Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/4292

Bill Overview

Title: Small Business Audit Correction Act of 2022

Description: This bill exempts certain privately held, noncustody brokers and dealers in good standing from specified audit report requirements of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board.

Sponsors: Sen. Cotton, Tom [R-AR]

Target Audience

Population: Individuals associated with privately held, noncustody brokers and dealers

Estimated Size: 30000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Owner of a small brokerage firm (New York, NY)

Age: 45 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy sounds like it would reduce some of our compliance costs, which is a small relief.
  • I don’t expect huge changes immediately, but it’s good to see a movement towards recognizing the strain excessive requirements place on small businesses.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Compliance Manager (Chicago, IL)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Reduced auditing requirements might make my job less stressful, giving us room to focus on other issues.
  • Hopefully, this changes the focus from compliance to business growth.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Junior Accountant (San Francisco, CA)

Age: 34 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • We struggle with audit preparations every year; this could ease a bit of the yearly pressure.
  • The job demands might decrease making phases like year-end less challenging.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Securities Analyst (Boston, MA)

Age: 29 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • In my role, less stringent audits could mean more time for analysis over paperwork.
  • This might open up opportunities to develop professionally without compliance dominating.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

CEO of a broker-dealer (Dallas, TX)

Age: 55 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Anything that cuts unnecessary costs is welcome; this is a nice step.
  • However, we need to ensure other areas do not become overly complex.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Finance Director (Atlanta, GA)

Age: 42 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Relief from the usual audit stress is something I look forward to.
  • This keeps us compliant yet less burdened with costly processes.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Brokers Association Representative (Seattle, WA)

Age: 61 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 2/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This bill aligns with our advocacy for reducing paperwork burden on small firms.
  • Anticipate a positive shift in how resources are allocated.

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 8 7
Year 20 7 7

Audit Consultant (Miami, FL)

Age: 39 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 4.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Interestingly, this might mean fewer clients due to reduced need for audits.
  • However, it should ultimately lead to more strategic business opportunities.

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

Regulatory Affairs Specialist (Denver, CO)

Age: 31 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • While it's too soon to see all implications, reducing audits is promising but we need safeguards.
  • I see a chance to allocate energies in more impactful areas.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

HR Manager (Houston, TX)

Age: 48 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Our workforce could benefit from less stress connected to audits, potentially aiding retention.
  • Regulatory changes are well-needed. Let's hope it drives job satisfaction.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $0 (Low: $0, High: $10000000)

Year 2: $0 (Low: $0, High: $10000000)

Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $10000000)

Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $10000000)

Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $10000000)

Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $10000000)

Key Considerations