PSEi 30 Q3 and 9M 2025 Performance: Late-Stage Fragility Beneath the Headline Growth

 

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: 

PSEi 30 Q3 and 9M 2025 Performance: Late-Stage Fragility Beneath the Headline Growth

Part I: Cycles, Business Cycles, and Market Cycles

I.A Why Business Cycles Are Not Natural Phenomena

I.B. Credit Expansion and the Origin of Boom–Bust Cycles

I.C. Late-Cycle Fragility: Headline Resilience, Underlying Stress

I.D. Financial Fragility, Opacity, and the Bezzle

Part II: The Late Cycle in the Philippine Context: Economic and Corporate Activities

II.A.  Macro and Policy Stimulus, An Environment Built to Support Growth

II.B. The GDP Surprise—and Why It Should Not Have Been One

II.C. The PSEi 30 Aggregate: A Disquieting Divergence From GDP, The Energy Trio Distortion

II.D. The 9-Month Scorecard: The Same Story, Amplified

II.E. Cash Drain, Debt Surge, and the Minsky Turn

II.F. Concentration, Money Illusion, and Elite Financialization

II.G. Sectoral Divergences: Real Estate, Retail, Food Services

II.H. Banking Fragility: Wile E. Coyote Finance

Part III: Conclusion: Late-Cycle Fragility Exposed 

PSEi 30 Q3 and 9M 2025 Performance: Late-Stage Fragility Beneath the Headline Growth 

PSEi 30 earnings, leverage, and liquidity strains reveal a late-stage business cycle

Part I: Cycles, Business Cycles, and Market Cycles 

Cycles refer to a series of events that recur in the same order. This concept is most evident in nature: the Earth’s orbit around the sun produces the day–night cycle, while diurnal and seasonal cycles define time itself—days, weeks, months, and years. These natural rhythms shape life cycles, ecological systems, and nearly all activity on the planet.

Figure 1 

Economic activity is no exception. Economies evolve through recurring phases collectively known as the business cycle—periods of expansion, peak, slowdown, and contraction over time. Financial markets or market cycles operate within a related rhythm: accumulation (bottom), mark-up (advance or bull market), distribution (peak), and markdown (decline or bear market). 

I.A Why Business Cycles Are Not Natural Phenomena 

Mainstream economics largely treats business cycles as natural oscillations of aggregate activity. Using leading, coincident, and lagging indicators, it describes how cycles unfold—unfortunately it fails to explain why they occur in the first place: the causality. 

Yet widespread, synchronized business errors do not arise spontaneously in a market economy. Such aggregate misallocation occurs only when firms are influenced by a common external force—namely, inflationary monetary and credit policies imposed from outside the market process. 

I.B. Credit Expansion and the Origin of Boom–Bust Cycles 

As the late great dean of the Austrian School of Economics, Murray N. Rothbard explained, the business cycle is not an inherent feature of a free and unhampered market. It is generated by government-driven bank credit expansion, which artificially suppresses interest rates and induces uneconomic overinvestment—particularly in long-duration capital goods such as machinery, construction, raw materials, and industrial plant. 

As long as monetary and credit expansion continues, these distortions remain masked by the euphoria of the boom. But once credit expansion slows or stops—as it must to avoid runaway inflation—the misallocations become visible. Recession is not the disease; it is the corrective process through which the market liquidates unsound investments, realigns prices, and restores coherence between production, demand, and savings. Recovery begins only once this adjustment is completed. (see reference) 

I.C. Late-Cycle Fragility: Headline Resilience, Underlying Stress 

We have consistently argued that both the Philippine economy and its equity market have been operating in late-cycle territory—or, in market terms already within a bear-phase dynamic. 

The late stage of the business cycle is a paradoxical moment. Expansion still dominates headlines, yet the underlying machinery of growth begins to grind. 

• Profits remain visible, but margins thin.
• Credit is still available, but increasingly costly.
• Policymakers, media and the mainstream speak of resilience, while households and firms quietly absorb tightening liquidity and rising cost pressures. 

