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?

 

 

 

The BSP’s One-Two Punch: Can RRR Cuts and PDIC Deposit Insurance Avert a Liquidity Crisis?

Historical research on bank runs indicates that the reason people run is run is not fear of people running. People typically ran when the bank was already insolvent. Healthy purpose of closing the bank before the bank lost even more money. True, the losses were unevenly distributed, depending on whether you got on the front of the line or the back of the line. In a way, that provides a useful incentive mechanism: monitor your bank and don't rely on other people to monitor it for you—Lawrence White

In this issue

The BSP’s One-Two Punch: Can RRR Cuts and PDIC Deposit Insurance Avert a Liquidity Crisis?

I. From Full Reserves to Fractional Banking: The Risks of a Zero-Bound RRR

II. Has the BSP’s "Easing Cycle"—Particularly the RRR Cut—Eased Liquidity Strains?

III. Bank Assets: A Tale of Contradictions: Booming Loans and Liquidity Pressures

IV. Bank Credit Boom Amid Contradictions: Soaring Credit Card NPLs as Real Estate NPLs Ease

V. Investments: A Key Source of Liquidity Pressures

VI. Hidden Risks in Held-to-Maturity (HTM) Securities: Government Debt

VII. Slowing Deposit Growth and the Structural Changes in the Banking System’s Asset Distribution

VIII. Liquidity Constraints Fuels Bank Borrowing Frenzy

IX. PDIC’s Doubled Deposit Insurance: A Confidence Tool or a Risk Mitigant?

X. Conclusion: Band-aid Solutions Magnify Risks

The BSP’s One-Two Punch: Can RRR Cuts and PDIC Deposit Insurance Avert a Liquidity Crisis?

Facing the risks from lower bank reserve requirements, the BSP may have pulled a confidence trick by doubling deposit insurance. But will it be enough to avert the ongoing liquidity stress?

I. From Full Reserves to Fractional Banking: The Risks of a Zero-Bound RRR 

Full reserve banking originated during the gold standard era, where banks acted as custodians of gold deposits and issued paper receipts fully backed by gold reserves. This system ensured financial stability by preventing the expansion of money beyond available reserves. However, as banks realized that depositors rarely withdrew all their funds simultaneously, they began lending out a portion of deposits, leading to the emergence of fractional reserve banking.

Over time, governments institutionalized this practice, largely due to its political convenience—enabling the financing of wars, welfare programs, and other government expenditures. This shift was epitomized by 1896 Democratic presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan's famous speech in which he declared, "You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold!" 

Governments reinforced this transition through the creation of central banks and an expanding framework of regulations, including deposit insurance. Ultimately, these policies culminated in the abandonment of the gold standard, most notably with the Nixon Shock of August 1971. 

While fractional reserve banking has facilitated economic growth by expanding credit, it has also introduced significant risks. These include bank runs and liquidity crises, as seen during the Great Depression, the 2008 financial crisis, and the 2023 U.S. banking crisis; inflationary pressures from excessive credit creation; and moral hazard, where banks engage in riskier practices knowing they may be bailed out. 

The system’s reliance on high leverage further contributes to financial fragility. 

The risks of fractional reserve banking are amplified when the statutory reserve requirement (RRR) approaches zero. A zero-bound RRR effectively removes regulatory constraints on the proportion of deposits banks can lend, increasing liquidity risk if sudden withdrawals exceed available reserves. 

This heightens the probability of bank runs, making institutions more dependent on central bank intervention for stability. 

Additionally, a near-zero RRR expands the money multiplier effect, increasing the risks of excessive credit creation, exacerbating asset-liability mismatches, fueling asset bubbles, and intensifying inflationary pressures—ultimately turning individual failures into systemic vulnerabilities that repeatedly require central bank intervention. 

Without reserve requirements, banking stability relies entirely on the presumed effectiveness of capital adequacy regulations, liquidity buffers, and central bank oversight, increasing systemic dependence on monetary authorities—further assuming they possess both full knowledge and predictive capabilities (or some combination thereof) necessary to contain or prevent disorderly outcomes arising from the buildup of unsustainable financial and economic imbalances (The knowledge problem). 

Moreover, increased reliance on these authorities leads to greater politicization of financial institutions, fostering inefficiencies such as corruption, regulatory capture, and the revolving door between policymakers and industry players—further distorting market incentives and deepening systemic fragility. 

Consequently, while a zero-bound RRR enhances short-term credit availability, it also raises long-term risks of financial instability and contagion during crises. 

At its core, zero-bound RRR magnifies the inherent fragility of fractional reserve banking, increasing systemic risks and reliance on central bank intervention. By removing a key buffer against liquidity shocks, it transforms banking into a highly unstable system prone to crises. 

