[Alpha Biz= Kim Young Taek] A remark by Song Ho-sung regarding the potential initial public offering (IPO) timing of Boston Dynamics has triggered internal controversy within Hyundai Motor Group, raising questions about the group’s governance restructuring and succession strategy.

 

According to industry sources, the issue originated during a non-deal roadshow (NDR) held in Hong Kong and Singapore in May, where Song stated that “2028, when mass production begins, would be an appropriate timing for an IPO.”

The comment drew immediate attention in the market, as Kia holds no stake in Boston Dynamics. The robotics company’s ownership structure consists of Hyundai Motor Company (30%), Hyundai Mobis (20%), Hyundai Glovis (10%), and Chairman Chung Eui-sun (20%).

 

An industry insider familiar with the matter said that only one senior analyst from Korea Investment & Securities attended the NDR among domestic brokerages and documented the Q&A session in a research report. Media coverage based on the report was later revised, with references to the 2028 IPO timeline toned down or removed.

The timing of Boston Dynamics’ IPO is widely regarded as a key element in Hyundai Motor Group’s broader governance restructuring and succession planning. Sources indicate that the group has been considering an earlier listing—potentially as soon as late this year or next year—to address obligations such as SoftBank’s put option.

Against this backdrop, Song’s remarks suggesting a 2028 timeline were seen by some as potentially signaling a delay in the IPO, raising concerns among investors.

Following the controversy, internal efforts to manage the situation reportedly intensified. In a research report published on May 18, references to the 2028 IPO timing were revised into more neutral language, while related media reports were also edited and toned down.

 

 

An industry official noted that the revisions likely reflected concerns that the remarks could expose internal misalignment within the group in front of foreign investors and disrupt plans related to succession funding.

Some analysts suggest that the comment may have been intended to frame the IPO as a value-driven timing decision rather than a delay. However, given the apparent internal discomfort, others view the episode as an example of an off-the-cuff remark exceeding internal messaging boundaries.

 

 

 

[ⓒ 알파경제. 무단전재-재배포 금지]