This phase is defined less by collapse than by precarious equilibrium.

• Imbalances accumulate as buffers erode.
• Asset prices may remain elevated, but market breadth narrows.
• Large firms mask stress through consolidation, transfers, and concentration strategies, while smaller players begin to falter—the periphery to the core phenomenon.
• Inventories rise, debt-service burdens increase, and policy transmission weakens. 

In such an environment, shocks—whether natural disasters, geopolitical missteps, or financial accidents—carry outsized consequences. 

For listed corporates, late-cycle fragility manifests as earnings resilience built on substitution rather than productivity: one-off gains, margin and cash-flow deterioration, rising leverage, emerging liquidity stress, asset reshuffling, narrow sector leadership, and financial engineering—often accompanied by accounting prestidigitation that substitutes for genuine growth. 

The result is a corporate landscape that appears stable on the surface yet grows increasingly brittle underneath, mirroring the broader macro paradox of headline resilience alongside systemic vulnerability. 

I.D. Financial Fragility, Opacity, and the Bezzle 

Furthermore, this stage of the cycle is often accompanied by what Hyman Minsky described as Ponzi finance, where cash flows are insufficient to service obligations without continual refinancing or asset appreciation. 

This dynamic frequently intersects with Charles Kindleberger’s politics of swindle and fraud, and John Kenneth Galbraith’s concept of the “bezzle”—the accumulation of undiscovered financial misconduct that grows during booms and is revealed only when liquidity tightens. 

Historically, major frauds tend to surface not at the height of optimism, but during the transition from boom to bust. The Enron scandal emerged as the dot-com bubble unraveled; Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme collapsed amid the 2008 Global Financial Crisis; and the COVID-19 downturn exposed widespread abuse of the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and the Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program. 

In late-cycle conditions, transparency deteriorates as economic stress rises. Firms, households, and institutions increasingly resort to opacity, accounting maneuvers, and even outright malfeasance—whether to survive, to exploit weakened oversight and abundant credit, or to preserve credit-fueled, status-driven lifestyles that become harder to maintain as conditions tighten. 

These behaviors do not cause the cycle, but they amplify fragility, accelerating the loss of confidence once the credit tide recedes. 

Part II: The Late Cycle in the Philippine Context: Economic and Corporate Activities 

II.A.  Macro and Policy Stimulus, An Environment Built to Support Growth 

Any serious economic analysis must begin with the operating environment that shaped outcomes. 

The Q3 and nine-month period coincided with what should have been the ‘sweet spot’ of monetary and fiscal support. The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) had already delivered six of its seven policy rate cuts since August 2024, alongside two reserve requirement ratio (RRR) cuts—from 9% to 5% (a cumulative 400 basis points) in September 2024 and March 2025. Deposit insurance coverage was also doubled in March 2025. 

Fiscal deficit also swelled to pandemic levels through Q3 2025. 

II.B. The GDP Surprise—and Why It Should Not Have Been One 

Despite these extraordinary supports, Q3 GDP printed a 4.0% growth rate, shocking the mainstream consensus. The slowdown came as leveraged households retrenched, exacerbated by the contraction in government construction and infrastructure outlays following the ongoing flood-control corruption scandal. (as previously discussed, see reference) 

The result was a classic late-cycle outcome: stimulus saturation met weakening transmission—the law of diminishing returns. 

II.C. The PSEi 30 Aggregate: A Disquieting Divergence From GDP, The Energy Trio Distortion 

Against this backdrop, the PSEi 30’s operating performance exposed a sharp disconnect from headline GDP.

Figure 2

• Q3 nominal GDP growth slowed from 8.6% (2024) to 4.9% (2025)
• PSEi 30 Q3 revenues decelerated more sharply, from 6.8% to 1.9%
• Q3 Net income growth collapsed from 11.6% to just 0.9% (Figure 2, upper window) 

Inflation-adjusted, earnings growth was effectively negative—a stagnation masked only by nominal accounting. 

