🚨 Bank of Korea Interest Rate Cut Analysis
Today Korean Economic News for Beginners | 2025.09.12
0️⃣ More Impact on Housing Prices Than Growth, Limited Economic Stimulus Effect
📌 Despite Four 1%p Cuts, Consumption and Investment Expansion Limited, 26% of Seoul Apartment Price Rise Due to Interest Rate Impact
💬 The Bank of Korea cut the benchmark interest rate by a total of 1 percentage point four times from October last year to May this year, but the expected economic stimulus effect has not yet appeared clearly. According to the Bank of Korea's "Monetary Policy Impact Analysis" report, while interest rate cuts reduced the interest burden on households and businesses, the effect of increasing consumption and investment was limited due to increased uncertainty. However, it provided significant stimulus to the real estate market, with 26% of Seoul apartment price increases attributed to interest rate cuts. The Bank of Korea forecasted that "it takes time for interest rate cut effects to fully materialize, and signs of economic improvement may appear from the second half of the year."
1️⃣ Easy Explanation
The Bank of Korea kept cutting interest rates to revive the economy, but it didn't really help economic growth and only raised housing prices. Let's learn in detail why this happened and what will happen next.
First, let me explain how interest rate cuts boost the economy. When the Bank of Korea lowers the benchmark rate, commercial banks also lower their loan and deposit rates accordingly. This reduces the cost of borrowing money and decreases the interest earned from deposits. When this happens, people tend to consume or invest rather than save, and companies borrow funds at cheaper costs to expand their businesses.
The Bank of Korea actually cut the benchmark rate by 1 percentage point from 3.5% in October last year to 2.5% in May this year. This is quite a large reduction. For example, someone with a 100 million won loan would save 1 million won in annual interest.
However, contrary to expectations, consumption and investment did not increase significantly. The biggest reason was 'uncertainty'. Due to continued economic recession after COVID-19, international political instability, and rising prices, consumers and businesses found it difficult to predict the future. In such situations, even when interest rates fall, people wonder "Should I spend money now?"
Especially for young people, since getting jobs is difficult and there's great anxiety about future income, they tended to increase savings rather than borrow money to increase consumption even when interest rates fell. Companies also chose to increase cash reserves rather than invest.
However, the real estate market was different. As interest rates fell and the burden of mortgage interest decreased, people dreaming of homeownership and investment buyers entered the market. Especially in Seoul, this created even greater upward pressure on prices combined with supply shortages.
According to the Bank of Korea's analysis, 26% of Seoul apartment price increases were due to interest rate cuts. Simply put, if housing prices rose by 100 million won, 26 million won of that increase was due to lowering interest rates.
Ultimately, interest rate cuts had a greater impact on asset price increases than the intended economic stimulus.
2️⃣ Economic Terms
📕 Benchmark Interest Rate
The benchmark interest rate is the policy rate set by the Bank of Korea and serves as the most important rate that becomes the standard for all market rates.
- This is the rate the Bank of Korea applies when lending money to commercial banks.
- When the benchmark rate rises, loan rates also rise together, and when it falls, loan rates also fall together.
- It's a key tool for controlling the economy by raising rates when the economy overheats and lowering them during recessions.
📕 Monetary Policy Transmission Effect
Monetary policy transmission effect analyzes how the Bank of Korea's interest rate policy actually affects the economy.
- It measures the specific impact of interest rate changes on consumption, investment, employment, and prices.
- Usually, there's a time lag of 6 months to 2 years before policy effects appear.
- Statistical analysis methods like VAR models are used to estimate policy effects.
📕 Wealth Effect
The wealth effect is when people feel wealthier due to rising asset prices like real estate or stocks, leading them to increase consumption.
- When housing prices rise, homeowners feel psychologically comfortable and increase consumption.
- However, for people who cannot buy homes, it can actually create burden.
- Both positive and negative effects of asset price increases on the real economy must be considered.
📕 Uncertainty Premium
Uncertainty premium refers to additional compensation or safety margin that people demand when the future is uncertain.
- The more unclear economic conditions become, the more consumers want to save.
- Companies also tend to increase cash holdings rather than invest.
- In such situations, lowering interest rates may have limited economic stimulus effects.
3️⃣ Principles and Economic Outlook
✅ Time Lag Effects and Limitations of Interest Rate Policy
Let's analyze why the impact of interest rate cut policy on the real economy is delayed and what its limitations are.
First, there are structural time lags in monetary policy transmission channels. When the Bank of Korea lowers the benchmark rate, financial market rates fall first, followed by adjustments in bank loan and deposit rates. Next, households and businesses feel the reduction in interest burden and begin to increase consumption and investment. Finally, this is reflected in actual GDP growth rates and employment indicators. This entire process usually takes 6 to 18 months. Therefore, the full effects of interest rate cuts that began in October last year are likely to appear from the second half of this year.
Second, in high uncertainty environments like the present, the effects of interest rate policy are significantly weakened. Economics calls this a 'liquidity trap'. No matter how low interest rates become, if anxiety about the future is great, consumers choose saving over consumption, and companies choose cash holdings over investment. Particularly in Korea's case, consumer sentiment has been dampened by youth unemployment problems, rising real estate prices, and increasing household debt. In such situations, it's difficult to achieve economic stimulus effects through interest rate cuts alone.
