Loading bill breakdown…
Loading bill breakdown…
Sponsored by Rep. Ann Wagner (R-MO) · 11 active : 7 Republicans, 4 Democrats
Latest action: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Financial Exploitation Prevention Act of 2025
This bill establishes procedures for delaying the redemption of certain securities if an investment company or agent believes that an older individual or an individual with certain impairments has been financially exploited.
Specifically, the bill allows for the delay of the redemption of a security issued by an open-end investment management company and serviced by a transfer agent if the company or agent reasonably believes the redemption involves the financial exploitation of an individual (1) age 65 or older, or (2) age 18 or older who is unable to protect his or her own interests due to a mental or physical impairment. (Open-end investment management companies offer securities in pooled investment vehicles such as mutual funds. Transfer agents facilitate certain transactions for corporations and investment companies, including dividend distribution and change of securities ownership.)
The company may initially delay the redemption for up to 15 days and, upon making a determination of exploitation, may delay the redemption an additional 10 days. A state regulator, appropriate administrative agency, or court may extend this period. In the event of delay, the company must hold the amounts related to the redemption in a demand deposit account. The bill also establishes notification requirements.
The bill requires the registered open-end investment company and transfer agent to notify the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) if they elect to comply with the procedures established under this bill.
Additionally, the SEC must make recommendations to address the financial exploitation of these adults.
Each member’s recorded vote compared with their swing projection from before the vote. A member by voting against most of their own party.
| BandBand before the vote | VotedVoted yea or nay | BrokeBroke with party | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Swing | 26 | 0 | 0% |
| Middle | 239 | 2 | 1% |
| Entrenched | 151 | 0 | 0% |
| All |
Members fall into . 2 representatives don’t have enough data yet and are marked “insufficient data”. Non-voting delegates are not counted. The bill is not before the House right now; these scores show where members would stand.
Bars show each input from 0 to 100: ideology gap, scorecard gap, . is the seat’s partisan lean, and shows how much of the input data a score has. Where the House has voted, each member’s appears with the projection made before it.
Loading similar votes
| 416 |
| 2 |
| 0% |
: Pair any member who broke with one who stayed with their party: in 75% of those pairs, the one who broke had the higher swing score before the vote. Chance would be 50%.
Projections from swing-v2, computed with data from before the vote. Present and not voting never count as breaking.
These members have less than half of the model’s inputs, so their scores are not banded or ranked.
Ringed dots broke with their party on the vote.
Ideology is each member’s score. The cluster low on the chart includes the bill’s 12 sponsor and cosponsors in the House: they have already committed, so they score as entrenched. 2 representatives without a DW-NOMINATE score or with insufficient data are not plotted.
Similar votes count toward swing-v3 in the House: total similarity weight 23.5 (needs 5.0).