The most consequential distortion came from the SMC–Meralco–AEV energy triangle, discussed previously. In Q3 2025, this grouping accounted for: 

• 32.2% of total PSEi 30 revenues
• 15.1% of total net income 

Yet even with that concentration, the triangle weighed down aggregate performance. Excluding the trio, PSEi 30 revenues and net income would have grown by 2.4% and 4.7%, respectively. What had boosted results in Q2 became a drag by Q3. 

Notably, Q3 PSEi 30 revenues amounted to ~28% of nominal GDP and ~32% of real GDP—a sufficiently large share that these contrasting numbers should call the 4.0% GDP print into question. 

If the largest listed firms are stagnating, aggregate output growth should have been materially lower. 

II.D. The 9-Month Scorecard: The Same Story, Amplified 

The 9M data amplifies the fragility. 

• PSEi 30 revenue growth: 8.1% (2024) → 2.07% (2025)
• Nominal GDP: 9.3% → 6.55% (Figure 2, lower image)
• PSEi 30 share of NGDP: declined from 27.9% to 26.9% 

This narrowing occurred not as a result of robust GDP, but rather due to a deeper stagnation in corporate activity and a probable overstatement of the GDP estimate. 

The energy trio accounted for 31.2% of nine-month PSEi 30 revenues, yet their aggregate sales contracted by 3.75%, dragging the index’s growth rate down.

Figure 3

Meanwhile, residue effects from prior asset transfers kept nine-month net income growth elevated at 10%, driven by a 39% earnings surge from the trio. (Figure 3, upper chart) 

Ex-trio earnings growth was a far weaker 5.32%. 

This is earnings growth without economic growth—a hallmark of late-cycle accounting inflation that likely also bleeds into GDP measurement. 

II.E. Cash Drain, Debt Surge, and the Minsky Turn 

One of the most revealing features of the nine-month data is liquidity erosion. 

Aggregate PSEi 30 cash balances fell 1.72%, the third consecutive nine-month decline, reaching the lowest level since 2021. (Figure 3, lower diagram) 

In contrast, the energy trio’s cash rose 22.8%, accounting for 36.2% of total cash holdings.

Figure 4

Sixteen of thirty firms recorded cash contractions averaging 11.7%. (Figure 4, upper table) 

At the same time, non-bank PSEi 30 debt rose by Php 603.15 billion—the second-largest nine-month increase since 2020, lifting total debt to a record Php 5.98 trillion 

Even with caveats: (as previously discussed) 

• This debt equals 16.8% of total Philippine financial system assets.
• It represents ~29.7% of nine-month nominal GDP.
• The increase alone accounted for ~75% of nominal GDP growth over the same period. 

Furthermore, the PSEi 30’s cash-to-debt ratio declined to its lowest level since at least 2020, thereby diminishing firms’ financial buffers against potential shocks. (Figure 4, lower visual) 

Worse, not all cash is liquid, and certain firms increasingly reclassify debt into lease liabilities or off-balance-sheet obligations. 

This is textbook Minsky drift: speculative finance sliding into Ponzi structures, with firms plugging liquidity gaps through refinancing rather than genuine cash generation. 

II.F. Concentration, Money Illusion, and Elite Financialization 

Financial and economic concentration has accelerated sharply. 

Six issuers (SMC, AC, SM, LTG, SMPH, JGS) control 55% of non-bank net assets. 

Including the four major banks (BDO, BPI, MBT, CBC), concentration rises to ~75% of total PSEi 30 assets. 

This centralization mirrors the broader financial system, where banks now account for 83.2% of total financial resources, confirming deepening financialization. 

II.G. Sectoral Divergences: Real Estate, Retail, Food Services 

Real Estate: Top 4 developers posted only 1.2% revenue growth in Q3, vs. official GDP prints of +6.8% nominal and +4.7% real. Inflation-adjusted revenues imply contraction. (see previous discussion)

Figure 5

Retail: Top 6 non-construction chains slowed to 3.7% growth—the weakest since Q3 2021. SM Retail stagnated at +0.9% despite new malls. Official retail nGDP (+6.3%) diverged sharply from corporate reality. (Figure 5, topmost graph) 

Food Services: Jollibee, Shakey’s, and Max’s slowed from 9.7% to 3.6%. Jollibee’s domestic sales growth plunged from 10.1% to 4.3%. Official food services GDP barely eased (+8.95%), again overstating resilience. (Figure 5, middle image) 

All this occurred amid store expansion, record consumer credit, and near-full employment—a stark contradiction of the official GDP narrative. 

