Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/8447

Bill Overview

Title: Protecting Endowments from Our Adversaries Act

Description: This bill imposes an excise tax equal to 50% of the fair market values of certain investments made by private colleges and universities with assets or endowments exceeding $1 billion. It also taxes 100% of the net income of such investments held during a one-year period. These investments are in certain foreign persons or entities (e.g., Chinese or Russian companies) that are included on lists maintained by the Department of Commerce and the Federal Communications Commission that identify persons or entities engaged in human rights abuses or that pose a threat to U.S. national security.

Sponsors: Rep. Murphy, Gregory [R-NC-3]

Target Audience

Population: people involved with private colleges and universities with endowments exceeding $1 billion

Estimated Size: 6000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

College Professor (Boston, MA)

Age: 34 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I think the policy is fair if it's about protecting national interests, but there should be some allowances for collaborative international research.
  • I'm concerned about how funding changes could affect my lab and the collaborative projects we've been developing.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 7
Year 2 6 7
Year 3 6 7
Year 5 7 8
Year 10 7 8
Year 20 8 9

University Administrator (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 60 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 2/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy could potentially limit the financial flexibility we have in driving projects and funding.
  • However, it might force us to rethink our investment strategies, potentially for the better.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 6
Year 2 5 7
Year 3 6 7
Year 5 6 7
Year 10 7 8
Year 20 7 8

Student (Chicago, IL)

Age: 22 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm worried that financial aid might decrease or tuition could increase because of funding issues due to this policy.
  • It's important that college remains accessible and we don't create more barriers for low-income students.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 8
Year 2 7 8
Year 3 8 9
Year 5 8 9
Year 10 9 9
Year 20 9 9

Financial Analyst in Education Sector (New York, NY)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy will likely make some university investment strategies risk-averse, reducing potential gains.
  • It may stabilize investments over time, but also implicitly restricts market opportunities.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 8
Year 3 7 8
Year 5 8 9
Year 10 8 9
Year 20 8 9

Federal Policy Advisor (Washington, D.C.)

Age: 50 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 1/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Ensuring investments align with national security interests is crucial, but the policy's financial implications need balancing.
  • It could become a model for other reforms, mapping national security onto different economic areas.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 8 9
Year 3 8 9
Year 5 9 9
Year 10 9 9
Year 20 9 9

Research Scientist (Houston, TX)

Age: 30 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • If collaborative ventures are cut because of restricted investment sources, we might lose valuable research.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 4 5
Year 2 5 6
Year 3 6 6
Year 5 6 7
Year 10 7 8
Year 20 8 9

Graduate Student (Austin, TX)

Age: 28 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Future research opportunities might be getting more limited if partnerships are cut due to policy restrictions.

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 8
Year 10 8 8
Year 20 8 9

Philanthropist (Philadelphia, PA)

Age: 48 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 2/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I am supportive of safeguarding endowments, but it could increase pressure on philanthropy to backfill any funding gaps created by restrictions.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 6 7
Year 3 7 7
Year 5 8 8
Year 10 8 8
Year 20 8 9

Retired Professor (San Francisco, CA)

Age: 65 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 2/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Prudent investment strategies are essential, but these constraints might cause over-conservative management that miss broader growth opportunities.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 6
Year 2 6 7
Year 3 6 7
Year 5 7 8
Year 10 7 8
Year 20 7 8

Researcher (New Haven, CT)

Age: 39 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Research ecosystems thrive on global collaboration which could be strained if funding sources shrink.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 7
Year 2 6 8
Year 3 7 8
Year 5 7 8
Year 10 8 9
Year 20 9 9

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)

Year 2: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)

Year 3: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)

Year 5: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)

Year 10: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)

Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)

Key Considerations