Philippine Banks: June’s Financial Losses and Liquidity Strains Expose Late-Cycle Fragility

Debt-fueled booms all too often provide false affirmation of a government’s poli­cies, a financial institution’s ability to make outsized profits, or a country’s standard of living. Most of these booms end badly—Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff 

Philippine Banks: June’s Financial Losses and Liquidity Strains Expose Late-Cycle Fragility 

In this issue: 

Part 1: Earnings Erosion and the Mask of Stability

1.A NPLs Fall, But Provisions Rise: A Tale of Two Signals

1.B Philippine Bank’s Profit Growth Falters: Q2 Deficit Breaks the Streak

1.C Universal and Commercial Banks Lead the Weakness; PSE Listed Banks Echo the Slowdown

1.D Income Breakdown: Lending Boom Masks Structural Risk

1.E CMEPA’s Gambit: Taxing Time Deposits to Diversify Bank Income

1.F The Real Culprit: Exploding Losses on Financial Assets

1.G San Miguel’s Share Plunge: A Canary in the Credit Mine? Beneath the Surface: Banks Signal Stress

1.H The NPL Illusion: Velocity Masks Vulnerability

1.I Benchmark Kabuki: When Benchmark-ism Meets Market Reality

Part 2: Liquidity Strains and the Architecture of Intervention

2.A Behind the RRR Cuts: Extraordinary Bank Dependence on BSP

2.B RRR Infusions: Liquidity Metrics Rebound; Weak Money Creation Amid Record Deficit Spending

2.C Rising Borrowings Reinforce Funding Strains, Crowding Out Intensifies, Record HTM Assets

2.D Divergence: Bank Profits, GDP and the PSE’s Financial Index; Market Concentration

2.E OFCs and the Financial Index: A Coordinated Lift?

2.F Triple Liquidity Drain; Rescue Template Risks: Inflation, Stagflation, Crisis; Fiscal Reflex: Keynesian Response Looms

2.G Finale: Classic Symptoms of Late-Cycle Fragility 

Philippine Banks: June’s Financial Losses and Liquidity Strains Expose Late-Cycle Fragility 

From earnings erosion to monetary theatrics, June’s data shows a banking system caught in late-cycle strain.

Part 1: Earnings Erosion and the Mask of Stability 

1.A NPLs Fall, But Provisions Rise: A Tale of Two Signals 

Inquirer.net August Bad loans in the Philippine banking system fell to a three-month low in June, helped by the central bank’s ongoing interest rate cuts, which could ease debt servicing burden. However, lenders remain cautious and have increased their provisions to cover possible credit losses. Latest data from the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) showed nonperforming loans (NPL), or debts that are 90 days late on a payment and at risk of default, cornered 3.34 percent of the local banking industry’s total lending portfolio. That figure, called the gross NPL ratio, was the lowest since March 2025, when the ratio stood at 3.30 percent. 

But the NPL ratio masks a deeper tension: gross NPLs rose 5.5% year-on-year to Php 530.29 billion, while total loans expanded 10.93% to Php 15.88 trillion. The ratio fell not because bad loans shrank, but because credit growth outpaced them. 

Loan loss reserves rose 5.5% to Php 505.91 billion, and the NPL coverage ratio ticked up to 95.4%. Past due loans climbed 9.17% to Php 670.5 billion, and restructured loans rose 6.27%. Provisioning for credit losses ballooned to Php 84.19 billion in 1H 2025, with Php 43.78 billion booked in Q2 alone—the largest since Q4 2020’s pandemic-era spike. 

So, while the establishment cites falling NPL ratios to reassure the public, banks are quietly bracing for defaults and valuation hits—likely tied to large corporate exposures. The provisioning surge is a tacit admission: risk is rising, even if it hasn’t yet surfaced in headline metrics.

1.B Philippine Bank’s Profit Growth Falters: Q2 Deficit Breaks the Streak

Figure 1

Philippine banks posted their first quarterly profit contraction in Q2 2025, down -1.96% YoY—a sharp reversal from Q1’s 10.64% growth and Q2 2024’s 5.21%. This marks the first decline since Q3 2023’s -11.75%. (Figure 1, upper window) 

Even more telling, since the BSP’s historic rescue of the banking system in Q2 2021, net profit growth has been trending downward. Peso profits etched a record in Q1 2025, but fell in Q2. 

The Q2 slump dragged down 1H performance: bank profit growth slipped to 4.14%, compared to 2H 2024’s 9.77%, though slightly higher than 1H 2024’s 4.1%. 

1.C Universal and Commercial Banks Lead the Weakness; PSE Listed Banks Echo the Slowdown 

Earnings growth of universal-commercial (UC) banks sank from 8.6% in Q1 2025 to a -2.11% deficit in Q2. 

UC bank profits grew 6.33% in Q2 2024. Still, UC banks eked out a 3.1% gain in 1H 2025 versus 5.3% in the same period last year. UC banks accounted for 93.1% of total banking system profits in 1H 2025—underscoring their dominance or concentration but also their vulnerability. 

PSE listed banks partially echoed BSP data. (Figure 1, Lower Table) 

Aggregate earnings growth for all listed banks hit 6.08% in Q2 and 6.77% in 1H—down from 10.43% and 9.95% in the same periods last year. The top three banks in the PSEi 30 (BDO, BPI, MBT) reported combined earnings growth of 4.3% in Q2 and 5.31% in 1H 2025, substantially lower compared to 13.71% and 15.4% in 2024. 

The discrepancy between BSP and listed bank data likely stems from government, foreign, and unlisted UC banks—whose performance may be masking broader stress. 

1.D Income Breakdown: Lending Boom Masks Structural Risk 

What explains the sharp profit downturn?

Figure 2

Net interest income rose 11.74% in Q2, while non-interest income increased 14.7%—slightly higher than Q1’s 11.7% and 14.5%, respectively. However, net interest income was lower than Q2 2024’s 14.74%, while non-interest income rebounded from -5.71% in the same period. (Figure 2, topmost chart) 

In 1H 2025, net interest income grew 11.7%, and non-interest income rose 14.6%, compared to 15.53% and -8.83% in 1H 2024. Net interest income now accounts for 82.5% of total bank profits—a fresh high, reflecting the lending boom regardless of BSP’s rate levels. 

This share has reversed course since 2013, rising from ~60% to 77% by end-2024—driven by BSP’s easy money policy and historic pandemic-era rescue efforts. Banks’ income structure resembles a Pareto distribution: highly concentrated, and extremely susceptible to duration and credit risks. 

