Why the Philippine Peso's Strength Masks Underlying Vulnerabilities

 

If the governments devalue the currency in order to betray all creditors, you politely call this procedure 'inflation'--George Bernard Shaw 

In this issue

Why the Philippine Peso's Strength Masks Underlying Vulnerabilities

I. Philippine Peso in the Face of a Weak Dollar

II. Is the Peso’s Strength Rooted in Fundamentals? Portfolio Flows: A Mixed Picture

III. Remittances: Diminishing Returns

IV. Tourism: Geopolitical Headwinds

V. Trade Data: Structural Deficiencies Revealed

VI. Balance of Payments and Gross International Reserves: A Fragile Façade (Boosted by Borrowings)

VII. BSP’s Tightening Grip on FX Markets and the Illusion of Stability

VIII. The Speculative Role of the BSP: Other Reserve Assets

IX. Rising External Debt: A Ticking Time Bomb

X. Conclusion: Transitory Strength, Structural Fragility 

Why the Philippine Peso's Strength Masks Underlying Vulnerabilities 

A strong Philippine peso hides the cracks of FX debt, deficits, and interventions.

I. Philippine Peso in the Face of a Weak Dollar 

Figure 1

Surprisingly, the Philippine peso has outperformed its regional peers. Year-to-date, the USD-Philippine peso USDPHP has declined by 2.73% as of April 25. (Figure 1, upper window) 

Despite a generally weak dollar environment, the greenback has risen against some ASEAN currencies: it has appreciated by 4.32% against the Indonesian rupiah (IDR) according to Bloomberg data, and by 2.2% against the Vietnamese dong (VND) based on TradingEconomics data, year-to-date. 

The USDPHP’s behavior has largely mirrored the oscillations of the USD-euro $USDEUR pair and the Dollar Index $DXY, both of which have declined by -9.5% and -9% YTD, respectively. The euro commands the largest weight in the DXY basket at 57.6%, amplifying its influence over the index's performance. (Figure 1, lower image) 

II. Is the Peso’s Strength Rooted in Fundamentals? Portfolio Flows: A Mixed Picture  

Figure 2

Foreign portfolio flows have been volatile. 

The first two months of 2025 recorded a modest net inflow of USD 176.6 million, following significant outflows of USD 283.7 million in January and inflows of USD 460.34 million in February. These inflows were mainly directed towards government securities (USD 366 million), while the Philippine Stock Exchange (PSE) suffered USD 189 million in outflows. (Figure 2 topmost graph) 

In 2024, Philippine capital markets saw foreign portfolio inflows of USD 2.1 billion—the largest since 2013—suggesting a temporary vote of confidence, albeit in a risk-on environment favoring emerging markets more broadly. 

Meanwhile, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) reported that foreign direct investment (FDI) flows fell 20% year-on-year to USD 731 million in January 2025 from USD 914 million the year prior. (Figure 2, middle chart) 

Still, 71% of January’s FDI consisted of debt inflows, rather than equity investments. 

Ironically, despite the administration's aggressive international junkets (2022-2024) aimed at wooing investors through geopolitical alliances, these efforts have borne little fruit. 

What happened? 

As previously noted, an overvalued peso—maintained by a de facto USDPHP soft peg—along with high "hurdle rates" stemming from bureaucratic red tape and regulatory barriers, and the implicit consequences of "trickle-down" easy money policies benefiting the government and their elites (i.e., crony capitalism), have collectively undermined Philippine competitiveness. 

III. Remittances: Diminishing Returns 

Overseas Filipino Worker (OFW) remittance flows continue to grow, but at a marginal and slowing pace. Personal remittances rose 2.6% in February, with cumulative year-to-date growth at 2.7%. (Figure 2, lowest visual) 

However, the long-term trend in remittance growth has been declining since its 2013 peak—a period that coincided with the secular bottoming of the USDPHP. 

This trend reflects the diminishing marginal impact of remittances on the peso’s valuation. 

In short, remittances are becoming less material in influencing the peso’s foreign exchange rate. 

A more sustainable strategy would be to foster structurally inclusive economic growth—creating more high-quality domestic jobs and raising incomes—to reduce the country’s dependence on labor exportation and mitigate brain drain. 

Sadly, the slowdown in remittance growth does not point toward such an outcome. 

IV. Tourism: Geopolitical Headwinds

Figure 3 

The Philippine tourism sector's recovery may have stumbled. 

Foreign tourist arrivals fell by 2.42% in Q1 2025, while total arrivals—including overseas Filipino visitors—dropped by 0.51%. This was largely driven by a staggering 28.8% collapse in Chinese tourist arrivals in March and a 33.7% year-on-year plunge in Q1. This slump mirrors the escalating geopolitical tensions between the Philippines and China, particularly as Manila increasingly aligns itself with U.S. strategic interests. (Figure 3, upper diagram) 

Interestingly, American tourist arrivals also fell by 0.7% in March, although they rose by 7.9% for Q1 overall. Nonetheless, the growth in American tourists has hardly offset the sharp loss of Chinese visitors. (Figure 3, lower chart) 

In effect, a ‘war economy’ reduces the Philippines’ attractiveness as a tourism and investment destination. 

