Bill Overview
Title: PRRADA
Description: This bill requires professionals employed in debt adjustment cases involving Puerto Rico to file verified statements disclosing their connections with interested parties before seeking compensation for their services. The Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico must establish a list of such interested parties, which shall include the debtor, creditors, any attorney or accountant of the debtor or creditors, persons employed by the U.S. Trustee Program, persons employed by the board, and any other interested party. Compensation may be denied to such a professional if these disclosures are not filed, are inadequate, or if the professional is found to have certain conflicts of interest.
Sponsors: Rep. Velazquez, Nydia M. [D-NY-7]
Target Audience
Population: Professionals in Puerto Rican debt adjustment cases
Estimated Size: 800
- The bill affects professionals involved in debt adjustment cases in Puerto Rico, including lawyers and accountants.
- The professionals impacted are those who might have conflicts of interest in the cases they are involved with.
- The bill mandates disclosure of connections with interested parties to ensure transparency and prevent conflicts of interest.
- The professionals involved include those employed by the debtor, creditors, the U.S. Trustee Program, and the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico.
Reasoning
- The target population for this policy are professionals such as lawyers, accountants, and financial advisors involved in debt adjustment cases in Puerto Rico.
- Many of these professionals either reside in Puerto Rico or have frequent business dealings there.
- Some professionals affected by this policy might not be directly involved with the responsibilities the bill imposes, hence their impact can be low or none.
- Given the financial oversight nature, it attracts professionals from various fields but mostly those from finance and law.
- Since Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory, the professionals are either based in the U.S. or work closely with U.S. financial and legal systems.
- The policy aims to ensure transparency and prevent conflicts of interest. Hence, professionals with clear ethical standards may already practice such disclosures.
Simulated Interviews
Debt Adjustment Attorney (Puerto Rico)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy adds paperwork, but it's crucial for transparency.
- It helps build trust in the system and avoid potential conflicts of interest.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Financial Analyst (New York)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a needed measure to ensure all dealings are above board.
- Adds additional compliance requirements, but necessary.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Accountant (Puerto Rico)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The new regulations might initially be overwhelming.
- It's important to ensure we're fully compliant to avoid issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Legal Consultant (Washington D.C.)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy standardizes necessary disclosures which align with the best practices.
- Should have minimal direct impact on my current processes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Independent Auditor (Florida)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Adds another layer of review, which is essential for thorough audits.
- I see it as a positive move towards greater accountability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Financial Oversight Board Member (California)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- PRRADA ensures clear delineation of relationships which is imperative.
- This doesn't affect my wellbeing substantially but positively affects system trust.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Corporate Lawyer (Puerto Rico)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could lead to more efficient negotiation processes.
- However, it may initially delay client proceedings due to additional disclosures.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Bankruptcy Advisor (Texas)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 12.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill enforces transparency but increases reporting work.
- It's a necessary change for regulatory compliance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Junior Accountant (Puerto Rico)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy ensures I learn about ethical and transparent processes early in my career.
- Initial challenges include adapting to new reporting standards.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 2 |
Financial Consultant (Illinois)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy aligns with improved risk management practices.
- May complicate initial investment decisions due to additional documentation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $7000000)
Year 2: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $7000000)
Year 3: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $7000000)
Year 5: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $7000000)
Year 10: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $7000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $7000000)
Key Considerations
- Potential costs associated with implementing and enforcing new disclosure requirements.
- Possible indirect cost savings due to reduced litigation and improved transparency.
- Impact on GDP through streamlined financial practices.