NH Investment & Securities said on the 9th that allegations recently raised about "the appointment of the next CEO" are completely untrue. It noted the latest personnel move is part of management's judgment in response to the selection results for the housing & urban fund external outsourced chief investment officer (OCIO) and is unrelated to the process of choosing the next CEO.
According to the financial investment industry, allegations were raised that the CEO of NH Investment & Securities pressured an internal executive, mentioned as a candidate for the next CEO, to resign and, when the executive refused, removed the person from the position. The executive in question is known to have served as head of the OCIO.
In response, NH Investment & Securities said, "The company has managed the housing & urban fund OCIO business as a strategically important business and is taking the latest selection results seriously," adding, "This personnel move is the result of promoting an organizational reshuffle to build a swift and accountable decision-making structure to strengthen the competitiveness of the OCIO business."
In fact, the reshuffle came after the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport released the selection results for the 4th dedicated housing & urban fund operating institutions (OCIO). NH Investment & Securities had managed the housing & urban fund for about eight years since 2018. However, in the selection held in May, Mirae Asset Global Investments and KB Securities were chosen as preferred bidders, causing NH Investment & Securities to lose about 14 trillion won in assets under management.
On this, NH Investment & Securities explained, "We view this result not as a simple failure to win a mandate but as an opportunity to reexamine the overall competitiveness of the OCIO business."
An NH Investment & Securities official said, "Claims that the company pressured a particular candidate to resign or exerted influence on the appointment process are completely untrue," emphasizing, "The nominating process for CEO candidates is operated objectively and independently by the Nominating Committee in accordance with relevant laws and governance rules."
In particular, NH Investment & Securities questioned how the executive in question came to learn that the person had been included in the pool of candidates for the next CEO.
A company official said, "Information related to the pool of CEO candidates is managed under strict security, so how the executive became aware of being included in the pool is itself questionable," adding, "The Nominating Committee has no authority over personnel matters concerning the executive, and this personnel action was taken based on the company's management judgment independently of the Nominating Committee."
The official added, "The Nominating Committee is currently reviewing the pool of CEO candidates through an objective and independent process," but also said, "We are feeling pressure from attempts to exert direct and indirect influence by a particular candidate and from outside pressure."
Meanwhile, the executive in question is said to have asked the Nominating Committee to put the CEO appointment process on hold. This has fueled controversy inside and outside the company. Observers say it is unusual for a single candidate to demand a halt to a CEO appointment process conducted for multiple candidates on the grounds of the person's own personnel change.
An industry official said, "It can be interpreted as an attempt to influence the appointment process before a final candidate has been confirmed," adding, "This could be seen as putting personal interests ahead of the interests of the company and its shareholders."
In response, NH Investment & Securities said it received outside legal advice that removal from a post and the succession process are separate matters, and that the Nominating Committee can proceed independently with its review according to the planned procedures.
An NH Investment & Securities official said, "Removal from a post is a personnel action based on the CEO's managerial judgment and is separate from the CEO candidate nomination process, and we were advised that a change in position does not affect a candidate's eligibility or the Nominating Committee's authority to review," adding, "If the overall succession process is halted or delayed, it could instead affect other candidates' legitimate procedural interests and the company's stable succession timeline."