V. Trade Data: Structural Deficiencies Revealed

Figure 4

The Philippines' trade deficit narrowed by 11.44% to USD 3.16 billion in February, owing to a 1.8% contraction in imports and a muted 3.94% increase in exports, year-on-year. (Figure 4, upper graph)

While many mainstream talking heads argue that tariff liberalization will eventually benefit the Philippines, external trade figures tell a different story—one marred by structural weaknesses: high energy costs, a persistent credit financed savings-investment gap (a byproduct of trickle-down policies), the USDPHP peg, human capital limitations, economic centralization, regulatory hurdles and more.

Since 2013, total external trade (imports + exports) has grown at a CAGR of 4.84%—driven by imports growing at 5.95%, compared to exports at only 3.42%. Adjusted for currency movement (with the USDPHP CAGR at 3.01%), this yields a real export CAGR of just 0.41% versus 2.85% for imports, implying a real external trade CAGR of only 1.77%. (Figure 4 lower image)

While rising imports may superficially suggest robust consumption, a deeper question emerges: Is consumption fueled by genuine productivity gains—or by unsustainable credit expansion?

Ultimately, the data show that import-driven consumption has widened the trade deficit, and that local manufacturing remains largely uncompetitive relative to regional peers.

Against this backdrop, how realistic is it to expect that Trump's proposed tariffs will magically turn the Philippines into an export hub?

VI. Balance of Payments and Gross International Reserves: A Fragile Façade (Boosted by Borrowings)

Figure 5

The BSP reported a Balance of Payments (BoP) deficit of USD 2 billion for March 2025, following a staggering USD 4.1 billion deficit in January—an 11-year high—and a temporary surplus of USD 3.1 billion in February. The Q1 2025 BoP deficit stood at USD 2.96 billion. (Figure 5, upper window)

The BSP attributed these outflows to "drawdowns on reserves to meet external debt obligations" and to fund foreign exchange operations—justifications previously offered for January’s record deficit.

Meanwhile, February’s surplus largely stemmed from net foreign currency deposits by the National Government, sourced from proceeds of ROP Global Bond issuances and income from BSP’s foreign investments—in other words, from external borrowings.

Notably, the BSP has admitted that the year-to-date BoP deficit mainly reflects the widening goods trade deficit. Either this conflicts with PSA trade data showing a narrowing February deficit, or it hints at a possible sharp deterioration in March's trade balance.

Regardless, the BoP reports clearly indicate heavy BSP intervention in the FX market, even though the USDPHP remains well below the 59-level psychological ceiling.

Consequently, the BSP’s gross international reserves (GIR) dropped from USD 107.4 billion in February to USD 106.7 billion in March—a USD 725 million decline. (Figure 5, lower diagram)

Importantly, much of the GIR’s support comes from the government’s external borrowings deposited with the BSP. Thus, the GIR has been padded up artificially.

Figure 6

Even more striking: gold’s record high prices have prevented a steeper GIR decline, despite the BSP selling small amounts of gold in February.  

Gold's share of GIR slipped marginally from 11.4% in February to 11.22% in March. (Figure 6, upper pane)

Had it not been for ATH (all-time high) gold prices, the GIR would have deteriorated more significantly. 

As previously explained, as with the 2020 episode, sharply falling gold inventories preceded the devaluation of the peso. (Figure 6, lower chart) 

Outside of gold, a large share of GIR now constitutes "borrowed reserves"—a growing vulnerability tied directly to the BSP’s soft peg strategy for the USDPHP. 

This suggests that the recent GIR stability could be masking underlying vulnerabilities.

VII. BSP’s Tightening Grip on FX Markets and the Illusion of Stability 

It is therefore almost amusing to encounter this news item, based on the BSP’s publication: 

Inquirer.net, April 24: "The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) tightened regulations on foreign exchange (FX) derivatives involving the Philippine peso to ensure these are not used for currency speculation. Circular No. 1212, signed by Governor Eli Remolona Jr., mandates that banks authorized to transact in non-deliverable FX derivatives must ensure these are used for legitimate economic purposes." 

But who are the likely participants in FX swaps, non-deliverable forwards, and FX derivatives?

Not me. Not the general public. 

Given that PSE participation is only around 1% of the total population (as of 2023), the obvious answer is: banks and their elite clientele—the BSP’s own cartel members. 

Thus, what is the real message behind this announcement? 

First, banks and their elite clients may have been positioning against the peso, in ways inconsistent with BSP policy—prompting the BSP to tighten currency controls. 