II. Has the BSP’s "Easing Cycle"—Particularly the RRR Cut—Eased Liquidity Strains?

Businessworld, March 15, 2025: THE PHILIPPINE BANKING industry’s total assets jumped by 9.3% year on year as of end-January, preliminary data from the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) showed. Banks’ combined assets rose to P27.11 trillion as of end-January from P24.81 trillion in the same period a year ago. Month on month, total assets slid by 1.2% from P27.43 trillion as of end-December. 

In the second half (2H) of 2024, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) launched its "easing cycle," implementing three interest rate cuts and reducing the reserve requirement ratio (RRR) on October 25.

A second RRR reduction is scheduled for March 28, 2025, coinciding with the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC) doubling its deposit insurance coverage, effective March 15.

Yet, despite these measures, the Philippine GDP growth slowed to 5.2% in 2H 2024—a puzzling decline amid record-high public spending, unprecedented employment rates, and historic consumer-led bank borrowing. 

Has the BSP’s easing cycle, particularly the RRR cuts, alleviated the liquidity strains plaguing the banking system? The evidence suggests otherwise. 

III. Bank Assets: A Tale of Contradictions: Booming Loans and Liquidity Pressures 

Philippine bank assets consist of cash, loans, investments, real and other properties acquired (ROPA), and other assets. In January 2025, cash, loans, and investments dominated, accounting for 9.8%, 54.2%, and 28.3% respectively—totaling 92.3% of assets.

Figure 1

Loan growth has been robust. The net total loan portfolio (including interbank loans IBLs and reverse repos RRPs) surged from a 10.7% year-on-year (YoY) increase in January 2024 to 13.7% in January 2025.

As a matter of fact, loans have consistently outpaced deposit growth since hitting a low in February 2022, with the loans-to-deposit ratio accelerating even before the BSP’s first rate cut in August 2024. (Figure 1, topmost graph)

Historical trends, however, reveal a nuanced picture.

Loan growth decelerated when the BSP hiked rates in 2018 and continued to slow even after the BSP started cutting rates. Weak loan demand at the time overshadowed the liquidity boost from RRR cuts. (Figure 1, middle image)

Despite the BSP reducing the RRR from 19% in March 2018 to 12% in April 2020—coinciding with the onset of the pandemic—loan growth remained weak relative to deposit expansion. 

It wasn’t until the BSP's unprecedented bank bailout package—including RRR cuts, a historic Php 2.3 trillion liquidity injection, record-low interest rates, USD/PHP cap, and various bank subsidies and relief programs—that bank lending conditions changed dramatically. 

Loan growth surged even amid rising rates, underscoring the impact of these interventions. 

Last year’s combination of RRR and interest rate cuts deepened the easy money environment, accelerating credit expansion. 

The question remains: why? 

IV. Bank Credit Boom Amid Contradictions: Soaring Credit Card NPLs as Real Estate NPLs Ease 

Authorities claim credit delinquencies remain "low and manageable" despite a January 2025 uptick. Since peaking in Q2 2021, gross and net NPLs, along with distressed assets, have declined from their highs. (Figure 1, lowest chart)

Figure 2

This stability is striking given record-high consumer credit—the banking system’s fastest-growing segment—occurring alongside slowing consumer spending.  (Figure 2, topmost window)

While credit card non-performing loans (NPLs) have surged, their relatively small weight in the system has muted their overall impact.

Real estate NPLs have paradoxically stabilized despite a deflationary spiral in property prices in Q3 2024.

Real estate GDP fell to just 3% in Q4—its lowest level since the pandemic recession—dragging its share of total GDP to an all-time low. (Figure 2, middle visual)

Record bank borrowings, a faltering GDP, and price deflation amidst stable NPLs—this represents 'benchmark-ism,' or 'putting lipstick on a statistical pig,' at its finest.

Ironically, surging loan growth and low NPLs should signal a banking industry awash in liquidity and profits.

Yet how much of unpublished NPLs have been contributing to the bank's liquidity pressures?

Still, more contradictory evidence.

V. Investments: A Key Source of Liquidity Pressures 

Bank investments, another major asset class, grew at a substantially slower pace, dropping from 10.7% YoY in December 2024 to 5.85% in January 2025.

This deceleration stemmed from a sharp slowdown in Available-for-Sale (AFS) assets (from 20.45% to 12% YoY) and Held-for-Trading (HFT) assets, which, despite a 22.17% YoY rise, slumped from December’s 117% spike. This suggests banks may have suffered losses from short-term speculative activities, potentially linked to the PSEi 30’s 11.8% YoY and 10.2% MoM plunge in January. (Figure 2, lowest chart)

Ironically, the Financial Index—comprising seven listed banks—rose 15.23% YoY and 0.72% MoM, indicating that losses in bank financial assets stemmed from non-financial equity holdings.