Third, changes in income distribution structure also limit the effectiveness of interest rate policy. The benefits of interest rate cuts mainly go to middle-class and above who can take out loans. Meanwhile, low-income groups with poor credit still have to bear high interest rates or have difficulty accessing loans at all. Also, the consumption capacity of elderly people who depend on interest income may actually decrease due to falling deposit rates. As interest rate policy effects appear differently by social class, the overall consumption increase effect gets offset.
Ultimately, interest rate policy alone cannot solve structural economic recession, and combination with other policy tools is needed.
✅ Impact on Real Estate Market and Side Effects
Let's examine the specific impact of interest rate cuts on the real estate market and the resulting side effects.
First, reduced mortgage interest burden directly led to increased housing demand. When borrowing 100 million won for 30 years, a 1 percentage point drop in interest rates reduces monthly payments by about 280,000 won. This allows people to buy more expensive homes with the same income. Especially in Seoul's preferred areas like Gangnam 3 districts, Mapo, and Yongsan, this increased purchasing power directly led to price increases. According to Bank of Korea analysis, 26% of Seoul apartment price increases were due to interest rate cuts, which combined with other factors (supply shortages, reconstruction expectations, etc.) created even greater upward pressure.
Second, surging investment demand led to 'panic buying' phenomena. In a low interest rate environment, as the real return on deposits and savings approached almost zero, funds flowed to real estate which could expect relatively higher returns. Particularly among high-income earners in their 30s and 40s, real estate investment through 'yeongkkeul' (borrowing everything possible) surged. Worried that interest rates would rise further, they rushed to buy, which caused trading volume and prices to spike in a short period.
Third, rising real estate prices created adverse effects that deepened consumption inequality. While homeowners feel a 'wealth effect' from rising asset values, people who couldn't buy homes only experienced greater relative deprivation and anxiety about the future. Especially young people, feeling that homeownership became even more difficult, tended to reduce consumption even more. This appeared as a side effect that offset the consumption increase effect expected from interest rate cuts.
Interest rate cuts created a dilemma situation that simultaneously brought unintended asset inequality deepening and consumption contraction.
✅ Future Policy Direction and Outlook
Let's comprehensively forecast the Bank of Korea's future monetary policy direction and economic recovery possibilities.
First, room for additional interest rate cuts is limited and maintaining current levels is likely. The current benchmark rate of 2.5% is historically low, and considering upward pressure on real estate prices and concerns about increasing household debt, additional cuts must be cautious. The Bank of Korea is expected to maintain current rates for the time being while waiting for the effects of already implemented cuts to fully materialize. However, if global economic recession deepens or the domestic economy deteriorates more than expected, room for additional easing remains.
Second, government fiscal policy and structural reforms will become more important. Since it's confirmed that monetary policy alone cannot solve the current economic recession, the government's role has become more important. Structural growth momentum must be prepared through youth job creation, small business support, and expanded innovation investment. Also, policies to expand supply and suppress speculative demand for real estate market stabilization must be implemented in parallel. Particularly, how effective various real estate measures scheduled for the second half actually prove will also affect future monetary policy.
Third, interest rate cut effects may fully materialize from the second half. Although effects have been limited so far, considering time lags, signs of increased consumption and investment may appear from the second half. Particularly, companies' facility investment and employment increases, and consumers' expanded purchases of durable goods are expected to appear gradually. However, for such recovery to continue, improved external conditions and domestic structural reforms must be supported.
Ultimately, balanced implementation of monetary policy, fiscal policy, and structural reform policies will be necessary for sustainable economic recovery.
4️⃣ In Conclusion
The Bank of Korea's four interest rate cuts achieved the direct effect of reducing interest burden, but the expected economic stimulus effect has been limited so far. Instead, it provided significant stimulus to the real estate market, presenting new policy challenges.
The most important lesson is that in an era of low growth and high uncertainty, monetary policy alone has limitations. No matter how low interest rates go, if consumers and businesses are anxious about the future, they won't spend money. Particularly if structural problems like youth employment anxiety, middle-aged retirement worries, and corporate investment avoidance aren't resolved, monetary policy effects will inevitably be limited.
However, the real estate market was sensitive to interest rate changes. The analysis that 26% of Seoul apartment price increases were due to interest rate cuts shows the ripple effect of monetary policy on asset prices. This was an unintended side effect, leading to deepened asset inequality and spread of relative deprivation among non-homeowners.
Going forward, harmonious operation of monetary policy with other policy tools will become more important. The Bank of Korea is expected to be cautious about additional interest rate cuts due to concerns about real estate market overheating and increasing household debt. Instead, the government's role in supporting economic recovery through fiscal policy and structural reforms has grown.
Particularly, it's important to foster private sector's voluntary growth momentum through youth job creation, small business investment support, and innovation ecosystem building. At the same time, the housing market must be stabilized through expanded real estate supply and suppression of speculative demand.
Fortunately, considering the time lag effects of monetary policy, signs of increased consumption and investment may appear from the second half. However, for such recovery to continue and spread, we cannot rely solely on interest rate cut effects.
Ultimately, this analysis shows an important case demonstrating that we need comprehensive approaches through structural problem solving and policy combinations, rather than simple expectations that 'loosening money will revive the economy'.
View Table of Contents