June 2025 Deficit: A Countdown to Fiscal Shock

In the final analysis, it’s just central banks printing money, reducing its value and causing inflation as they support dishonest governments that refuse to be fiscally responsible and continually run massive deficits. Such policies flow from the “elite’s” greed and their insatiable thirst for power, benefiting themselves at the expense of the middle class and working poor… When a society loses its moral foundation, it’s only a matter of time before the economy and currency deteriorate and the wealth gaps between the rich and poor increase dramatically—Jonathan Wellum  

In this issue

June 2025 Deficit: A Countdown to Fiscal Shock 

I. A Delayed Reckoning: Anatomy of a Fiscal Shock

1. Easy Money–Financed Free Lunch Politics

2. The Political Cult of Spending-Led Ideology: Trickle-Down by Government Fiat

3. Chronic Policy Diagnostic Blindness

4. Econometric Myopia: Forecasting the Past

5. Behavioral Fragility: The Psychology of Denial

II. Countdown to Fiscal Shock: The Hidden Story of June’s Blowout

III. Q2 Slowdown, Q1 Surge: Anatomy of the Half-Year Blowout—From Past Binge to Present Reckoning

IV. Technocratic Overreach, Authorized Expenditures, Congressional Irrelevance

V. Deficit Forecasting: Averaging Toward a Crisis

VI. Financing Strain and the Debt-Debt Servicing Spiral

VII. Tax Dragnet, CMEPA’s Forced Financial Rotation: The Economic Asphyxiation Tightens

VIII. Bank’s Fiscal Complicity, Liquidity Strains, Treasury Market’s Mutiny

IX. Mounting USDPHP Exchange Rate Tension

X. Conclusion: The Structural Fragility of Deficit Philosophy 

June 2025 Deficit: A Countdown to Fiscal Shock 

When deficits become destiny: the fiscal countdown accelerates—a convergence of easy money and political overreach

I. A Delayed Reckoning: Anatomy of a Fiscal Shock 

A fiscal shock rarely emerges from a single misstep. It crystallizes from compound misalignments across policy, ideology, and behavior. It’s the law of unintended consequences—unfolding in real time. Where economic orthodoxy meets political convenience, stability is hollowed out. And just as critically, it’s a delayed consequence of systemic denial. 

Here are the five pillars of this reckoning: 

1. Easy Money–Financed Free Lunch Politics 

A regime of entitlement—fueled by populist spending and post-pandemic ultra-low rates—fostered a seductive illusion: 

Deficits don’t matter. Debt is painless. 

Years of stimulus, subsidies, and politically popular transfers hardened into fiscal habit— habits that now resist restraint, and are rooted in beliefs that are difficult to dismantle. 

2. The Political Cult of Spending-Led Ideology: Trickle-Down by Government Fiat 

At the heart of the Philippine development model lies a flawed political-economic ideology: that elite consumption and state expenditure will "trickle down" to the broader economy. 

Massive infrastructure programs, defense outlays, and subsidy-heavy welfare budgets may deliver short-term optics—but they also crowd out private investment, misallocate capital, and accelerate savings erosion. 

The result: an economy that becomes top-heavy, brittle, and structurally vulnerable. 

This heavy-handed, statist-interventionist, anti-market bias is what Ludwig von Mises called "statolatry"—the worship of the state. 

3. Chronic Policy Diagnostic Blindness 

In the social democratic playbook, populist tools dominate. And with them comes a dangerous neglect of structural realities:

• Crowding out is ignored
• Balance sheet mismatches are waved off
• Price distortions go unexamined
• Resource misallocations are dismissed
• Economic trade-offs are neglected 

Intervention becomes the default—not the diagnosis. The result? Mispriced assets, distorted capital structures, and risk narratives untethered from fundamentals. 

The same statolatry—elevating state action above market signals—undergirds this blindness. It promotes interventionist reflexes at the expense of incentive clarity and institutional coherence. 

Fragility escalates—masked by the optics of populist-driven fiscal theatrics. 

4. Econometric Myopia: Forecasting the Past 

The establishment clings to econometric models built on frangible assumptions—historical baselines, linear extrapolation, and trend mimicry. These tools overlook what matters most: 

• Nonlinear disruption
• Inflection points
• Complex feedback loops
• Tail risks and structural breaks 

With ZERO margin for error, fragility festers beneath the surface. 

That fragility was laid bare by a maelstrom of paradigm shifts: 

• The pandemic rupture
• Deglobalization and trade fragmentation
• Raging asset bubbles
• Debt overload
• Mountains of malinvestments
• Hot wars and geopolitical shockwaves
• Inflation surges
• Financial weaponization 

This isn’t noise—it’s a new architecture of global and domestic uncertainties. And econometric orthodoxy isn’t equipped to model it. 

