Like the reasoning, but not the idea. 1.) The only time new information really comes out is during quarterly earnings, and that's also when prices are most vol

Like the reasoning, but not the idea. 1.) The only time new information really comes out is during quarterly earnings, and that's also when prices are most volatile and jumps the most. If you make it annual, then an entire year has gone by before new information has come out, and the floodgate of 12 months of data will force the price to jump even more. If a company misses an entire year of earning, it's stock is pretty much done for a while. That would seem to make it even more urgent for CEOs to manipulate their prices 2) Frequent releases help level the playing field between big institutional funds and smaller players (as much as they can be leveled). In the absence of public info, the ones with most resources can spend money to get more valuable data - field research, product analysis etc. Ex: Because the data is so valuable, it might be cost effective for a $50 billion fund to hire hundreds of people to literally stand outside a bunch of Chipotle chains all over the country and count how many people eat there. You could spend up to $20m for that data and make a huge trade based on it. 3.) You can already sort of ignore the quarterly earnings. You can tell analysts to shove it and not provide guidance and just release the minimum for SEC mandated quarterly releases without any discussion or call. You can focus on investing long term and ignore the earnings for each quarter. You can also ignore the short term price drop that comes with not providing those information. Then at the end of the year you can do a long call and go in depth. If you do this, you essentially follow the model described in the article without forcing everyone to do the same.