BSP’s easing cycle has not only failed to improve banks’ core business, but actively contributed to its decay.

1.E CMEPA’s Gambit: Taxing Time Deposits to Diversify Bank Income 

The government’s response has been the Capital Market Efficiency Promotion Act (CMEPA). CMEPA, effective July 2025, imposes a flat 20% final withholding tax on all deposit interest income, including long-term placements. 

By taxing time deposits, policymakers aim to push savers into capital markets, boosting bank non-interest income through fees, trading, and commissions. But in reality, this is financial engineering. (Figure 2, middle graph) 

With weak household savings and low financial literacy, deposit outflows will likely shrink banks’ funding base rather than diversify their revenues. 

It would increase time preferences, leading the public to needlessly take risks or gamble—further eroding savings. 

Or, instead of reducing fragility, CMEPA risks layering volatile market income on top of an already over-concentrated interest income model. 

We’ve previously addressed CMEPA—refer to earlier posts for context (see below) 

1.F The Real Culprit: Exploding Losses on Financial Assets 

Beyond this structural weakness, the real culprit behind the downturn was losses on financial assets. 

In Q2 2025, banks posted Php 43.78 billion in losses—the largest since the pandemic recession in Q4 2020—driven by Php 49.3 billion in provisions for credit losses!  (Figure 2, lowest image) 

For 1H 2025, losses ballooned 64% to Php 73.6 billion, with provisions reaching Php 84.19 billion. 

Once again, this provisioning surge is a tacit admission: while officials cite falling NPL ratios, banks themselves are bracing for valuation hits and potential defaults, likely tied to concentrated corporate exposures. 

1.G San Miguel’s Share Plunge: A Canary in the Credit Mine? Beneath the Surface: Banks Signal Stress

Figure 3

Could this be linked to the recent collapse in San Miguel [PSE: SMC] shares? 

SMC plunged 14.54% WoW (Week on Week) as of August 15th, compounding its YTD losses to 35.4%. (Figure 3, upper diagram) 

And this share waterfall happened before its Q2 17Q 2025 release, which showed debt slipping slightly from Php 1.511 trillion in Q1 to Php 1.504 trillion in 1H—suggesting that the intensifying selloff may have been driven by deeper concerns. (Figure 3, lower visual) 

SMC’s Q2 (17Q) report reveals increasingly opaque cash generation, aggressive financial engineering, and unclear asset quality and debt servicing capacity. 

Yet, paradoxically, Treasury yields softened across the curve—hinting at either covert BSP intervention through its institutional cartel, a dangerous underestimation of contagion risk, or market complacency—a lull before the credit repricing storm. 

If SMC’s debt is marked at par or held to maturity, deterioration in its credit profile wouldn’t show up as market losses—but would require provisioning. This provisioning surge is a tacit admission: banks are seeing heightened risk, even if it’s not yet reflected in NPL ratios or market pricing. 

We saw this coming. Prior breakdowns on SMC are archived below. 

Of course, this SMC–banking sector inference linkage still requires corroborating evidence or forensic validation—time will tell.

Still, one thing is clear: banks are exhibiting mounting stress—underscoring the BSP’s resolve to intensify its easing cycle through rate cuts, RRR reductions, deposit insurance hikes, and a soft USDPHP peg. The ‘Marcos-nomics’ debt-financed deficit spending adds fiscal fuel to this monetary response. 

1.H The NPL Illusion: Velocity Masks Vulnerability

Figure 4

NPLs can be a deceptive measure of bank health. Residual regulatory reliefs from the pandemic era may still distort classifications, and the ratio itself reflects the relative velocity of bad loans versus credit expansion. 

Both gross NPLs and total loans hit record highs in peso terms in June—Php 530.29 billion and Php 15.88 trillion, respectively—but credit growth outpaced defaults, keeping the NPL ratio artificially low at 3.34%. (Figure 4, topmost pane) 

The logic is simple: to suppress the NPL ratio, loan velocity must accelerate faster than the accumulation of bad debt. Once credit expansion stalls, the entire kabuki collapses—and latent systemic stress will surface. 

1.I Benchmark Kabuki: When Benchmark-ism Meets Market Reality 

This is where benchmark-ism hits the road—and skids. The system’s metrics, once propped up by interventionist theatrics, are now showing signs of exhaustion. 

These are not isolated anomalies, but worsening symptoms of prior rescues—now overrun by the law of diminishing returns. 

And yet, the response is more of the same: fresh interventions to mask the decay of earlier ones. Theatrics, once effective at shaping perception, are now being challenged by markets that no longer play along. 

The system’s health doesn’t hinge on ratios—it hinges on velocity. Velocity of credit, of confidence, of liquidity. When that velocity falters, the metrics unravel. 

And beneath the unraveling lies a fragility that no benchmark can disguise. 

Part 2: Liquidity Strains and the Architecture of Intervention

2.A Behind the RRR Cuts: Extraordinary Bank Dependence on BSP 

There are few signs that the public grasps the magnitude of developments unfolding in Philippine banks. 

The aggregate 450 basis point Reserve Requirement Ratio (RRR) cuts in October 2024 and March 2025 mark the most aggressive liquidity release in BSP history—surpassing even its pandemic-era response. (Figure 4, middle chart) 

Unlike previous easing cycles (2018–2019, 2020), where banks barely tapped BSP liquidity, the current drawdown has been dramatic. 

As of July, banks had pulled Php 463 billion since October 2024 from the BSP (Claims on Other Depository Corporations)—Php 84.6 billion since March and Php 189.2 billion in June. Notably, 40.9% of the Php 463 billion liquidity drawdown occurred in July alone. 

This surge coincides with mounting losses on financial assets and record peso NPLs—masked by rapid credit expansion, which may be a euphemism for refinancing deteriorating debt. Banks’ lending to bad borrowers to prevent NPL classification is a familiar maneuver. 

When banks incur significant financial losses—whether from rising NPLs, credit impairments, or mark-to-market declines—the immediate impact is not just weaker earnings but a widening hole in their funding structure. The December 2020 episode, when the system booked its largest financial losses, highlighted how such shocks create a liquidity vacuum: instead of recycling liquidity through lending and market channels, banks are forced to patch internal shortfalls, draining capital buffers and eroding interbank trust. 