5. Behavioral Fragility: The Psychology of Denial 

Heuristics shape policy—and not in ways that reward foresight. Beyond populist signaling and econometric hindsight, cognitive distortions rule: 

• Recency bias
• Rear-view heuristics
• Political denialism masked as institutional confidence 

Years of perceived “resilience” dulled vigilance: 

• Every deficit was shrugged off
• Every peso slide deemed temporary
• Every fiscal blowout “absorbed” by the system 

This cultivated an expectation: past stability ensures future resilience. It doesn’t. That assumption—embedded deep within policy reflexes—has left institutions blind to volatility and ill-equipped for disruptions and rupture. 

II. Countdown to Fiscal Shock: The Hidden Story of June’s Blowout

Figure 1

In May, we warned that if June 2025's deficit merely hits its four-year average of Php 200 billion, the six-month budget gap would surge to Php 723.9 billion—surpassing the pandemic-era record of Php 716.07 billion. (Figure 1, upper window) 

Inquirer.net, July 25, 2025: The Marcos administration exceeded its budget deficit limit in the first half of 2025 after narrowly missing both its spending and revenue targets. This happened amid a gradual fiscal consolidation program. Latest data from the Bureau of the Treasury (BTr) showed the government logged a budget gap of P765.5 billion in the first six months, which it needed to plug with borrowings. This was 24.69 percent bigger compared with a year ago. (italics added) 

Then came the payload: Php 241.6 billion in fresh red ink last June!   

The government’s first-half deficit reached Php 765.5 billion—24.69% higher than last year and larger than even our most aggressive baseline x.com forecast (Php 745.18–Php 756.53 billion). (Figure 1, table)

Figure 2 

Bullseye! Our projections weren't just close—they were surgical. And the final blowout went further still. (Figure 2, topmost chart) 

Curiously underreported, June’s deficit marked an all-time high, driven by expenditure growth of 8.5% outstripping revenue growth of 3.5%. (Figure 2, middle graph) 

• BIR Collections: Up 16.24% YoY—a strong bounce from 10.71% in May and 4.71% in June 2024.
• BoC Collections: Recovered 3.23% YoY, compared to –6.94% in May and 0.67% in June 2024.
• Non-Tax Revenues: Plunged 43.25% YoY—from 40.93% in May and 81.7% in June 2024. 

Behind the aggregate improvement lies deeper fragility: June’s revenue outperformance was narrow, uneven, and ultimately insufficient to contain the programmed spending expansion—a predictable artifact of the conventional socio-democratic ochlocratic political model. 

Populist instincts override structural diagnostics. And the fiscal narrative remains hostage to crowd-pleasing interventionism rather than incentive discipline or institutional coherence.

III. Q2 Slowdown, Q1 Surge: Anatomy of the Half-Year Blowout—From Past Binge to Present Reckoning 

Despite June's record deficit, Q2 posted just Php 319.5 billion, the second slowest since 2020. That means the bulk of the six-month deficit—Php 446.03 billion—was frontloaded in Q1. 

Even then, authorities revised March spending down by Php 32.784 billion, artificially narrowing the Q1 deficit. Adjustments may mask the underlying magnitude but not the fiscal trajectory. 

This six-month outcome validates what we’ve long emphasized: programmed spending vs. variable revenues is no longer an assumption—it’s a structural vulnerability, a primary source of instability 

Importantly, this wasn’t an emergency stimulus. Unlike 2021, there’s been no recession nor one in the immediate horizon—per consensus. 

Yet the deficit beat that year’s record—despite BSP’s historic easing:

• Policy rate cuts
• Reserve requirement reduction
• USDPHP cap
• Liquidity injections
• Deposit insurance expansion 

Behind the optics: a quiet financial bailout, not of households or industries, but of the banking system. 

IV. Technocratic Overreach, Authorized Expenditures, Congressional Irrelevance 

As we earlier noted: the government continues to use linear extrapolation in a complex environment. Even with declared economic slowdown, the BIR posted 14.11% growth, buoyed by May–June outperformance. (Figure 2, lowest image) 

But has "benchmark-ism" inflated performance claims? Have authorities padded the numerator (tax data) to rationalize a fragile denominator (spending data)?

Figure 3

Non-tax revenue was the Achilles’ heel—its 2024 spike became the baseline for 2025’s enacted spending binge. The result: forecast miscalibration leading directly to fiscal shock. Beyond mere overconfidence, it was technocratic hubris that helped trigger today’s blowout. (Figure 3, topmost visual) 

Again, an underperforming economy—whether a below-target GDP, sharp slowdown, or even recession—would only reinforce this SPEND-and-RESCUE dynamic, repackaged and sold as stimulus. 

Meanwhile, authorized expenditures: Php 3.026 trillion. Remaining balance: Php 3.3 trillion, implying a floor monthly average of Php 550.05 billion. 

Budgets have been breached 6 years in a row—highlighting a redistribution of budgetary power from Congress to the Executive. 

Whether through creative reinterpretation or technical loopholes, these breaches signal a quiet transfer of fiscal power from Congress to the Executive. 

