[비즈한국] The KOSPI reached 5000 (closing price) on January 27, 2026, and the government and ruling party immediately set “KOSDAQ 3000” as their next goal. Around the same time, the President has been pouring out high-intensity messages via social media targeting multi-home owners, repeatedly sending signals to the market that “holding on leads to losses.” The policy ‘deadline’ is also clear: it has been confirmed as the government’s official stance that the temporary waiver of the capital gains tax surcharge for multi-home owners will end on May 9, 2026.
Given this combination, the question is natural: “Isn't the intention to block liquidity from flowing into real estate and instead steer capital from property sales into the stock market?” This interpretation is plausible enough. However, it is always difficult to be certain about ‘intentions.’ Instead, we can objectively evaluate the results that political and policy communications actually leave on the market. That is exactly the kind of assessment needed right now.
The President's SNS is not ‘Policy’ but a ‘Signal’—The market moves by signals
The President's strong language is not the letter of the law. However, the market often perceives it as a ‘teaser’ that moves faster than the law. Indeed, reports interpret the President’s messages as having the character of inducing property sales, signaling potential further tax revisions, and issuing warnings to the media and the market.
The key point here is this: the stronger the signal, the more the market prices in ‘next-stage regulations’ and ‘additional penalties’ in advance. As a result, buyers wait on the sidelines, trading grinds to a halt, and landlords attempt to pass on the ‘risk premium’ to tenants via monthly rent. Anxiety can spread in the exact opposite direction of what the policy intended.
The simplicity of “If multi-home owners increase sales, it's over”—It could collapse the rental market
The concern you raised (the shortage of rental properties for those without homes, and rising rent prices) already aligns with the warnings shown in statistics. As of 2025 (based on aggregated data), a trend of decreasing *jeonse* transactions and increasing monthly rent transactions is being confirmed. A KB report points out a structural shift where the proportion of monthly rent in the rental market has risen to 62.7%.
In this situation, the stronger the pressure to “sell off multi-home properties,” the more housing occupied by tenants tends to move in two directions in the market. First, if it is sold to an owner-occupant, rental stock decreases. *Jeonse* properties become even scarcer, and the transition to monthly rent accelerates. Second, if they cannot sell (due to balance, registration, or regulations) or do not want to sell, landlords add the uncertainty to the price. This means “policy risk” becomes a justification for raising monthly rent. In other words, inducing the sale of multi-home properties may be a prescription for ‘sales market stability,’ but it may not be for ‘rental market stability.’ The hardship for those without homes comes not just from house prices, but from the sum of living costs (monthly rent, maintenance fees, moving costs, education expenses). If policy fails here, even if house prices are momentarily suppressed on the surface, rental prices will explode from the bottom.
A more fatal variable is ‘Supply’—2026 will see a shortage of new homes
The fuel for rental anxiety is not just regulation. When absolute volume is insufficient, no amount of messaging can stabilize the rental market. The volume of new apartment move-ins in Seoul in 2026 is 16,412 units, a 48% decrease compared to the previous year.
When the message to “sell” is repeated in a period of shrinking supply, the market translates it as follows: Buyers think, “They say it’s going to get tougher, so let's wait.” Landlords think, “It’s uncertain, so there's no reason to be locked into a *jeonse* contract. Let's take monthly rent.” Tenants think, “There are no *jeonse* homes, and monthly rent is expensive. I’ll move further away.” At this point, the housing ladder is broken. ‘Home ownership’ disappears, and only ‘moving refugees’ remain.
“Divert liquidity to stocks”—The idea itself isn't wrong. The problem is the ‘method’
It is legitimate for the government to present capital market development (KOSPI 5000, KOSDAQ 3000) as a growth strategy. To ease the concentration in real estate, a credible financial investment ecosystem that citizens can choose must grow.
There is one rule of thumb here: just because you want to divert liquidity to the stock market, you shouldn't treat housing as a ‘target for penalties.’
Real estate is not just a game for investors. Housing is survival, education, and labor market mobility. The moment the President's language stops at ‘war on speculation’ and sounds like an ‘all-out war against home owners,’ the policy loses its legitimacy. And policy that loses its legitimacy only creates evasion and distortion in the market.
The danger of ‘over-generalization’ that even stifles owner-occupant demand
Recently, the President even mentioned “non-resident single-home ownership” and “moving to one ‘smart’ house” in warning messages. This is the most dangerous point. Moving for the purpose of owner-occupation is normal residential mobility. The issue of non-resident single-home owners cannot be solved by a uniform stigma. Situations such as job transfers, caring for parents, children's education, and illness are complex.