Figure 3

Despite easing interest rates, market losses on the banks’ fixed-income trading portfolios remained elevated, improving (33.5% YoY) only slightly from Php 42.4 billion in December to Php 38 billion in January. (Figure 3, topmost pane) 

VI. Hidden Risks in Held-to-Maturity (HTM) Securities: Government Debt 

Yet, HTM assets declined just 0.5% YoY. Given that 10-year PDS rates remain elevated, HTMs are likely to reach new record highs soon. (Figure 3, middle image)

Banks play a pivotal role in supporting the BSP’s liquidity injections by monetizing government securities. Their holdings of government debt (net claims on central government—NcoCG) reached an estimated 33% of total assets in January 2025—a record high.  (Figure 3, lowest graph)

Figure 4

Public debt hit a fresh record of Php 16.3 trillion last January 2025. (Figure 4, topmost diagram)

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.

VII. Slowing Deposit Growth and the Structural Changes in the Banking System’s Asset Distribution

Deposit growth should ideally mirror credit expansion, as newly issued money eventually finds its way into deposit accounts.

Sure, the informal economy remains a considerable segment. However, unless a huge amount of savings is stored in jars or piggy banks, it’s unlikely to keep a leash on the money multiplier.

The BSP’s Financial Inclusion data shows that more than half of the population has some form of debt outside the banking system. This tells us that credit delinquencies are substantially understated—even from the perspective of the informal economy

Yet, bank deposit liabilities grew from 7.05% YoY in December 2024 to 6.8% in January 2025, led by peso deposits (7% YoY), while FX deposits slowed from 7.14% to 6.14%. Peso deposits comprised 82.8% of total liabilities. (Figure 4, middle image)

Since 2018, deposit growth has been on a structural downtrend, with RRR cuts failing to reverse this trend. (Figure 4, lowest visual)

Figure 5

The gap between the total loan portfolio (excluding RRPs and IBLs) and savings widened, with TLP growth rising from 12.7% to 13.54% YoY, while savings growth doubled from 3.3% to 6.8%. (Figure 5, topmost graph)

How did these affect the bank’s cash reserves?

Despite the October 2024 RRR cut, cash reserves contracted 1.44% YoY in January 2025. In peso terms, cash levels rebounded slightly from an October 2024 interim low—mirroring 2019 troughs—but this bounce appears to be stalling. (Figure 5, middle chart)

The ongoing liquidity drain has effectively erased the BSP’s historic cash injections.

The bank's cash and due-to-bank deposits ratio has hardly bounced despite the RRR cuts from 2018 to the present! (Figure 5, lowest pane)

Figure 6

Liquidity constraints are further evident in the declining liquid-to-deposit assets ratio. (Figure 6, topmost pane)

In perspective, the structural changes in operations have led to a pivotal shift in the distribution of the bank's assets. (Figure 6, middle graph)

Cash’s share of bank assets has shrunk from 23.1% in October 2013 to 9.8% in January 2025.

While the share of loans grew from 45.3% in November 2010 to a peak of 58.98% in May, it dropped to a low of 51.6% in March 2024 before partially recovering.

Meanwhile, investments, rebounding from a 21.42% trough in June 2020, have plateaued since the BSP’s 2022 rescue package.

Still, the Philippine banking system continues to amass significant economic and political clout, effectively monopolizing the industry, as its share of total financial resources reached 83.64% in 2024. How does this mounting concentration risk translate to stability? (Figure 6, lowest chart)

VIII. Liquidity Constraints Fuels Bank Borrowing Frenzy 

In addition to the 'easy money' effect of fractional banking's money multiplier, banks still require financing for their lending operations.

Figure 7

Evidence of growing liquidity constraints, exacerbated by insufficient deposit growth, is seen in banks' aggressive borrowing from capital markets. 

Bank borrowing, comprising bills and bonds payable, reached a new record of PHP 1.78 trillion in January, marking a 47.02% year-over-year increase and a 6.5% month-over-month rise! (Figure 7, topmost diagram) 

Notably, bills payable experienced a 67% growth surge, while bonds payable increased by 17.5%.  The strong performance of bank borrowing has resulted in an increase in their share of overall bank liabilities, with bills payable now accounting for 5.1% and bonds payable for 2.43% in January. (Figure 7, middle pane) 

In essence, banks are competing fiercely among themselves, with non-bank clients, and the government to secure funding from the public's strained savings. 

Moreover, although general reverse repo usage has decreased, largely due to BSP actions, interbank reverse repos have surged to their second-highest level since September 2024. (Figure 7, lowest chart) 

The increasing scale of bank borrowings, supported by BSP liquidity data, reinforces our view that banks are struggling to maintain system stability. 