Second, the BSP wants to show the public it is taking action, even as real risks accumulate. 

Third, something is amiss if the BSP feels compelled to impose tighter controls even with the USDPHP hovering at 56—well away from their upper band limit. 

Ultimately, who is truly engaged in currency speculation here? 

VIII. The Speculative Role of the BSP: Other Reserve Assets

Figure 7

Since 2018, the BSP has increasingly used Other Reserve Assets (ORA) to manage its GIR. (Figure 7) 

According to IMF IRFCL guidelines, ORA includes:

-Net, marked-to-market value of financial derivatives (forwards, futures, swaps, options)

-Short-term foreign currency loans

-Long-term loans to IMF trust accounts

-Other liquid foreign currency financial assets

-Repo assets 

The BSP’s ORA surged by 210.3% in February, lifting its share of GIR to 9.18%. Yet, even this rise was overshadowed by gold's role in preserving GIR totals. 

In truth, the BSP itself is a speculator—aggressively managing USDPHP levels against market forces. 

In pursuing short-term stability, it risks building imbalances that will eventually unwind with greater force. 

This has been evident in the widening BoP deficit, the rising share of "borrowed reserves," and the sustained gold sales. 

IX. Rising External Debt: A Ticking Time Bomb

Figure 8

Perhaps most revealing is this BSP announcement: 

BSP, April 25, 2025: "The Monetary Board approved USD 6.29 billion worth of proposed public sector foreign borrowings in Q1 2025, up by 118.91% from USD 2.87 billion during the same period last year." (bold mine) [figure 8, upper graph] 

Whatever the justification—whether for infrastructure, green (climate), defense, or welfare or others—debt is debt. 

Even though the BSP paid down nearly half its obligations (posting a Q1 BoP deficit of USD 2.96 billion), the residual balance should add to the swelling external debt stock. (Figure 8, lower chart) 

Recall that as of Q4 2024, government debt already accounted for 58% of total external debt. Banks and non-finance institutions are likely to add to this pile. 

Higher public debt implies higher future debt servicing costs, crowding out resources from productive investments, draining savings, increasing leverage, and deepening the Philippines’ dependence on foreign financing. 

X. Conclusion: Transitory Strength, Structural Fragility 

The Philippine peso’s strength in 2025, buoyed by a weak U.S. dollar, masks underlying vulnerabilities. Structural issues—overvalued currency, uncompetitive manufacturing, declining remittance growth, geopolitical strains, and reliance on borrowed reserves—undermine long-term stability. 

Through the USDPHP soft peg, the BSP’s interventions, while stabilizing the peso in the short term, foster imbalances that could unravel with a global tightening of monetary conditions. 

Without addressing these structural challenges through inclusive growth, deregulation, and reduced dependence on debt and remittances, the Philippines risks a rude awakening. The peso’s current resilience is less a reflection of economic strength and more a temporary reprieve, vulnerable to shifts in global financial tides. 

Nota bene: Although we discussed tourism and remittances, we did not cover business process outsourcing (BPO) and other export services in depth, largely due to limited data and the need to rely on GDP proxies. Regardless, surging debt levels are exposing widening FX liquidity vulnerabilities that services alone cannot offset. 

____

reference 

IMF INTERNATIONAL RESERVES AND FOREIGN CURRENCY LIQUIDITY GUIDELINES FOR A DATA TEMPLATE 2. OFFICIAL RESERVE ASSETS AND OTHER FOREIGN CURRENCY ASSETS (APPROXIMATE MARKET VALUE): SECTION I OF THE RESERVES DATA TEMPLATE, p.25 IMF.org

 

April 7: The Day Global Risk Assets Bottomed: A Synchronized Reversal Across Stocks, Crypto, and Commodities

 

The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking—John Kenneth Galbraith 

April 7: The Day Global Risk Assets Bottomed: A Synchronized Reversal Across Stocks, Crypto, and Commodities 

Following the April 7-8 lows, a synchronized rally swept across US, Asian or global stocks, commodities, and Bitcoin. Forget domestic interventions—this was a liquidity-driven comeback, sparked by global catalysts and market dynamics. 

I. Introduction 

On April 7-8, 2025, global markets teetered on the edge: Hong Kong’s Hang Seng cratered 13%, U.S. stocks wobbled, copper plunged 8%, and Bitcoin hit a yearly low. Fear ruled, with the VIX spiking to 46.98. 

Then, everything reversed course and headed higher through the next few weeks. 

From Tokyo to New York, stocks soared. Gold, oil, copper, and even Bitcoin joined the party. 

What sparked this global comeback? 

It wasn’t Chinese state buying or local policies. It was a liquidity tsunami, fueled by a massive global short-covering and capital rushing back to oversold assets. 

II. The Panic and the Spark

Figure 1

Concerns over the festering trade war, all-time high uncertainties, mounting geopolitical tensions in the face of a weakening global economy, and high systemic leverage put pressure on risk assets.   