Yet, cases like Meralco illustrate the money illusion: rising revenues alongside shrinking physical volumes, translating to regulatory-driven profit inflation—a concealed stagflation dynamic rather than real demand growth. (see previous discussion in reference) 

The divergence between PSEi 30 performance and household-spending GDP highlights a growing gap between market realities and official statistics. 

Even within the GDP figures, slowing household-spending growth coincides with rising government expenditure—an indication/symptom of the crowding-out effect. (Figure 5, lowest chart) 

Taken together, these discrepancies suggest inflated official output measures and weakening household consumption despite ongoing stimulus. 

Needless to say, corporate stagnation alongside reported GDP resilience increasingly looks like statistical gaslighting. 

II.H. Banking Fragility: Wile E. Coyote Finance

Figure 6

Banks have become the lifeblood of the economy, taking up an ever-larger share of the national accounts since 2000—a trend that has accelerated even as GDP growth weakens. (Figure 6, upper image) 

The slowing economy is reflected in the PSEi 30’s four major banks: their combined bottom line fell from 5.7% in Q2 to 3.3% in Q3. 

Meanwhile, the banking system’s operating income slid from 12.2% to 7.1%, even as provisions surged 539%. 

The historically tight correlation between GDP and bank operating income (2015–2022) has broken down since the BSP’s unprecedented rescue of the industry. (Figure 6, lower diagram) 

Banks are now running what can only be described as Wile E. Coyote operations: rapidly issuing loans to mask rising delinquencies, while expanding speculative and politically exposed positions (AFS and HTM assets) even as liquidity drains. (see previous discussion, references) 

Once they pull back to preserve balance sheets—restricting credit, reducing speculation, or offloading government securities—the façade of financialization will collapse, bailout or no bailout from the BSP. 

Part III: Conclusion: Late-Cycle Fragility Exposed 

Slowing revenues, weakening consumers, deepening leverage, escalating profit pressures, intensifying liquidity strains, rising opacity, accounting-driven inflation, entrenching concentration, and eroding banking and easy money+ fiscal policy transmissions are not isolated developments. Together, they form a textbook late-cycle configuration. 

The Philippine economy and its corporates illustrate precarious equilibrium. GDP prints still narrate strength, but the PSEi 30 reveals deepening fragility: profits masking stress, cash drained, debt piled, and incentives for malfeasance rising. 

This is the anatomy of late-cycle fragility—headline resilience concealing systemic vulnerability. 

---

Murray N. Rothbard Economic Controversies p. 236-237 2011 Ludwig von Mises Institute, Mises.org 

Prudent Investor Newsletter, Inside the SMC–Meralco–AEV Energy Deal: Asset Transfers That Mask a Systemic Fragility Loop, Substack, November 23, 2025 

Prudent Investor Newsletter, The Philippine Q3 2025 “4.0% GDP Shock” That Wasn’t, Substack, November 16, 2025 

Prudent Investor Newsletter, When Free Lunch Politics Meets Fiscal Reality: Lessons from the DPWH Flood Control Scandal, Substack, September 07, 2025 

Prudent Investor Newsletter, Minsky's Fragility Cycle Meets Wile E. Coyote: The Philippine Banking System’s Velocity Trap, Substack, September 14, 2025

The Philippine Q3 2025 “4.0% GDP Shock” That Wasn’t

 

There is enormous inertia — a tyranny of the status quo — in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable—Milton Friedman  