V. Deficit Forecasting: Averaging Toward a Crisis 

Looking at pandemic-era averages:

• Q3 deficits averaged Php 374 billion
• Q3 2024 hit Php 356.32 billion (–5.7% below average)
• Q4 averaged Php 537.9 billion Q4 is typically the largest—as government drops all remaining balance and more
• Q4 2024 deficit: Php 536.13 billion (–0.4% deviation)
• 2H Average: Php 911.6 billion
• 2H 2024: Php 892.45 billion (–2.6% vs trend) 

If 2025 follows this pattern, the full-year deficit could hit Php 1.677 trillion—Php 7 billion above prior records. 

But averages conceal real-world volatility, political discretion, and data manipulation—can skew results. 

Once again, it bears emphasizing: all this unfolded as the BSP eased aggressively—through rate and RRR cuts, doubled deposit insurance, capped USDPHP volatility, and expanded credit (mostly consumer-focused). 

Despite the stimulus, vulnerabilities not only persist—they’re escalating. 

If so, the DBCC's revised deficit-to-GDP target of 5.5% would be breached, necessitating another substantial upward adjustment. (Figure 3, middle table) 

Authorities would be mistaken to treat this as mere statistical noise; its implications extend far beyond the ledger into the real economy

VI. Financing Strain and the Debt-Debt Servicing Spiral 

Treasury financing soared 86.2%, from Php 665 billion to Php 1.238 trillion in H1 2025. (Figure 3, lowest diagram) 

Even with record high cumulative cash reserves of Php 1.09 trillion, June alone posted a residual cash deficit of Php 90.09 billion—evidence that surplus buffers are already depleted.

Figure 4 

As such, in June, public debt spiked Php 1.783 trillion YoY (+11.52%) or Php 348 billion (+2.06%) MoM to reach a historic Php 17.27 trillion! (Figure 4, topmost pane) 

Critically, this growth has outpaced the spending curve, suggesting potential deficit understatement or an acceleration of off-book liabilities. (Figure 4, middle image) 

Despite this, external debt share rebounded in June—a pivot back to foreign financing amid domestic constraints. (Figure 4, lowest graph)

Figure 5

Meanwhile, total debt servicing fell 40.12% YoY due to a 61% plunge in amortizations, even though interest payments hit a record. (Figure 5, topmost diagram) 

Why?

Likely causes:

• Scheduling choices
• Prepayments in 2024
• Political aversion to public backlash 

But the record and growing deficit ensures that borrowing—and debt servicing—will keep RISING. This won’t be deferred—it will amplify. 

As we warned last May

• More debt → more servicing → less for everything else.
• Crowding out hits both public and private spending.
• Revenue gains won’t keep up with servicing.
• Inflation and peso depreciation risks climb.
• Higher taxes are on the horizon 

VII. Tax Dragnet, CMEPA’s Forced Financial Rotation: The Economic Asphyxiation Tightens 

Debt-to-GDP hit 62%, triggering a quiet revision: Malacañang raised the ceiling to 70%. 

To accommodate this, authorities imposed a hefty tax on interest income via the Capital Markets Efficiency Promotion Act (CMEPA), engineering a forced rotation out of long-dated fixed income into leverage-fueled speculation and spending— (see previous discussions) 

This fiscal extraction dragnet is poised to widen—ensnaring more of the economy and constricting what little fiscal breathing room remains. 

VIII. Bank’s Fiscal Complicity, Liquidity Strains, Treasury Market’s Mutiny 

Banks continue to stockpile government securities through net claims on the central government (NCoCG). (Figure 5, middle image) 

Yet despite BSP’s easing, treasury yields barely moved—fueling further Held-to-Maturity (HTM) hoarding and deepening the industry's liquidity drain. 

At end of July, despite dovish guidance: (Figure 5, lowest graph) 

• Yields across the curve stayed above ONRRP, muting or blunting transmission
• Curve flattened unevenly: front and long ends softened, belly firmed—signaling hedging against medium-term risk
• T-bill rates remained elevated —signaling inflation fears and short-term funding stress 

Despite rate cuts, the treasury market refused to follow. Monetary policy faces bond mutineers. 

IX. Mounting USDPHP Exchange Rate Tension

Figure 6 

Following the June fiscal report, the USDPHP surged 1.29% on July 31, wiping out prior losses to post a modest 0.52% year-to-date return. 

With wider deficits on deck, foreign borrowing becomes more attractive—and a weaker dollar, further incentivized by the BSP’s soft peg, adds fuel to that pivot. But beneath the surface, this dynamic strain long-term currency stability. 

While global dollar softness might offset domestic fragilities, the USDPHP’s recent breakout hints at further testing—possibly probing the BSP’s 59-Maginot line, a psychological and tactical policy threshold. (Figure 6 upper chart) 

Should that line give, external financing costs and FX volatility could surge, exposing cracks in the peg architecture. (Figure 6, lower graph) 

X. Conclusion: The Structural Fragility of Deficit Philosophy

The Php 17.27 trillion debt—and growing—isn’t the cost of failure. It’s the price of consensus under a soft-focus ochlocratic social democracy. 

