FASB Chair on Semiannual Reporting and Stablecoin Accounting: What CFOs and Auditors Must Know Now
FASB chair Richard Jones used a wide-ranging July 2026 interview with Accounting Today to address two distinct but equally significant issues: whether FASB standards can accommodate a potential SEC move toward optional semiannual reporting, and where the board stands on digital-asset standard-setting, particularly a new project on stablecoin accounting and cash equivalents. The answers have direct implications for accounting firms, auditors, and CFOs who maintain US GAAP financial statements and are beginning to carry digital assets on their balance sheets.
The Semiannual Reporting Debate and FASB's Position
The SEC has been consulting on a proposal that would allow certain public companies to file financial statements every six months rather than every quarter. President Trump has advocated for semiannual reporting since his first term, and SEC chair Paul Atkins has positioned the shift as part of a broader deregulatory agenda he calls "Make IPOs Great Again." The comment period on the SEC proposal has now closed, and early signals from academic observers suggest the market response is largely negative. Nonetheless, Jones characterized the eventual passage of some form of optional semiannual regime as likely.
Why FASB Believes Its Standards Already Fit
Jones made a point that may surprise practitioners: FASB standards are already written around interim reporting rather than specifically around quarterly filing. That distinction matters. Because the second-quarter Form 10-Q already contains six-month year-to-date figures, Jones argued that semiannual reporting is, in practical terms, something that happens today. Any company opting for semiannual filing under the SEC's proposed optional regime would still produce an interim financial statement, and FASB's existing guidance would govern it in the same way it governs a second-quarter report.
There are two narrow carve-outs where the word "quarterly" does appear explicitly in FASB guidance: earnings per share and income tax accounting. In both cases, the methodology is driven by year-to-date aggregation, so identifying results by individual quarter within a multi-quarter period is necessary. Jones acknowledged that a few semantic tweaks may be required in those areas, but he was clear that these are minor adjustments, not a fundamental rewrite. A FASB team has been reviewing the full body of guidance for several months to identify any additional references that would need updating if the SEC finalises its proposal.
SEC Chair Atkins Invites FASB to Act Proactively
When Atkins addressed FASB in May 2026, he explicitly encouraged the board to evaluate amendments to its standards governing interim financial statements, with the stated objective of ensuring that only material information is compelled and that immaterial disclosures are not mandated. For accounting firms advising listed clients, this is a signal worth tracking: if the SEC proceeds and FASB subsequently issues targeted amendments, the timing of those changes could affect how preparers draft interim notes and how auditors scope their review engagements. Jones indicated that, should the SEC proceed, FASB will ensure that preparers and stakeholders have the standards they need. Firms should monitor any FASB exposure drafts related to interim reporting that emerge in the fourth quarter of 2026 or into 2027.
FASB's Broader 2025 Agenda Consultation and What Comes Next
Beyond semiannual reporting, Jones outlined the arc of FASB's current agenda cycle. The board conducted a second major stakeholder outreach in 2025, its first broad agenda reset since the COVID-era consultation that Jones oversaw at the start of his tenure. That 2025 exercise produced a list of potential projects, gathered feedback, and is now driving much of what the board is actively deliberating. Jones expects that by around November 2026, every item from that consultation will have been brought before the full board for public deliberations, effectively closing out that cycle and reshaping the agenda for 2027 and beyond.
The Reconstituted EITF and Faster Standard-Setting
FASB's Emerging Issues Task Force, which dates to the mid-1980s, was reconstituted a couple of years ago with revised operating procedures that give the EITF more control over its own agenda. Member firms can now raise emerging practice issues and bring them to the board with a proposed solution attached. Jones pointed to that structural change as a catalyst for faster, more targeted guidance. One concrete output was a set of guidance released in April 2026. The reconstituted EITF model is relevant for accounting firms and CFOs because it creates a faster feedback loop: if a novel transaction type is creating inconsistent practice across the market, the EITF can move more quickly to a proposed solution than the full standard-setting process traditionally allowed.
Private Company Issues on the Agenda
The Private Company Council continues to play a dual role: originating projects and serving as FASB's primary advisory group on private-company applicability. Two PCC-influenced projects are worth noting for firms with private-company audit or advisory mandates. First, an exposure draft on debt-equity indexation is expected in the fourth quarter of 2026, addressing a complexity that pre-IPO companies frequently encounter. Second, a project on subjective acceleration clauses and debt-default disclosures is under development after the PCC identified it as a concern shared by preparers, investors, and lenders alike. Jones noted that cross-constituency alignment on a standard-setting need is relatively rare and accelerates the process.
Stablecoin Accounting: The "Cash Equivalents" Project
For firms and CFOs with digital asset exposure, the most actionable item in Jones's interview is the board's project on disclosure of cash equivalents, which has been scoped to include stablecoins. A stablecoin is a crypto asset whose value is pegged to a fiat reference currency, typically the US dollar. The project is deliberately framed as a cash-equivalents question rather than a crypto-specific one, which means its conclusions will affect how companies classify and disclose any asset that might qualify, stablecoin or otherwise.
Why Stablecoin Accounting Under US GAAP Is Unsettled
Under existing US GAAP, stablecoins do not automatically qualify as cash equivalents. ASC 305 requires that a cash equivalent be a short-term, highly liquid investment that is readily convertible to a known amount of cash and subject to an insignificant risk of change in value. Whether a particular stablecoin meets that test depends on its structure, the reliability of its reserve backing, and its liquidity profile, all of which vary across issuers. The GENIUS Act, passed by Congress, introduced a federal regulatory framework for payment stablecoins in the US. That legislative development has raised the profile of the question sharply: if a stablecoin issued under the GENIUS Act framework carries federal oversight of its reserve assets, does it now behave more like a cash equivalent for accounting purposes?
