🚨 Korea-U.S. Investment Talks Hit Roadblock
Today Korean Economic News for Beginners | 2025.10.25
0️⃣ Disagreement Over $350B Fund Cash Ratio, APEC Deal Uncertain
📌 Korea: "Reduce Cash to Stabilize Currency Markets" vs U.S.: "Invest Cash Like Japan Did"
💬 Korea and the United States are in disagreement over a $350 billion (approximately 500 trillion won) investment fund for U.S. projects, specifically over the proportion of direct cash investment and profit-sharing methods. The Korean government wants to reduce the amount of direct cash investment and increase indirect investments like loans and guarantees to stabilize foreign exchange markets. Meanwhile, the U.S. is requesting cash-focused direct investment, similar to their recent agreement with Japan. Although both sides hoped to reach an agreement at this week's Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit, the gap between their positions is too wide to reach a deal at this meeting. A senior government official emphasized a careful negotiation approach, stating "we will prioritize national interests over speed."
1️⃣ Understanding in Simple Terms
Korea and the U.S. have agreed to create a large investment fund, but negotiations are difficult because they disagree on 'how much should be invested in cash directly.' Korea wants to reduce the cash portion to keep currency markets stable, while the U.S. wants cash-focused investment, so an agreement won't come easily.
Let me first explain the background of these talks. Korea and the U.S. agreed to create a large investment fund earlier this year in response to President Trump's 'tariff threats.' The total amount is $350 billion, which equals about 500 trillion won in Korean currency. This is 85% of Korea's foreign exchange reserves (about $410 billion).
The purpose of this fund is to invest in high-tech industries in the U.S. like semiconductors, batteries, and AI to help Korean companies enter the American market, while also easing U.S. tariff pressure. On the surface, this looks like a win-win structure for both countries.
However, the biggest issue in actual negotiations is the 'investment method.' The Korean government is worried that if all 500 trillion won is invested directly in cash, it could shock the foreign exchange market. For example, if hundreds of trillions of won flow overseas in a short time, demand for dollars would surge, causing the exchange rate to spike, and domestic financial markets could become unstable.
Therefore, Korea has proposed doing only part of the investment in direct cash, and handling the rest through loans to U.S. companies or investment guarantees. This way, they can achieve the effect of a 500 trillion won investment while keeping actual cash outflow much smaller.
But the U.S. has a different position. Japan recently agreed to a $100 billion investment fund with the U.S., with most of it as direct cash investment. The U.S. wants Korea to also invest with cash focus, like Japan did. From the U.S. perspective, actual cash creates more jobs and economic impact than loans or guarantees.
The profit-sharing method is also a point of disagreement. Korea's position is "we're taking the risk by investing, so we should get more of the profits," while the U.S. says "you're making profits by investing on our land, so profit-sharing should be reasonable."
These different positions won't be easy to narrow. It's like when lending money to a friend - you say "I'll give you part in cash and guarantee the rest when you need it," but your friend says "No, I need it all in cash." Both sides have reasonable arguments, but their interests differ, making it hard to find a compromise.
Ultimately, this negotiation is a clash between Korea's need for currency market stability and America's desire to attract investment, with both sides finding it hard to give in.
2️⃣ Economic Terms
📕 Direct Investment
Direct investment is when a company or government puts cash directly into foreign industries or businesses to secure ownership stakes or participate in management.
- Because actual cash crosses borders, it directly affects foreign exchange markets.
- For investors, they can exercise management rights with higher profitability, but risk is also higher.
- Large-scale direct investment in a short period can cause exchange rate surges and financial market instability.
📕 Indirect Investment (Loans & Guarantees)
Indirect investment is a method that achieves investment effects by providing loans or guarantees rather than direct cash.
- It minimizes shock to foreign exchange markets while still creating investment effects.
- This is the method preferred by the Korean government, as it can expand investment scale while preventing foreign exchange reserve depletion.
- However, compared to direct investment, it may be disadvantageous for management participation and profit-sharing.
📕 Foreign Exchange Reserves
Foreign exchange reserves are the total amount of foreign currency assets held by a country, serving as an economic safety net.
- Korea's foreign exchange reserves are about $410 billion, so $350 billion investment would be 85% of this.
- When foreign exchange reserves decrease, it becomes difficult to respond to exchange rate surges or financial crises.
- During the 1997 financial crisis, insufficient foreign exchange reserves was a major cause that worsened the crisis.
📕 Exchange Rate Volatility
Exchange rate volatility is an indicator showing how quickly currency values change.
- When large amounts of money flow overseas, dollar demand surges and the Korean won's value drops (exchange rate rises).
- When exchange rates spike, import prices rise, repaying foreign debt becomes harder, and financial markets become unstable.
- Securing exchange rate stability is the biggest reason the government wants to reduce the cash investment portion.
3️⃣ Principles and Economic Outlook
✅ How Investment Methods Affect Foreign Exchange Markets
Let's compare and analyze how direct cash investment and indirect investment affect foreign exchange markets and the national economy.
First, direct cash investment creates immediate and direct shock to foreign exchange markets. If all $350 billion is invested in cash, this means Korean financial institutions must exchange their Korean won for dollars and send them to the U.S. In this process, if dollar demand surges in the foreign exchange market, the exchange rate could rise significantly. For example, the exchange rate could jump from the current 1,350 won per dollar to over 1,450 won, leading to rising import prices and inflation. Also, if Korea's foreign exchange reserves drop sharply from $410 billion to $60 billion, there's risk of national credit rating downgrades and financial market instability.