The more the President talks about curbing speculation, the more precise the messages must be. The moment you put “speculative demand” and “living demand” in the same sentence, the policy increases anxiety for the middle class and freezes market transactions. When transactions freeze, prices do not stabilize; instead, the rental market becomes unstable, and only ‘abnormal premiums’ grow.
What language do we want from the President?
Before whether a policy is right or wrong, the President’s words touch both the public’s psychology and market prices simultaneously. Therefore, the desirable attitude does not lie in “whether you speak strongly or weakly,” but in what principles and packages you use to speak.
First, speak not in the ‘language of punishment’ but in the ‘language of predictable principles.’ The President's message should be brief. However, the shorter it is, the more dangerous it becomes. Therefore, it must be even more principle-based. Instead of “multi-home owners are bad,” the sentence “We will reduce acts that increase rental anxiety through speculative holding, but will protect residential mobility and rental supply” is the standard of presidential dignity and the starting point for market stability.
Second, introduce ‘rental supply defense measures’ simultaneously with ‘sales pressure.’ If you want to induce the sale of multi-home properties, you must accompany it with rental market defenses based on the premise that rental stock will be removed. We need ways to include long-term rental incentives (tax and financial), rewards for ‘long-term, stable leasing’ rather than the simple dichotomy of registered vs. unregistered, alternative supply like public/private Build-to-Rent during the new supply gap, and ‘automatic stabilizers’ such as housing subsidies for low-income, young, and newlywed households if the transition from *jeonse* to monthly rent is inevitable. If only “sell it” remains without such a package, the result will return as an explosion in rental prices.
Third, show ‘delicacy in institutional design’ even if practicing deadline politics. Even if the end of the capital gains tax surcharge waiver (May 9, 2026) is a scheduled procedure, there are complex variables surrounding it, such as transactions involving tenants, practices for balances/registration, and the possibility of expanding adjustment areas. The government is also considering and mentioning supplementary measures. This is where the President's attitude makes a difference. They should have said, “We will implement technical supplements to minimize the shock to tenants, owner-occupants, and trading practices,” rather than “holding on leads to losses.” The moment a President speaks of ‘technique,’ the market learns stability.
Fourth, capital market development should not be a byproduct of ‘real estate bashing.’ KOSPI 5000 and KOSDAQ 3000 can be national strategies. However, if that strategy sounds like “because we treat real estate as a sin, come to the stock market,” the public will perceive stocks not as growth assets but as a policy refuge. At that moment, the capital market stops having fundamentals and becomes a theme, leaving only volatility.
Lastly, the President must not govern by ‘designating targets of anger.’ Real estate is always a target that politics covets. If you hit “home owners,” you get applause. However, what the President should aim for is not people, but structure. If you talk about people without discussing the structure of supply inelasticity, rental instability, side effects of financial regulation, and demand concentration caused by regional job/education gaps, governance becomes easier, but the market becomes much harder.
Ultimately, he must be a “President who stabilizes housing,” not a “President who catches house prices.” The President's high-intensity SNS messages may shake properties in the short term. Indeed, the market is weighing the possibility of “increased property listings.” However, rental indicators are already warning of monthly-rent-ification and *jeonse* contraction, and it is suggested that supply could thin out steeply in 2026.
Therefore, the President's desirable language can be summarized in one sentence: “Target speculation, but do not target housing.” “Urge sales, but protect rental supply.” “Speak strongly, but present predictable principles and supplementary measures together.”
The stock market can be a growth engine for the nation. But housing is the foundation for the people. A country that tries to turn the engine by shaking the foundation cannot last long. The President's language must change. From “shouting” to “designing,” from “prodding” to “stabilizing.”
Kim Hak-ryeol, head of the Smart Tube Real Estate Research Institute, known by the pen name Pasion, served as a team leader at the Korea Gallup Real Estate Research Division. He operates and hosts the Naver blog ‘Pasion’s World Exploration’ and the YouTube channel ‘Stue TV.’ His books include ‘The Newly Written Real Estate User Manual for Korea (2025),’ ‘The Power of Gyeonggi Real Estate (2024),’ ‘Absolute Principles of Seoul Real Estate (2023),’ ‘The Future of Incheon Real Estate (2022),’ ‘Kim Hak-ryeol’s Absolute Principles of Real Estate Investment (2022),’ ‘Korea’s Real Estate Future Map (2021),’ and ‘From Now On, Only Rising Places Will Rise (2020).’