![\"null](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/news-g.v1.20260527.62198c0d6a4849ebb4c7023f66600f96_P1.jpg\"\/ "\\"KOSDAQ")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The biohealthcare sector faces a divided outlook as the South Korean government pushes ahead with a tier system that would split the KOSDAQ market into “Premium” and “Standard” segments. Medical device and aesthetics companies, backed by overseas exports and high profitability, are emerging as the main beneficiaries, while drug development biotech firms are bracing for greater pressure from a quantitative-metrics-driven evaluation framework.<\/p>\n
According to industry sources on the 27th, the Korea Exchange (KRX) is currently conducting internal discussions on the introduction of the KOSDAQ tier system. A KRX official said, “We are still at an early stage and various opinions are being raised. The exchange will first establish a basic direction, then finalize the plan after gathering market feedback and making adjustments.” The market expects the system could be implemented as early as October.<\/p>\n
The KOSDAQ tier system would classify listed companies into Premium (Tier 1) and Standard (Tier 2) segments based on market capitalization, financial performance such as revenue and profit, and governance structure, while companies at risk of delisting would be placed in a separate management group. Companies meeting certain criteria would be promoted to the upper tier, while those failing to maintain the requirements would be demoted to the lower tier. The government aims to enhance the credibility of the KOSDAQ market by fostering an investment environment centered on high-quality companies. A plan to form a Premium segment of around 100 stocks and link it to related indices and ETF products is also reportedly under review.<\/p>\n
The market widely expects the medical device sector to emerge as the biggest beneficiary of the tier system. Medical device firms in areas such as beauty and aesthetics have been posting stable earnings growth on the back of expanding overseas exports and high-margin business structures.<\/p>\n
Indeed, major medical device companies show key indicators such as revenue growth and operating margins that outperform the KOSDAQ average. From 2018 to 2025, average operating margins came to 49.0% for Classys (214150), 38.6% for Hugel (145020), and 30.8% for Pharmaresearch (214450). Over the same period, the overall KOSDAQ average operating margin stood at just 4.8%, while the KOSDAQ 150 averaged 8.0%. Interojo (16.3%) and T&L (27.0%) also recorded profitability significantly above the market average.<\/p>\n
Shin Min-soo, an analyst at Kiwoom Securities, said, “While the guidelines for the KOSDAQ tier system have not yet been finalized, the ‘KOSDAQ Global Segment’ introduced in 2022 is highly likely to serve as a key reference case.” He added, “Classys, Pharmaresearch, and Hugel were included as founding members of the Global Segment and have maintained their status to date, so they are likely to be included in the Premium tier regardless of the criteria applied.”<\/p>\n
The KOSDAQ Global Segment is a system that groups blue-chip listed companies into a separate segment linked to indices and ETF products, similar to the U.S. NASDAQ or Japan’s TOPIX. Of approximately 1,820 KOSDAQ-listed companies, only 52 stocks are currently included, eight of which are healthcare companies. “Classys, Pharmaresearch, and Hugel are already included in the KOSDAQ Global Segment,” Shin said. “Medical device firms are showing trends that exceed the KOSDAQ average in key performance indicators such as revenue growth and operating margins, making them highly likely to benefit from the tier system.”<\/p>\n
In contrast, voices in the biotech industry are raising concerns about deepening capital concentration and potential stigma effects. Biotech firms listed under the technology special listing system tend to remain in the red due to research and development (R&D) investment burdens, or face significant earnings volatility depending on technology export deals. Critics point out that such companies could be structurally disadvantaged under a quantitative-metrics-based evaluation system. The CEO of one biotech company said, “Most domestic biotech firms have a financial structure that alternates between profit and loss due to the nature of their technology export-centered business model. A simple ranking-style evaluation centered on market capitalization or revenue size cannot properly reflect the growth potential and technology value of biotech companies.”<\/p>\n
The recent concentration of capital in large-cap stocks tied to semiconductors and artificial intelligence (AI) on the domestic stock market, which has delayed the recovery of fund flows in the biotech sector overall, is also cited as a burdensome factor. An industry official said, “Amid the recent sluggish performance of biotech stocks across the board, the sentiment is that another three to four months are needed before fund flows recover.” The official added, “If the tier system is implemented, investment funds could concentrate on companies in the upper tier, which could become a burden on the biotech sector as a whole.”<\/p>\n
Experts advise that not only simple financial indicators but also technological competitiveness and business performance visibility should be evaluated together. They argue that a method comprehensively reflecting technology export records, global clinical trial progress, and commercialization potential is needed. Lee Seung-gyu, vice chairman of the Korea Bio Association, stressed, “The system should be designed to reflect the original purpose of the KOSDAQ and create an environment in which innovative technology companies can grow.” He added, “Various factors need to be comprehensively reflected, such as whether the deal is a domestic or overseas technology transfer, and whether it involves an existing or new modality.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The biohealthcare sector faces a divided outlook as the South Korean government pushes ahead with a tier system…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":32540,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[457],"tags":[1026,20952,20953,337,20956,17543,864,20955,20954,20957],"class_list":["post-32539","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-korea-exchange","tag-biotech","tag-classys","tag-hugel","tag-korea-exchange","tag-kosdaq-global-segment","tag-kosdaq-tier-system","tag-krx","tag-medical-device-sector","tag-pharmaresearch","tag-premium-tier"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32539","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=32539"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32539\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/32540"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=32539"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=32539"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=32539"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}