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

▲

nickff 9 hours ago | parent [-]

The company would probably be sued if there were any issues in one of the monthly reports; the money for the plaintiff lawyers is just too appealing. I think monthly 'informal' reports with some legal protections to allow for inaccuracies and inconsistencies, with biennial 'formal' reports would be wonderful. That said, I think allowing companies to select an appropriate reporting interval might be best.

▲

runarberg 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Feels like a first world problem. If your company cannot afford to output accurate reports every month, maybe it shouldn’t be a company at all.

▲

gzread 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Shouldn't be a public company, at least. You can squander your own money as you like.

▲

nickff 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Do you have any sources to back up your feelings? I’m basing my comments on what I’ve read about the matter from a variety of former public company CEOs, CFOs, and COOs.

	▲	runarberg 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I am coming to this from a perspective of a worker who used to get quarterly options of the public company I worked for, and I just cannot for the life of me sympathize with a company complaining that it can only afford to gather the information to calculate the worth of the stocks they are paying me in two times a year. I don‘t care how much it costs them. If you are gonna be paying and trading in stocks, I expect you to do the work required.

▲

chermi 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Ahhh yes. As we all know regulations and requirements and bureaucracy never have unintended consequences, especially on the little guy. All that matters is intent, right?

	▲	Uvix 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The "little guy" isn't a publicly listed company issuing reports. By the time you have an IPO, you're no longer little.