These systems don’t just elect leaders—they ratify an ethos: that deficit-fueled expansion is not only moral but inevitable. Redistribution becomes ritual. The annual SONA pipelines new spending schemes, boosting short-term political capital—but the structural anchors are threadbare. 

Compassion without discipline sedates policy. Voters misread rhetoric as reform, empathy as capability, largesse as virtue, and control as stewardship. Time preferences spiral, gravitating toward the instant dopamine hit of political dispensation. 

Alas—the tragedy is not merely fiscal. It’s intergenerational erosion. Each electoral cycle mortgages future agency, compounding fragility over time. 

What’s swelling isn’t just debt. It’s a philosophical incoherence—subsidizing dysfunction and labeling it 'development.’ 

When such convictions are deeply embedded, a disorderly reckoning is inevitable. 

____

References 

Prudent Investor Newsletter, The Philippines’ May and 5-Month 2025 Budget Deficit: Can Political Signaling Mask a Looming Fiscal Shock? Substack July 7, 2025 

Prudent Investor Newsletter, Is the Philippines on the Brink of a 2025 Fiscal Shock? Substack June 8, 2025 

Prudent Investor Newsletter, Philippine Fiscal Performance in Q1 2025: Record Deficit Amid Centralizing Power, Substack May 4, 2025 

Prudent Investor Newsletter, The Seen, the Unseen, and the Taxed: CMEPA as Financial Repression by Design, Substack, July 20, 2025 

Prudent Investor Newsletter, The CMEPA Delusion: How Fallacious Arguments Conceal the Risk of Systemic Blowback, Substack, July 27, 2025

Concepcion Industries Cools Off—And So Might GDP and the PLUS-Bound PSEi 30 (or Not?)

Wealth gained hastily will dwindle, but whoever gathers little by little will increase it—Proverbs 13:11 

Concepcion Industries Cools Off—And So Might GDP and the PLUS-Bound PSEi 30 (or Not?) 

Where weak demand meets benchmarking theater—CIC’s slump, index revisions, and PLUS as poster child—two short articles on CIC and PSE index rebalancing 

I. Concepcion’s Cooling Sales: A Summer Signal of Consumer Strain? 

Inquirer.net July 26, 2025: Concepcion Industrial Corp. (CIC), a consumer and industrial solutions provider, grew its attributable net profit by 15 percent to P355.4 million in the second quarter, driven by refrigeration and appliance businesses. This brought CIC’s first semester net profit to P534.3 million, up 30 percent from the past year, CIC said in its regulatory filing. 

Concepcion Industrials [PSE: CIC] posted a 15% rise in Q2 net income attributable to owners (PATAMI), hitting Php 355.4 million—an achievement media outlets framed as firm-wide strength. 

But this figure excludes minority interests and masks the broader softness in CIC’s core business. It’s technically accurate, rhetorically inflated. 

CIC’s official disclosure tells a different story. 

CIC official disclosure July 24, 2025: Net sales from the Consumer segment reached P3.7 billion, representing a 20% decline year-on-year. This was primarily due to weaker demand for air conditioning equipment caused by a shorter and less intense hot season, as well as a shift in consumer preference for lower-priced alternatives…In contrast, the Commercial segment posted P1.5 billion in net sales, reflecting 11% growth year-on-year…CIC posted net income of P498.1 million, a decline of 8% versus the same period last year, driven by weaker retail aircon demand, margin compression, and factory-related cost challenges.. Profit after tax and minority interest (PATAMI) was P355.4 million, up 15% year-on-year (bold added)

Figure 1

Net income fell 8% YoY to Php 498.1 million, dragged by a 20% plunge in consumer segment sales—despite record heat across parts of the country. Management blamed a shorter, less intense hot season and a shift toward lower-priced alternatives.(Figure 1, upper graph) 

That shift, amid falling CPI, near-record employment, all-time high consumer debt, historic fiscal deficit signals something deeper: households are flinching. 

CIC controls roughly 25–30% of the aircon market, making its performance a bellwether. 

Yet Q2 sales dropped 12.6% YoY, pulling H1 topline growth to a modest +3.2%. Net income still registered the second-highest peso level, but that was largely a base effect—margins held, but demand didn’t. (Figure 1, lower image) 

In a moment primed to amplify cooling demand, we instead find weakness refracted through both temperature and temperament. CIC’s heat-season fade reframes summer not as a demand accelerant, but as a mirror to creeping macro fragility.

Figure 2

Correlation does not imply causation, but the GDP linkage is hard to ignore. CIC’s sales growth fell from 37.4% in Q2 2024 to 4.6% in Q3 2024—mirroring the GDP’s drop from 6.5% to 5.2%. If that correlation holds, CIC’s Q2 slump may be a foreshock to a softer-than-expected GDP print. 