IX. PDIC’s Doubled Deposit Insurance: A Confidence Tool or a Risk Mitigant? 

The doubling of the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation's (PDIC) deposit insurance coverage took effect on March 15th. 

The public is largely unaware that this measure is linked to the second phase of the reserve requirement ratio (RRR) cut scheduled for March 28th. 

In essence, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), through its attached agency the PDIC, is utilizing the enhanced deposit insurance as a confidence-building measure to reinforce stability within the banking system. 

Inquirer.net, March 15, 2025: The Philippine Deposit Insurance Corp. (PDIC)—which is mandated to safeguard money kept in bank accounts —finally implemented the new maximum deposit insurance coverage (MDIC) of P1 million per depositor per bank, which was double the previous coverage of P500,000. The expanded MDIC is projected to fully insure over 147 million accounts in 2025, or 98.6 percent of the total deposit accounts in the local banking system. In terms of amount, depositor funds amounting to P5.3 trillion will be safeguarded by the PDIC, accounting for 24.1 percent of the total deposits held by the banking sector. To compare, the ratio of insured accounts under the old MDIC was at 97.6 percent as of December 2024. In terms of amount, the share of insured funds to total deposits was at 18.4 percent before. It was the amendments to the PDIC charter back in 2022 that allowed the state insurer to adjust the MDIC based on inflation and other relevant economic indicators without the need for a new law. (bold added)

ABS-CBN News, March 14: PDIC President Roberto Tan also assured the public that PDIC has enough funds to cover all depositors even with a higher MDIC. The Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) is around P237 billion as of December 2024. The ration of DIF to the estimated insured deposits (EID) is 5% this 2025, which Tan said remains adequate to meet potential insurance risks. (bold added) 

Our Key Takeaways: 

1) An Increase in Compensation rather than Coverage Ratio, Yet Systemic Coverage Remains Low

-The total insured deposit amount is capped at PHP 1 million per depositor.

98.6% of accounts are fully insured, up from 97.6% previously.

-The insured deposit amount increased to PHP 5.3 trillion (24.1% of total deposits) from PHP 3.56 trillion (18.4%) prior to the MDIC.

2) Systemic Risk and Vulnerabilities

-Most of the increase in insured deposits stems from small accounts.

-Large corporate and high-net-worth individual deposits remain largely uninsured, maintaining systemic vulnerability.

3) PDIC’s Coverage Limitations

-The PDIC only covers BSP-ordered closures, excluding losses due to fraud.

-If bank failures are triggered by fraud (e.g., misreported loan books, hidden losses), depositor panic may escalate before the PDIC intervenes.

-Runs on solvent banks could still occur if system trust weakens.

Figure/Table 8 

4) Mathematical Constraints on PDIC's Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) and Assets

-The PDIC's 2023 total assets of PHP 339.6 billion account for only 1.74% of total deposits. (Figure/Table 8)

-The Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) of PHP 237 billion represents a mere 6.7% of insured deposits.

-PDIC assets and DIF account for 3.46% and 2.42% of the deposit base of the four PSEi 30 banks.

-In the event of a mid-to-large bank failure, the DIF would be insufficient, necessitating government or BSP intervention.

5) The Systemic Policy Blind Spot

-Such policy assumes an "orderly" distribution of bank failures—small banks failing, not large ones. In reality, tail risks (big bank failures) drive financial crises, not small-bank failures.

6) Impact of RRR Cuts on Risk-Taking Behavior

-The second leg of the RRR cut in March 2025 injects liquidity, potentially encouraging higher risk-taking by banks.

-Once again, the increase in deposit insurance likely serves as a confidence tool rather than a genuine risk mitigant.

7) Rising risk due to moral hazard: The increased insurance may encourage riskier behavior by both depositors and banks.

8) Consequences of Significant Bank Failures

-If funds are insufficient, the Bureau of Treasury might cover the DIF gap. Such a bailout would expand the fiscal deficit, with the BSP likely to monetize debt.

-A more likely scenario is that the BSP intervenes directly, as the PDIC is an agency of the BSP, by rescuing depositors through liquidity injections or monetary expansion.

In both scenarios, this would amplify inflation risks and the devaluation of the Philippine peso, likely exacerbated by increased capital flight and a higher risk premium on peso assets. 

X. Conclusion: Band-aid Solutions Magnify Risks 

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. 

The PDIC’s insurance hike offers little systemic protection, leaving the banking system vulnerable to tail risks. A mid-to-large bank failure would likely burden the government or BSP, triggering further unintended consequences. 

As contradictions mount, a critical question persists: can this stealth loose financial environment sustain itself, or is it a prelude to a deeper crisis?

 

BSP’s Aggressive RRR Cuts: A High-Stakes Gamble?

