Quarterly reporting keeps public companies honest. Since Enron in 2002, every CEO must personally certify their numbers every quarter, with federal prison on the line for signing a lie. Right now, the SEC is proposing ‘semi-annual’ reporting, cutting those certified filings to twice a year. Half the jail risk for shady CEOs. Double the risk for your savings.
Tell the SEC: Keep Quarterly Reporting →Four times a year, the CEO and CFO must each put their name to the company's books, certifying they've reviewed the report and that it contains no untrue statement of a material fact. Knowingly certify a false one: up to $1 million and 10 years in federal prison. Do it willfully: up to $5 million and 20 years. The proposal cuts those certified filings from four to two. Half as many moments when anyone at the top must stake their freedom on the truth.
Enron's executives claimed ignorance of their own books, so Congress made ignorance impossible to claim. Every quarter, the CEO and CFO certify that they personally designed and evaluated the controls that surface bad news, and that they reported any weaknesses or fraud to the auditors. The law claws back executive bonuses even without proof the boss was personally involved. Halve the filings, and you halve the quarters where "I didn't know" is off the table.
The SEC says current reports and press releases will fill the gap. Read the fine print: earnings releases ride on Form 8-K as "furnished," not "filed." That category exempts them from the automatic liability filed reports carry. No outside auditor reviews them, and no certification is required even when an 8-K contains financial statements. The SEC's own proposal concedes the problem. The 8-K may contain information, but it lacks any accountability.
Sarbanes-Oxley became law on July 30, 2002. Six days later, HealthSouth's CFO tried to quit rather than certify numbers he knew were fake: "he just couldn't sign the certifications." Months later he went to federal prosecutors and became the first of fifteen executives to plead guilty in a $2.7 billion fraud. A certification costs an honest executive nothing to sign, it just exposes the fraudsters. Why roll them back?
“I have reviewed this report… it does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact.”
Yes, and the semiannual report would be too. That's what makes this proposal easy to miss: nothing in it touches the certification rules themselves. It just deletes half the filings those certifications attach to. Certified, auditor-reviewed financial statements would arrive every six months instead of every three, and there would be two fewer moments each year when a named executive has to put their freedom behind the numbers. Fraud lives in exactly those gaps: HealthSouth's books were faked one reporting deadline at a time, and it was a certification deadline that finally broke the scheme open.
Yes. Securities fraud is still illegal, and a false press release can still draw lawsuits. But those cases turn on proving what a specific person knew. Exactly the fight prosecutors kept losing before 2002, when Enron's executives ran on "I didn't know." The certification flips it: a named officer, a specific document, a personal attestation that they reviewed the report and evaluated the controls behind it. Courts have let the SEC pursue officers who sign without a sufficient basis to believe the certification is true, and after a restatement the law claws back executive bonuses even without proof of personal wrongdoing. Fewer certified filings simply means fewer places that accountability can attach.
Informed? Somewhat. Protected? No. Earnings press releases ride along on Form 8-K as "furnished," not "filed." That legal category exempts them from the automatic liability that filed reports carry. They get no review from the outside auditor, and no certification is required even when an 8-K contains financial statements. The SEC's own proposal quietly concedes the problem: it asks the public for ideas on how to patch the gap. When the agency writing a rule is already asking how to fix it, the answer is to not pass it.
Yes. Federal agencies like the SEC are legally required to consider comments from the public, and courts have overturned final rules when agencies failed to engage with substantive comments. A real investor explaining why executive sign-off is non-negotiable for their retirement account goes straight into the record the SEC must consider.
No. You don't need to cite section numbers. "I'm a retail investor, Sarbanes-Oxley is not a suggestion, and reporting should be kept quarterly" is a complete, powerful comment. Plain-English letters from ordinary investors are exactly what the rule's defenders are counting on not arriving.
Write in your own words; that matters more than any particular argument. A few angles that work: (1) certified filings would fall from four a year to two, and you rely on that executive sign-off, (2) 8-Ks and press releases carry no certification and no auditor review, so they can't substitute, (3) the SEC itself asks how to patch the 8-K gap, which is the agency admitting the replacement is weaker, so the answer is withdrawal, not a patch, and (4) these safeguards were written after Enron for a reason, and the SEC should explain what has changed.
Four times a year, someone has to sign for the numbers your savings ride on. Tell the SEC to keep it that way, on the record.
Submit Your Comment to the SEC →⚠ Please write your comment before sending
Opens your email with the comment ready to send.
Your name and comment will be publicly visible at sec.gov.
A copy will be sent to us, so we can make sure the SEC posts it.
Button not working? Copy your message and submit on the SEC site