National Pension Service hamstrung as Kospi plunges
The National Pension Service's limited buying during Korea's market rout highlights the cost of suspending rebalancing during the previous rally.
The Kospi plunged 7.57 percent on Thursday, falling below the 5,600-point mark. During trading, both the Kospi and Kosdaq dropped more than 8 percent, triggering circuit breakers that temporarily halted trading. It was the first simultaneous activation of circuit breakers in both markets since July 29.
The selloff followed renewed speculation about additional U.S. interest rate increases and concerns that AI investment has reached its peak. Major Asian markets also declined, including Japan, down 4.9 percent, and Taiwan, down 3.41 percent. But Korea's losses were particularly severe.
Analysts attribute the sharper decline partly to Korea's heavy dependence on memory semiconductors and partly to deteriorating market supply and demand. Foreign investors have continued selling heavily, with few substantial domestic buyers available to absorb their shares.
Particularly disappointing is the absence of the National Pension Service (NPS), traditionally a major stabilizing force during market downturns.
In previous selloffs, the NPS helped cushion declines through portfolio rebalancing, selling stocks when prices rose and buying when they fell to maintain target investment allocations.
Yet pension funds have played a limited role in the latest downturn. Yesterday, foreign investors sold a net 4.8 trillion won ($3.4 billion), while pension funds purchased just 35.4 billion won.
The NPS now finds itself constrained because it failed to reduce its domestic equity exposure during the preceding rally.
As the Kospi surged from the second half of last year, the NPS Fund Management Committee twice suspended rebalancing, in January and May, while raising its domestic equity allocation.
These unusual departures from established investment principles prompted repeated warnings from experts. Civic organizations, including Korea's two major labor union federations, also expressed concerns about threats to the fund's operational independence.
Some foreign investment banks warned that the NPS had become an amplifier of market volatility rather than a stabilizing force.
At the time, retail investors likely welcomed the NPS decision to refrain from selling shares, while the government avoided the political burden of a market correction.
But the latest plunge demonstrates that economic decisions inevitably involve trade-offs.
By postponing necessary adjustments during the rally, the pension fund sacrificed flexibility when markets turned downward.
There is no free lunch in economics. Every decision carries consequences, particularly when established principles are disregarded.
The NPS must prioritize its long-term investment responsibilities over short-term market sentiment or political convenience. Otherwise, the institution entrusted with protecting citizens' retirement savings risks becoming vulnerable precisely when financial markets most need stability.
(END)