quote:
Idk. I'd say the semi annual reporting would allow for a smoother overall year. A good or bad quarter won't stick out as much and you're given a chance to right the ship.

Eh, disagree. The less often you report, the more of a swing you would have. Long term it won't matter as much I wouldn't think. Who cares about Q3 in 2014 or Q1 in 2010 now? But I'm simply saying that if your semi annual report is bad, that's worse than having a bad Q1.

Will fewer reports absolutely save money? I'm honestly asking, makes sense it would. Any change is always going to have positive and negative affects. I'm just trying to think outside of the box.

ETA: Sure I understand that more reporting requires more time spent, but that's not always a bad thing. It means more audits, catching more negative issues faster, and more analysis.

Fewer reports will lead to fewer issues caught I mean. Probably worth it? But its not like it will be 100% better.

This post was edited on 8/17/18 at 12:10 pm

1 Jump to Post ...

Report Post Jump to Post

Posted by slackster

Houston

Member since Mar 2009

87050 posts

Posted on 8/17/18 at 1:09 pm to baldona

quote:
Eh, disagree. The less often you report, the more of a swing you would have. Long term it won't matter as much I wouldn't think. Who cares about Q3 in 2014 or Q1 in 2010 now? But I'm simply saying that if your semi annual report is bad, that's worse than having a bad Q1.

Yes, but if your semi annual report is bad, it's likely due to back to back quarters.

I get what you're saying about two major moves a year instead of four moves at half those rates, but I believe the semi annual reports would be less volatile than the sum of their parts.

0 Jump to Post ...

Report Post Jump to Post

Money Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board