(Pension Future Forum Commentary on a Press Article) The National Pension’s “Public Housing Investment” Reignited… the Resistance Must Be Overcome (2026-08-13)

(The National Pension Fund Management Committee

had set

an original 2026

fund management plan; overturning it,

it more than doubled

the allocation to domestic equity investment, and then,

even at the KOSPI’s peak,

it did not

rebalance;

as a result, at the price of handing over

an enormous volume of domestic money to foreigners,

it inflicted tremendous losses

on domestic retail investors —

that

is the assessment, so far,

of the National Pension’s

2026 fund

management!

In such a situation,

to invest 1% of the National Pension’s entire fund

in housing projects —

the National Assembly’s Budget and Accounts Committee and the National Pension Service —

this, of taking the National Pension Fund

and kneading it as politicians please,

looks like

a textbook case of the new

state-directed finance!

The National Pension

is not any particular government’s petty cash!

If you wish to build public housing,

do not lay hands on the National Pension;

use the excess tax revenue

arising from the semiconductor boom

instead!)

[Anchor]
Public rental housing such as national rental housing and Happy Housing is supplied by the government to those without homes at prices below the surrounding market rate.

Recently, politicians have proposed investing part of the National Pension Fund in public housing, and this has become controversial.

The arguments against are formidable too.

Reporter Lim Ji-hee has the story.

[Report]
Kim Sung-joo, Chairman of the National Pension Service, expressed a will to invest in public housing from the very first words of the inauguration late last year.

The discussion has surfaced again with President Lee Jae-myung’s recent call for a rapid push on real estate supply.

The chairman of the National Assembly’s Budget and Accounts Committee put forward the idea of using 1% of the fund as funding for public housing.

The idea is that using a REIT structure that pays out rental income as dividends can secure the profitability of the investment.

The current National Pension Act provides that public investment may be made if it helps to promote the welfare of the insured.

This is not the first time the matter has been discussed.

Under the Roh Moo-hyun and Moon Jae-in governments as well, politicians raised the topic and it became a matter of public debate.

[Yoon Seok-myung / Research Fellow, Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs: With a fund this huge, there is bound to be political temptation in any country, is there not? Part of the reason we increased overseas investment was to avoid that sort of problem — the temptation (mistyped in the original) of the government of the day.]

Rental housing projects require money to be tied up for a long period, and the investment risk is correspondingly high.

Along with criticism that political pressure on the public’s retirement money keeps recurring, opposition is fierce.

[Yu Seon-jong / Professor, Department of Real Estate Studies, Konkuk University: For the NPS to do this makes no sense. If no returns arise, it is a problem because it does not accord with the principles of fund management. Even an organization like LH finds it hard to build rental housing and make a return…]

Among global pension funds, those of Singapore and the Netherlands are cited as successful investment cases.

The United Kingdom, Canada and others also invest, but all of them make it a principle that the pension fund does not bear policy losses.

The Fund Management Committee, chaired by the Minister of Health and Welfare, makes the final investment decision, and the Ministry is drawing a line on the matter.

Lim Ji-hee, Money Today Broadcasting MTN

https://news.mtn.co.kr/news-detail/2026081316160777776