In charts, US-China bilateral tariffs soared in April.  (Figure 1)

Figure 2

The world’s government debt-to-GDP ratio remains high and is expected to rise further. (Figure 2, upper diagram) 

The IMF slashed its global GDP forecast from 3.3% to 2.8% in 2025 (Figure 2, lower image) 

Deflating prices, deleveraging, and liquidity tightening led to a risk aversion in global stocks, which culminated in April 7’s brutal selloffs. 

The Chinese yuan fell, or the US dollar-yuan USDCNY spiked, driven by China’s retaliatory tariffs. 

But late on April 7, rumors of a 90-day U.S. tariff pause (excluding China) surfaced, sparking a wild U.S. market swing (S&P 500 from -4.7% to +3.4%). 

Though denied, these rumors set the stage for April 8. 

III. April 8 Onwards: A Liquidity-Fueled Macro Short-Covering Rally 

On April 8, the selloff in some of the global markets had eased, and some had started a sharp recovery. 

Liquidity—fueled by institutional buying, short covering, and algorithmic trading—revived risk-ON sentiment.

Figure 3 

From the April 7-8 lows, the S&P Global Equity Index rebounded 11.2%, the US S&P 11.02%, and the Euro Stoxx 600 10.8% as of April 25th. (Figure 3, topmost pane) 

In Asia, China’s Shanghai Composite rallied 6.6%, while Hong Kong’s Hang Seng 50 surged 9.9%. (Figure 3, middle graph) 

Meanwhile, Southeast Asian bourses staged a massive recoil. Indonesia’s JCI surged 12.7%, Thailand’s SET 9.33%, and the Philippine PSEi 30 8.74%, over the same period. (Figure 3, lowest chart)

Figure 4

Strikingly, USD gold prices soared 12.1%, copper 20.2%, WTI crude 6.9%, and Brent crude 7.5% (Figure 4, upper window) 

The CRB Commodity Index advanced by 7.2%, while Bitcoin roared 28%. (Figure 4, lower visual) 

Risk-ON was suddenly back! 

The USDCNY spike U-turned and plunged, with China’s central bank selling dollars to slow the yuan’s fall, but this was secondary. (Figure 4, lower graph) 

I called this on my X.com post, "A macro short-covering rally." 

IV. Extreme Oversold Conditions 

Figure 5

The VIX nearly hitting 50 was a sign of extreme oversold conditions. Historically, this has proved to be a turning point. (Figure 5, upper chart) 

While past performance doesn’t guarantee future results, one thing is clear: liquidity re-emerged following oversold conditions, and the VIX metric may have been somehow validated. 

V. Why Liquidity, Not Local Policies 

Chinese state buying, PBOC intervention, and the BOJ’s yen-defense rhetoric were possibly too small to reinvigorate the world’s risk appetite. 

Yet, the rally’s timing, scale, and breadth—spanning stocks, commodities, crypto, and the yuan—points to a global liquidity flood, driven by tariff relief hopes, the Fed’s dovish narrative, and oversold conditions. 

VI. Takeaways: A Fragile Rally in a Fractured World 

Trump’s arbitrary and capricious policies (Tariffs or not) should sustain an ambiance of "regime uncertainty," which clouds economic calculation for the global economy. 

This is aside from geopolitical (e.g., latest India-Pakistan clash over Kashmir, the ongoing Israel-Palestine War, Russia-Ukraine War, US/Israel-Houthi War, frictions at South China Sea and Taiwan, et al.) and geoeconomic (US-China trade war) tensions. 

Trump’s backsliding against China has prompted Chinese media to make a mockery of his policies, which in the coming days could test his mercurial temperament. Rising markets may reanimate his belligerent trade and foreign policy stance. 

With Return on Investment (RoI) and "hurdle rates" indeterminate, investments will likely stall.  The financial world will likely chase short-term gains via the financial markets, which likely implies heightened volatility in the days to come. 

Easily, this ties to bear market rallies in stocks, which are often sharp and swift but fleeting. 

Furthermore, for a financial world increasingly dependent on central bank easy-money bailouts, mounting de-globalization dynamics, rising geopolitical and geoeconomic uncertainties, increasing risks of economic discoordination and disruptions, increasing leverage, volatile liquidity conditions, and escalating risks of stagflation will likely inhibit central banks from their traditional approach—all of which may reduce the likelihood of fuel for a financial market "blowoff." 

Lastly, aside from gold, central banks and governments have lately been amassing Treasury Bills—a sign of a stampede for liquidity. The last time they hit this high was during the Great Recession (2007-2009). They surpassed the highs during the 2020 pandemic recession. (Figure 5, lower chart) 

All told, all-time high gold prices plus the second-highest official inflows to Treasury bills are likely signs of a coming global recession or a financial crisis.

