[Interview file] "The New Deal Fund government guarantees 35%? 10%? So the principal is guaranteed?"

It is an era of investment.

I hear a lot of stories around me that I feel like a fool when I put my money in my bankbook and stay still.

Interest is less than 1% after making a fixed deposit, not to mention the house price, and even the stock market is soaring without worrying about the real economic downturn.

As the asset price keeps rising, it seems that the money that was sleeping in the bankbook is running out of the bank account without being able to withstand the small deposit interest.

It is also common to leverage lower loan interest as an opportunity.

The closest example is the Kakao Games public offering.

This is an example where the investment craze has been revealed in numbers.

Personal funds of 58.5 trillion won were invested to preoccupy 3.2 million stocks worth 24,000 won and 77.6 billion won worth of stocks.

On the 31st of last month, the day before the subscription, the amount of money waiting to invest in stocks increased by more than 10% from the previous trading day.

On this day, for the first time in history, investor deposits exceeded KRW 60 trillion.

On the 2nd, the last day of the subscription, it fell by nearly 20% compared to the previous day, shrinking to 48 trillion won.

This is an unusual variation.

As Kakao Games subscription is over, interest seems to have shifted to the New Deal Fund.

Risks and returns are what attracts the most attention.

There are many questions, such as, "If the government takes the risk of loss first, does it guarantee the principal anyway?"

First, it is a policy-type New Deal Fund worth 20 trillion won that the government will take the losses first through subordinated investment.

The approximate structure is this.

A total of 7 trillion won is invested by the public, including 3 trillion won by the government and 4 trillion won by policy financial institutions such as Korea Development Bank.

Then, the Korea Development Bank and Korea Growth Finance select an asset manager to manage the policy-type New Deal Fund's sub-funds.

Funds are private equity funds that are free to invest and manage, and they invest and earn profits in New Deal-related businesses such as renewable energy.

Due to the nature of a private equity fund with fewer than 50 subscribers, many individual investors cannot join the fund directly.

Instead, it takes the structure of joining a public offering fund that invests in this fund.

So, when private investor money is collected in a public offering fund, this money is mixed with public contributions and put into the parent fund.

This is a method of inserting public offering funds as a link to involve multiple investors in private equity funds.

Indirect public offering investment in private equity is sometimes used.

In a briefing on the 3rd, Eun Seong-soo, chairman of the Financial Services Commission, said, "Average 35% will be subordinated investment" and "Until 35% loss, we will absorb all this 35% loss." All of this is a subordinated investment with losses first.

The individual investors' principal is preserved within the 35% loss range, so it may be said that "there is a guarantee of principal after the fact."

three hours, my words changed.

That is, the percentage of subordinated investment is 10%, not 35%.

Depending on the situation, there is room for flexible management of the subordinated proportion within the range of 35%.

However, if you were planning to hit the'average 35%' as announced at first, you wouldn't have to spend the trouble of fixing it with a new number of 10%.

This was an unnecessary confusion by mistake.

So, even if the subordinated investment ratio has changed from 35% to 10%, will the government say'there is a guarantee of principal'?

If you look at the numbers, it's probably so.

The target return expected by the government is more than the Treasury Bond yield.

It is a relatively low rate of return over 1% to 1.5%.

It will be a low-risk and low-profit product, and there is a buffer zone of 10%, so it is unlikely that we will withdraw the statement of'guaranteed principal'.

But the government's saying that the principal will be guaranteed is a hope, not a promise.

It is at the level of'Isn't that so', hoping for coarse reasoning.

There is no way of knowing how much profits and losses a fund will make for which investment business has not yet been established.

Nevertheless, Chairman Eun Seong-soo said, "I can't imagine that the other party (of the New Deal Fund) is a public institution, and that's why the loss will be so much."

The language of the government should not be like this.

It is questionable whether the yield will be attractive.

Both the stock and real estate markets continued to grow steeply, raising the eyes of individual investors.

If it is a little above the treasury bond yield, it may not be appealing.

The market expects that Kakao Games shares, for example, will be more than 160% profitable if they receive an allocation.

It will depend on the market mood of the next year when funds are sold in earnest and individual fund returns, but it is difficult to guarantee a box office success.

There is also a fundamental question about whether it is justified for the government to make subordinated contributions to funds invested by individuals.

Profits are shared only among investors, such as individuals and institutions, but if there is a loss, why is it covered by the national treasury?

Whether it takes more government bonds to cover the losses or raises tax revenues right away, fund losses are borne by the people in the end.

There is a problem in promoting the product as a product that provides a return on the guarantee of the principal while passing the investment risk to the general public.

The government's money to endure losses is by no means the government.

There were many private equity funds that caused trouble this year because the redemption was exceptionally stopped.

I remember the stories that the sellers had when they sold these funds.

"Unless the Italian government fails, there will be no loss", "The yield is low, so the principal is guaranteed." * Somehow, the tone of the government is similar to these banks and securities companies.

Objective explanations are needed rather than inviting words.

Sayings like a principal guarantee should at least outline the product.

I believe that just selling a lot of funds is not the policy goal.

*I wrote the investment explanations of the PBs of the Italian healthcare fund (sold by Hana Bank) and the Optimus Creator fund (sold by NH Investment & Securities) identified during the interview process.