Bill Overview
Title: Empowering States to Protect Seniors from Bad Actors Act
Description: This bill reauthorizes through FY2028 and otherwise revises the Senior Investor Protection Grant Program. The bill moves the program from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to the Securities and Exchange Commission, establishes a task force to oversee the program, and eliminates certain grant eligibility requirements.
Sponsors: Rep. Gottheimer, Josh [D-NJ-5]
Target Audience
Population: Senior citizens engaged in financial investments
Estimated Size: 13000000
- The bill involves a program aimed at protecting senior investors from financial harm.
- The reauthorization and revisions to the Senior Investor Protection Grant Program suggest a direct impact on senior citizens, particularly those who engage in investment activities.
- The financial sector, particularly those involved in consumer financial protection and securities, may also be indirectly impacted.
- Globally, the senior population is growing, with significant numbers engaged in financial investments as part of retirement planning.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily impacts senior citizens who are engaged in investment activities, making them the primary beneficiaries of this legislation. The commonness score reflects the estimate of how typical these profiles are among the U.S. senior population that is involved in investments.
- Since the policy involves financial oversight and protection strategies, it may also indirectly affect financial advisors, legal professionals, and family members of senior citizens who might otherwise need to intervene in cases of financial abuse.
- The financial well-being of this demographic is likely to improve with enhanced protection from malicious actors, but the direct impact is limited to those directly engaged in investment activities and might not significantly affect seniors who do not invest.
- Many seniors are diverse in their levels of engagement with financial markets, ranging from those highly committed to active investors to those with passive or minimal engagement, and this is reflected in the Cantril Wellbeing Scores and impact assessments.
Simulated Interviews
Retired teacher (Florida)
Age: 68 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it's a positive move to have more oversight. I've heard of scams targeting people like us.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired engineer (Colorado)
Age: 72 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As someone who manages my own investments, I appreciate more protections against fraud.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired pharmacist (New York)
Age: 85 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I trust my daughter to handle my finances, but it's good to know there are added protections.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Retired financial analyst (California)
Age: 65 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a necessary update; I believe many seniors are targets, and extra oversight is beneficial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Retired farmer (Ohio)
Age: 79 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't invest in stocks or anything, so this doesn't really affect me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Retired nurse (Texas)
Age: 70 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having moved to the SEC makes me feel safer with my investments. Mutual funds are not immune to scams.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retired military (Arizona)
Age: 88 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm less concerned personally, but added protections for others is a good thing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Retired librarian (Illinois)
Age: 75 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If this helps advisors keep clients like me safer, I'm all for it.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Retired tech worker (Nevada)
Age: 66 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More oversight is always positive, especially as new forms of investments arise.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retired businessman (Montana)
Age: 82 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having been scammed before, I would appreciate any measures to protect me and others.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $18000000, High: $23000000)
Year 2: $20500000 (Low: $18500000, High: $23500000)
Year 3: $21000000 (Low: $19000000, High: $24000000)
Year 5: $21500000 (Low: $19500000, High: $24500000)
Year 10: $22000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $25000000)
Year 100: $23000000 (Low: $21000000, High: $26000000)
Key Considerations
- The shift from the CFPB to the SEC might involve transitional challenges or require additional funding for effective program integration.
- Potentially increased pool of eligible projects due to removed grant eligibility criteria, influencing cost projections.
- The establishment of a new task force might incur initial setup costs and continuous operational expenses.