This weekend's Financial Times (subscription required) highlighted an article which focused on the movement to end quarterly guidance. Those behind it -- namely Pfizer Inc (NYSE: PFE) CEO Jeff Kindler and Xerox Corporation (NYSE: XRX) CEO Anne Mulcahy -- feel the move would allow companies to focus on long-term goals rather than short term fixes. This is clearly an admirable goal, but what are the costs of such a move?

The biggest argument for this move, other than the stated objective of better running companies with a long-term vision in mind, is an increase in executive job security, allowing them more time to see through their visions for the companies they are charged to run (although some, especially certain Yahoo! shareholders, would argue against this being a positive). Moreover, this would end companies massaging financial data in order to "make" certain shorter-term numbers to keep said executives jobs. Not to say this change would stop corporate fraud -- it won't -- but it will end one reason for these fraudulent practices.

The most important argument against this move is a move away from corporate transparency, which investors have been fighting for a long time to gain. For investors to get on board with this, they must be promised clarity into the companies in which they invest in some other way. Additionally, they must also be convinced the change is genuinely for the long-term good of the company, and not just to keep fat-cat execs in positions of power a little longer.

Other interesting effects, should quarterly guidance disappear, are the possibility of lowered stock valuations in the face of greater uncertainty in companies performances, and lowered stock volatility in light of there being less data for stocks to trade on. These can be said to be uniformly good nor bad -- long-term value investors would probably see these side-effects as positive, whereas day traders certainly would not.