Into this vacuum steps the BSP. Reserve requirement cuts, while framed as policy easing, have functioned less as a growth stimulus and more as a liquidity lifeline. By drawing on their balances with the BSP, banks convert regulatory reserves into working liquidity—filling gaps left by financial losses. The outcome is growing dependence on central bank support: what appears as easing is in fact the manifestation of extraordinary support, with liquidity migrating from market sources to the BSP’s balance sheet. 

This hidden dependence underscores how financial repression has hollowed out market-based liquidity, leaving the BSP as the primary lender of first resort 

2.B RRR Infusions: Liquidity Metrics Rebound; Weak Money Creation Amid Record Deficit Spending

The liquidity drawdown has filtered into banks’ cash positions. As of June, peso cash reserves rebounded—though still down 19.8% year-on-year. Cash-to-deposit ratios rose from 9.87% in May to 10.67% in June, while liquid assets-to-deposits climbed from 47.29% to 49.24%. (Figure 4, lowest image)

Figure 5

RRR-driven cash infusions also lifted deposits. Total deposit growth rebounded from 4.96% in May to 5.91% in June, led by peso deposits (3.96% to 6.3%) and supported by FX deposits (4.42% to 6.8%). (Figure 5, topmost graph) 

Yet paradoxically, despite a 10.9% expansion in Total Loan Portfolio and ODC drawdown, deposits only managed modest growth—suggesting a liquidity black hole. CMEPA’s impact may deepen this imbalance. 

Despite record deficit spending in 1H 2025, BSP currency issuance/currency in circulation growth slowed from 9% in June to 8.1% in July, after peaking at 14.7% in May during election spending. Substantial money creation has not translated into higher CPI or GDP, and the slowdown suggests a growing demand problem. (Figure 5, middle diagram) 

Even with July’s massive ODC drawdown, BSP’s cash in circulation suggests a financial cesspool has been absorbing liquidity—offsetting whatever expansionary efforts are underway. 

2.C Rising Borrowings Reinforce Funding Strains, Crowding Out Intensifies, Record HTM Assets 

After a brief slowdown in May, bank borrowings surged anew by 24% in June to Php 1.85 trillion, nearing the March record of Php 1.91 trillion. Escalating liquidity strains are pushing banks to increase funding from capital markets. (Figure 5, lowest pane) 

This intensifies the crowding-out effect, as banks compete with the government and private sector for access to public savings.

Figure 6

Meanwhile, as predicted, record-high public debt has translated to greater bank financing of government via Net Claims on the Central Government, showing up in banks’ record-high Held-to-Maturity (HTM) assets. HTM assets have become a prime contributor to tightening liquidity strains in the banking system. (Figure 6, topmost graph) 

2.D Divergence: Bank Profits, GDP and the PSE’s Financial Index; Market Concentration 

Despite slowing profit growth, the PSE’s Financial Index—composed of 7 banks (BDO, BPI, MBT, CBC, AUB, PNB, SECB) plus the PSE—hit a historic high in Q1 2025, before dipping slightly in Q2. (Figure 6, middle visual)

Meanwhile, the sector’s real GDP partially echoed profits, reinforcing the case of a downturn. 

Financial GDP dropped sharply from 6.9% in Q1 2025 and 8% in Q2 2024 to 5.6% in Q2 2025. It accounted for 10.4% of national GDP in Q2, down from the all-time high of 11.7% in Q1—signaling deeper financialization of the economy. (Figure 6, lowest chart)

Figure 7

Bank GDP slowed to 3.7% in Q2 from 4.9% in Q1 2025, far below the 10.2% growth of Q2 2024. Since Q1 2015, bank GDP has averaged nearly half (49.9%) of the sector’s GDP. (Figure 7, topmost window) 

Thanks to the BSP’s historic rescue, the free-float market cap weight of the top three banks (BDO, BPI, MBT) in the PSEi 30 rose from 12.76% in August 2020 to 24.37% by mid-April 2025. As of August 15, their share stood at 21.8%, rising to 23.2% when CBC is included. (Figure 7, middle chart) 

This concentration has cushioned the PSEi 30 from broader declines—suggesting possible non-market interventions in bank share prices, while amplifying concentration risk. 

2.E OFCs and the Financial Index: A Coordinated Lift? 

BSP data on Other Financial Corporations (OFCs) reveals a dovetailing of ODC activity with the Financial Index. OFCs—comprising non-money market funds, financial auxiliaries, insurance firms, pension funds, and money lenders—appear to be accumulating bank shares, possibly at BSP’s implicit behest. 

In Q1 2024, BSP noted: "the sector’s claims on depository corporations rose amid the increase in its deposits with banks and holdings of bank-issued equity shares." 

This suggests a coordinated effort to prop up bank share prices—masking underlying stress. (Figure 7, lowest graph) 

Once a bear market strikes key bank shares and the financial index, losses will add to liquidity stress. Economic reality will eventually expose the choreography propping up both the PSEi 30 and banks. 

2.F Triple Liquidity Drain; Rescue Template Risks: Inflation, Stagflation, Crisis; Fiscal Reflex: Keynesian Response Looms 

In short, three sources of liquidity strain now pressure Philippine banks:

• Record holdings of Held-to-Maturity assets
• Rising Financial losses
• All-time high non-performing loans 

If BSP resorts to its 2020–2021 pandemic rescue template, expect the USDPHP to soar, inflation to spike, and rates to rise—ushering in stagflation or even possibly a debt crisis. 

With the private sector under duress from mounting bad credit, authorities—guided by top-down Keynesian ideology—are likely to resort to fiscal stimulus to boost GDP and ramp up revenue efforts. 

2.G Finale: Classic Symptoms of Late-Cycle Fragility 

The Philippine banking system is showing unmistakable signs of late-cycle fragility.

Velocity-dependent metrics are poised to unravel once credit growth stalls. Liquidity dependence is paraded as resilience. Market support mechanisms blur price discovery. Policy reflexes recycle past interventions while ignoring structural cracks. 

Losses are being papered over with liquidity, fiscal deficits are substituting for private demand, and the veneer of stability rests on central bank backstops. This choreography cannot hold indefinitely. If current trajectories persist, the risks are stark: stagflation, currency instability, and a potential debt spiral. 

The metrics are clear. The real story lies in the erosion of velocity and the quiet migration from market discipline to state lifelines. What appears resilient today may be revealed tomorrow as fragility sustained on borrowed time. 

As the saying goes: we live in interesting times. 