 

If there is one common theme to the vast range of the world’s financial crises, it is that excessive debt accumulation, whether by the government, banks, corporations, or consumers, often poses greater systemic risks than it seems during a boom. Infusions of cash can make a government look like it is providing greater growth to its economy than it really is. Private sector borrowing binges can inflate housing and stock prices far beyond their long-run sustainable levels and make banks seem more stable and profitable than they re­ally are. Such large-scale debt buildups pose risks because they make an economy vulnerable to crises of confidence, particularly when debt is short term and needs to be constantly refinanced—Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff 

In this issue

BSP’s Aggressive RRR Cuts: A High-Stakes Gamble?

I. Decline in 2024 Bank Non-Performing Loans Amidst Record-High Debt Levels and a Slowing Economy

II. Deepening Financialization: Financial Assets Surge in 2024 as Banks Drive Industry Monopolization

III. Viewing Bank’s Asset Growth Through the Lens of the PSE

IV. March 2025 RRR Cuts and the Liquidity Conundrum: Unraveling the Banking System’s Pressure Points

V. Liquidity Drain: Record Investment Risks and Elevated Marked-to-Market Losses

VI. Despite Falling Rates, Bank’s Held-to-Maturity Assets Remain Near Record High

VII. Moral Hazard and the "COVID Bailout Playbook"

VIII. The Bigger Picture: Are We Headed for a Full-Blown Crisis?

IX. Conclusion: RRR Cuts a High-Risk Strategy? 

BSP’s Aggressive RRR Cuts: A High-Stakes Gamble?

The BSP announced another round of RRR cuts in March amid mounting liquidity constraints. Yet, the reduction from 20% in 2018 to 7% in 2024 has barely improved conditions. Will this time be different?

I. Decline in 2024 Bank Non-Performing Loans Amidst Record-High Debt Levels and a Slowing Economy

Inquirer.net, February 14, 2025: Soured loans held by Philippine banks as a ratio of total credit eased to their lowest level in a year by the end of 2024 as declining interest rates and softer inflation helped borrowers settle their debts on time. However, a shallower easing cycle might keep financial conditions still somewhat tight, which could prevent a big decline in bad debts this year. Preliminary data from the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) showed the gross amount of nonperforming loans (NPLs)—or credit that is 90 days late on a payment and at risk of default—had cornered 3.27 percent of the local banking industry’s total lending portfolio as of December, down from November’s 3.54 percent. That figure—also known as the gross NPL ratio—was the lowest since December 2023, when bad loans accounted for 3.24 percent of banks’ total loan book.

An overview of the operating environment 

In any analysis, it is crucial to understand the operating environment that provides context to the relevance of a statistic in discussion.

The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) initiated its ‘easing cycle’ in the second half of 2024, which included three rate cuts and a reduction in the reserve requirement ratio (RRR). Meanwhile, inflation (CPI) rebounded from a low of 1.9% in September to 2.9% in December. Additionally, the BSP tightened its cap on the USDPHP exchange rate. Fiscal spending over the first 11 months of the year reached an all-time high.

Yet, there are notable contradictions.

Despite record-high bank lending—driven largely by real estate and consumer loans—GDP growth slowed to 5.2% in the second half of 2024 primarily due to the weak consumer spending. The employment rate was also near an all-time high.

Figure 1

Meanwhile, real estate prices entered deflationary territory in Q3, with the sector’s real GDP growth falling to its lowest level since the pandemic-induced recession. Its share of total GDP also dropped to an all-time low. 

Notably, the real estate sector remains the largest borrower within the banking system (encompassing universal, commercial, thrift, and rural/cooperative banks). (Figure 1, topmost chart) This data depends on the accuracy of the loans reported by banks. 

However, despite recent rate cuts and significant reductions in RRR, the sector remains under pressure. Additionally, sluggish GDP growth suggests mounting risks associated with record levels of consumer leverage. 

Upon initial analysis, the decline in non-performing loans (NPLs) appears inconsistent with these economic developments. Gross NPLs dropped to one-year lows, while net NPLs reached levels last seen in June 2020. (Figure 1, middle window) 

Ironically, the BSP also announced another round of RRR cuts this March.

II. Deepening Financialization: Financial Assets Surge in 2024 as Banks Drive Industry Monopolization

Let's now turn to the gross assets of the financial system, also known as Total Financial Resources (TFR).

The BSP maintained its policy rate this February.

Ironically, BSP rates appear to have had little influence on the assets of the bank-financial industry. 

In 2024, TFR surged by 7.8% YoY, while bank resources jumped 8.9%, reaching record highs of Php 33.78 trillion and Php 28.255 trillion, respectively. 

Why does this matter? 

Since the BSP started hiking rates in April 2022, TFR and bank financial resources have posted a 9.7% and 10.9% compound annual growth rate (CAGR), respectively. In short, the growth of financial assets has accelerated despite the BSP’s rate hikes. 

