Bill Overview
Title: REG Act
Description: This bill requires the Securities and Exchange Commission to periodically review final rules to determine if a revision, including a repeal, of a rule is (1) necessary to ensure the rule is authorized under law; (2) necessary to comply with the law; or (3) necessary or appropriate to facilitate capital formation, to maintain fair and orderly markets, or to protect investors.
Sponsors: Rep. Kim, Young [R-CA-39]
Target Audience
Population: People who participate in markets regulated by the SEC
Estimated Size: 180000000
- The bill impacts regulations influencing capital markets.
- The SEC's action includes maintaining fair and orderly markets, affecting all investors.
- Protection of investors suggests both direct and indirect influence on individuals who invest or rely on investments.
- Investment regulations apply globally, impacting international investors as well.
- Many individuals globally, part of funds or retirement plans, are indirectly affected by these regulations between business operations and personal finances.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily affects investors and individuals connected to the financial markets, a common profile within the US due to the proportion of people owning stocks or being part of retirement accounts.
- The policy's budget limits the extent to which the SEC can conduct reviews and possibly creates constraints on speed or effectiveness of implementation.
- Targeting a population of 180 million, a large segment of the US population that is directly or indirectly linked to SEC-regulated markets, implies the policy's global importance.
- A diversity of participants means some individuals might only be tangentially affected if they rely on financial advisors. Others, who actively trade, may be more directly impacted.
- Wellbeing in this context could be influenced by the perceived security of investments and any changes in transaction processes or market behavior as a result of the policy.
- The time frame of implementation suggests long-term benefits could be significant, but initial impacts may be muted due to gradual changes.
Simulated Interviews
retired teacher (New York)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope the policy leads to better protections for my retirement savings. It seems like reviews could keep the markets in better shape.
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 | 6 |
software engineer (California)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Periodic reviews sound good. Making sure rules keep up with new tech is important for my investments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
financial analyst (Texas)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm curious if this will increase our workload or make compliance easier. It might optimize some processes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
small business owner (Illinois)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Anything that keeps the market fair is positive. I'm skeptical about the practical changes.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
college student (Florida)
Age: 23 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm new to investing. If this makes things simpler or safer, I'm all for it.
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 | 6 | 5 |
bank manager (Ohio)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Clients might feel more secure knowing rules are continuously reviewed.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
self-employed financial advisor (Georgia)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is important. Stable regulations ensure I can provide better advice to clients.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
graduate student (Massachusetts)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think reviewed rules could lead to better market protection, helping individuals like me who are just starting.
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 (Nevada)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increasing reviews is a step in the right direction. Regulations need to match the times to stay effective.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
teacher (Michigan)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I rely on my fund managers, but knowing regulations are up-to-date makes me feel more secure.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $70000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $90000000)
Year 2: $68000000 (Low: $48000000, High: $88000000)
Year 3: $66000000 (Low: $47000000, High: $86000000)
Year 5: $64000000 (Low: $46000000, High: $84000000)
Year 10: $60000000 (Low: $44000000, High: $80000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $35000000, High: $65000000)
Key Considerations
- Periodic revision requirements could institutionalize updates promoting modern regulatory practices.
- Initial costs may be offset by long-term efficiency and cost savings.
- Close executive oversight is necessary to ensure timely rule evaluations and modifications.
- Public and workforce acceptance of rule modifications is critical for successful implementation.
- Potential indirect impacts on global markets due to rule adjustments affecting international investors.