According to Korea’s financial investment industry on December 9, Hillhouse Capital submitted a final binding offer of KRW 1.1 trillion for IGIS Asset Management, narrowly surpassing the KRW 1.05 trillion bid proposed by Heungkuk Life Insurance.

Following the final round, a so-called “progressive deal” phase was conducted, during which shortlisted bidders were invited to revise pricing upward. This mechanism ultimately pushed the valuation above initial market expectations.

Hanwha Life, which had participated since the preliminary stage, was widely understood to have maintained a materially lower price level compared to rival bidders.

The selection of Hillhouse as preferred bidder now initiates the standard post-selection process, including the execution of a memorandum of understanding (MOU), comprehensive due diligence, and regulatory review by Korean financial authorities concerning the acquirer’s shareholder eligibility.

Upon completion of these steps, ownership of IGIS will formally transfer to Hillhouse.

The transaction process was far from straightforward. During the preliminary due diligence phase, market participants learned of a shareholder agreement that excluded several key subsidiaries—including IGIS X Asset Management—from the sale perimeter. The disclosure nearly derailed the transaction.

Speculation quickly emerged that CEO Cho Gap-joo intended to rebuild a separate asset management platform centered on these carved-out subsidiaries following the sale of IGIS.

For domestic financial groups such as Heungkuk Life and Hanwha Life, the carve-out issue was treated as a critical risk factor. While subsidiary carve-outs are not uncommon in M&A transactions when legal structures allow, the fundamental concern in this case was not legal—it was human capital.

Buyers were concerned that post-closing, core professionals could migrate in large numbers to the excluded subsidiaries, effectively leaving behind an “empty shell” platform with sharply diminished franchise value. As a result, bidders reportedly demanded binding assurances on both the inclusion of subsidiaries and the post-deal retention of key personnel.

Hillhouse, by contrast, was understood to be relatively less sensitive to this risk. Its assessment was that a large-scale simultaneous exit of core investment professionals was operationally unrealistic and, even if it occurred, would severely impair the very fundraising capacity of those entities—undermining the long-term economics of any breakaway platform.

In the end, Hillhouse appears to have earned high marks on both pricing competitiveness and flexibility toward the seller’s carve-out demands.

From the perspective of CEO Cho Gap-joo, Hillhouse’s selection represents a near-optimal outcome.

From the outset, Cho emphasized his intention to maximize transaction success. In practice, he went further by placing not only his own equity stake but also friendly shareholder stakes into the sale perimeter, significantly expanding the size of the deal.

Initially, more than 60% of IGIS equity was offered for sale, including the 12.4% stake held by the late founder Kim Dae-young’s spouse, Sohn Hwa-ja, as well as various financial investors’ holdings. With Cho’s participation, the total sale stake expanded to as much as 98%.

This structural expansion directly contributed to lifting the final valuation to KRW 1.1 trillion—well above the approximately KRW 800 billion that had circulated in early market discussions. For selling shareholders, the result was unequivocally attractive.

In exchange, Cho appears to have secured agreement from shareholders to exclude certain subsidiaries from the transaction. Notably, the shareholder agreement governing these carve-outs surfaced between the preliminary and final bidding stages, indicating that internal coordination among shareholders had already been largely completed prior to final bids.

One industry insider commented, “Cho’s strategy was to sell IGIS at the highest possible valuation, while preserving select subsidiaries as the foundation for a new platform.”

Through the transaction, Cho is set to realize substantial cash proceeds. His direct ownership in IGIS stands at 1.99%, and when combined with the 9.90% stake held by his family investment vehicle, GF Investment, his effective exposure reaches 11.89%.

Based on the KRW 1.1 trillion valuation, this translates into proceeds of approximately KRW 130 billion.

In addition to the retained subsidiaries and this cash war chest, Cho maintains influence over a broader development and investment ecosystem anchored by GF Investment.

One notable entity is IRDV, a real estate development company established in 2017 using GF Investment capital. The company was originally named “IGIS Renewables” at inception. GF Investment initially held a 45% stake in IRDV. However, amid controversy surrounding the Magok One Grove development project, GF Investment fully divested its stake in 2023, reportedly transferring the shares at par value to CEO Lee Jun-seong, who previously held a 50% position.

Today, IRDV is formally an independent entity with no ownership linkage to IGIS or GF Investment. Nonetheless, IRDV remains physically headquartered in IGIS’ Yeouido office building and continues to reference its historical partnership with IGIS on its corporate website—keeping market attention focused on their legacy relationship. While transfers at par value are not illegal, market observers note that such transactions remain unusual for unlisted development companies.

Separately, Cho also controls Eastern Investment & Development through SkyValue, a real estate consulting firm in which his spouse, Lee Soo-jung, holds a 42% stake. SkyValue owns 51.4% of Eastern Investment & Development.

Against this backdrop, market attention is increasingly shifting away from the bidding outcome itself and toward how Cho may redeploy this constellation of cash, retained subsidiaries, and development platforms in the post-IGIS era.

In that sense, while Hillhouse may emerge as the formal owner of IGIS Asset Management, the ultimate strategic winner of this transaction may lie elsewhere.