Opposition Intensifies:Comment Period Nears Close on Semiannual Reporting Proposal-The Securities and Exchange Commission’s proposal to allow public companies to replace quarterly Form 10‑Q filings with optional semiannual reports continues to draw strong resistance from institutional investors and market‑governance advocates. With the July 6 comment deadline approaching, the SEC has received overwhelming opposition to the proposed change, according to analyses of the agency’s docket. Formal opposition has come from major investor groups, as well as numerous pension funds which have filed objections, citing heightened risks for long‑term retirement beneficiaries. The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), which represents a broad cross‑section of the financial sector, argued that semiannual reporting could create inconsistent disclosure regimes and widen information gaps between insiders and the broader market. SIFMA also called for a 60-day extension beyond the July 6th deadline. Individual investor advocacy group Better Markets also has weighed in its opposition to the proposal and has requested that the SEC extend the comment deadline beyond July 6, citing the proposal’s complexity and the volume of stakeholder interest. Across the docket, the predominant reason for rejecting the proposal is concern over increased information asymmetry. Opponents argue that longer intervals between standardized financial statements would force investors to rely more heavily on management‑controlled disclosures and alternative data sources, undermining market integrity. Support for the proposal remains limited. A small number of issuer‑side commenters, primarily individual companies or executives, have argued that semiannual reporting could reduce compliance costs and ease short‑term earnings pressure, allowing management to focus on long‑term strategy. The US Chamber of Commerce supported the SEC’s proposal noting: “Allowing optional quarterly reporting would reduce unnecessary burdens, strengthen the environment for public companies, free up valuable time and resources, and empower businesses to focus on long-term value for their shareholders. Even with added flexibility, many issuers would likely continue quarterly reporting voluntarily. We applaud the SEC for its commitment to modernizing disclosure requirements and strengthening our public markets.” Once the comment period closes, the SEC will begin its post‑comment review, during which staff analyze submissions, prepare a recommendation, and brief the Commissioners. This internal deliberation period typically lasts several months, though timelines vary widely depending on the rule’s complexity and the level of public engagement. The Commission may then issue a final rule, re‑propose the rule with revisions, or take no further action. SEC Chair Paul Atkins and Commissioners Hester Peirce and Mark Uyeda have issued statements supporting the proposal that gives listed companies the option to report semiannually. At this point, however, with opposition far outweighing support, the SEC faces significant pressure as it enters this next phase of review. To read the public comment letters on the SEC website see: https://www.sec.gov/rules-regulations/public-comments/s7-2026-15 To read SIFMA’s letter to the SEC see: To read Better Market’s comments on the proposed rule see: https://bettermarkets.org/newsroom/secs-proposed-rule-s7-2026-15-what-retail-investors-need-to-know/ To read the US Chamber of Commerce comments see: California Makes its Own RulesSEC Proposes Final Rescission of Climate RulesThe Securities and Exchange Commission on May 29, 2026 formally proposed rescinding its 2024 climate‑related disclosure rule, positing that the mandate exceeded the agency’s statutory authority and imposed compliance costs not justified by investor benefit. The SEC emphasized a return to a “materiality‑focused” disclosure framework and noted that the 2024 rule has been stayed since April 2024 amid consolidated litigation in the Eighth Circuit. Even as the federal government retreats, state‑level climate‑disclosure mandates, most prominently California’s, continue to advance. California’s landmark laws, SB 253 and SB 261, require any company doing business in the state, including those merely selling goods or services into California, to disclose greenhouse‑gas emissions and climate‑related financial risks. Despite ongoing litigation in federal court challenging the laws on constitutional and administrative grounds, California regulators have stated they are moving forward with implementation, issuing draft regulations and preparing compliance timelines. Because California is the world’s fifth‑largest economy, its rules apply to thousands of U.S. and multinational companies, including nearly all major public companies. Other states, including New York, are considering similar legislation. If the states prevail, the SEC’s proposed rescission therefore does not eliminate climate‑reporting obligations for most public companies. Instead, companies must comply with the strictest applicable regime—typically California’s—because it is operationally impractical to prepare emissions inventories and climate‑risk assessments for one jurisdiction but not others. Many issuers are expected to maintain or expand their climate‑reporting systems even without a federal mandate. In effect, because the SEC is proposing to rescind—not enforce—a federal climate‑disclosure rule, there is no active federal standard that would override California’s requirements. As the SEC opens a 60‑day comment period, companies face a widening gap between federal pullback and state‑driven climate‑transparency regimes—effectively shifting the center of