Jones was candid that this project will attract broad stakeholder interest. For firms advising corporate treasury teams that hold USDC or other dollar-pegged tokens, the stakes are clear: classification as a cash equivalent versus an intangible asset or a financial instrument produces very different balance sheet presentation, different disclosure requirements, and potentially different impairment considerations. Until the board completes this project, the classification judgment remains with management and the auditor, and the risk of inconsistency across reporting entities is real.
Interaction with ASC 350-60 and the Fair Value Framework
The existing digital-asset standard, ASC 350-60, introduced fair value measurement for a defined category of crypto assets held by companies. Stablecoins whose value is intended to be stable present an interesting edge case: fair value measurement for a well-functioning dollar-pegged token should produce a figure very close to par, but the standard still requires entities to assess whether the asset falls within the scope of ASC 350-60 at all. The cash-equivalents project sits alongside, not inside, ASC 350-60, which means the board may need to address the interaction between the two frameworks explicitly. Auditors should flag this as a disclosure risk in interim and annual engagements until the FASB project concludes.
It is also worth noting the contrast with the international position. Under IFRS, IAS 7 governs cash and cash equivalents using criteria broadly similar to ASC 305, and IFRS 9 or IAS 38 may apply to crypto assets depending on their characteristics. The IASB has not yet issued a dedicated stablecoin standard, making US GAAP's treatment of the issue an area where a clear FASB position could influence global practice norms, even if indirectly. Firms with cross-border clients or dual reporters should track both agendas. For context on the interplay between US and international regulatory frameworks around stablecoins, see our earlier coverage of US and UK regulatory alignment on stablecoins and tokenized assets.
Practical Implications for Accounting Firms and CFOs
Audit and Reporting Considerations
Three workstreams need attention now. First, on semiannual reporting: firms should assess which of their listed clients might elect an optional semiannual regime if the SEC finalises the proposal, and consider how review engagement scoping, fee structures, and audit committee communications would change. Second, on FASB's interim-period tweaks: monitor any exposure drafts that address EPS and tax accounting in a semiannual context, since those are the two areas Jones identified as requiring specific attention. Third, and most urgently, on stablecoin accounting: any client that holds stablecoins in treasury should document its current classification rationale, whether that is cash and cash equivalents, a financial instrument, or a crypto asset under ASC 350-60. That documentation will form the baseline against which any future FASB guidance is assessed.
What to Monitor Between Now and November 2026
Jones set a clear internal timeline: by around November 2026, all items from the 2025 agenda consultation should have had public board deliberations. That makes the next four to five months a dense period for FASB watchers. Firms should track board meeting agendas for the cash-equivalents and stablecoin project, the debt-equity indexation exposure draft, the subjective acceleration clause project, and any interim-reporting standard tweaks tied to the SEC semiannual proposal. The AICPA is also active in this space; its proposed updates to attestation standards covering digital assets, covered in our piece on AICPA's proposed attestation standard updates covering digital assets, add a further layer of compliance consideration for audit firms.
For CFOs building or refining a digital asset accounting policy, the practical message from Jones's interview is to avoid locking in a classification for stablecoins that will be difficult to unwind if FASB concludes the cash-equivalents project with guidance that differs from current practice. A well-documented accounting policy with explicit reference to the pending FASB project, and a commitment to reassess upon finalisation, is the defensible position at the current moment.
Frequently Asked Questions
Will FASB need to rewrite its standards if the SEC adopts semiannual reporting?
According to FASB chair Richard Jones, the board's existing guidance is already framed around interim reporting rather than quarterly reporting specifically, so most standards should apply without amendment. Minor semantic changes may be needed in areas such as EPS and income tax accounting, and FASB is reviewing its full body of guidance to identify any further adjustments required.
How does optional semiannual reporting affect audit engagements?
If a public company elects semiannual filing under any SEC-approved optional regime, auditors would perform a review engagement on a six-month interim financial statement rather than two quarterly reviews. Firms should begin assessing how that affects engagement planning, resource allocation, and fee structures for clients that might elect the option.
What is FASB's "cash equivalents" project and why does it matter for stablecoin accounting?
FASB has an active project examining the disclosure of cash equivalents that explicitly covers stablecoins. Under current US GAAP, stablecoins do not automatically qualify as cash equivalents under ASC 305. The project will determine whether and how the classification criteria apply to stablecoins, which affects balance sheet presentation, disclosure, and potentially impairment analysis for any company holding dollar-pegged tokens.
Does ASC 350-60 already resolve stablecoin classification?
ASC 350-60 introduced fair value measurement for certain crypto assets, but the cash-equivalents project sits separately from that standard. A stablecoin may or may not fall within ASC 350-60 scope, and even if it does, the question of whether it qualifies as a cash equivalent under ASC 305 remains open. The two frameworks can interact, and FASB may need to address that interaction explicitly when it concludes the project.
How does IFRS treat stablecoins compared to US GAAP?
Under IFRS, IAS 7 governs cash and cash equivalents using criteria similar to those in ASC 305, while financial instruments or intangible asset standards may apply depending on the stablecoin's structure. The IASB has not issued a dedicated stablecoin standard, so the position remains judgement-driven for IFRS preparers as well. Firms with dual reporters or cross-border clients should monitor both the FASB project and any IASB activity in this area.
Source: Accounting Today