The Financial Supervisory Service (FSS) union has strongly opposed the possibility of the agency being included in the government's second round of public institution relocations. The union argues that moving the financial oversight body could undermine consumer protection and supervisory expertise, potentially increasing oversight costs.
On August 17, the FSS union issued a statement titled, 'Immediately Halt the Uniform Relocation Plan That Completely Ignores Consumers and Financial Sites.'
The union expressed concern over recent media reports suggesting that the FSS could be included in the government's announcement of relocation targets at the end of August. They stated, 'We are seriously worried that the rigid goal of relocating most public institutions may lead to a disastrous decision to move the supervisory body, which should be at the forefront of financial oversight, to the rear.'
The union highlighted that physical disconnection from the financial oversight field could lead to consumer harm. According to the union, 81.4% of financial complaints are concentrated in the metropolitan area. If the FSS relocates outside this region, consumer accessibility could decrease, and the speed and efficiency of complaint handling could decline.
They also pointed out that financial companies and listed firms are predominantly located in the metropolitan area, with 91.6% of financial company headquarters, 88.3% of on-site inspection targets, and 72.7% of listed company headquarters situated there.
The union argued that if the FSS moves to a regional location, employees may need to travel back to the metropolitan area for licensing, various filings, and on-site inspections, creating inefficiencies. They also noted that additional costs could arise from operating regional offices and employee travel expenses.
There are concerns that increased oversight costs could lead to higher supervisory fees for financial institutions, which may ultimately be passed on to consumers through increased loan rates and fees.
The union also raised alarms about the potential loss of specialized personnel. They warned that if key experts leave due to the relocation, the agency's ability to respond to the evolving financial environment could weaken, leading to increased consumer harm.
They emphasized that it is difficult to find examples of financial supervisory bodies being separated from capital market centers, citing major institutions such as the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Federal Reserve, the UK's Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), Germany's Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin), and Japan's Financial Services Agency.
The union stated, 'We strongly oppose the relocation of the Financial Supervisory Service, which could push the national financial system into crisis, in order to ensure the stability of the financial market and protect consumers,' and called for an immediate halt to the relocation plan.
The potential relocation of the FSS has not yet been officially confirmed by the government. The government is pursuing the second round of public institution relocations as a national policy task and plans to establish a roadmap for the relocations within 2026. In March, the government stated that it would minimize exceptions for relocation targets and avoid dispersing institutions across multiple regions.
The union has indicated that it is considering all possible responses, suggesting that conflicts are likely to arise if discussions about the FSS's relocation intensify.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.