____

Prudent Investor Newsletter Archives: 

1 San Miguel

• Is San Miguel’s Ever-Growing Debt the "Sword of Damocles" Hanging over the Philippine Economy and the PSE? December 02, 2024 (substack)
• Escalating Systemic Risk: As Cash Reserves Plummeted, San Miguel’s 9M Debt Zoomed to an Astonishing Php 1.405 TRILLION! November 20, 2023 (substack)

Just among the many…

2 CMEPA

• The CMEPA Delusion: How Fallacious Arguments Conceal the Risk of Systemic Blowback July 27, 2025 (substack)
• The Seen, the Unseen, and the Taxed: CMEPA as Financial Repression by Design July 20,2025 (substack) 

A Rescue, Not a Stimulus: BSP’s June Cut and the Banking System’s Liquidity Crunch

 

The ultimate cause, therefore, of the phenomenon of wave after wave of economic ups and downs is ideological in character. The cycles will not disappear so long as people believe that the rate of interest may be reduced, not through the accumulation of capital, but by banking policy—Ludwig von Mises 

In this issue

A Rescue, Not a Stimulus: BSP’s June Cut and the Banking System’s Liquidity Crunch

I. Policy Easing in Question: Credit Concentration and Economic Disparity

II. Elite Concentration: The Moody's Warning and Its Missing Pieces

III. Why the Elite Bias? Financial Regulation, Market Concentration and Underlying Incentives

IV. Market Rebellion: When Reality Defies Policy

V. The Banking System Under Stress: Evidence of a Rescue Operation

A. Liquidity Deterioration Despite RRR Cuts

B. Cash Crunch Intensifies

C. Deposit Growth Slowdown

D. Loan Portfolio Dynamics: Warning Signs Emerge

E. Investment Portfolio Under Pressure

F. The Liquidity Drain: Government's Role

G. Monetary Aggregates: Emerging Disconnection

H. Banking Sector Adjustments: Borrowings and Repos

I.  The NPL Question: Are We Seeing the Full Picture?

J. The Crowding Out Effect

VI. Conclusion: The Inevitable Reckoning 

A Rescue, Not a Stimulus: BSP’s June Cut and the Banking System’s Liquidity Crunch 

Despite easing measures, liquidity has tightened, markets have diverged, and systemic risks have deepened across the Philippine banking system. 

I. Policy Easing in Question: Credit Concentration and Economic Disparity 

The BSP implemented the next phase of its ‘easing cycle’—now comprising four policy rate cuts and two reductions in the reserve requirement ratio (RRR)—complemented by the doubling of deposit insurance coverage. 

The question is: to whose benefit? 

Is it the general economy? 

Bank loans to MSMEs, which are supposedly a target of inclusive growth, require a lending mandate and still accounted for only 4.9% of the banking system’s total loan portfolio as of Q4 2024. This is despite the fact that, according to the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), MSMEs represented 99.6% of total enterprises and employed 66.97% of the workforce in 2023. 

In contrast, loans to PSEi 30 non-financial corporations reached Php 5.87 trillion in Q1 2025—equivalent to 17% of the country’s total financial resources. 

Public borrowing has also surged to an all-time high of Php 16.752 trillion as of April. 

Taken together, total systemic leverage—defined as the sum of bank loans and government debt—reached a record Php 30.825 trillion, or approximately 116% of nominal 2024 GDP. 

While bank operations have expanded, fueled by consumer debt, only a minority of Filipinos—those classified as “banked” in the BSP’s financial inclusion survey—reap the benefits. The majority remain excluded from the financial system, limiting the broader economic impact of the BSP’s policies. 

The reliance on consumer debt to drive bank growth further concentrates financial resources among a privileged few. 

II. Elite Concentration: The Moody's Warning and Its Missing Pieces 

On June 21, 2025, Inquirer.net cited Moody’s Ratings: 

"In a commentary, Moody’s Ratings said that while conglomerate shareholders have helped boost the balance sheet and loan portfolio of banks by providing capital and corporate lending opportunities, such a tight relationship also increases related-party risks. The global debt watcher also noted how Philippine companies remain highly dependent on banks for funding in the absence of a deep capital market. This, Moody’s said, could become a problem for lenders if corporate borrowers were to struggle to pay their debts during moments of economic downturn." (bold added) 

Moody’s commentary touches on contagion risks in a downturn but fails to elaborate on an equally pressing issue: the structural instability caused by deepening credit dependency and growing concentration risks. These may not only emerge during a downturn—they may be the very triggers of one. 

The creditor-borrower interdependence between banks and elite-owned corporations reflects a tightly coupled system where benefits, risks, and vulnerabilities are shared. It’s a fallacy to assume one side enjoys the gains while the other bears the risks. 

As J. Paul Getty aptly put it: 

"If you owe the bank $100, that's your problem. If you owe the bank $100 million, that's the bank's problem." 

In practice, this means banks are more likely to continue lending to credit-stressed conglomerates than force defaults, further entrenching financial fragility. 

What’s missing in most mainstream commentary is the causal question: Why have lending ties deepened so disproportionately between banks and elite-owned firms, rather than being broadly distributed across the economy?

The answer lies in institutional incentives rooted in the political regime. 

As discussed in 2019, the BSP’s trickle-down easy money regime played a key role in enabling Jollibee’s “Pacman strategy”—a debt-financed spree of horizontal expansion through competitor acquisitions. 

III. Why the Elite Bias? Financial Regulation, Market Concentration and Underlying Incentives 

Moreover, regulatory actions appear to favor elite interests. 

On June 17, 2025, ABS-CBN reported: 

"In a statement, the SEC said the licenses [of over 400 lending companies] were revoked for failing to file their audited financial statements, general information sheet, director or trustee compensation report, and director or trustee appraisal or performance report and the standards or criteria for the assessment." 

Could this reflect regulatory overreach aimed at eliminating competition favoring elite-controlled financial institutions? Is the SEC becoming a tacit ‘hatchet man’ serving oligopolistic interests via arbitrary technicalities? 

Philippine banks—particularly Universal Commercial banks—now control a staggering 82.64% of the financial system’s total resources and 77.08% of all financial assets (as of April 2025). 

Aside from BSP liquidity and bureaucratic advantages, political factors such as ‘regulatory capture’ and the ‘revolving door’ politics further entrench elite power. 

Many senior officials at the BSP and across the government are former bank executives, billionaires and their appointees, or close associates. Thus, instead of striving for the Benthamite utilitarian principle of “greatest good for the greatest number,” agencies may instead pursue policies aligned with powerful vested interests. 

