Bill Overview
Title: Enhancing Financial Stability Research and Oversight Act
Description: This bill gives the Director of the Office of Financial Research (OFR) within the Department of the Treasury sole discretion over the OFR's annual budget. It also establishes minimum funding and staffing levels for the OFR and for the Financial Stability Oversight Council.
Sponsors: Rep. Foster, Bill [D-IL-11]
Target Audience
Population: People worldwide whose wellbeing depends on economic stability
Estimated Size: 330000000
- The OFR's role is to research and analyze factors related to financial stability in the United States and globally.
- Changes in the OFR's operations could impact financial institutions, markets, and therefore the broader economy.
- This legislation ensures that the OFR and Financial Stability Oversight Council have the resources they need to monitor financial stability.
Reasoning
- The OFR and the Financial Stability Oversight Council primarily deal with macroeconomic factors and the financial infrastructure that impacts the entire economy. Thus, the policy will likely have indirect effects on the general population rather than direct impacts on individuals.
- A budget of $300 million in year one should allow for significant research initiatives and operational improvements at OFR. This is set within the broader US economy and global financial systems.
- Individuals working in banking, finance, and sectors that are sensitive to economic shifts might have a more immediate sense of potential impacts.
Simulated Interviews
Investment Banker (New York, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think giving the OFR more resources is a good idea. It can lead to a more stable financial environment which is crucial for my line of work.
- I am hopeful that this policy will prevent situations like the 2008 crisis.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Tech Entrepreneur (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A more stable economy generally means better access to funding for startups like mine.
- I would expect this policy to indirectly assist with reducing risk for investors.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
School Teacher (Dallas, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't know much about financial markets, but keeping things stable sounds good.
- Hopefully, this means fewer economic downturns affecting jobs and salaries.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Chicago, IL)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A stable economy means people might feel more secure and spend more.
- I expect this policy to support consumer confidence in the long run.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Freelancer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 25 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Financial stability could lead to more predictable markets and opportunities.
- I see this policy as a possibly positive influence, especially for gig workers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired (Miami, FL)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hopefully, this will prevent another financial crisis like the one that affected my savings.
- Stability in the economy is very important at this stage of life.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Auto Worker (Detroit, MI)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Economic factors heavily impact my job security and industry stability.
- This policy might help mitigate some risks associated with downturns.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
College Student (Austin, TX)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Anything that stabilizes the economy could mean a better job market when I graduate.
- I am optimistic about policies that address economic research and oversight.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Nurse (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Financial stability can mean more consistent funding for healthcare, which affects my job.
- It's important for long-term security in my field.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Retired Economist (Boston, MA)
Age: 70 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is likely to improve financial oversight, which I've advocated for.
- I'm supportive of efforts to bolster economic stability research.
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 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $300000000 (Low: $280000000, High: $350000000)
Year 2: $315000000 (Low: $290000000, High: $370000000)
Year 3: $330000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $390000000)
Year 5: $360000000 (Low: $330000000, High: $420000000)
Year 10: $420000000 (Low: $380000000, High: $490000000)
Year 100: $2000000000 (Low: $1500000000, High: $2500000000)
Key Considerations
- The policy sets legally mandated minimum funding levels, affecting federal budget allocations.
- Potential long-term benefits from increased financial stability oversight may outweigh the immediate budgetary costs.
- It may address systemic financial risks more proactively but could face political scrutiny over OFR's increased budgetary discretion.