[Edaily Reporter Jang Young-eun ] Concerns are mounting that as massive amounts of capital generated by the semiconductor export boom flow into the real estate market, property prices in the Seoul metropolitan area will rise and asset polarization will deepen. This trend runs directly counter to the government’s all-out efforts to stabilize the real estate market, including considering tax reforms such as raising property taxes. Analysts suggest that the semiconductor-driven economic recovery goes beyond simply boosting economic growth rates; it could generate massive new liquidity through wages and the stock market, which in turn could once again drive up apartment prices in the Seoul metropolitan area.

◇ Household Assets Grow to “Record Levels” Amid Semiconductor Boom

According to the financial investment industry and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport on the 23rd, special performance bonuses based on this year’s operating profit forecasts for SamsungElectronics and SK hynix are expected to total approximately 56 trillion won, exceeding half of last year’s total apartment sales volume in Seoul (102.8 trillion won).

The securities industry expects SamsungElectronics to post operating profits of about 300 trillion won this year, while SK hynix is projected to reach 250 trillion won. Considering the labor-management agreements reached by both companies, their total performance bonuses for next year are expected to amount to 31.5 trillion won and 25 trillion won, respectively. The average actual transaction price for Seoul apartments traded from January 1 to December 31 of last year was 1,274.72 million won, with a total transaction volume of 83,776 units, resulting in an estimated total transaction value of 102.8 trillion won.

Concerns have been raised that, since employees are receiving lump-sum payments equivalent to several years’ worth of salary at once, this money may flow into the real estate market rather than being spent or saved, potentially fueling a rise in housing prices. In fact, this phenomenon is clearly evident in Dongtan-gu, Hwaseong City, Gyeonggi Province, which is located near the SamsungElectronics and SK hynix campuses. Since the second week of February—when Dongtan-gu was established as an autonomous district following administrative reorganization—the cumulative apartment price increase in Dongtan-gu this year has reached 9.57%, ranking first among all autonomous districts nationwide.

The problem is that, given the nature of the domestic real estate market, the upward trend in apartment prices in certain parts of the Seoul metropolitan area could spread to the broader region, including prime locations in Seoul. According to the Bank of Korea’s June Consumer Sentiment Survey released today, the housing price outlook index rose for the third consecutive month compared to the previous month, reaching 120. When this index exceeds 100, it means more people expect housing prices to rise. The housing price outlook plummeted to 96 in February and March amid announcements regarding the impending end of the grace period for the surtax on capital gains from multiple property sales and President Lee Jae-myung’s hawkish remarks on real estate. However, it has risen by 8 points each in the past two months, climbing well above the long-term average (107). In the minutes of the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) released on the 16th, one committee member pointed out, “Real estate prices could rise again due to factors such as large-scale performance bonuses paid by semiconductor companies.”

With the KOSPI surpassing 9,000, analysts have also suggested that investment gains from stocks earned by households will flow into the real estate market. Kim Jin-wook, an economist at Citigroup, stated, “Potential household stock paper gains for the first half of this year are estimated at approximately 1,146 trillion won, a figure that contrasts sharply with last year’s paper gains of 429 trillion won and the 61 trillion won paper loss recorded in 2024.” He added, “If these stock paper gains are actually spent, there is a high likelihood that they will accelerate the upward trend in the Seoul metropolitan area’s housing market in the second half of the year.”

◇ “Interest Rates and Regulations Alone Are Insufficient”… Concerns Over Rising Housing Costs and Deepening Polarization

Experts are noting that, unlike in the past, the link between the recent rise in housing prices and household debt is weak. Although the government has been managing household debt through strict lending regulations since last year, the rise in housing prices—centered on the Seoul metropolitan area—is spreading. Critics point out that if demand is driven by buyers holding substantial cash reserves, such as performance-based bonuses and stock gains, it will be even more difficult to curb the sharp rise in housing prices through monetary and financial policies alone, such as interest rate hikes or lending restrictions.

Kwak No-seon, a professor in the Department of Economics at Sogang University, stated, “In a situation where the rise in housing prices is not being curbed despite efforts to restrict lending through financial regulations, raising interest rates could only increase the burden on genuine homebuyers.” He added, “Fundamentally, supply must be expanded, and using interest rates as a tool of real estate policy is not effective.”

While monetary policy does not directly target specific asset prices, a sharp rise in housing prices can lead to inflation caused by increased housing costs and a slowdown in domestic demand growth due to deepening asset polarization. Furthermore, concerns have been raised that as the wealth effect tends to flow back into the asset market rather than spurring consumption, it could hinder the virtuous cycle of sound economic growth and distort the effectiveness of policy measures.

In a recently published report, the Bank of Korea noted, “Our economy is facing a situation of complex polarization, where the widening of household asset gaps is intertwined with the re-widening of income gaps,” adding, “As asset inequality increases, the efficiency of resource allocation declines, and this complex polarization weakens the foundation of economic activity—particularly among low-income and young households with high propensity to consume—thereby contributing to a decline in domestic demand.”