Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
This bill amends the Investment Advisers Act to require that a customer’s "best interest" be determined using pecuniary factors unless the customer gives written informed consent to consider non‑pecuniary factors. If a customer consents, advisers must disclose expected pecuniary effects over a customer‑selected period (up to three years) and later report actual effects versus a comparable index, including fees.
Whether ESG/climate considerations count as pecuniary or must be treated as non‑pecuniary
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill delivers a focused substantive change (clarifying that best-interest determinations must be based on pecuniary factors unless written informed consent is obtained) and pairs that with directed SEC studies.
This bill amends the Investment Advisers Act to require that a customer’s "best interest" be determined using pecuniary factors unless the customer gives written informed consent to consider non‑pecuniary factors.
If a customer consents, advisers must disclose expected pecuniary effects over a customer‑selected period (up to three years) and later report actual effects versus a comparable index, including fees.
The SEC must adopt rules within 12 months and the new standard applies 12 months after enactment.
Modest administrative burden and no large budget cost improve prospects, but high ideological stakes and likely Senate obstacles reduce overall chances.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill delivers a focused substantive change (clarifying that best-interest determinations must be based on pecuniary factors unless written informed consent is obtained) and pairs that with directed SEC studies. It provides concrete definitions and deadlines and delegates implementation details to SEC rulemaking and study reports.
Whether ESG/climate considerations count as pecuniary or must be treated as non‑pecuniary
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Whether ESG/climate considerations count as pecuniary or must be treated as non‑pecuniary
Likely critical: sees the bill as restricting fiduciaries' ability to consider non‑pecuniary ESG goals unless clients explicitly opt in.
Will welcome transparency requirements and SEC studies, but worry the legislative change will chill ESG integration even when financially material.
Some impacts are speculative and depend on SEC rulemaking.
Mixed but cautiously receptive: appreciates clearer fiduciary standards, client choice, and evidence‑gathering via SEC studies.
Concerned about potential compliance costs and unintended consequences limiting consideration of financially material non‑pecuniary risks.
Will focus on how SEC implements definitions and timelines.
Likely supportive: views the bill as restoring a pecuniary‑first fiduciary standard, increasing client control, and curbing ESG prioritization without client consent.
Supports studies that may expose regulatory burdens from pay‑to‑play or overbroad disclosure expectations.
Sees transparency and client choice as wins.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Modest administrative burden and no large budget cost improve prospects, but high ideological stakes and likely Senate obstacles reduce overall chances.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Whether ESG/climate considerations count as pecuniary or must be treated as non‑pecuniary
Modest administrative burden and no large budget cost improve prospects, but high ideological stakes and likely Senate obstacles reduce ove…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill delivers a focused substantive change (clarifying that best-interest determinations must be based on pecuniary factors unless written informed consent is obtained) an…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.