Should GCC companies cut quarterly IR disclosures?

With geopolitical uncertainty elevated across the region and management teams already stretched, the idea of reducing the frequency of quarterly investor relations materials can look like an attractive way to ease management workload and reduce costs. For most GCC companies, however, it is likely to prove counterproductive. Professional investors continue to value timely, structured updates. Cutting back can lead to reduced investor following and, over time, a valuation discount relative to more transparent peers.
What investors think
Institutional investors place considerable weight on the frequency and consistency of corporate disclosures. Issuers often underestimate the consequences of moving to less frequent reporting, particularly when investors must compare companies across markets, sectors and reporting regimes.
The debate has intensified following the SEC’s May 2026 proposal to allow certain companies to file semi-annual reports. While the formal comment period ended in July 2026, the proposal remains pending and no final rule has been adopted.
The SEC proposal does not change GCC reporting requirements. Quarterly financial reporting remains mandatory across the region’s main equity markets. Saudi Arabia’s Nomu parallel market is the exception, requiring only annual and semi-annual financials.
For most established GCC issuers, the immediate question concerns the voluntary IR materials that accompany mandatory financial statements, including earnings calls, earnings presentations, earnings releases and analyst data supplements. While no GCC regulator has proposed a comparable change for main-market issuers, some GCC boards are already considering cutting back these quarterly disclosures.
In June 2026 the CFA Institute, a global body that sets professional and ethical standards for the investment industry, published a survey of more than 2,500 investment professionals. Key findings included:
- 82% said that flexible reporting frequencies would make it more difficult to compare companies across their portfolios
- 74% were concerned that important information (especially negative information) would be released less promptly
- 70% opposed granting issuers broad flexibility to choose their reporting frequency
The study also found few regional differences; investors in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia held broadly similar views on the value of consistent quarterly information.
These results align with the SEC’s own Investor Advisory Committee’s recommendation to retain mandatory quarterly reporting, citing risks to transparency, wider information gaps, and an increased burden on investors.
Comment letters from the Investment Company Institute, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, and Federated Hermes (writing as both a listed company and a global asset manager), similarly supported keeping the quarterly frequency, even if some less useful content could be streamlined.
Taken together, the CFA survey and institutional feedback point to a strong investor preference for regular, comparable quarterly updates.
Why the stakes are higher for GCC companies
In large, developed markets with deep research coverage and high institutional ownership, a reduction in formal filing frequency can sometimes be offset by voluntary materials. The consequences are greater where research coverage is thinner and many companies are still working to attract institutional capital.
Investors operate with a finite amount of time and attention. When information becomes less frequent or predictable, coverage often declines - especially for smaller and mid-sized companies or those that have only recently begun more professional engagement with the market. Less frequent updates slow the process of building familiarity and credibility.
Global investors apply consistent analytical standards when evaluating companies, regardless of geography. GCC companies compete for capital with regional peers and with companies in other emerging and developed markets. An issuer that reports less often requires extra work to model and compare, giving portfolio managers another reason to allocate scarce attention elsewhere. This is particularly relevant as global emerging market funds become more active in the region but remain selective about the quality and consistency of management communication as noted in our recent GCC Fund Insights.
The issuer response to the SEC proposal has been less uniform. Eli Lilly, for example, supported the proposal and indicated it expected to elect semi-annual filing while continuing to publish quarterly earnings releases. That approach may be workable for a very large, extensively covered developed market company with an established investor base and a mature reporting process. It is a less convincing model for companies that are still building international coverage and investor familiarity.
The real cost of stepping back
Quarterly reporting does impose real demands on management time and can contribute to short-term market pressure. Boards are right to examine those costs. The question is whether the savings outweigh the longer-term effects on investor engagement and valuation.
Quarterly reporting is often criticised for encouraging short-termism. While this concern is understandable, the evidence linking reporting frequency to short-termism is inconclusive. In many cases, the real drivers of short-term pressure are weak communication, overly ambitious guidance, or the lack of a long-term narrative — not the existence of quarterly updates themselves. For companies still building institutional ownership, the greater challenge usually lies in providing too little timely information rather than too much.
Companies that reduce the regularity of updates typically experience slower progress in attracting new investors, thinner research coverage, and less efficient share price discovery. These effects tend to emerge gradually and are therefore easy to underestimate.
For companies that have only recently IPO’d or launched serious investor relations efforts, the risks are more acute. Investors are still forming their views of management quality and commitment to shareholders. Reducing the frequency of engagement early in that process can quickly reverse progress that has taken time and effort to achieve. Rebuilding trust usually takes longer than maintaining it.
What message does a company send when it scales back disclosures shortly after starting to communicate more professionally? How quickly do investors reallocate attention when updates become less regular? And how long does it take to regain that attention once it has moved elsewhere?
Even if the SEC proposal is eventually adopted in the United States, it will not change investor preferences or the economics of attention and capital allocation where information gaps remain large. Companies that continue to provide regular, structured quarterly updates will stay easier to follow, model and compare.
A better alternative
Boards concerned about workload and cost should first examine how quarterly reporting is produced rather than reducing its frequency.
For most GCC companies, particularly smaller and mid-sized issuers and those seeking to build foreign institutional ownership, the preferable approach remains a full quarterly IR package. These companies already face thinner coverage, lower liquidity and fewer natural opportunities to engage investors. Quarterly reporting provides a recurring platform to explain performance, address concerns and build familiarity with management. Removing that platform would eliminate one of the few reliable tools available for increasing visibility.
Any savings in management time and preparation costs are likely to be outweighed by the effort required in attracting investors and building credibility. It also overlooks the earnings-equivalent return on investor relations.
Boards should instead focus on improving production efficiency behind the scenes. Systematic collection of quarterly data, a well-structured earnings cycle process and automated production of presentation charts and tables, can reduce preparation time from weeks to days.
These measures can support a comprehensive quarterly reporting programme without sacrificing the quality or depth of the materials investors actually need. Efficiency gains of this kind preserve the engagement benefits of quarterly reporting while addressing the legitimate cost and time pressures that boards face.
Sources: CFA Institute, SEC, Iridium Advisors
To learn how Iridium can automate the production of your quarterly IR materials, please feel free to contact us.