Bill Overview
Title: IMPAIR Russia Act
Description: This bill prohibits investment companies and other institutional investors from purchasing securities issued by a Russian entity.
Sponsors: Sen. Rubio, Marco [R-FL]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals around the world involved in investments related to Russia
Estimated Size: 30000000
- Institutional investors globally may be impacted as they need to comply with the new regulations that prohibit investments in Russian securities.
- Investors holding existing Russian investments may be required to divest, impacting their portfolios.
- The investment environment involving Russian securities will be directly influenced, potentially affecting market dynamics.
- Companies in Russia that rely on foreign investments, particularly from international institutional investors, will be affected.
Reasoning
- About 15% of American investors are involved in international markets, and a subset may have exposure to Russian investments. The policy specifically affects institutional investors, but could indirectly influence individual portfolios, especially those of retirees relying on diversified international assets.
- The impact on wellbeing will depend on dependency on Russian securities in portfolios, which is likely low for individual investors but significant for some retirement funds. The policy limits options but also shields from geopolitical risk.
- Given budget constraints, the policy is unlikely to cover massive financial compensations to individuals but could provide support to affected institutional investors needing to restructure their portfolios, benefiting stakeholders indirectly.
Simulated Interviews
Retired School Teacher (Naples, FL)
Age: 67 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support the regulation because it's important to be cautious with investments tied to geopolitical tensions.
- I'm concerned, however, about the short-term hit my retirement fund might take.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Investment Analyst (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This will certainly complicate managing our portfolios, but the geopolitical risk was always there.
- It's a temporary setback, and we need to adjust accordingly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Software Engineer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I wasn't even aware that my funds had Russian assets in them.
- If this makes my investments safer, then I'm for it.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Finance Manager (New York, NY)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will push us to expedite changes that were perhaps overdue.
- Short-term pain for long-term safety is an acceptable trade-off.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Freelance Graphic Designer (Austin, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't think this changes much for me directly.
- If my investments become safer as a result, that's positive.
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 |
Part-time Accountant (Boston, MA)
Age: 61 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy makes me slightly uneasy about my current portfolio structure.
- Or maybe it's a signal to re-evaluate my investments more carefully.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Real Estate Developer (Charlotte, NC)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is beyond what I focus on in my investments.
- It's probably beneficial to be aware but doesn't affect my strategy.
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 |
Public School Administrator (Portland, OR)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's unnerving to learn that my funds could have risky assets.
- I'm OK with diversifying out of risky areas.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Senior IT Consultant (Denver, CO)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy seems prudent given the current situation.
- I hadn't realized the extent of my international exposure.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Corporate Lawyer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's vital to ensure compliance to avoid legal repercussions.
- The policy clarifies some gray areas concerning investments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 2: $9000000 (Low: $7000000, High: $11000000)
Year 3: $8500000 (Low: $6500000, High: $10500000)
Year 5: $8000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $10000000)
Year 10: $7500000 (Low: $5000000, High: $9500000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Key Considerations
- Regulatory compliance costs for investment companies will be a critical ongoing expenditure.
- Potential market volatility during the initial implementation phase could affect short-term economic stability.
- Limited investment options for American investors affecting portfolio diversification and risk management strategies.
- Legal and diplomatic repercussions with regards to economic relationships with Russian entities.