Or, the series of rate hikes have barely affected bank and financial market operations. 

By the end of 2024, TFR stood at 128% of headline GDP and 152% of nominal GDP, while bank resources accounted for 107% and 127%, respectively. This reflects the increasing financialization of the Philippine economy—a growing reliance on credit and liquidity—as confirmed by the Money Supply (M series) relative to GDP. (Figure 1, lowest image)

Banking Sector Consolidation

Figure 2

More importantly, the rate hikes catapulted the bank's share of the TFR from 82.3% in 2023 to an all-time high of 83.64% in 2024, powered by universal and commercial banks, whose share jumped from 77.6% to 78.3%! (Figure 2, topmost diagram) 

Effectively, the banking industry—particularly UCBs—has been monopolizing finance, leading to greater market concentration, which translates to a build-up in systemic concentration risk. 

As of December 2024, bank assets were allocated as follows: cash, 10%; total loan portfolio (inclusive of interbank loans and reverse repurchase agreements), 54%; investments, 28.3%; real and other properties acquired, 0.43%; and other assets, 7.14%. 

In 2024, the banking system’s cash reserves deflated 6.01% YoY, while total loans and investments surged by 10.74% and 10.72%, respectively. 

Yet over the years, cash holdings have declined (since 2013), loan growth has been recovering (post-2018 hikes), and investments have surged, partially replacing both. (Figure 2, middle image) 

Notably, despite the BSP’s historic liquidity injections, banks' cash reserves have continued to erode. 

The catch-22 is that if banks were profitable, why would they have shed cash reserves over the years? 

Why the series of RRR cuts? 

III. Viewing Bank’s Asset Growth Through the Lens of the PSE 

During the Philippine Stock Exchange Index (PSEi) 30’s run-up to 7,500, Other Financial Corporations (OFCs)—potentially key players in the so-called "national team"—were substantial net buyers of both bank and non-bank equities. 

BSP, January 31, 2025: "The q-o-q rise in the other financial corporations’ domestic claims was attributable to the increase in its claims on the depository corporations, the other sectors, and the central government. In particular, the other financial corporations’ claims on the depository corporations grew as its holdings of bank-issued debt securities and equity shares increased.  Likewise, the sector’s claims on the other sectors grew as its investments in equity shares issued by other nonfinancial corporations and loans extended to households expanded. The growth in the OFCs’ domestic claims was further supported by the rise in the sector’s investments in government-issued debt securities" (bold added)

The OFCs consist of non-money market investment funds, other financial intermediaries (excluding insurance corporations and pension funds), financial auxiliaries, captive financial institutions and money lenders, insurance corporations, and pension funds.

In Q3 2024, claims on depository corporations surged 12% YoY, while claims on the private sector jumped 8%, both reaching record highs in nominal peso terms.

Meanwhile, the PSEi and Financial Index surged 15.1% and 23.4%, respectively. The Financial Index hit an all-time high of 2,423.37 on October 21st, and as of this writing, remains less than 10% below that peak. The Financial Index, which includes seven banks (AUB, BDO, BPI, MBT, CBC, SECB) and the Philippine Stock Exchange (PSE) as the sole non-bank component, has cushioned the PSEi 30 from a collapse. (Figure 2, lowest chart)

Figure 3

It has also supported the PSEi 30 and the PSE through the private sector claims. (Figure 3, topmost pane)

The irony is that OFCs continued purchasing bank shares even as the banking sector’s profit growth (across universal-commercial, thrift, and rural/cooperative banks) materially slowed (as BSP’s official rates rose)

In 2024, the banking system’s net profit growth fell to 9.8%, the lowest in four years. (Figure 3, middle chart)

Meanwhile, trading income—despite making up just 2.2% share of total operating income—soared 78.3% YoY. 

The crux is that the support provided to the Financial Index by the OFCs may have enabled banks to increase their asset base via their ‘investment’ accounts, while simultaneously propping up the PSEi 30. 

Yet, this also appears to mask the deteriorating internal fundamentals of Philippine banks. (Figure 3, lowest graph) 

There are several possibilities at play: 

1. The BSP’s influence could be a factor;

2. Banks may have acted like a cartel in coordinating their actions

3. The limited depth of Philippine capital markets may have forced the industry’s equity placements into a narrow set of options.

But in my humble view, the most telling indicator? Those coordinated intraday pumps—post-recess "afternoon delight" rallies and pre-closing floats—strongly suggest synchronized or coordinated activities.

The point of this explanation is that Philippine banks and non-bank institutions appear to be relying on asset inflation to boost their balance sheets. 

Aside from shielding banks through liquidity support for the real estate industry, have the BSP's RRR cuts also been designed to boost the PSEi 30?

