Bill Overview
Title: Reveal Risky Business in Russia Act
Description: This bill requires an issuer of securities to disclose whether the issuer does business with or in Russia or any country that, after March 24, 2022, invades a sovereign nation state or annexes sovereign territory.
Sponsors: Rep. Torres, Ritchie [D-NY-15]
Target Audience
Population: People whose economic interests are tied to companies doing business with Russia
Estimated Size: 250000
- The bill focuses on issuers of securities, which include companies and organizations involved in raising capital through the issuance of securities.
- Issuers of securities operate globally, and a significant number of these companies are based in countries with developed financial markets.
- Businesses that engage in trade, investments, or other forms of commerce with Russia or similar countries will need to comply with new disclosure requirements.
Reasoning
- The policy targets a specific group, largely consisting of those involved in or dependent on businesses issuing securities with ties to Russia.
- The scope includes large corporations, financial analysts, investors, and employees in companies with international activities touching on Russia.
- The budget limits may constrain the monitoring and enforcement of the assigned disclosures, focusing mainly on major issuers due to cost constraints.
- Many people in the financial sector could experience indirect effects, such as changes in the perceived risk and performance of their investments.
- For individuals whose livelihood depends on affected securities, the Cantril wellbeing scores may fluctuate based on the market's response to policy compliance and transparency.
Simulated Interviews
Financial Analyst (New York, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy introduces a new layer of scrutiny for my work.
- Transparency is good for the market in the long run, but there could be short-term instability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Corporate Lawyer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This will increase demand for legal compliance services.
- My clients may face increased costs, but it enhances corporate governance.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 8 |
Investor (Miami, FL)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This might push some companies to divest from Russia-related activities.
- Diversification is key, but there might be portfolio volatility initially.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
CEO of Mid-sized Manufacturing Firm (Chicago, IL)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We'll need to disclose and possibly rethink our partnerships.
- The policy might affect our competitiveness.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Retired Pension Fund Manager (Houston, TX)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a retiree, any impact on my investment-derived income concerns me.
- The long-term benefits of transparency might stabilize returns.
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 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Tech Executive (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy probably won't affect my company directly.
- It's interesting to see how governments are navigating global business risks.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Graduate Student in Economics (Boston, MA)
Age: 26 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy provides great data for my research.
- It's a step toward greater accountability in global finance.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Owner of Import/Export Business (Dallas, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We'll need to disclose whether we handle goods from affected regions.
- This might not affect us much unless there are further sanctions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Social Media Manager for Multinational Corporation (Seattle, WA)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Indirect impacts might influence our branding strategies.
- We anticipate little disruption directly but will monitor partners.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Independent Stock Trader (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Disclosures might create volatility but also signal opportunities.
- It'll be critical to adjust trading strategies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $75000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $100000000)
Year 2: $76250000 (Low: $51000000, High: $101500000)
Year 3: $77500000 (Low: $52020000, High: $103000000)
Year 5: $80000000 (Low: $54000000, High: $106000000)
Year 10: $85000000 (Low: $57000000, High: $110000000)
Year 100: $120000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $160000000)
Key Considerations
- This policy focuses on ensuring transparency regarding U.S. companies' exposure to geopolitical risks, specifically Russia.
- While disclosures enhance market information, they add regulatory burdens that affect business operations and may indirectly impact market dynamics and attractiveness for investors.
- Monitoring and enforcing compliance will require additional resources from both government agencies and the private sector.