This brings us back to the rate cuts: while framed as pro-growth, they largely serve to ease the cost of servicing a mountain of debt owed by government, conglomerates, and elite-controlled banks. 

Figure 1 

However, its impact on average Filipinos remains negligible, with official statistics increasingly revealing the diminishing returns of these policies. 

The BSP’s rate and RRR cuts, coming amid a surge in UC bank lending, risk undermining GDP momentum (Figure 1) 

IV. Market Rebellion: When Reality Defies Policy 

Even markets appear to be revolting against the BSP's policies!

Figure 2

Despite plunging Consumer Price Index (CPI) figures, Treasury bill rates, which should reflect the BSP's actions, have barely followed the easing cycle. (Figure 2, topmost window) 

Yields of Philippine bonds (10, 20, and 25 years) have been rising since October 2024 reinforcing the 2020 uptrend! (Figure 2, middle image) 

Inflation risks continue to be manifested by the bearish steepening slope of the Philippine Treasury yield curve. (Figure 2, lower graph)

Figure 3

Additionally, the USD/PHP exchange rate sharply rebounded even before the BSP announcement. (Figure 3, topmost diagram) 

Treasury yields and the USD/PHP have fundamentally ignored the government's CPI data and the BSP's easing policies. 

Importantly, elevated T-bill rates likely reflect liquidity pressures, while rising bond yields signal mounting fiscal concerns combined with rising inflation risks. 

Strikingly, because Treasury bond yields remain elevated despite declining CPI, the average monthly bank lending rates remain close to recent highs despite the BSP's easing measures! (Figure 3, middle chart) 

While this developing divergence has been ignored or glossed over by the consensus, it highlights a worrisome imbalance that authorities seem to be masking through various forms of interventions or "benchmark-ism" channeled through market manipulation, price controls, and statistical inflation. 

V. The Banking System Under Stress: Evidence of a Rescue Operation 

We have been constantly monitoring the banking system and can only conclude that the BSP easing cycle appears to be a dramatic effort to rescue the banking system. 

A. Liquidity Deterioration Despite RRR Cuts 

Astonishingly, within a month after the RRR cuts, bank liquidity conditions deteriorated further: 

·         Cash and Due Banks-to-Deposit Ratio dropped from 10.37% in March to 9.68% in April—a milestone low

·         Liquid Assets-to-Deposit Ratio plunged from 49.5% in March to 48.3% in April—its lowest level since March 2020 

Liquid assets consist of the sum of cash and due banks plus Net Financial assets (net of equity investments). Fundamentally, both indicators show the extinguishment of the BSP's historic pandemic recession stimulus. (Figure 3, lowest window) 

B. Cash Crunch Intensifies

Figure 4

Year-over-year change of Cash and Due Banks crashed by 24.75% to Php 1.914 trillion—its lowest level since at least 2014. Despite the Php 429.4 billion of bank funds released to the banking system from the October 2024 and March 2025 RRR cuts, bank liquidity has been draining rapidly. (Figure 4, topmost visual) 

C. Deposit Growth Slowdown 

The liquidity crunch in the banking system appears to be spreading. 

The sharp slowdown has been manifested through deposit liabilities, where year-over-year growth decelerated from 5.42% in March to 4.04% in April due to materially slowing peso and foreign exchange deposits, which grew by 5.9% and 3.23% in March to 4.6% and 1.6% in April respectively. (Figure 4, middle image) 

D. Loan Portfolio Dynamics: Warning Signs Emerge 

Led by Universal-Commercial banks, growth of the banking system's total loan portfolio slowed from 12.6% in March to 12.2% in April. UC banks posted a deceleration from 12.36% year-over-year growth in March to 11.85% in April. 

However, the banking system's balance sheet revealed a unmistakable divergence: the rapid deceleration  of loan growth. Growth of the Total Loan Portfolio (TLP), inclusive of interbank lending (IBL) and Reverse Repurchase (RRP) agreements, plunged from 14.5% in March to 10.21% in April, reaching Php 14.845 trillion. (Figure 4, lowest graph) 

This dramatic drop in TLP growth contributed significantly to the steep decline in deposit growth. 

E. Investment Portfolio Under Pressure

Figure 5

Banks' total investments have likewise materially slowed, easing from 11.95% in March to 8.84% in April. While Held-to-Maturity (HTM) securities growth slowed 0.58% month-over-month, they were up 0.98% year-over-year. 

Held-for-Trading (HFT) assets posted the largest growth drop, from 79% in March to 25% in April. 

Meanwhile, accumulated market losses eased from Php 21 billion in March to Php 19.6 billion in May. (Figure 5, topmost graph) 

Rising bond yields should continue to pressure bank trading assets, with emphasis on HTMs, which accounted for 52.7% of Gross Financial Assets in May. 

A widening fiscal deficit will likely prompt banks to increase support for government treasury issuances—creating a feedback loop that should contribute to rising bond yields. 

F. The Liquidity Drain: Government's Role 

Part of the liquidity pressures stem from the BSP's reduction in its net claims on the central government (NCoCG) as it wound down pandemic-era financing. 

Simultaneously, the recent buildup in government deposits at the BSP—reflecting the Treasury's record borrowing—has further absorbed liquidity from the banking system. (Figure 5, middle image) 

G. Monetary Aggregates: Emerging Disconnection 

Despite the BSP's easing measures, emerging pressures on bank lending and investment assets, manifested through a cash drain and slowing deposits, have resulted in a sharp decrease in the net asset growth of the Philippine banking system. Year-over-year growth of net assets slackened from 7.8% in April to 5.5% in May. (Figure 5, lowest chart) 

Figure 6

Interestingly, despite the cash-in-circulation boost related to May's midterm election spending—which hit a growth rate of 15.4% in April (an all-time high in peso terms), just slightly off the 15.5% recorded during the 2022 Presidential elections—M3 growth sharply slowed from 6.2% in March to 5.8% in April and has diverged from cash growth since December 2024. (Figure 6, topmost window) 

The sharp decline in M2 growth—from 6.6% in April to 6.0% in May—reflecting the drastic slowdown in savings and time deposits from 5.5% and 7.6% in April to 4.5% and 5.8% in May respectively, demonstrates the spillover effects of the liquidity crunch experienced by the Philippine banking system. 