In this issue

The Philippine Q3 2025 “4.0% GDP Shock” That Wasn’t

I. Q3 GDP Shock: A Collapse Few Saw Coming; The Loose Cauldron of Policy Support

II. Why Then the Surprise?

III. The Echo Chamber: Forecasting as Optimism Theater

IV. Statistics ≠ Economics: The Public’s Misguided Faith

V. Ground Truth: SEVN as a Proxy — Retail Reality vs. GDP Fiction

VI. The Consumer Slump is Structural, Not Episodic; Hunger as a Better Predictor; CPI Is Not the Whole Story

VII. So What Happened to Q3 GDP?

VIII. Household Per Capita: The Downtrend

IX. The Real Q3 2025 GDP Story: Consumer Slowdown

X. Government Spending Didn’t Collapse — It Held Up Amid Scandal; Public Construction Implosion

XI. External Sector: Trump Tariffs’ Exports Front-Loaded, Imports Slowing

XII. Corruption Is the Symptom; Policy Induced Malinvestment Is the Disease

XIII. Increasing Influence of Public Spending in the Economy

XIV. Crowding Out, Malinvestment, and the Debt Time Bomb

XV. Statistical Mirage: Base Effects and the GDP Deflator

XVI. Testing Support: Fragility in the Data, Institutional Silence

XVII. Overstating GDP via Understating the CPI

XVIII. Real Estate as a Case Study: GDP vs. Corporate Reality

XIX. Calamities and GDP: Human Tragedy vs. Statistical Resilience

XX. Calamities as a Convenient Political Explanation and Bastiat’s Broken Window Fallacy

XXI. Expanding Marcos-nomics: State of Calamity as Fiscal Stimulus

XXII. More Easing? The Rate-Cut Expectations Game

XXIII. A Fiscal Shock in the Making, Black Swan Dynamics

XXIV. Conclusion: Crisis as the Only Reform 

The Philippine Q3 2025 “4.0% GDP Shock” That Wasn’t 

Behind the typhoon-and-scandal headlines lies the real story: a shocked consensus, overstated aggregates, expanded stimulus, and a political economy running on malinvestment.

I. Q3 GDP Shock: A Collapse Few Saw Coming; The Loose Cauldron of Policy Support 

The Philippine government announced that Q3 GDP growth slumped to a mere 4%, the slowest pace since the pandemic recession. This came as a ‘shock’ to mainstream forecasters, who had projected a modest deceleration—not a plunge. 

Statistics must never be viewed in isolation. This GDP print must be seen in context. Q3 unfolded amid a deepening BSP easing cycle—six rate cuts (with a seventh in October or Q4), two RRR reductions, and a doubling of deposit insurance coverage. 

This stimulus-driven environment was reinforced by all-time-high bank lending, particularly in consumer credit, even as employment—though slightly weaker—remained near full employment levels. 

In short, Q3 growth occurred under the most accommodative financial and fiscal conditions in years—a cauldron of policy backstops. 

II. Why Then the Surprise? 

Forecasting errors were not only widespread—they were flagrant. 

Reuters called the result “shocking,” citing a corruption scandal linked to infrastructure projects that hammered both consumer and investor confidence. The report noted that growth came in “well below the 5.2% forecast in a Reuters poll and significantly weaker than the 5.5% expansion in the previous quarter.” 

BusinessWorld’s survey of 18 economists yielded a median forecast of 5.3%.

Philstar’s poll of six economists projected 5.45%, barely below Q2’s 5.5%. 

A 50-bps drop was labeled a ‘slowdown’? Really? 

That’s not analysis—it’s narrative management. 

Why such a brazen forecasting error? 

III. The Echo Chamber: Forecasting as Optimism Theater 

The DBM chief claimed that Q4 growth would “normalize,” insisting that the 5.5–6.5% full-year target “remains attainable.” 

Implicit in that projection was a soft but stable Q3—a forecast that proved disastrously optimistic. 

This consensus blindness mirrors past failures: the Q1 2020 COVID shock and the 2022 inflation spike. 

This isn’t ideological—it’s institutional. Forecasts aren’t tools for analysis; they are marketing vehicles for official optimism. Economic statistics are not used to diagnose, but to promote and reassure. 