IV. March 2025 RRR Cuts and the Liquidity Conundrum: Unraveling the Banking System’s Pressure Points 

Philstarnews.com, February 22, 2025: The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) surprised markets yesterday as it announced another major reduction in the amount of deposit banks are required to keep with the central bank. The BSP said it would reduce the reserve requirement ratios (RRR) of local banks, effective March 28, to free up more funds to boost the economy.  “The BSP reiterates its long-run goal of enabling banks to channel their funds more effectively toward productive loans and investments. Reducing RRRs will lessen frictions that hinder financial intermediation,” the central bank said…The regulator slashed the RRR for universal and commercial banks, as well as non-bank financial institutions with quasi-banking functions (NBQBs) by 200 basis points, to five percent from the current level of seven percent. 

The BSP last reduced the reserve requirement ratio (RRR) on October 25, 2024. With the next cut taking effect on March 28, 2025, this marks the fastest and largest RRR reduction in recent history.

In contrast, the BSP previously cut RRR rates from 18% to 14% over an eight-month period between May and December 2019.

Why the RRR Cuts if NPLs Are Not a Concern?

Figure 4

BSP’s balance sheet data from end-September to November 2024 shows that the RRR reduction led to a Php 124.5 billion decline in Reserve Deposits of Other Depository Corporations (RDoDC)—an estimate of the liquidity injected into the system. The downtrend in bank reserves since 2018 reflects the cumulative effect of these RRR cuts.  (Figure 4, topmost image)

Yet, despite the liquidity injection, the banking system’s cash and due-from-bank deposits continued to decline through December. It has been in a downtrend since 2013. (Figure 4, middle pane)

Cash reserves dropped 6% in 2024, marking the third consecutive annual decline. The BSP’s 2020-21 historic Php 2.3 trillion injection has largely dissipated.

Since peaking at Php 3.572 trillion in December 2021, cash levels have fallen by Php 828 billion to Php 2.743 trillion in December 2024—essentially returning to 2019 levels.  (Figure 4, lowest chart)

Figure 5

The BSP’s other key liquidity indicator, the liquid assets-to-deposits ratio has also weakened, resonating with the cash reserve trend. This decline, which began in 2013, was briefly offset by the BSP’s historic Php 2.3 trillion liquidity injection but has now resumed its downward trajectory. (Figure 5, topmost diagram) 

Other Factors Beyond Cash and Reserves

The slowdown isn’t limited to cash reserves. 

Deposit growth has also decelerated since 2013, despite reaching record highs in peso terms. Ironically, a robust 12.7% rebound in bank lending growth (excluding interbank loans and repos) in 2024, which should have spurred deposit growth, failed to translate into meaningful gains. Peso deposits grew by just 7% in 2024. (Figure 5, middle pane) 

The question arises: where did all this money go? 

This brings attention back onto the BSP’s stated goal of "enabling banks to channel funds more effectively toward productive loans and investments." This growing divergence between total loan portfolio growth and peso deposit expansion in the face of RRR cuts—20% before March 2018, now down to just 7% last October—raises further questions about its effectiveness in boosting productive lending and investment.

A Deeper Liquidity Strain: Rising Borrowings

Adding to signs of the increasing liquidity stress, bank borrowings hit an all-time high in 2024, both in gross and net terms. (Figure 5, lowest graph)

Figure 6

Total borrowings surged by Php 394.5 billion, pushing outstanding bank debt to a record Php 1.671 trillion.

More importantly, the focus of borrowing was in bill issuance, which accounted for 65% of total bank borrowings in 2024 (!)—a strong indicator of tightening liquidity. (Figure 6, topmost image)

If banks are highly profitable and NPLs are not a major issue, why are they borrowing so aggressively and requiring additional RRR cuts?

The liquidity squeeze cannot be attributed solely to RRR levels alone—otherwise, the 2018–2020 cut from 20% to 12% should have stemmed the tide.

V. Liquidity Drain: Record Investment Risks and Elevated Marked-to-Market Losses

There’s more to consider.

Beyond lending, bank investments—another key bank asset class—also hit a record high in peso terms in 2024.

Yet, despite lower fixed-income rates, banks continued to suffer heavy losses on their investment portfolios: Accumulated investment losses stood at Php 42.4 billion in 2024, after peaking at Php 122.85 billion in 2022. (Figure 6, middle diagram)

Banks have now reported four consecutive years of investment losses.

These losses undoubtedly strain liquidity, but what’s driving them?

The two primary investment categories—Available-for-Sale (AFS) and Held-to-Maturity (HTM) securities—accounted for 40% and 52.6% of total bank investments, respectively.

Accumulated losses likely stem from AFS positions, reflecting volatility in equity, fixed-income, foreign exchange, and other trading activities.

