공적 연기금 운용비용의 관리 및 공시 체계 비교연구: CPPI, GPFG, ABP, CalPERS, GPIF 사례를 중심으로

Public pension funds play a critical role in sustaining national social security systems and ensuring income stability for the aging population. In the face of accelerating demographic transitions such as low birth rates and population aging since the 2000s, enhancing fund management capabilities and institutional modernization have emerged as key policy objectives. Consequently, the Korean government has established specialized investment management bodies for each fund, diversified asset allocation strategies, and improved risk management frameworks, gradually introducing globally aligned operational systems such as increased overseas investment. More recently, to strengthen public sector trust and fiscal transparency, the government has also prioritized the expansion of fund-based accounting systems and the restriction of inter-account transfers between budgetary and fund accounts. These institutional shifts underscore the increasing need for more granular management and disclosure of various costs incurred in the fund management process. While Korean public pension funds have adopted governance innovations such as real-time monitoring, ESG investment expansion, and alternative asset diversification, cost disclosure and management policies still remain underdeveloped. Given that operating costs are a core determinant of net returns and long-term sustainability, the transparency and strategic use of cost information not only enhance financial efficiency but also reinforce public accountability and trust. In this context, leading public pension funds such as Canada’s CPPI, the Netherlands’ ABP, and Norway’s GPFG, U.S. CalPERS, Japan’s GPIF have established sophisticated systems for cost disclosure and governance, setting global standards in this domain. By contrast, Korean public pension funds still lack standardized cost classification systems and provide relatively limited itemized disclosure by cost type or asset class. Against this backdrop, this study examines the cost management and disclosure practices of major overseas public pension funds —specifically CPPI, ABP, and GPFG—with the aim of deriving institutional and policy implications for Korea. Given the Korean government’s recent push for greater transparency and accountability in the public sector through expanded fund accounting, there is a growing interest in modernizing the cost governance of public pension funds. This study is the first in Korea to focus on cost disclosure and cost management as a foundation for the long-term efficiency and sustainability of public pension funds, rather than solely emphasizing profitability. Through in-depth comparative analysis, the study finds that while the National Pension Service (NPS) provides a certain level of cost-related disclosure, it falls short of the detailed breakdown, strategic alignment, and comparability standards set by major global peers. Key items such as performance fees, transaction costs, and indirect expenses are insufficiently classified, and disclosures by asset class or investment strategy remain limited. In contrast, CPPI, ABP, GPFG, and CalPERS provide structured disclosures through their annual reports, detailing cost items by type and asset class. GP IF, on the other hand, reports both the actual amounts by asset class and their ratios relative to average assets under management; however, it does not disclose transaction costs, which limits a comprehensive assessment of total expenses. Moreover, ABP, and GPFG incorporate external benchmarking tools like CEM to validate cost efficiency, while also employing net value-added metrics in performance evaluations, linking cost control with incentive structures. CalPERS and GPIF are particularly notable for disclosing fees in detail by external asset managers. The study proposes several policy recommendations for Korea’s public pension system, including: enhancing the transparency and granularity of cost disclosures aligned with international standards; developing long-term, data-driven cost analysis systems; leveraging cost data for strategic asset allocation decisions; linking cost efficiency to incentive mechanisms; and institutionalizing regular external benchmarking to assess relative performance. Moreover, these reforms should be implemented through a phased approach—short-term efforts to establish reliable cost data systems and internal control frameworks, especially for complex alternative investments; medium-term efforts to integrate cost analysis into investment decision-making; and long-term efforts to align external disclosures with internal strategic management to build public trust and accountability. In particular, the transition to comprehensive, strategy-level disclosures that present cost drivers, changes over time, and their implications for performance is essential. Ultimately, this study argues that the management and disclosure of investment costs should not be seen merely as regulatory compliance but as an integral part of strategic asset management. By benchmarking global best practices, Korean public pension funds can improve operational efficiency and transparency while reinforcing their legitimacy as long-term stewards of public resources.