H. Banking Sector Adjustments: Borrowings and Repos 

Nonetheless, probably because of the RRR cuts, aggregate year-over-year growth of bank borrowings decreased steeply from 40.3% to 16.93% over the same period. (Figure 6, middle graph) 

Likely drawing from cash reserves and the infusion from RRR cuts, bills payable fell from Php 1.328 trillion to Php 941.6 billion, while bonds rose from Php 578.8 billion to Php 616.744 billion. (Figure 6, lowest diagram) 

Banks' reverse repo transactions with the BSP plunged by 51.22% while increasing 30.8% with other banks. 

As we recently tweeted, banks appear to have resumed their flurry of borrowing activity in the capital markets this June. 

I.  The NPL Question: Are We Seeing the Full Picture? 

While credit delinquencies expressed via Non-Performing Loans (NPLs) have recently been marginally higher in May, the ongoing liquidity crunch cannot be directly attributed to them—unless the BSP and banks have been massively understating these figures, which we suspect they are. 

J. The Crowding Out Effect 

Bank borrowings from capital markets amplify the "crowding-out effect" amid growing competition between government debt and elite conglomerates' credit needs. 

The government’s significant role in the financial system further complicates this dynamic, as it absorbs liquidity through record borrowing. 

Or, it would be incomplete to examine banks' relationships with elite-owned corporations without acknowledging the government's significant role in the financial system. 

VI. Conclusion: The Inevitable Reckoning 

The deepening divergent performance between markets and government policies highlights not only the tension between markets and statistics but, more importantly, the progressing friction between economic and financial policies and the underlying economy. 

Is the consensus bereft of understanding, or are they attempting to bury the logical precept that greater concentration of credit activities leads to higher counterparty and contagion risks? Will this Overton Window prevent the inevitable reckoning? 

The evidence suggests that the BSP's easing cycle, rather than supporting broad-based economic growth, primarily serves to maintain the stability of an increasingly fragile financial system that disproportionately benefits elite interests. 

With authorities reporting May’s fiscal conditions last week (to be discussed in the next issue), we may soon witness how this divergence could trigger significant volatility or even systemic instability 

The question is not whether this system is sustainable—the data clearly indicates it is not—but rather how long political and regulatory interventions can delay the inevitable correction, and at what cost to the broader Philippine economy.

 

Liquidity Under Pressure: Philippine Banks Struggle in Q1 2025 Amid a Looming Fiscal Storm

 

Truth always originates in a minority of one, and every custom begins as a broken precedent—Nancy Astor 

In this issue: 

Liquidity Under Pressure: Philippine Banks Struggle in Q1 2025 Amid a Looming Fiscal Storm

I. Introduction: A Financial-Political Economic System Under Increasing Strain

II. Liquidity Infusion via RRR Cuts: A Paradox: Declining Cash Amid Lending Boom

III. Mounting Liquidity Mismatches: Slowing Deposits Amid Lending Surge, Liquidity Ratios Flashing Red

IV. Government Banks and Broader Financial Systemic Stress

V. Mounting Liquidity Mismatches: Record Surge in Bank Borrowings and Repo Market Heats Up

VI. RRR Cuts as a Lifeline, Not Stimulus, Why the Strain? Not NPLs, Not Profitability

VII. Bank-Financial Index Bubble and Benchmark-ism: Disconnect Between Profit and Market Valuation

VIII. Financial Assets Rise, But So Do Risks; Spotlight on Held-to-Maturity Assets (HTM); Systemic Risks Amplified by Sovereign Exposure

IX. Brace for the Coming Fiscal Storm

X. Non-Tax Revenues: A High Base Hangover; Rising Risk of a Consecutive Deficit Blowout

XI. April 2025 Data as a Critical Clue of Fiscal Health

XII. Aside from Deficit Spending, Escalating Risk Pressures from Trade Disruptions and Domestic Economic Slack

XIII. Final Thought: Deepening Fiscal-Bank Interdependence Expands Contagion Risk Channels 

Liquidity Under Pressure: Philippine Banks Struggle in Q1 2025 Amid a Looming Fiscal Storm 

Behind the balance sheets: why Philippine banks are bleeding cash even as lending accelerates—and what the looming fiscal blowout means for systemic risk. 

I. Introduction: A Financial-Political Economic System Under Increasing Strain

We begin our analysis of the Philippine banking system in Q1 2025 with our April assessment:

"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." (Prudent Investor, April 2025) [bold italics original] 

The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) released pivotal data in its April 2025 Central Bank Survey (MAS) and an updated balance sheet and income statement for the Philippine banking system. 

The findings reveal a sector grappling with severe liquidity constraints despite aggressive monetary easing. 

This article dissects these challenges, exploring their causes, implications, and risks to financial stability, while situating them within the broader economic and fiscal landscape. 

II. Liquidity Infusion via RRR Cuts: A Paradox: Declining Cash Amid Lending Boom 

Figure 1

The second leg of the BSP’s Reserve Requirement Ratio (RRR) reduction in March 2025 resulted in a Php 50.9 billion decrease in liabilities to Other Depository Corporations (ODCs) by April. 

When combined with the first RRR cut last October, the cumulative reduction from October to April amounted to a staggering Php 429.4 billion—effectively unleashing nearly half a trillion pesos of liquidity into the banking system via freed-up cash reserves. (Figure 1, topmost window) 

Even more striking was the BSP’s March report on the balance sheets of Philippine banks. The industry's "cash and due from banks" dived 28.95% year-on-year, from Php 2.492 trillion in 2024 to Php 2.09 trillion in 2025—its lowest level since at least 2014! (Figure 1, middle graph) 

This sharp drop calls into question the effectiveness of RRR cuts while also exposing deeper structural issues within the banking system. 

Ironically, this cash drain occurred alongside a robust expansion in bank lending. Yet, deposit growth stalled, which further strained liquidity and weighed on money supply growth. 

The limited impact of RRR reductions may reflect banks using freed-up reserves to cover existing liquidity shortfalls rather than fueling new lending or deposit growth. 

Meanwhile, the BSP’s move to double deposit insurance through the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC) last March—nearly coinciding with the second phase of the RRR cut—signals growing concerns over depositor confidence, potentially foreshadowing broader financial stability risks 

III. Mounting Liquidity Mismatches: Slowing Deposits Amid Lending Surge, Liquidity Ratios Flashing Red 

The decline in cash reserves coincided with decelerating deposit growth, even as bank lending surged. 

Deposit liabilities growth fell to just 5.42% in March—its lowest since August 2019. The deceleration was mainly driven by a slowdown in peso deposits growth, from 6.28% in February to 5.9% in March. Foreign currency (FX) deposits also remained a drag, despite a modest improvement from 2.84% to 3.23%. (Figure 1, lowest diagram) 

In stark contrast, the banking sector’s total net lending portfolio (inclusive of RRPs and IBLs) surged to 14.5% in March from 12.31% in February.