 

 

BSP’s Fourth Rate Cut: Who Benefits, and at What Cost?

 

A country does not choose its banking system: rather it gets a banking system consistent with the institutions that govern its distribution of political power—Charles Calomiris and Stephen Haber

In this issue

BSP’s Fourth Rate Cut: Who Benefits, and at What Cost?

I. Introduction: BSP’s Easing Cycle, Fourth Interest Rate Cut

II. The Primary Beneficiaries of BSP’s Policies

III. The Impact of the BSP Monetary Policy Rates on MSMEs

IV. The Inflation Story—Suppressed CPI as a Justification? Yield Curve Analysis

V. Logical Contradictions in the Philippine Banking Data

VI. Slowing Bank Asset Growth

VII. Booming Bank Lending—Magnified by the Easing Cycle

VIII. Economic Paradoxes from the BSP’s Easing Cycle

IX. Plateauing Investments and Rising Losses

X. Mounting Liquidity Challenges in the Banking System

XI. Conclusion: Unmasking the BSP’s Easing Cycle: A Rescue Mission with Hidden Costs 

BSP’s Fourth Rate Cut: Who Benefits, and at What Cost? 

As part of its ongoing easing cycle, the BSP cut rates for the fourth time in April 2025. The key question: who benefits? Clues point to trickle-down policies at work. 

I. Introduction: BSP’s Easing Cycle, Fourth Interest Rate Cut 

The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) initiated its easing cycle in the second half of 2024, implementing three rate cuts and reducing the banking system’s Reserve Requirement Ratio (RRR) in October 2024. 

This was followed by a second RRR reduction in March 2025, complemented by the doubling of deposit insurance by the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC), a BSP-affiliated agency, in the same month. 

The latter was likely intended to boost depositor confidence in the banking system, given the rapid decline in banks’ reserves amid heightened lending and liquidity pressures. (previously discussed) 

Last week, the BSP announced its fourth rate cut—the first for 2025—bringing the policy rate to 5.5%. 

The BSP justified this latest cut by citing the easing of inflation risks and a "more challenging external environment, which could dampen global GDP growth and pose downside risks to domestic economic activity." 

But who truly benefits from these policies? 

Or, we ask: Cui bono? 

The answer naturally points to the largest borrowers: the Philippine government, elite-owned conglomerates, and the banking system. 

Let’s examine the beneficiaries and question whether the broader economy is truly being served. 

II. The Primary Beneficiaries of BSP’s Policies 

The BSP’s easing measures disproportionately favor the following:

Figure 1

A. The Philippine Government: Public debt surged by Php 319.26 billion to a record PHP 16.632 trillion in February 2025.  Debt-to-GDP ratio increased to 60.72% in 2024, up from 60.1% in 2023. (Figure 1, topmost image) 

While debt servicing data for the first two months of 2025 appears subdued, it accounted for 7.64% of nominal GDP in 2024—a steady increase from its 2017 low of 4.11%. Between 2022 and 2024, the debt servicing-to-GDP ratio accelerated from 5.87% to 7.64%, reflecting the growing burden of rising debt.

Lower interest rates directly reduce the government’s borrowing costs, providing fiscal relief at a time of record-high debt, but they also encourage more debt-financed spending, a key factor contributing to this all-time high.

B. Elite-Owned Conglomerates: Major corporations controlled by the country’s elites have also seen their debt levels soar. 

For instance, San Miguel Corporation’s 2024 debt increased by Php 154.535 billion to a record Php 1.56 trillion, while Ayala Corporation’s debt rose by PHP 76.92 billion to PHP 666.76 billion. 

Other member firms of the PSEi 30 have yet to release their annual reports, but Q3 2024 data shows that the non-financial debt of the PSEi 30 companies grew by Php 208 billion, or 3.92%, to PHP 5.52 trillion—equivalent to 16.6% of Total Financial Resources (Q3).

These conglomerates benefit from lower borrowing costs, enabling them to refinance existing debt or fund expansion at cheaper rates, but similar to the government, their mounting loan exposure diverts financial resources away from the rest of the economy, exacerbating credit constraints for smaller firms. 

C. The Philippine Banking System: The banking sector itself is a significant beneficiary. 

In February 2025, aggregate bonds and bills payable surged by Php 560.2 billion—the fourth-highest increase on record—pushing outstanding bank borrowings to PHP 1.776 trillion, the second-highest level ever, just below January 2025’s all-time high of PHP 1.78 trillion. (Figure 1, middle pane)

Ideally, lower rates and RRR cuts provide banks with cheaper funding and more lendable funds, boosting their profitability while easing liquidity pressures. But have they? 

These figures reveal the primary beneficiaries of the BSP’s policies: the government, elite conglomerates, and the banking system.

III. The Impact of the BSP Monetary Policy Rates on MSMEs

But what about the broader economy, particularly the micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs) that form its backbone?