If CIC underperforms during the hottest months—when demand should be strongest—what does that say about the real health of household budgets and the trajectory of the economy? 

II. PSEi 30 Shake-Up: Will the PLUS Bubble Be Included or Buried? 

The Philippine Stock Exchange is expected to announce minor changes to its indices—including the PSEi 30—on August 1.

Figure 3 

Index rebalancing decisions are driven by trading activity, especially price performance, liquidity, and trading frequency. (Figure 3, upper table) 

As we've previously noted, share price surges have often been accompanied by rising volumes. 

Higher trade frequency helps filter out negotiated transactions such as cross trades, giving more weight to organic market activity. 

Despite the ongoing bear market and lingering volume inertia, a handful of stocks have outperformed. Mainboard volume (MBV) rose 7.03% year-on-year in the first half of 2025—pointing to selective engagement rather than broad-based participation. (Figure 3, lower chart) 

The PSE’s dynamic threshold model appears to rely heavily on survivorship bias—prioritizing recent winners as candidates for index inclusion. 

A case in point is DigiPlus Interactive Corp. (PLUS). 

According to the Inquirer (July 26, 2025): "DigiPlus Interactive Corp. still expects to be inducted into the Philippine Stock Exchange index, the benchmark index that consists of the 30 largest firms that trade on the local bourse, despite ongoing travails…We are not operationally affected, we’re on track with [our business plans]. It’s just our stock price that was affected. Nothing has changed except [there were] hurt feelings,” Tanco said."

Figure 4

Although full data from January to June is unavailable to us, its prominence in June is indisputable—accounting for 8.13% of MBV, with daily trades at times exceeding 10%. (Figure 4) 

Much of the current volume surge—over 25% of MBV—occurred amid the stock’s collapse in July. Yet since the PSE’s assessment period only spans January to June, July’s volatility is formally excluded. 

This introduces a hindsight bias in the official narrative: the stock crashed after the cutoff, but its strong June performance still boosts its qualifications for inclusion. 

And yet, PLUS mirrors the story of BW Resources—a politically inflated stock market bubble. Its fate depends on political calculus, particularly on how President Marcos Jr. addresses the issue of digital gambling in his SONA. 

An outright ban on online gambling could disqualify PLUS. However, if the administration opts for tighter regulation and higher taxation, it may still gain entry into the PSEi. 

Adding to the political layer, the Department of Finance has floated the idea of mandating public listings for gaming firms in the name of “transparency.” In such a case, PLUS’s inclusion in the index could serve as a showcase of the DOF’s Management by Example—which would be, quite literally, a “plus” for PLUS. 

But far from harmless, regulatory tightening or tax hikes would directly impact PLUS’s operations—despite public statements to the contrary. 

Regardless of the outcome, easy-money-fueled gambling fervor remains the defining feature of the current market, as investors chase speculative narratives in hopes of reclaiming the lost glory of a bygone bull market. 

This shift toward high time preference society—a fixation on short-term gains and speculative excess—is at the heart of what we call “The PLUS Economy.” 

But we reiterate: the PLUS stock bubble has already burst. 

Finally, viewed through the lens of the PSE’s dynamic model, the PSE doesn’t crown resilience—it rewards survivorship. And survivorship is just volatility dressed up as eligibility.

The CMEPA Delusion: How Fallacious Arguments Conceal the Risk of Systemic Blowback

As the cycle nears its end, a country is typically beset by chronic fiscal deficits. Low domestic savings and current account deficits render it dependent on foreign lenders. As lenders become wary, the average maturity of the public debt shortens. The central bank finds it impossible to set interest rates at the level which balances the needs of both creditors and borrowers. Once interest rates rise, governments’ debt servicing costs become increasingly onerous. Government finances come to resemble a Ponzi scheme, with new debt being issued to service old borrowing—Edward Chancellor 

In this issue

The CMEPA Delusion: How Fallacious Arguments Conceal the Risk of Systemic Blowback

I. Introduction: Evading the Real Issue

II. The Fallacies Behind the CMEPA’s Defense

A. False Equivalence

B. Red Herring

C. Categorical Error

D. Begging the Question

E. Ignoring Second-Order Effects (Bastiat’s “Seen and Unseen”)

F. Appeal to the General (Overgeneralization)

III. The Diminishing Role of Time and Savings Deposits in M2 and Bank Liabilities

IV. Defective Gross Domestic Savings, Near Record Savings-Investment Gap

V. Financing the ‘Twin Deficits’ with Record Systemic Leverage

VI. State-Driven Financial Repression: Time Deposits vs. RTBs & Pag-IBIG MP2

VII. Inflating Stock Market Bubbles: CMEPA’s Savers Lion’s Den

VIII. Conclusion: Sovereignty over Speculation, Economic Blowback 

The CMEPA Delusion: How Fallacious Arguments Conceal the Risk of Systemic Blowback 

Logical fallacies aren’t harmless—they shape policy narratives. In CMEPA’s case, they obscure financial repression and pave the way for systemic economic backlash. 