Figure 2 

As a result, the ratio of "cash and due from banks" to total deposits has collapsed to 10.37% in March 2025, levels below those seen in 2013—underscoring an escalating liquidity mismatch! (Figure 2, upper pane) 

This divergence highlights a critical tension: despite BSP’s aggressive monetary easing, lending is not translating into deposit growth. Instead, it has created a liquidity conundrum—intensifying balance sheet strain. 

Beyond cash, the liquid assets-to-deposits ratio has fallen back to levels last seen in April 2020, effectively reversing the gains achieved during the BSP’s pandemic-era historic liquidity rescue. 

This indicates a depletion of liquid assets—comprising cash and net financial assets excluding equities—which are crucial for meeting withdrawal demands and regulatory requirements, making this decline a critical vulnerability. 

Curiously, cash positions reported by publicly listed banks on the PSE showed a 4.43% YoY increase, with only five of the 16 banks reporting a cash decline. This apparent contradiction prompted deeper scrutiny. (Figure 2, lower table) 

The divergence between lending and deposit growth indicates a breakdown in the money multiplier effect, where loans typically generate deposits as borrowers spend. 

Two critical factors likely driving the erosion of savings. 

First, steep competition arising from the financing crowding-out effect of government borrowing (via record deficit spending), which competes with banks and the non-financial sector for access to public savings, has been a key force in suppressing savings. 

Second, extensive debt accumulation from malinvestments in 'build-and-they-will-come' sectors further consumes savings and capital, exacerbating the decline. 

IV. Government Banks and Broader Financial Systemic Stress 

Our initial suspicion pointed to government banks (DBP and LBP) as potential sources of the cash shortfall.

Figure 3

However, BSP data revealed that liquidity pressures were widespread—not only affecting universal and commercial banks but also impacting thrift and rural-cooperative banks.  (Figure 3) 

Interestingly, these smaller banking institutions (rural-cooperative banks) displayed relatively better liquidity positions than their larger peers. 

This discrepancy could reflect differing reporting standards between disclosures to the public and to the BSP. 

Diverging indicators could also signal "benchmark-ism"—where worsening problems are obscured through embellished reporting. 

V. Mounting Liquidity Mismatches: Record Surge in Bank Borrowings and Repo Market Heats Up 

Another red flag is the record-high bank borrowing.

Figure 4

Total bank borrowings soared by 40.3% in March to an all-time high of Php 1.91 trillion. This pushed the borrowing-to-liabilities share to 7.89%—its highest level since the pandemic’s onset in March 2020. (Figure 4, topmost chart) 

The sharp rise was driven by bills payable, which skyrocketed by 65.4% in March. 

In contrast, bonds payable grew by just 4.12%. As a result, bills payable now make up 5.5% of total liabilities—almost double the 2.9% share of longer-term bonds. (Figure 4, middle image)

This asymmetry is mirrored in listed banks’ financials. Excluding BPI (which lumps bills under "other borrowed funds"), bills payable surged by 69.4% in Q1 2025 to Php 1.345 trillion. 

MBT alone reported a 214% increase to Php 608 billion—representing 45.21% of the aggregate from PSE-listed banks. 

Repo transactions also surged in March. (Figure 4, lowest diagram) 

Interbank repos hit an all-time high, while repo trades with the BSP reached the third highest level on record. This reflects increasing reliance on short-term funding mechanisms, a hallmark of tightening liquidity conditions. 

This reliance on short-term borrowing for bridge financing, while cost-effective in the near term, exposes banks to refinancing risks, particularly if interbank rates rise or market confidence falters. 

All this underscores that liquidity stress is not confined to a single quarter—it is deeply embedded in bank balance sheets. 

VI. RRR Cuts as a Lifeline, Not Stimulus, Why the Strain? Not NPLs, Not Profitability 

In hindsight, both legs or phases of the RRR cut were not preemptive monetary tools but reactive measures aimed at alleviating a growing liquidity crisis. 

Similarly, rate cuts—intended to reduce borrowing costs—only served to expose the structural weaknesses in the banking system.

Figure 5

According to the BSP, credit delinquency improved in March, with Gross and Net Non-Performing Loans (NPLs) as well as Distressed Assets showing a slight decline. (Figure 5, topmost pane) 

Indeed, the banking system posted a 10.6% YoY increase in Q1 2025 profits—better than last year’s 2.95%, but still significantly weaker than 2022–2023. It was also a deceleration from Q4’s 20.7%. 

While the profit rebound is positive, it may be artificially inflated by 'accounting acrobatics.' The slowdown relative to 2022–2023 suggests diminishing returns from lending—driven by weaker borrower demand, rising unpublished NPLs, or both.’

VII. Bank-Financial Index Bubble and Benchmark-ism: Disconnect Between Profit and Market Valuation 

Despite slowing profit growth, the PSE’s Bank dominated Financial Index continued to hit record highs in Q1 and into May 2025. This signals a disconnect between bank valuations and their actual financial or ‘fundamental’ performance. (Figure 5, middle graph) 

This growing divergence may reflect "benchmark-ism"—where inflated share prices are used to mask the sector’s internal fragilities, as previously discussed. 

Despite a sharp slowdown in revenue growth (10.37% vs. 24% in 2024), listed banks still posted a 7.5% increase in ‘accounting profits.”  (Figure 5, lowest diagram) 

In theory, profits should enhance liquidity, not diminish it—unless those profits are largely cosmetic—"benchmark-ism." 

For investors, the divergence between stock performance and fundamentals signals caution, as inflated valuations could unravel if liquidity pressures escalate. 

VIII. Financial Assets Rise, But So Do Risks; Spotlight on Held-to-Maturity Assets (HTM); Systemic Risks Amplified by Sovereign Exposure 

The rapid contraction in cash reserves cannot be fully attributed to lending, NPLs, or financial asset growth.

Figure 6

Bank financial assets (net) rose 11.8% to an all-time high of Php 7.89 trillion in March. Accumulated unrealized losses narrowed from Php 26.4 billion to Php 21.04 billion. (Figure 6, topmost chart) 

Instead, held-to-maturity (HTM) assets, primarily government securities, offer insight. 

