alt Hacker NewsThe problem with reporting often is that the reports must each be audited (which is time-intensive and expensive), and any errors subject the companies to class-action lawsuits (which only ever benefit the lawyers, but that is a separate matter).
I would also prefer more frequent reports, but only if they were less burdensome and risky.
Replies
Longer periods between audited (aka "accurate") results will lead to compounding errors. Fewer people at the company will have a clear idea of how the company is doing. Audits are like CI for finances.
In the us, quarterly financials are not audited, only annual financials
Perhaps the auditing needs to be done on the workflow process and once the automated code is in place there needs to be a traceable chain of modifications to it that need to be justified.
The "audit" certifies a certain hash of a repo that produces known-good results, and if you use a different commit in that repo you have explain in an SEC filing why you modified things.
Basically reproducible builds for financial results:
You could report every month and audit every 6 months
I'm generally with the report often camp. It forces automation all the way down even the auditing.
Wouldn't the auditing be proportionally easier with less data in each report?
The reason for strong auditing and personal attestation is because left to their own devices, some companies will produce bullshit and hoodwink investors. Blame Enron.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Sarbanes-Oxley-Act
Like the building and electrical code, these regulations were written in blood.
The reports don't have to each be audited... reduce the auditing to twice a year, increase reporting to monthly... if your report requires remediation, you her bumped to quarterly audits