"Stored 'New Ghost Story': Is the US Going to Grab Money?"

```

The demands of the United States on South Korea’s semiconductor industry are shifting from “building factories” to “sharing profits.”

On Friday, The Korea Times cited informed sources reporting that Rick Switzer, Deputy U.S. Trade Representative, explicitly told South Korean Trade Minister Ahn Duk-geun during their meeting last month that the U.S. side has the right to share in the huge profits of SK Hynix and Samsung Electronics, reasoning that massive purchases by American companies have directly driven the profit growth of South Korean chip enterprises. This statement has not yet been officially confirmed by the U.S. side, but it has already attracted widespread attention in both South Korean industry and government circles.

The background to this development is that South Korea’s semiconductor exports to the U.S. surged by more than 90% year-on-year in the first half of this year, and South Korean memory chip companies continue to occupy a position of high profitability in the global AI industry chain.

A research report by CITIC Securities pointed out that from historical experience, when overseas companies continue to achieve high market shares or profits in key industries, this often triggers political intervention by the U.S. government, accelerating global reshuffling and redistribution of industrial interests—the experiences of Japan's semiconductor industry in the 1980s and Taiwan's panel industry in the 2000s are cautionary precedents.

US logic: Contribution through procurement, thus entitled to share profits

According to the Korea Times, citing an industry insider familiar with the situation, Rick Switzer proposed to Ahn Duk-geun during their meeting that the large-scale procurement of South Korean semiconductors by U.S. companies directly pushed up the profits of South Korean chipmakers, so the U.S. is likewise entitled to a share of those profits.

"The logic from the U.S. side is, if South Korean partners are entitled to a share of the profits for their contribution, then U.S. companies should enjoy the same rights," the insider said. A senior South Korean government official also confirmed to The Korea Times that the U.S. indeed put forward such a position, but declined to elaborate further.

The Korea Times repeatedly contacted the U.S. Trade Representative Office as well as the Departments of Commerce and Treasury seeking comment, but received no response. An official from South Korea’s Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy said they were unaware of the matter and reiterated that Korea’s fundamental position is that "industry-related affairs should be advanced based on commercial rationality."

Historical mirror: High profits often trigger political intervention

The CITIC Securities report reviewed two typical cases, revealing the action logic of the U.S. government in similar situations.

Japanese semiconductors (1980s): After Japan’s semiconductor industry rapidly rose and squeezed out the competitive advantage of U.S. firms, the U.S. government, pushed by the business community and industry associations, successively imposed tariffs, launched 301 investigations, enacted the US-Japan Semiconductor Agreement, and imposed 100% punitive tariffs to pressure Japan. The policy impact, combined with the bursting of Japan’s economic bubble, ultimately pushed for a redistribution of global semiconductor market share and profits. Notably, the market share lost by Japan did not return to the U.S., but instead Korea became the final beneficiary with policy support.Taiwan panel industry (2000s): In 2006, Taiwan’s large-size LCD panels reached the world’s number one in shipments. The same year, the U.S. Department of Justice initiated an antitrust investigation for price-fixing, with major Taiwanese panel makers being fined over $800 million in total and several executives being imprisoned. The impact of these actions, combined with the global financial crisis and a cyclical industry downturn, eventually shifted global panel market share and profits toward mainland China.

CITIC Securities pointed out that the above cases exhibit common patterns: once high profits of overseas companies are redefined by the U.S. government as damaging to domestic industry competitiveness, political intervention will follow, often through multiple tools such as trade, industry, and antitrust actions.

Current landscape: Supply as a priority, political pressure not yet formed

CITIC Securities believes that whether high profits for South Korean memory firms will lead to U.S. government intervention depends on understanding the decision-making mechanisms behind its science and economic policies.

At this stage, relevant U.S. policies are still being led by core White House teams including Trump, Bescent, and others. Meanwhile, as figures like Michael Kratsios and David Sacks from the tech right-wing gain influence, U.S. tech giants are exerting greater impact on the policy agenda. After an issue is defined by the White House core, implementation typically involves the Commerce Department, USTR, Department of Justice, and FTC, each using trade, industrial, or antitrust tools.

At the current stage, with AI demand still strong, American businesses are more concerned with ensuring supply of memory chips, rather than suppressing the prices and profits of South Korean firms. On the political side, the tendency is to combine MAGA with tech industrial policies, encouraging Korean companies to expand production in the U.S., thus driving manufacturing, employment, and supply chain repatriation. Although there have been sporadic voices of opposition from American policymakers, industry organizations, and consumers regarding rising Korean memory prices, systemic political pressure has not yet formed.

Critical risk point: Cost pass-through ability is the key variable

CITIC Securities notes that as long as memory costs can still be passed on downstream, price increases tend to be seen as part of the AI boom with limited political motivation for intervention. But if prices continue to rise, visibly squeezing U.S. company profits and investment returns, South Korea’s high memory profits could be reframed by the U.S. government as harming America’s AI competitiveness.

The report suggests closely watching two signals: First, whether U.S. tech giants shift from securing supply toward openly opposing price increases; second, whether policymakers shift from ensuring supply and promoting U.S. production expansion, toward interventions on grounds of “monopoly,” “price manipulation,” or “supply chain security.”

Rick Switzer’s statement may be an early warning that this risk is moving from potential to overt. For SK Hynix and Samsung Electronics, the U.S.-Korea semiconductor game is quietly extending from manufacturing localization to profits distribution.

Risk disclosure and disclaimerThe market carries risks, and investment requires caution. This article does not constitute individual investment advice, nor does it take into account any user’s specific investment objectives, financial situation, or needs. Users should consider whether any opinions, views, or conclusions in this article are suitable to their own circumstances. Investments made accordingly are at your own risk. ```