This is a follow-up on my original piece: The Seen, the Unseen, and the Taxed: CMEPA as Financial Repression by Design 

I. Introduction: Evading the Real Issue 

The Capital Market Efficiency Promotion Act (CMEPA) has stirred significant debate, not merely because of its tax provisions but because of what it signals about the evolving relationship between the state and citizen savings. 

While defenders of CMEPA claim it merely modernizes financial taxation and expands savings options, these arguments often rest on flawed logic and misleading equivalencies that mask the deeper issues: the erosion of true savings, the rise of speculation, and creeping state control over private capital.

Besides, in classical economic thought, savings is deferred consumption—a temporal anchor against uncertainty, a moral wager on future stability. Time-bound, low-risk instruments like term deposits have long served this function. They do not aspire; they buffer. When the state flattens the tax incentives protecting this buffer, it doesn’t merely tweak an equation—it alters the meaning of saving. 

II. The Fallacies Behind the CMEPA’s Defense 

CMEPA's defenders lean on several logical fallacies to support their case: 

A. False Equivalence: By equating time-bound savings with speculative financial assets such as stocks or REITs, proponents confuse two fundamentally different financial behaviors. Savings are deferred consumption; risk assets are bets on volatility. 

B. Red Herring: Arguments pointing to alternative investment vehicles like Pag-IBIG MP2 or Retail Treasury Bonds distract from the core concern: CMEPA disincentivizes bank-based, low-risk savings that traditionally fund long-term development. 

C. Categorical Error: To assume that financial markets can substitute for savings systems ignores the institutional role of savings in capital formation, stability, and intermediation. 

D. Begging the Question: CMEPA defenders assume what they must prove: that taxed savings instruments still count as savings (tax = savings or 1-1=2), or that savings will simply shift outside time deposits without consequence. This begs the question. 

It presumes that risk assets and government-managed schemes are natural substitutes for time deposits. It conflates taxation with neutrality, ignoring how incentives shape behavior.

In reality, aside from extraction, tax is a signal, not a passive overlay. And when the signal penalizes duration, it redefines savings itself. 

Worst, it also treats financial repression as benign without examining its structural damage to intermediation, capital formation, and systemic liquidity.

E. Ignoring Second-Order Effects (Bastiat’s “Seen and Unseen”) 

Defenders highlight only the seen—that capital might shift to “alternative” instruments like stocks or Pag-IBIG MP2. 

What is seen:

1. Lower taxes on REITs and stocks = more investment.

2. Flat tax on deposits = not new, fairness 

But they ignore the unseen: 

1. weakening of bank intermediation via the erosion of long-term bank funding,

2. The crowding out of private credit channels, and

3. The behavioral shift toward liquidity-chasing speculation, which gives rise to

4. increased market and economic volatility 

Policy must be judged not just by its immediate effects, but by its downstream damage. This is the classic Bastiat fallacy—what is unseen—the fragility, the distortion, the systemic cost—often matters more. 

F. Appeal to the General (Overgeneralization) 

CMEPA’s defenders argue that because some financial instruments like stocks, REITs, or Pag-IBIG MP2 exist, they can generally serve as adequate substitutes for traditional savings. 

But this overlooks key details: liquidity risk, volatility, transitional frictions or tensions, accessibility, ceilings, investor profile and behavioral inertia that constrain real-world reallocation. 

Not all instruments serve the same function—especially for households that need capital preservation over yield. 

This fallacy blurs crucial distinctions between risk assets and true savings vehicles. By appealing to broad categories, it sidesteps the very real limitations and risks of reallocating savings. In policy, the details are the difference between resilience and fragility. 

Policy design and evaluation demands specificity: Without disaggregated data on household savings patterns, bank funding structures, and instrument uptake, differentiating between resilience and fragility, the defense becomes narrative and rhetoric, not analysis. 

III. The Diminishing Role of Time and Savings Deposits in M2 and Bank Liabilities 

Since the BSP’s structural easing cycle began in the early 2000s, both the savings and time deposit shares of M2 have steadily declined. 

This erosion has profound implications for the liquidity foundations of the Philippine financial system. 

Figure 1 

Notably, time deposits briefly surged during two critical junctures: first, when the BSP’s policy rates hit record lows during the pandemic, and again when aggressive rate hikes resumed in 2022. Yet this rebound proved short-lived. (Figure 1, topmost pane) 

Subsequent M2 growth increasingly leaned on more liquid components—such as demand deposits and currency in circulation—rather than long-term savings. 

In effect, liquidity transformation has shifted away from stable deposits toward more volatile sources: demand-driven credit expansion and the banking system’s financing of government liabilities, as evidenced by the surge in net claims on the central government (NCoCG). (Figure 1, middle graph) 

The CMEPA tax will likely accelerate this liquidity vacuum by further penalizing traditional savings vehicles. 