Republic Act 9501, the Magna Carta for MSMEs, mandates that banks allocate at least 8% of their total loan portfolio to micro and small enterprises (MSEs) and 2% to medium enterprises (MEs), based on their balance sheets from the previous quarter.

However, a recent report by Foxmont Capital Partners and Boston Consulting Group (BCG), cited by BusinessWorld, highlights a stark mismatch: despite MSMEs comprising 99.6% of all businesses in the Philippines, generating 67% of total employment, and contributing up to 40% of GDP, they accounted for only 4.1% of total bank lending in 2023—a sharp decline from 8% in 2010.

As of Q3 2024, the BSP reported a total compliance rate with the Magna Carta for MSMEs stood at just 4.6%. (Figure 1, lower graph)

Despite a boom in bank lending, many banks opt to pay penalties for non-compliance rather than extend credit to MSMEs.

This underscores a harsh reality: bank lending remains concentrated among a select few—large corporations and the government—while MSMEs continue to be underserved.

All told, the BSP's policies have minimal impact on MSMEs, highlighting their distortive distributional effects

The report further echoes a "trickle-down" monetary policy critique we’ve long emphasized: the Philippine banking system is increasingly concentrated. Over 90% of banking assets are held by just 20 large banks, while more than 1,800 smaller institutions, primarily serving rural areas, collectively control only 9% of total assets!

Figure 2

This concentration is evident in the universal and commercial banks’ share of total financial resources, which stood at 77.7% in January 2025, slightly down from a historic high of 77.9% in December 2024. (Figure 2, topmost diagram)

If the BSP’s policies primarily benefit the government, banks, and elite conglomerates rather than the broader economy, why is the central bank pushing so hard to continue its easing cycle? And what have been the effects of its previous measures?

IV. The Inflation Story—Suppressed CPI as a Justification? Yield Curve Analysis

One of the BSP’s stated reasons for the April 2025 rate cut was a decline in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), with March headline CPI at 1.8%.

However, authorities have done little to explain to the public the critical role that Maximum Suggested Retail Prices (MSRPs)—essentially price controls—played in shaping this decline.

First, the government imposed MSRPs on imported rice on January 20, 2025, despite rice prices already contracting by 2.3% that month. (Figure 2 middle chart)

The second phase of rice MSRPs was implemented on March 31, despite rice prices deflating.

Second, pork MSRPs were introduced on March 10, 2025.

Pork inflation, which peaked at 8.5% in February, slipped to 8.2% in March, despite a reported compliance rate of only 25% in the National Capital Region (NCR).

Notably, pork sold in supermarkets and hypermarkets was exempt from these controls, revealing an inherent bias of policymakers against MSMEs. Were authorities acting as tacit sales agents for the former?

Third, since the introduction of these quasi-price controls, headline CPI has declined faster than core CPI (which excludes volatile food and energy prices), which printed 2.2% in March. (Figure 2, lowest window)

Food CPI, with a 34.78% weighting in the CPI basket, has likely been a significant driver of this decline, more so than core CPI.

This divergence suggests that price controls artificially suppressed headline inflation, masking underlying price pressures.

Meanwhile, the falling core CPI points to weak consumer demand, a concerning trend given the Philippines’ near-record employment rates.

Figure 3

Finally, the Philippine treasury market appears to challenge the BSP’s narrative of controlled inflation at 1.8% in March 2025.

Yield data shows a subtle flattening in the mid-to-long section of the curve: yields for 2- to 5-year maturities dipped slightly (e.g., the 5-year yield fell by 2.8 basis points from February 28 to March 31), while the 10-year yield rose by 6.75 basis points, and long-term yields, such as the 25-year, declined by 3.15 basis points. (Figure 3, topmost image)

This flattening—driven by a narrowing spread between medium- and long-term yields—may reflect market concerns about economic growth and banking system liquidity.

Despite this, the overall yield curve remains steep last March, signaling that the market anticipates inflation risks in the future.

This suggests that Treasury investors doubt the sustainability of the BSP’s inflation management.

We suspect that authorities leveraged price controls to justify the rate cut, using the suppressed CPI as a convenient metric rather than a true reflection of economic conditions.

This raises questions about the BSP’s transparency and the real motivations behind its easing cycle.

V. Logical Contradictions in the Philippine Banking Data

When you make a successful lending transaction, you get back not only your capital but the interest with it. Less costs, this income represents your profits and adds to your liquidity (savings or capital).

When you make a successful investment transaction, you get back not only your capital but the dividend or capital gains with it. Less costs, this income also represents your profits and adds to your liquidity (savings or capital).

Applied to the banking system, under these ideal circumstances, declared profits should align with liquidity conditions, but why does this depart from this premise?

Let us dig into the details. 