U.S. climate‑disclosure policy from Washington D.C. to state capitols like Sacramento. For more information: IPO Mid-Year RoundupHigher Deal Values and Lower Deal VolumeU.S. IPO activity in 2026 continues to show a sharp divergence between deal count and total proceeds, and the picture becomes even more complex when comparing different data providers’ methodologies. According to IPO research firm Renaissance Capital, which tracks only traditional, sizable IPOs, 73 offerings have priced year‑to‑date through June 13, an 18% decline from the same point in 2025. Yet despite fewer deals, total proceeds have surged, driven by a wave of large technology, AI‑infrastructure, and energy‑transition offerings. Renaissance Capital counts only standard IPOs that raise capital on major U.S. exchanges and meet minimum size and liquidity thresholds. It excludes micro‑cap and nano‑cap offerings, uplistings from the OTC market, closed‑end funds, ADRs, unit offerings, and SPAC mergers. This approach is designed to reflect the segment of the IPO market most relevant to institutional investors and public‑company comparables. By contrast, broader trackers such as StockAnalysis.com report 172 IPOs for the same period because they include every new listing labeled as an IPO, regardless of size, structure, or exchange. That wider definition captures dozens of micro‑cap deals and foreign ADR listings that Renaissance does not classify as IPOs. Not surprisingly, AI‑related companies, semiconductor suppliers, and enterprise‑software platforms have dominated 2026’s largest offerings, while biotech and consumer IPOs remain subdued. Analysts say the market has shifted decisively toward “quality over quantity,” with only the most mature or strategically positioned issuers choosing to list. As the second half of 2026 approaches, it is expected that the IPO market will remain active but highly selective. For more information: https://www.renaissancecapital.com/IPO-Center/Stats AND: https://stockanalysis.com/ipos/2026/ Steady CadenceFASB Focus on Technical AgendaAs we approach the halfway point of 2026, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) has maintained a steady cadence of technical activity, advancing proposals and issuing targeted standards that carry meaningful implications for U.S. public companies. While this year has not yet produced sweeping new accounting frameworks, the Board’s agenda reflects a deliberate push to refine areas where practice has diverged and to prepare for future updates driven by stakeholder feedback. The most notable mid‑year development came on June 10, when the FASB issued a proposed Accounting Standards Update aimed at improving guidance for market‑return cash balance pension plans. (See link below) The proposal would require entities to use the plan’s assumed interest‑crediting rate as the discount rate when measuring benefit obligations; an approach intended to better align reported obligations with hypothetical account balances. Public companies with cash‑balance plans could see reduced volatility and greater comparability if the proposal is finalized. Public Comments are due August 10. Beyond this proposal, the Board continues to advance several high‑impact agenda projects, including crypto asset accounting, hedge accounting modernization, liability‑versus‑equity classification, and cash‑flow statement improvements. While none have resulted in new exposure drafts so far in 2026, these projects remain closely watched by public‑company preparers, particularly in sectors facing rapid financial innovation. Two final standards have been adopted this year:
Although the pace of major standard‑setting has moderated compared with prior years, the FASB’s 2026 activity underscores a focused, technical agenda; one that continues to shape reporting practices for public companies while laying groundwork for more significant updates ahead. For more information: https://www.fasb.org/standards/accounting-standard-updates AND: Beer Tax BurdenHere’s to the Red, White, Blue… and a Beverage Tax TooWith the 4th of July fast approaching and Americans gearing up to celebrate the nation’s 250th birthday, millions will soon be honoring our Founding Fathers in the most patriotic way possible: by cracking open a cold beer… and discovering that the Taxman has already taken the first big gulp. According to the Tax Foundation, taxes are the single most expensive ingredient in beer in the United States. The tax burden accounts for more of the final price of beer than labor and materials combined. The many different layers of applicable taxes combine to total as much as 40.8 percent of the retail price. It’s an amount that would have had the Boston Tea Party crowd tossing beer kegs into the bay. Tennessee leads the nation with the most frothy tax proving that while the Volunteer State may volunteer many things, a reasonably priced beer is not one of them. Hawaii is right up there as well, but apparently they don’t drink much beer in the island state because a cocktail umbrella would look ridicules in a beer bottle. Meanwhile, Wyoming, ever the iconoclast, taxes a mere two cents per gallon, effectively treating beer as a public utility. Missouri and Wisconsin also are on the low end, continuing their long‑standing tradition of believing beer should be accessible to all, not just the tax‑resilient. So as grills fire up across the country and fireworks light up the night sky, remember, whether you’re sipping a craft microbrew or a backyard bargain lager, you’re also toasting our most enduring American tradition of all: TAXES. Cheers to 250 years! For more Information https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/beer-taxes-by-state/ |
© 2026 Weinberg & Company.