This structural shift presents a systemic challenge. As deposits decline, credit expansion becomes increasingly unanchored from genuine savings. In tandem with both implicit liquidity support (via bank balance sheets) and direct quantitative easing (via the BSP), this dynamic becomes inherently inflationary and destabilizing. 

The dilemma is mirrored in bank balance sheets. 

The time deposit share of total bank liabilities has collapsed—from over 32% in 2008 to just 17.5% by mid-2022, before rebounding modestly in response to BSP’s tightening cycle. (Figure 1, lowest diagram) 

This plunge coincides with a decade of financial repression: persistently low real rates, high inflation, and the rise of state-directed instruments like RTBs, MP2, and PERA accounts. 

As traditional deposits dwindled, banks turned increasingly to borrowings to fill the liability gap. 

The share of bank borrowings from capital markets has been rising since 2015, ironically peaking just before the pandemic recession in 2019. This share temporarily declined to 5.4% by Q3 2023, as ‘tighter’ policy conditions set in. 

Yet as liquidity stress intensified, bank borrowing surged anew—hitting 7.9% in March 2025—before moderating after the BSP’s second leg of RRR cuts. 

In this context, what CMEPA promotes as capital market reform in practice amounts to an escalation of the erosion of the deposit base. It trades long-term stability for short-term borrowing, redirecting household savings away from private financial intermediation and into state debt. 

The result? A more fragile banking system, less private capital formation, and greater macro-financial risk. 

Moreover, these bank borrowings now compete directly with government financing needs and private sector credit demand—exacerbating the crowding-out effect and tightening liquidity conditions for the broader economy. 

This fragility is amplified by the growing concentration of liquidity within a handful of dominant players.

Figure 2

As of May, Philippine banks controlled 82% of total financial resources or assets, with universal-commercial banks accounting for 76%. (Figure 2, topmost image) 

Meanwhile, even as the M2-to-GDP ratio soared from 63% in 2019 to a pandemic-era peak of 76.2% in 2021, it dropped sharply to 66.3% by Q1 2025—a sign that not only has GDP become dependent on liquidity, but, importantly, money creation is no longer translating into real economic or savings growth. (Figure 2, middle chart) 

Taken together, as banks increasingly monopolize liquidity while time deposits diminish, the financial system becomes more fragile. It is precisely this growing instability that forced the BSP to roll out confidence-boosting measures—including the doubling of deposit insurance coverage and the second phase of the RRR cut. These are not signs of strength. They are signs of deepening systemic stress.

IV. Defective Gross Domestic Savings, Near Record Savings-Investment Gap 

At first glance, gross domestic savings (GDS) might seem useful for assessing national savings conditions, but its use to account for real savings conditions is generally misleading. 

First, as a derived indicator—not a strict accounting identity—it suffers from definitional inconsistency. 

For instance, the World Bank reports it at 9.3% in 2024, while Trading Economics, citing the same source, shows 29.24%. Same source, vastly different realities. (Figure 2, lowest window) 

Second, it is calculated as: 

GDS = GDP – Total Consumption (private + public). 

But GDP itself is indifferent to distributional nuances. As we always ask here: Cui bono or Who benefits? 

Is the savings outcome driven primarily by genuine productivity gains—or by increasing dependence on leverage? What is the quality of the growth? What ratios of cost, allocation, and extraction were involved? 

Third, the GDS measure masks household savings weakness—especially during capital flight or high profit repatriation. 

Fourth, how are these "savings" reflected in the banking system? 

Even when elevated GDS suggests high aggregate capacity, the reality is that available savings for productive intermediation—such as long-term deposits and investible capital—are scarce. CMEPA threatens to worsen this distortion by tilting incentives toward consumption and speculation. 

Put differently: while 2024 GDS appears deceptively high at over 29% of GDP, net national savings—after accounting for income and transfer leakages—is a mere 9.3%, per World Bank estimates. 

This reveals a deep structural fragility in the country's true capacity to accumulate capital. By penalizing savings and redirecting flows into speculative capital markets, CMEPA threatens to widen this gap and exacerbate the very vulnerabilities it claims to address.

Figure 3

Yet—and this is key—BusinessWorld recently produced a chart based on Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) data showing the second widest gap between saving rates (apparently from the World Bank) and investment rates —which we discussed last March. (Figure 3, topmost visual) 

If savings were truly robust, why does this gap persist? What finances this chasm? 

V. Financing the ‘Twin Deficits’ with Record Systemic Leverage 

Cherry-picking numbers to defend the law ignores that the savings-investment gap has been manifested through ‘twin deficits’—fiscal and external trade. Despite supposed normalization post-pandemic, the Philippine economy remains at pandemic-level dependency on credit. (Figure 3, middle graph) 

Here’s the key: public spending is part of those investment rates. 

