources, and there was anecdotal evidence that some shifted toward a longer-term strategy. On the other hand, investor appetite for information did not vanish. Many firms, particularly larger ones, issued quarterly trading updates voluntarily, recognising that market expectations for regular disclosure remained strong. Research by the Financial Conduct Authority in the UK suggested that removing quarterly requirements did not significantly alter companies' investment horizons.

In short, Europe slowed the official metronome, but the market kept time by itself. Investors demanded updates, and many companies complied, voluntarily maintaining the tempo without regulatory compulsion.

This precedent matters for corporate real estate leaders. When CRE budgets and portfolio decisions are presented to boards, they are often tied to financial reporting moments. If the statutory rhythm slows, but market expectations persist, CRE leaders may find themselves working to two beats: a formal semi-annual disclosure cycle and an informal quarterly cycle demanded by investors.

The Upside of Silence: Escaping the Tyranny of the Quarter

There is no doubt that quarterly reporting can be suffocating. The constant need to hit short-term earnings targets incentivises cost-cutting over investment, financial engineering over strategic transformation. A semi-annual cadence could free management from this tyranny.

For CRE, that freedom could be significant. Real estate strategies - from consolidating offices to building logistics hubs - are inherently long-term, often requiring multi-year commitments and significant upfront capital outlays. In a quarterly reporting culture, such projects are vulnerable to being deferred or scaled back if they depress earnings in the near term. By slowing the beat, companies may find it easier to commit to transformative real estate programmes without the fear of immediate investor backlash.

Another benefit lies in resource allocation. Preparing quarterly filings consumes management attention, legal and audit resources, and finance department bandwidth. A semi-annual regime could release some of this capacity, allowing finance teams and CRE leaders to spend more time on scenario planning, workplace transformation, and aligning real estate portfolios with business strategy, which, as (Y)OUR SPACE shows, are significant challenges.

When the Music Stops: The Risks of a Slower Cadence

Yet there are reasons why quarterly reporting became standard. Transparency is the oxygen of markets, and fewer disclosures mean longer intervals without fresh air. Bad news could be concealed for six months; shocks might build unnoticed, only to erupt dramatically when results finally appear.

For CRE leaders, this carries risks. Occupancy costs are often one of the largest line items after labour. If less frequent reporting reduces visibility, real estate may be scrutinised more aggressively when results are eventually disclosed. Worse, slower reporting may increase volatility: investors may overreact to semi-annual numbers precisely because they are starved of interim data. That volatility can drive knee-jerk reactions in corporate spending, including sudden freezes or cutbacks in property commitments.

There is also the risk of asymmetry. Insiders and well-connected institutions may find ways to obtain interim information informally, giving them an edge. Retail investors, and by extension employees whose pensions are tied to markets, may be left behind. Such inequities erode trust in the fairness of markets.

Dissonance in the Orchestra: Global Alignment or Fragmentation?

Global investors crave comparability. Today, many Asian markets retain quarterly requirements; Europe has relaxed them; the U.S. may now join the semi-annual camp. The result is a cacophony rather than harmony: different local beats.

For multinational occupiers, this fragmentation complicates portfolio strategy. A U.S.-listed firm operating across Asia and Europe may need to juggle divergent reporting expectations, influencing how and when real estate decisions are communicated. Cross-border capital markets, too, may grow wary if U.S. disclosure is perceived as less transparent than Asian norms.

Fragmentation also plays into geopolitics. The EU is pushing for ever more comprehensive sustainability reporting, while the U.S. appears to be pulling back. Asia is split: Singapore and Hong Kong continue quarterly reporting, while India has a hybrid model. The reporting cycle debate thus becomes another axis of divergence in a world already fracturing over tariffs, taxes, and technology.

Boardroom to Building: The Corporate Real Estate Angle

What does all this mean for corporate real estate? The connection may not be obvious, but it is profound.

Real estate decisions are capital-intensive, long-dated, and often irreversible in the short term. They sit uneasily with a system that prizes quarterly flexibility. In theory, a slower reporting cycle could give CRE leaders more room to argue for transformational investment — headquarters consolidations, green retrofits, logistics networks — without fear of quarterly backlash.

But there is a flip side. With fewer disclosure moments, CRE budgets may be scrutinised at semi-annual checkpoints. The six-monthly report could become a make-or-break moment for capital approvals, with boards less inclined to sanction spending in between. That could lengthen approval cycles, delay projects, and increase the pressure on CRE leaders to build watertight business cases.

Landlords and developers, too, will feel the rhythm change. Lease negotiations, pre-commitments, and build-to-suit agreements often hinge on quarterly board approvals. If those approvals become semi-annual, the entire pipeline of real estate transactions could slow, introducing new frictions into markets already grappling with uncertainty.

Occupiers in a New Tempo: Practical Implications

For occupiers, the implications are clear. CRE leaders must adapt their own processes to the new rhythm. That means:

Sharpening the long-term narrative. With fewer disclosure opportunities, every CRE project must be positioned in terms of its strategic, multi-year contribution - productivity gains, talent attraction, sustainability - rather than short-term cost savings.

Building flexibility into portfolios. If capital approvals are bunched into semi-annual cycles, occupiers may need more agile leasing structures, modular fit-outs, and flexible space arrangements to bridge the timing gaps.

