'Samsung Electronics-SK hynix leverage' favoritism controversy: Park Dae-chul says ETF review passed in 29 days

[Financial News] The financial authorities and the Korea Exchange are locked in a dispute over the listing review period for the recently listed single-stock leveraged ETF, the so-called 'Samsung Electronics-SK hynix leverage.' The National Assembly has raised suspicions of a 'preferential review,' saying the process was cut to less than half the time required for ordinary ETFs, while the Korea Exchange argued that the review actually took longer than usual.
According to data submitted by the office of Rep. Park Dae-chul of the People Power Party, a member of the National Policy Committee, 16 single-stock leveraged and inverse ETFs based on Samsung Electronics and SK hynix took a total of 29 days from the preliminary listing review application to actual listing.
Asset managers applied for the preliminary listing review to the Korea Exchange on April 28. After reviews by the Financial Supervisory Service and other procedures, it took 29 days, including weekends and public holidays, until the products were actually listed.
By contrast, the review and launch period for 81 other ETFs listed between Jan. 2 and May 27 this year averaged 62 days. Based on this, Park's office argued that the listing process for the 'Samsung Electronics-SK hynix leverage' ETF moved about 2.2 times faster than for ordinary ETFs.
In response, the Korea Exchange issued a press release and rejected the claim, saying, "The assertion that the listing review period for single-stock leveraged ETFs was shortened by more than half compared with normal practice is not true."
The exchange explained that the preliminary listing review itself took 13 days, which was actually longer than the 11-day average review period for domestic benchmark index ETFs over the past five years.
It also said, "Although single-stock leverage products are relatively simple in structure because they use Samsung Electronics and SK hynix as underlying assets, we operated the review period longer than for domestic benchmark index ETFs in consideration of investor protection."
The controversy appears to stem from differing interpretations over whether only the preliminary listing review period should be compared, or whether the full listing period, including Financial Supervisory Service review and product launch preparations, should be used as the standard. The National Policy Committee is expected to further examine the appropriateness and fairness of the related review procedures.

[email protected] Seo Yoon-kyung Reporter