Bureau of the Treasury data revealed that the 2025 first-half fiscal deficit hit a record Php 765.49 billion—even without a recession! This confirms earlier warnings, which we’ll expand on in another post. (Figure 3, lowest diagram) 

So, who finances this? Domestic banks and foreign lenders are now absorbing this growing imbalance. 

As previously noted: 

"A shrinking domestic savings pool limits capital accumulation, increases dependence on external financing, and exposes the economy to risks such as debt distress and currency fluctuations."— Prudent Investor, March 2025

Figure 4

As of May, public debt hit a record Php 16.918 trillion, with June data expected to breach Php 17 trillion —the all-time high deficit will accelerate its increase. Didn’t the administration hint at pushing up the debt-to-GDP corridor from 60% to 70%? (Figure 4, upper graph) 

Meanwhile, combined with total bank credit expansion, systemic leverage reached a new record of Php 31.225 trillion, or 118% of 2024 nominal GDP. (Figure 4, lower chart) 

And that figure excludes: 

• Capital market debt issuance (corporate bonds, CMBS)
• FDI-linked intercompany loans
• Informal debt (pawnshops, personal lending, unregulated finance)

Think of the costs: this credit buildup means rising debt servicing burdens, declining real incomes, and growing risks of delinquencies and defaults. 

More importantly, in the absence of productivity-led savings growth, the Philippine economy is running on borrowed money—and borrowed time.

VI. State-Driven Financial Repression: Time Deposits vs. RTBs & Pag-IBIG MP2 

Defenders of CMEPA point to alternatives like RTBs or Pag-IBIG’s MP2 as substitutes for taxed time deposits. 

But these are neither comprehensive nor scalable: 

MP2 has annual ceilings and requires Pag-IBIG membership. 

RTBs are state-managed, episodic, and offer limited liquidity.

Figure 5 

Latest BSP data: (Figure/Table 5) 

• Total time deposits in the PH banking system: Over Php 5 trillion
• Long-term deposits (>5 years): ~Php 500–Php 700 billion
• RTB retail uptake: ~Php 175 billion
• MP2 inflows: ~Php 30–Php 50 billion/year 

Combined, RTBs + MP2 absorb just 5–10% of the capital displaced by CMEPA’s flattening of tax incentives. The rest sits idle, chases risk, or exits the formal system. 

More critically, these instruments are not substitutes for a diverse, open savings ecosystem. They represent state-controlled pipelines—a form of financial repression where household capital is diverted into funding public consumption, and paid for by the diminishing purchasing power of the peso. And this is supposed to ‘encourage’ savings growth? Really?

This contradicts the narrative that these flows remain as ‘savings outside’ time deposits. On the contrary, it is a narrowing of financial autonomy. 

VII. Inflating Stock Market Bubbles: CMEPA’s Savers Lion’s Den 

As previously discussed, the policy-induced gambling mentality has migrated to the equity markets. Instead of encouraging true savings, CMEPA will foster boom-bust cycles that further erode wealth and fuel capital consumption. 

This week’s coordinated pre-closing and afternoon pumps illustrate how institution-dominated markets manage the main index for optics—what we might call "benchmark-ism." (Figure 5, lower graph)

Though it escapes the Overton Window, this behavior—like CMEPA—distorts the price signal function of capital markets, leading to the misallocation of capital goods in the economy. 

By stoking gambling instincts, markets become casinos where savings and credit—someone else’s savings or bank-issued liquidity—is converted into house profits. 

When capital markets are manipulated for non-market goals, the effect is the same: momentum cloaking a wealth transfer. 

CMEPA leads savers straight into the lion’s den. 

VIII. Conclusion: Sovereignty over Speculation, Economic Blowback 

In an age where reform rewards liquidity and penalizes patience, true saving becomes a philosophical—and revolutionary—act. It’s no longer just economic prudence. It’s resistance to engineered ephemerality. 

The ideology driving CMEPA whispers: Be fast. Be fluid. Be speculative. Be extravagant. Be taxable. Be subservient to the state. 

The public must reply: Be steady. Be real. Be cautious. And above all—be sovereign. 

This is not academic critique—it’s a warning. When incentives distort prudence, the fallout is material, not theoretical. 

CMEPA does not act alone. It fuses with a wider architecture of distortion:

• BSP’s redistributionist easing cycle
• Record deficit spending
• An implicit USDPHP soft peg
• Accelerating bureaucratization and economic centralization 

Together, they form the scaffolding of financial and social maladjustment. 

And when crises surface—households hemorrhaging stability, banks scrambling for duration, systems unraveling under engineered fragility—the reckoning will be felt everywhere. 

In that moment, accountability will matter. 

We must remember: Who authored this distortion? Who rationalized it as progress? 

And we must prepare—for its backlash. 

___

References

Prudent Investor Newsletter, 2024’s Savings-Investment Gap Reaches Second-Widest Level as Fiscal Deficit Shrinks on Non-Tax Windfalls March 9, 2025, Substack