South Korea's Ministry of Planning and Budget is considering outsourcing about 97 trillion won in surplus assets from the Future Response Fund to private asset managers, according to officials. ^[1] Of the 162.3 trillion won Future Response Fund, about 53 trillion won will be spent on programs for young people and future growth engines, roughly 12.5 trillion won will be used to repay government debt, and the remaining 96.9 trillion won would be managed by professional investment institutions. ^[2] The South Korean government announced the creation of a 162.3 trillion won Future Response Fund as part of its proposed budget for next year, which will accumulate tax revenue exceeding the growth trend in domestic tax receipts over the past decade, as well as additional revenue generated by the semiconductor boom. ^[3] Vice Minister of Planning and Budget Cho Yong-beom said at a preliminary budget briefing on 2026-08-28 that the Future Response Fund will be managed not by civil servants but by designated professional investment institutions, which will monitor market conditions and seek to minimize losses. ^[4] Nam Jae-woo said that unlike the National Pension, which can tolerate short-term investment losses, retirement pension losses directly reduce retirement benefits, so the management approach must differ. ^[5] Nam Jae-woo, senior research fellow at the Korea Capital Market Institute, said at a seminar on retirement pension system reform that the National Pension and retirement pension cannot be managed with the same portfolio because their purposes and tolerable risk levels differ. ^[6] Nam Jae-woo criticized the idea of the National Pension Service participating as an OCIO (outsourced chief investment officer) manager for retirement pensions, saying that public sector crowding out private sector should be avoided and citing international examples where competition between funds led to successful retirement pension systems. ^[7] Nam Jae-woo said that if the National Pension Service manages retirement pensions using its existing infrastructure, fees would actually increase because separate organization and personnel would be required. ^[8]