VI. Slowing Bank Asset Growth 

Bank total assets grew by 8% year-over-year (YoY) in February 2025 to PHP 26.95 trillion, slightly below December 2024’s historic high of PHP 27.4 trillion.  (Figure 3, middle pane)

Despite the BSP’s easing cycle, the growth in bank assets has been slowing, a downtrend that has persisted since 2013. This decline in the growth of bank assets has mirrored the falling share of cash reserves.

The changes in the share distribution of assets illustrate the structural evolution of the Philippine banking system.

As of February 2025, lending, investments, and cash represented the largest share, totaling 92.6%, broken down into 54.5%, 28.8%, and 8.8%, respectively. (Figure 3, lowest visual)

Since 2013, the share of cash reserves has been declining, bank loans broke out of their consolidation phase in July 2024 (pre-easing cycle), while the investment share appears to be peaking.

VII. Booming Bank Lending—Magnified by the Easing Cycle

The Total Loan Portfolio (inclusive of Interbank Loans (IBL) and Reverse Repurchase Agreements (RRP)) grew by 12.3% in February 2025, slightly down from 13.7% in January.

Since the BSP’s historic rescue during the pandemic recession, bank lending growth has been surging, regardless of interest rate and Reserve Requirement Ratio (RRR) levels. The recent interest rate and RRR cuts have only amplified these developments.

Figure 4

Notably, bank lending growth has become structurally focused on consumer lending, with the Universal-Commercial share of consumer loans rising to an all-time high as of February 2025. (Figure 4, topmost graph)

This shift is partly due to credit card subsidies introduced during the pandemic recession. This evolution in the banks’ business model also points to an inherent proclivity toward structural inflation: producers are receiving less financing (leading to reduced production and more imports), while consumers have been supplementing their purchasing power, likely to keep up with cumulative inflation.

In short, this strategic shift toward consumption lending underlines the axiom of "too much money chasing too few goods."

The rising loan-to-deposit ratio further shows that bank lending has not only outperformed asset growth, but ironically, these loans have not translated into deposits. (Figure 4, middle chart)

Total deposit liabilities growth slowed from 6.83% in January to 5.6% in February, driven by a slowdown in peso deposits (from 6.97% to 6.3%) and a sharp plunge in foreign exchange (FX) deposit growth (from 6.14% to 2.84%). (Figure 4, lowest window)

Peso deposits accounted for 82.7% of total deposit liabilities. Ironically, despite the USD-PHP exchange rate drifting near the BSP’s ‘upper band limit’ or its ‘Maginot Line’, FX deposit growth has materially slowed.

VIII. Economic Paradoxes from the BSP’s Easing Cycle 

Paradoxically, despite near-record employment levels (96.2% as of February 2025) and stratospheric loan growth propelled by consumers, the GDP has been stalling, with Q3 and Q4 2024 underperforming at 5.2% and 5.3%, respectively.

Real estate vacancies have been soaring—even the most optimistic analysts acknowledge this—and Core CPI has been plunging (2.2% in March 2025, as mentioned above).

Figure 5

Meanwhile, social indicators paint a grim picture: SWS hunger rates in March have hit near-pandemic milestones, and self-rated poverty, affecting 52% of families, has rebounded in March after dropping in January 2025 to 50% from a 21-year high of 63% recorded in December 2024. (Figure 5, topmost image) 

In a nutshell, where has all the fiat money created via loans flowed? What is the black hole consuming these supposedly profitable undertakings? 

IX. Plateauing Investments and Rising Losses 

The plateauing of investments is highlighted by their slowing growth rates. 

Total Investments (Net) decelerated from 5.85% in January to 4.86% in February 2025. This slowdown comes in the face of elevated market losses, which remained at PHP 26.4 billion in February, down from PHP 38.1 billion a month ago. (Figure 5, middle diagram) 

Held-to-Maturity (HTM) securities accounted for the largest share of Total Investments at 52.22%, followed by Available-for-Sale (AFS) securities at 38.5%, and Financial Assets Held for Trading (HFT) at 5.6%. 

Despite the CPI’s sharp decline, backed by the BSP’s easing, elevated Treasury rates—such as the 25-year yield at 6.3%—combined with losses in trading positions at the PSE (despite coordinated buying by the "national team" which likely includes some banks—to prop up the PSEi 30 index) have led to losses in banks’ trading accounts. 

Clearly, this is one reason behind the BSP’s easing cycle.

Yet, HTM securities remain the largest source of bank investments.

In early March 2025, we warned that the spike in banks’ funding of the government via Net Claims on Central Government (NCoCG) would filter into HTM assets: 

"Valued at amortized cost, HTM securities mask unrealized losses, potentially straining liquidity. Overexposure to long-duration HTMs amplifies these risks, while rising government debt holdings heighten banks’ sensitivity to sovereign risk. 

With NCoCG at a record high, this tells us that banks' HTMs are about to carve out another fresh milestone in the near future. 