After a period of stagnation, HTMs grew 1.7% in March—breaking the Php 4 trillion ceiling (since 2023) to reach a new high of Php 4.06 trillion. (Figure 6, middle image) 

Despite lower interest rates, banks have not pared back HTM holdings. That’s because most HTMs are composed of government securities, particularly "net claims on the central government" (NCoCG), which surged to a record Php 5.58 trillion in March. (Figure 6, lowest diagram) 

This spike aligns with the record Q1 fiscal deficit—and likely presages a similarly wide Q2 deficit.

IX. Brace for the Coming Fiscal Storm 

As we’ve consistently argued, rising sovereign risk will amplify the banking system’s fragility. 

A blowout fiscal deficit won’t just expose skeletons—such as questionable accounting practices used to inflate profits, understate NPLs, or distort share prices—it will likely push the BSP toward a more aggressive role in stabilizing the financial system. 

This intervention could have sweeping implications for financial markets and the broader economy.

Figure 7

The public and the market's complacency over the government's deteriorating fiscal position has been astonishing. 

In Q1 2025, a steep revenue decline triggered a record fiscal deficit blowout—comparable to historical first-quarter data. As a result, the deficit-to-GDP ratio surged to 7.3%, far above the government’s full-year target of 5.3% (DBCC). (Figure 7, topmost window) 

Markets have largely dismissed these data, buoyed by two ‘available bias’ heuristics: the midterm election cycle and a steady stream of official reassurances. 

Yet it is worth underscoring: the 7.3% deficit-to-GDP ratio masks the extent of dependence on deficit spending. That same deficit spending was a key driver behind Q1 2025’s 5.4% GDP growth—just as it has been in many previous quarters/years. 

Also, it is crucial to distinguish the nature of government spending and revenue: while expenditures are programmed or mandated by Congress, actual disbursements are increasingly prone to executive discretion, with breaches of the enacted budget observed over the past six straight years—symptoms of centralization of power. 

In contrast, revenues depend on both economic activity and administrative collection efforts. 

Despite a 13.6% year-on-year increase in tax revenues in Q1, this gain failed to offset the collapse in non-tax revenues, which plunged by 41.2%. This drop severely weakened the overall revenue base. 

X. Non-Tax Revenues: A High Base Hangover; Rising Risk of a Consecutive Deficit Blowout

Non-tax revenues surged by 57% in 2024, lifting their share of total collections to 13.99%—the highest since 2007’s 17.9%.  (Figure 7, second to the highest chart) 

With a long-term average of 11.7% since 2000, current levels are markedly elevated. Moreover, 2024 figures significantly exceeded the exponential trend, indicating the potential for a substantial retracement. 

While the official breakdown or targets for collection categories remain undisclosed, it is plausible that non-tax revenue targets for 2025 were benchmarked against last year’s elevated base—potentially complicating fiscal planning and exacerbating volatility in public revenue performance 

Authorities expect total revenues to reach 16.5% of GDP in 2025. Yet, in Q1, the revenue-to-GDP ratio slipped to 15.15%, reflecting the substantial shortfall in non-tax collections. 

This implies that the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and Bureau of Customs (BOC)—which posted 16.7% and 5.7% year-on-year growth respectively in Q1—would need to significantly accelerate collections to bridge the gap. 

But the Q1 data suggests that current tax growth trends are unlikely to be sufficient. 

If tax revenue growth merely holds steady—or worse, underperform—then Q1’s historic deficit may not be a one-off.  

Instead, it risks being carried into Q2, leading to a second consecutive quarter of elevated deficits.  

This would reinforce perceptions of fiscal slippage or ‘entropy’, with direct implications for financial markets, interest rates, and banking sector dynamics.  

XI. April 2025 Data as a Critical Clue of Fiscal Health  

The Bureau of the Treasury is expected to release the April 2025 National Government Cash Operations Report (COR) in the final week of May.  

Due to the shift in VAT filing from monthly to quarterly, April’s figures will be the first major test of whether tax receipts can rebound sharply enough to counterbalance the Q1 shortfall.  

April is typically one of the stronger months for collections. For instance, in January 2024, the government recorded a Php 87.95 billion surplus—the highest since 2023—following changes in the VAT reporting regime. (Figure 7, second to the lowest graph) 

To keep the 2025 full-year deficit ceiling of Php 1.54 trillion within reach, the government would need to secure multiple monthly surpluses—or at least significantly smaller deficits. 

A hypothetical Php 200 billion surplus in April would be required to partially offset Q1’s Php 478 billion fiscal gap and keep the official trajectory on track.  

XII. Aside from Deficit Spending, Escalating Risk Pressures from Trade Disruptions and Domestic Economic Slack  

However, this fiscal balancing act is made more difficult by worsening external and domestic conditions.  

The global trade slowdown—exacerbated by ongoing trade tensions and supply chain fragmentation—will likely weigh on the Philippines’ external trade. 

Meanwhile, intensifying signs of slack in the domestic economy further threaten revenue generation, especially for the BIR and BOC. 

These pressures highlight the structural reliance on debt-financed deficit spending. 

Rising fiscal shortfalls increase sovereign risk, which can ultimately be transmitted into the broader economy through multiple channels—elevated inflation or stagflation risks, weakening credit quality or credit risks, liquidity pressures in the banking system and more. 

Contagion risks may also emerge in financial markets, manifesting through a surge in the USD/Php exchange rate (currency risk), rising bond yields (currently diverging from declining ASEAN counterparts) or interest rate risk, and amplified volatility in the stock market (including related markets—market risk). (Figure 7, lowest image) 

All these factors align with—and reinforce—the deteriorating liquidity and funding conditions apparent in bank balance sheets.

The nexus between fiscal fragility and banking stress is no longer theoretical; their growing interdependence is symptomatic in slowing deposit growth, increased reliance on repo markets, and rising bank borrowing. 

XIII. Final Thought: Deepening Fiscal-Bank Interdependence Expands Contagion Risk Channels 

As fiscal risks mount, so too does the potential for cross-sectoral contagion and cascading effects. The banking system—already struggling with liquidity depletion—faces heightened exposure due to its expanding claims on sovereign securities (implicit quantitative easing). 

Again, though partially obscured, stagflationary pressures, deteriorating credit quality, and rising funding costs may converge, amplifying broader macro-financial instability. 

In short, the fiscal storm is no longer a distant threat—it is approaching fast, and its first casualties may already be visible in the cracks forming across the financial system. 

______   

Reference 

Prudent Investor, BSP’s Fourth Rate Cut: Who Benefits, and at What Cost?, April 13,2025, Substack