Bill Overview
Title: No Chinese Communist SURPRISE Parties Act
Description: This bill requires issuers of securities to annually disclose whether the issuer has established or maintained an organization of the Chinese Communist Party, if an organization of the Chinese Communist Party has participated in the operations of the issuer, and whether the issuer's board of directors (1) owes a fiduciary duty to the issuer and shareholders, and (2) is subject to heightened scrutiny with respect to conflicted controller transactions.
Sponsors: Sen. Rubio, Marco [R-FL]
Target Audience
Population: People employed by and invested in companies listed on US stock exchanges with possible CCP ties
Estimated Size: 20000000
- The bill affects companies (issuers of securities) who operate in the United States as they need to disclose any involvement by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in their operations.
- Shareholders and investors in these companies will be affected as they require more transparency regarding the company's ties to the CCP.
- The requirement for disclosure may affect U.S. financial markets, particularly those with investments or partnerships with Chinese companies.
- Individuals working within these companies may need to follow new compliance protocols related to the disclosure process.
Reasoning
- The policy targets a significant segment of the U.S. population consisting of employees, investors, and stakeholders in companies with ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). It is crucial to capture a variety of economic and social backgrounds in the simulation, given the impacted range from small retail investors to large institutional stakeholders.
- Due to the budget constraints, the policy must consider efficient methods for data collection, auditing, and enforcement, likely focusing more heavily on larger companies where the potential CCP influence is substantial.
- The sample size balance here reflects different levels of impact: some individuals will experience change due to increased transparency and compliance burden, while others remain largely unaffected but somewhat more informed through potential market adjustments.
- Retail investors may perceive the increased transparency as a protective measure, potentially leading to heightened trust in the equities they hold, thus suggesting a potential for modest wellbeing improvements.
- Conversely, those employed by companies with more significant CCP interactions may face compliance challenges that could adversely affect job security perceptions.
Simulated Interviews
Retired Financial Consultant (New York, NY)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy could provide more transparency, which is crucial for investors like me who need to know what's going on with foreign influences in companies I invest in.
- My main worry is how efficient this policy implementation will be and whether it will truly reach all the corporations affected.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Software Engineer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry that policies like these might limit our access to funding, especially if linked to Chinese investors.
- Ultimately, transparency is good, but not at the cost of job loss or company restrictions that hinder innovation.
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 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Import/Export Business Owner (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might complicate or set back trading relations which I heavily rely on.
- While national security and policy are important, the nuances are critical in ensuring business is not unnecessarily disrupted.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
University Professor (Chicago, IL)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- From an academic standpoint, it's a forward-thinking policy to encourage corporate accountability.
- I anticipate some initial resistance, but this might be a keystone policy demonstrating transparency.
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 |
Retail Investor (Austin, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Knowing more about the companies I invest in feels safer.
- I'm cautiously optimistic about the transparency this policy could bring, but I want more details on impact and enforcement.
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 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Corporate Lawyer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could increase due diligence checks, affecting deal timelines but ensuring more reliable business transactions.
- Clients might initially be frustrated, but ultimately appreciate the additional layers of security.
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 |
Factory Worker (Houston, TX)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't know how much this policy will directly affect me, but if it impacts our partnerships, that's a concern.
- The requirement for disclosure makes sense, but I'm worried about overreach and job losses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Retired CEO (Miami, FL)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- During my career, transparency was essential, so I welcome this policy for encouraging truthful company disclosures.
- I think businesses with nothing to hide will easily adapt to such requirements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Investment Analyst (Boston, MA)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More disclosure can lead to better assessments of risk, so this may benefit my work.
- Although, if the policy leads to reduced collaborations with promising companies, it could limit investment avenues.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Policy Analyst (Denver, CO)
Age: 48 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is an important step towards aligning corporate conduct with national safety interests, albeit with complexities in implementation.
- It will be interesting to see how this policy influences U.S.-China economic relations over the decade.
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 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $201000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Year 2: $198000000 (Low: $145000000, High: $245000000)
Year 3: $195000000 (Low: $140000000, High: $240000000)
Year 5: $190000000 (Low: $135000000, High: $230000000)
Year 10: $180000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $220000000)
Year 100: $170000000 (Low: $110000000, High: $200000000)
Key Considerations
- Compliance costs could disproportionately affect smaller companies with limited resources.
- Investor confidence may increase due to enhanced transparency regarding CCP involvement.
- Potential pushback from companies with extensive ties to Chinese markets.