Second, indirect investment methods can minimize foreign exchange market shock. For example, what if only $100 billion of the $350 billion is invested directly in cash, and the remaining $250 billion is provided as loans or guarantees? Actual cash outflow would only be $100 billion, but U.S. companies could raise an additional $250 billion locally with Korea's guarantees. This way, the investment scale stays the same while foreign exchange market shock is greatly reduced. Also, foreign exchange reserves could be maintained at around $310 billion, minimizing impact on national credit ratings.
Third, looking at past cases, sudden capital outflow can trigger crises. During the 1997 financial crisis, Korea's foreign exchange reserves dropped to just $3.9 billion, leading to a national default crisis. At that time, as foreign capital rapidly fled, exchange rates soared and many companies went bankrupt. Of course, now the economy is larger and foreign exchange reserves are sufficient, but using 85% of reserves in a short period is still a very dangerous choice. This is why the government is being cautious - learning from historical lessons.
Choosing an investment method is not just a technical issue but an important decision directly tied to national economic stability.
✅ Differences Between Korea and Japan's Positions
With the U.S. pressuring Korea using Japan's example, let's look at the economic differences between Korea and Japan.
First, their foreign exchange reserve sizes are very different. Japan's foreign exchange reserves are about $1.2 trillion, three times Korea's ($410 billion). Even if Japan invests $100 billion in cash, it's only 8% of their reserves, but if Korea invests $350 billion, 85% disappears. This reflects differences in economic scale - the same amount has completely different impacts on each country's economy. Japan has the capacity to invest cash without problems, but Korea doesn't - this is the government's position.
Second, their trade structures are different. Japan is a chronic trade surplus country with dollars continuously flowing in every year. So even if they invest $100 billion, they can replenish it through trade surpluses within a few years. Meanwhile, Korea's trade balance has been improving recently but remains unstable. Especially since they depend on imports for energy and raw materials, there's risk of switching to trade deficits if international oil or raw material prices rise. In this situation, drastically reducing foreign exchange reserves is a risky choice.
Third, geopolitical risks must be considered. Korea faces North Korea and is surrounded by powerful neighbors like China, Japan, and Russia, creating significant security concerns. If an emergency situation occurs on the Korean Peninsula, foreign capital could rapidly flee, and without sufficient foreign exchange reserves, this could lead to a financial crisis. Japan has a relatively stable security environment with less of this risk. Therefore, experts say Korea must manage foreign exchange reserves more conservatively than Japan.
The reason Japan's case can't be directly applied to Korea is due to fundamental differences in economic scale, trade structure, and geopolitical risks.
✅ Negotiation Outlook and Possible Compromises
Considering the differences in both countries' positions, let's look at what compromises might be possible and the future direction of negotiations.
First, a phased investment approach is mentioned as a likely compromise. Rather than investing $350 billion all at once, it would be executed gradually over 5 years. For example, only $50 billion in cash would be invested in the first year, with the next stages decided after seeing results. This way, shock to foreign exchange markets can be distributed, and there's room to adjust while evaluating investment effects. The U.S. doesn't need all $350 billion immediately, so they might accept this approach.
Second, a mixed approach of cash investment and indirect investment is also being considered. For example, 40% of $350 billion - $140 billion - would be direct cash investment, while the remaining 60% - $210 billion - would be through loans and guarantees. This way, the U.S. can secure a significant amount of cash investment, and Korea can preserve its foreign exchange reserves to some extent. As a compromise where both sides give in, this is known to be discussed as the most realistic option at the actual negotiation table.
Third, clarifying the profit-sharing structure is also important. As Korea takes risks by investing, it should receive a fair share when profits are made. For example, if an invested project succeeds with 10% annual returns, clear standards should be set like Korea taking 7% and the U.S. taking 3%. Also, loss-sharing methods should be agreed upon in advance to prevent future disputes. Without agreement on these detailed conditions, problems could arise during actual implementation even if investment scale and methods are decided.
For successful negotiations, finding balance among three elements is key: controlling investment speed, mixing investment methods, and clarifying profit-sharing.
4️⃣ In Conclusion
The Korea-U.S. investment talks are not just about money but a critical matter involving Korea's foreign exchange market stability and economic security. Depending on how this astronomical $350 billion investment proceeds, Korea's economic future could change.
The government's emphasis on "national interests over speed" is the right direction. We must not forget the lessons of the 1997 financial crisis, and using 85% of foreign exchange reserves all at once is a very dangerous choice. Even if the U.S. pressures using Japan's example, Korea and Japan's economic conditions are fundamentally different, so the same standards cannot be applied.
Of course, relations with the U.S. are also important. To ease Trump administration tariff pressure and support Korean companies' entry into the U.S. market, Korea needs to accept some U.S. demands. But this doesn't mean we can sacrifice national economic security.
Therefore, finding a realistic compromise is important. We should adjust both sides' interests through phased investment to distribute timing, appropriately mixing cash investment and indirect investment, and clarifying profit-sharing structures. Even if final agreement isn't reached at this APEC meeting, just setting the framework and direction of negotiations would be meaningful.
The important thing is a long-term perspective. If we rush into agreement under unfavorable terms, we'll carry that burden for decades. Conversely, if we agree on reasonable terms, it could be a good opportunity to help Korean companies enter the U.S. and strengthen economic cooperation between both countries.
Ultimately, these negotiations are a complex task requiring both diplomatic wisdom and economic expertise. Taking time to reach a reasonable agreement that serves national interests is the best path.
Table of Contents