In short, losses from market placements and ballooning HTMs have offset the liquidity surge from a lending boom, undermining the BSP’s easing efforts." (Prudent Investor, March 2025)

Indeed, the NCoCG spike to a record PHP 5.54 trillion in December 2024 pushed banks’ HTM holdings above their previous high of PHP 4.017 trillion in October 2023, breaking the implicit two-year ceiling of PHP 4 trillion to set a fresh record of PHP 4.051 trillion in February 2025. (Figure 5, lowest pane) 

This increase raised the HTM share of assets from 14.7% in January to 15.03% in February. 

X. Mounting Liquidity Challenges in the Banking System

Figure 6

This new all-time high in HTM securities led to a fresh all-time low in the cash-to-deposit ratio, meaning that despite the RRR cuts, cash reserves dropped more than the slowdown in deposit growth would suggest. (Figure 6, topmost chart)

The banking system’s cash and due from banks fell 2.94% in February to PHP 2.37 trillion, its lowest level since June 2019, effectively erasing all of the BSP’s unprecedented PHP 2.3 trillion cash injection in 2020-21. (Figure 6, middle graph)

Moreover, the liquid assets-to-deposits ratio, another bank liquidity indicator, dropped to June 2020 levels. (Figure 6, lowest visual)

The BSP cut the RRR in October 2024, yet liquidity challenges continue to mount. What, then, will the March 2025 RRR cut achieve? While the BSP notes that bank credit delinquency measures—such as gross non-performing loans (NPLs), net NPLs, and distressed assets—have remained stable, it’s doubtful that HTM securities are the sole contributor to the liquidity challenges faced by the banking system.

Improving mark-to-market losses are part of the story, but with record credit expansion (in pesos) and an all-time high in financial leverage amid a slowing GDP, it’s likely that the banks’ unpublished NPLs are another factor involved.

Figure 7

Additionally, banks have increasingly relied on borrowing, with bills payable accounting for 67% of their outstanding debt. (Figure 7, upper graph)

Though banks have reduced their repo exposure with the BSP, interbank repos set a record high in February 2025, providing further signs of liquidity strains. (Figure 7, lower chart)

Banks have been aggressively lending, particularly to high-risk sectors such as consumers, real estate, and trade, to raise liquidity to fund the government.

However, this has led to a build-up of HTM securities and sustained mark-to-market losses for HFT and AFS assets.

Additionally, lending to high-risk sectors like consumers and real estate increases the risk of defaults, particularly in a slowing economy, which can strain liquidity if these loans become non-performing.

Moreover, this lending exacerbates maturity mismatches—for instance, when short-term deposits are used to fund longer-term real estate loans—amplifying the liquidity challenges as banks face immediate funding demands with potentially impaired assets.

While the BSP’s “relief measures” may understate the true risk exposures of the industry, the mounting liquidity challenges and the increasing scale and frequency of their combined easing policies have provided clues about the extent of these risks.

Borrowing from our conclusion in March 2025:

"The BSP’s easing cycle has fueled a lending boom, masked NPL risks, and propped up government debt holdings, yet liquidity remains elusive. Cash reserves are shrinking, deposit growth is faltering, and banks are borrowing heavily to stay afloat.

...

As contradictions mount, a critical question persists: can this stealth loose financial environment sustain itself, or is it a prelude to a deeper crisis?" (Prudent Investor March 2025)

Under these conditions, the true beneficiaries of the BSP’s easing cycle become clear: it is primarily a rescue of the elite owned-banking system. 

XI. Conclusion: Unmasking the BSP’s Easing Cycle: A Rescue Mission with Hidden Costs 

The BSP has used inflation and external challenges to justify its fourth rate cut in April 2025, part of an easing cycle that began in the second half of 2024. 

The sharp decline in the March CPI rate to 1.8%—potentially understated due to price controls through Maximum Suggested Retail Prices (MSRPs)—may have provided a convenient rationale. 

However, the data suggests a different story: increasing leverage in the public sector, elite firms, and the banking system appears to be the real driver behind the BSP’s easing cycle, which also includes RRR reductions and the PDIC’s doubling of deposit insurance. 

The evidence points to a banking system under strain—record-low cash reserves, a lending boom that fails to translate into deposits, and economic paradoxes like stalling GDP growth despite near-record employment. 

When the BSP cites a "more challenging external environment, which would dampen global GDP growth and pose a downside risk to domestic economic activity," it is really more concerned about the impact on the government’s fiscal conditions, the health of the elite-owned banking system, and elite-owned, too-big-to-fail corporations. 

This focus comes at the expense of the broader economy, as MSMEs remain underserved and systemic risks, such as unpublished NPLs and overexposure to government debt, continue to mount. 

As the BSP prioritizes a rescue mission for its favored few, one must ask: at what cost to the Philippine economy, and can this trajectory avoid a deeper crisis?