The Financial Supervisory Service (FSS) labor union issued an official statement on the 17th opposing the government's proposed relocation plan for the agency. The union stated that the government is ignoring the voices of consumers and the financial industry by pursuing a uniform relocation policy for public institutions. The statement comes as media reports indicate the FSS may be included in the government's second round of public institution relocations to be announced at the end of this month. The union emphasized concerns that physical separation from financial companies would ultimately burden financial consumers with negative consequences. This marks the union's first formal opposition statement on the relocation issue.
Union Cites Consumer Access and Complaint Concentration Data
The union highlighted that 81.4% of financial complaints are currently concentrated in the metropolitan area. According to the statement, relocating the financial supervisory agency away from the metropolitan region would reduce financial consumers' accessibility and seriously impair the speed and efficiency of complaint processing. The union stated that without on-site monitoring, financial accidents of various scales and delayed responses would increase, leading to greater consumer harm.
International Financial Regulators Remain in Capital Market Centers
The union referenced international examples to support its position. The statement noted that major advanced economies including the United States (SEC and FRB), the United Kingdom (FCA), Germany (BaFin), and Japan's Financial Services Agency have no precedent of separating financial supervisory institutions from capital market centers. The union stated that financial supervisory agencies can conduct safer and more agile supervision when located within an ecosystem where financial companies, law firms, accounting firms, financial associations, and specialized professionals are concentrated.
Union Warns of Workforce and Cost Implications
The union expressed concerns about potential loss of core professional personnel if relocation proceeds. The statement provided specific data: 91.6% of financial company headquarters, 88.3% of on-site inspection targets, and 72.7% of listed company headquarters are concentrated in the metropolitan area. The union stated that under these circumstances, relocation would create inefficiencies requiring FSS employees to make reverse business trips to Seoul for face-to-face meetings, and would generate substantial additional costs for operating metropolitan branch offices and travel expenses. The union stated that the costs of this relocation without justification would be passed on entirely to financial consumers using financial institutions.
The union concluded its statement by strongly opposing the FSS relocation plan, calling it a move that could drive the national financial system into crisis, and urged immediate cessation of such plans.
FAQ
What percentage of financial complaints are concentrated in the metropolitan area according to the FSS union?
According to the FSS union's statement issued on the 17th, 81.4% of financial complaints are currently concentrated in the metropolitan area.
Which international financial regulators did the FSS union cite as examples?
The FSS union cited the United States (SEC and FRB), the United Kingdom (FCA), Germany (BaFin), and Japan's Financial Services Agency as examples of major advanced economies where financial supervisory institutions have not been separated from capital market centers.