Elevating communication. Internal stakeholders, from CFOs to boards, will need convincing narratives that align CRE investment with broader transformation. External stakeholders - landlords, investors, employees - must also understand how real estate strategy supports the long-term business story.

In short, the new tempo does not diminish the importance of CRE; it amplifies the need for it to be integrated into corporate strategy with precision and foresight. Remember, 40% of all respondents to (Y)OUR SPACE currently see their distance from business strategy formulation as their biggest challenge.

Global Order in Flux: From Harmonies to Discord

The debate over reporting cycles is not an isolated technicality. It sits within a broader upending of the global economic order. Tariff wars have redrawn supply chains; ESG norms have fragmented across jurisdictions; global tax reform has stalled. The rhythm of corporate disclosure is another battleground in this contest between integration and divergence.

If the U.S. slows its metronome, Europe may double down on its sustainability disclosure tempo. Asia may continue to split, with some markets maintaining quarterly rigour while others drift. The risk is a world of discordant beats, where global businesses must dance to multiple tempos simultaneously.

For corporate real estate, that discord will show up in capital flows, investment approvals, and portfolio strategies. A U.S. company may slow its domestic disclosure but still needs to meet quarterly expectations in Asia; a European company may embrace semi-annual rhythms but find investors demanding more frequent updates in practice. CRE leaders navigating multi-jurisdictional portfolios will need to be adept conductors who keep harmony in a world of competing beats.

The Final Note: Reset or Offbeat?

The metronome metaphor brings us back to the central question: will this retuning produce richer harmonies or push markets offbeat?

On the optimistic view, semi-annual reporting could encourage long-term investment, free management from short-term distractions, and align corporate strategy with the realities of transformative change. That might mean bolder workplace reinvention, greener portfolios, and more resilient supply chain real estate for CRE.

On the pessimistic view, it risks reducing transparency, delaying recognition of problems, and undermining investor trust. For CRE, that could mean tougher scrutiny of budgets, longer delays in capital approvals, and sharper volatility in corporate space demand.

As Europe's precedent shows, the truth is likely to be somewhere in between. Formal reporting may slow, but market expectations may sustain the quarterly beat. Companies may be forced to keep two rhythms simultaneously: the official semi-annual and the informal quarterly demanded by investors.

For CRE leaders, the lesson is clear. Strategy must be both long-term and agile in a world of shifting tempos. The metronome may be reset, but the need to stay in tune has never been greater.

It should be noted that, even if the SEC embraces Trump's proposal, change will not happen overnight. Draft rules, public consultation, commissioner approval, and legal challenges could stretch the process well into 2026, with a further phase-in period likely. That means any semi-annual regime's earliest realistic start date would be 2027, with full adoption more likely by 2028 or beyond. For corporate real estate leaders, this offers a window to prepare - aligning portfolio planning, capital approval processes, and investment narratives to a possible dual-tempo world where statutory cycles slow, but market expectations keep the quarterly beat alive.

Scenario Matrix

While President Trump's push to slow the reporting cycle has reignited debate, the decision to change is far from a given. Regulatory hurdles, investor resistance, and legal challenges make a blanket shift unlikely. A hybrid outcome seems most probable, where formal requirements are eased but market expectations sustain quarterly updates. The table below lists three possible scenarios and their implications for corporate real estate strategy.

Scenario	Description	Implications for CRE Strategy
Status Quo: Quarterly Beat Continues	The SEC rules remain unchanged. Companies keep filing 10-Q reports every quarter, sustaining the established rhythm.	CRE decisions continue to align with quarterly board approvals and budget cycles. Pressure remains on short-term cost management, making it hard to win support for long-horizon projects such as HQ consolidation or relocations, sustainability retrofits etc. Portfolio reviews and optimisation tied to the 90-day cadence persist.
Hybrid Outcome: Semi-Annual Officially, Quarterly in Practice	SEC abolished mandatory quarterly reporting, but investors demand voluntary updates. Many large firms continue quarterly disclosures, while smaller firms reduce cadence.	CRE leaders must navigate dual tempos: semi-annual statutory cycles vs informal quarterly investor expectations. Larger firms face short-term scrutiny, but smaller firms may gain space to commit to bolder, longer-term real estate strategies. Capital approvals may bunch around semi-annual results, lengthening decision timelines.
Full Shift: Semi-Annual Replaces Quarterly	The SEC enforces semi-annual reporting with minimal voluntary quarterly updates. Companies disclose formally twice a year only.	CRE leaders must prepare for compressed decision windows: semi-annual results become 'make-or-break' checkpoints for capital spend. Potentially greater freedom to frame real estate as a long-term lever, if boards focus less on short-term earnings. Higher volatility in portfolio strategy: long stretches of limited visibility, punctuated by intense scrutiny at reporting moments. Landlords and developers may face slower deal cycles, as occupiers delay commitments until disclosure windows

The balance of probabilities suggests this debate will not deliver a clean break from quarterly capitalism. In our current estimation, there is perhaps a one-in-three chance that nothing changes, and a far slimmer one-in-five likelihood of a full semi-annual regime. The most plausible outcome - better than even odds - is a hybrid world, where regulation slows the official beat but investors keep time every 90 days. For corporate real estate leaders, the message is clear: strategy must be composed to work across both tempos, blending long-term vision with the discipline of quarterly scrutiny.