Bill Overview
Title: STOP CCP Act of 2022
Description: This bill prohibits U.S. persons (generally individuals and entities subject to U.S. jurisdiction) from trading in the publicly traded securities of certain entities that operate or have operated in certain sectors in China, including the defense or surveillance technology sectors.
Sponsors: Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL]
Target Audience
Population: U.S. persons involved in trading securities of Chinese defense or surveillance companies
Estimated Size: 150000
- The bill impacts U.S. persons, which includes entities and individuals subject to U.S. jurisdiction, because they are prohibited from trading in specified securities.
- It targets certain Chinese entities by affecting their access to U.S. investment due to trading prohibitions on their securities, particularly those in defense and surveillance sectors.
Reasoning
- The target population of 150,000 is chosen because it focuses on those trading in specific sectors related to Chinese securities, namely defense and surveillance. Within the broad U.S. population, only a small fraction engages in such niche activities, justifying the estimate size.
- Given the nature of the policy, those heavily invested in or working closely with Chinese defense and surveillance sectors may see more significant changes in wellbeing due to financial implications or job impacts.
- U.S. investors with diverse portfolios might experience only low or medium impacts if their exposure to these specific sectors is minimal. Hence, the commonness of highly impacted individuals should also be low.
- The financial constraints of the policy suggest it aims to redirect or limit trading activities rather than offer direct compensation, indicating financial protective measures might not be feasible within the budgetary limits.
Simulated Interviews
Investment analyst (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might cut off lucrative opportunities in emerging markets.
- Could initially cause a market backlash; however, might stabilize U.S. market reliance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Stock trader (Boston, MA)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Direct impact is low as exposure is minimal.
- U.S. policy changes need consistent monitoring, could affect broader market sentiment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Retired engineer (Houston, TX)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Unlikely to be directly impacted.
- Main concern is about overall market stability affecting retirement income.
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 |
Tech entrepreneur (New York City, NY)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Short-term, this will increase costs for companies like mine due to market uncertainty.
- Possibly beneficial long-term as it may push for U.S. tech innovations.
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 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Financial advisor (Seattle, WA)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Could make advising clients on international investments more challenging.
- Diversification strategy remains key, policy may impact specific client segments.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Business owner in manufacturing (Chicago, IL)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy won't have immediate direct effects on my business.
- Concerned about broader supply chain costs if China experiences economic repercussions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Entrepreneur in tech sector (Austin, TX)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Might escalate insurance costs for ventures.
- Could indirectly encourage more U.S. tech investment which we can benefit from.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Researcher in international economics (Miami, FL)
Age: 62 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Pros and cons; could stabilize U.S.-China trade tensions longer term.
- Might necessitate economic adaptations in U.S. trading strategies.
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 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
CEO of mid-size tech firm (Denver, CO)
Age: 53 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Could disrupt potential business expansions into Asian markets.
- Potential gain in domestic market if U.S. innovation receives boosts.
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 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Cryptocurrency investor (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Traditional financial policies often push growth toward crypto sectors.
- Minimal impact on my current portfolio; opportunity for growth if market shifts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 2: $26000000 (Low: $21000000, High: $31000000)
Year 3: $27000000 (Low: $22000000, High: $32000000)
Year 5: $29000000 (Low: $24000000, High: $34000000)
Year 10: $32000000 (Low: $26000000, High: $38000000)
Year 100: $80000000 (Low: $65000000, High: $95000000)
Key Considerations
- The implementation of the bill would be closely monitored to ensure effective compliance.
- There could be geopolitical repercussions requiring diplomatic engagement to mitigate.
- Impact on financial markets is dependent on investor adaptation and compliance.