VI. Despite Falling Rates, Bank’s Held-to-Maturity Assets Remain Near Record High

Interestingly, despite easing fixed-income rates, HTM assets remained close to their all-time high at Php 3.95 trillion in December 2024, barely below the December 2023 peak of Php 4.02 trillion.

Since January 2023, HTM holdings have hovered tightly between Php 3.9 trillion and Php 4 trillion.

Government Financing and Liquidity Risks

Yet, this plateau may not persist.

Beyond RRR cuts, the banking system’s Net Claims on Central Government (NCoCG) surged 7% to a new high of Php 5.541 trillion in December 2024.

Per BSP: "Net Claims on CG include domestic securities issued by, and loans extended to, the central government, net of liabilities such as deposits."

While this is often justified under Basel III capital adequacy measures, in reality, it functions as a quasi-quantitative easing (QE) mechanism—banks injecting liquidity into the financial system by financing the government.

The likely impact?

The losses in government securities are categorized as HTMs, effectively locking away liquidity.

BSP led Financial Stability Coordination Council (FSCC) noted in their 2017 Financial Stability Report in 2018 that: "Banks face marked-to-market (MtM) losses from rising interest rates. Higher market rates affect trading since existing holders of tradable securities are taking MtM losses as a result. While some banks have resorted to reclassifying their available-for-sale (AFS) securities into held-to-maturity (HTM), some PHP845.8 billion in AFS (as of end-March 2018) are still subject to MtMlosses. Furthermore, the shift to HTM would take away market liquidity since these securities could no longer be traded prior to their maturity" (bold mine) 

Curiously, discussions of HTM risks vanished from BSP-FSCC Financial Stability Reports after the 2017 and 2018 H1–2019 H1 issues.

VII. Moral Hazard and the "COVID Bailout Playbook"

Although NCoCG has been growing since 2015, banks accelerated their accumulation of government securities as part of the BSP’s 2020 pandemic rescue package. 

Are banks aggressively lending to generate liquidity solely to finance the government? Are they also using government debt to expand the collateral universe for increased lending? Government debt is also used as collateral for interbank loans and repo transactions. 

Have accounting regulations—such as HTM—transformed into a silo that shields Mark-to-Market losses? 

The growth of HTM has aligned with NCoCG. (Figure 6, lowest chart)

While this may satisfy Basel capital adequacy requirements, ironically, it also exposes the banking system to investment concentration risk, sovereign risk, and liquidity risk.

This suggests that reported bank "profits"—likely inflated by subsidies and relief measures—are overshadowed by a toxic mix of trading losses, HTM burdens, and potentially undeclared or hidden NPLs. 

These pressures have likely forced the BSP to aggressively cut RRR rates.

As anticipated, authorities appear poised to replicate the COVID-era bailout playbook, which they view as a success in averting a crisis.

The likely policy trajectory template includes DIRECT BSP infusions via NCoCG, record fiscal deficits, further RRR and policy rate cuts, accelerated bank infusions NCoCG, a higher cap on the USD/PHP exchange rate, and additional subsidies and relief measures for banks.

This is unfolding before us, one step at a time.

VIII. The Bigger Picture: Are We Headed for a Full-Blown Crisis?

Given the moral hazard embedded in this bailout mindset, banks may take on excessive risks, exacerbating "frictions in financial intermediation". Debt will beget more unproductive debt. "Ponzi finance" risks will intensify heightening liquidity constraints that could escalate into a full-blown crisis. 

Further, given the banking system’s fractional reserve operating framework, riskier bank behavior, whetted by reduced cash buffers, heightens the risks of lower consumer confidence in the banking system—which translates to a higher risk of a bank run. 

The Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC) reportedly has funds to cover 18.5% of insured deposits, or P3.53 trillion, as of 2023. 

So, with the RRR cuts, is the BSP gambling with this?

IX. Conclusion: RRR Cuts a High-Risk Strategy?

BSP’s statistics cannot be fully relied upon to assess the true health of the banking system.

1. The decline in non-performing loans (NPLs) is inconsistent with slowing economic growth and the deflationary spiral in the real estate sector. Likewise, falling NPLs contradict the ongoing liquidity pressures faced by banks.

2. Evidence of these liquidity strains is clear: bank borrowings have surged to record levels, with bill issuances dominating the market. The BSP’s RRR cuts only reinforce the mounting liquidity constraints. 

3. Beyond lending, banks have turned to investments to strengthen their balance sheets—including supporting the Philippine Stock Exchange (PSE), even as asset prices have become increasingly misaligned with corporate earnings.

4. In a bid to further boost systemic liquidity, implied quantitative easing (QE) spiked to an all-time high in December, which will likely translate into a higher volume of Held-to-Maturity (HTM) assets.

Through aggressive RRR cuts, is the BSP taking a high-risk approach merely to uphold its statistical narrative?