Hence the futility of “pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey” forecasting: a guessing game played on deeply flawed metrics. 

IV. Statistics ≠ Economics: The Public’s Misguided Faith 

Statistics is NOT economics. 

Despite repeated misses, the public continues to cling to mainstream forecasts. They fail to see the incentive mismatch—institutions seek fees, commissions, and access, while individuals seek returns. 

Agency problems, asymmetric information, and lack of skin in the game define this relationship—core realities that mainstream commentary refuses to admit. 

V. Ground Truth: SEVN as a Proxy — Retail Reality vs. GDP Fiction

Figure 1 

Take Philippine Seven Corp. [PSE: SEVN]. In Q3: 

• Revenue rose just 3.8% YoY, its weakest since Q1 2021.
• Same-store sales contracted 3.9%, the worst since the pandemic.
• Store count rose 8.6%, yet total sales fell—signaling demand erosion. 

This downtrend, persisting since 2022, mirrors the slowdown in real retail and household consumption GDP, which posted 5.1% and 4.09% in Q3, respectively. (Figure 1, topmost and middle windows) 

Yet the gap between SEVN’s data and official GDP implies potential overestimation in national accounts. 

If major retail chains show a sustained slowdown or outright contraction, then headline consumption growth of 4–5% either overstates economic reality—or implies that GDP should be even weaker than reported. 

These trend declines offer a structural lens into the economy’s underlying deterioration. 

VI. The Consumer Slump is Structural, Not Episodic; Hunger as a Better Predictor; CPI Is Not the Whole Story

The consumer slowdown did not emerge from the corruption scandal or recent natural calamities (earthquakes and typhoons)—it preceded both. The underlying weakness has long been visible to anyone looking beyond the official narrative. 

While economists missed the turn, sentiment data didn’t. 

The SWS hunger survey—a proxy for household stress—proved a far better leading indicator. Its late-September spike revealed deepening hardship among lower- and middle-income Filipinos—mirroring the Q3 GDP plunge. (Figure 1, lowest graph) 

Like SEVN’s revenue and the deceleration in consumption and retail GDP, hunger is not an anomaly—it’s a trend. One that has persisted since the pandemic and now appears to be accelerating.

Figure 2

With CPI steady at 1.4% for two consecutive quarters—assuming the number’s accuracy—the malaise clearly extends beyond price pressures. 

The hunger dilemma reflects deeper economic deterioration: slowing jobs, stagnant wages, weak investments, falling earnings, declining productivity, and eroding savings. (Figure 2, topmost image) 

This is the institutional blind spot—prioritizing political and commercial relationships over truth. 

VII. So What Happened to Q3 GDP? 

Aside from back-to-back typhoons, officials attributed the unexpected slowdown to concerns over the integrity of public spending and further erosion of investor sentiment. 

And it was not just investors. According to Philstar, the DEPDEV (Department of Economy, Planning, and Development) chief said consumer confidence has also been hit by the flood control probes, with many households postponing planned purchases. 

But unless there has been a call for nationwide civil disobedience (à la Gandhi or Etienne de La Boétie), why should people’s daily consumption habits suddenly be affected by politics? 

The reality is more complex. Universal commercial banks’ household loan portfolios surged 23.5% in Q3 2025—marking the 13th consecutive quarter of 20%+ growth. If households weren’t spending, what were they doing with interest-bearing loans? Investing? Speculating? Or simply refinancing old debt? (Figure 2, middle chart) 

VIII. Household Per Capita: The Downtrend 

Meanwhile, real household per capita consumption grew just 3.2%, its lowest since the BSP-sponsored recovery in Q2 2021. This wasn’t an anomaly—it reflected a downtrend in household spending growth since Q1 2022. (Figure 2, lowest visual) 

In short, the corruption scandal was not the root cause but an aggravating circumstance layered atop an existing structural slowdown. 

IX. The Real Q3 2025 GDP Story: Consumer Slowdown

Let us look at the real Q3 2025 expenditure trend, and how it compares with recent periods. 

Q3 2025 (4% GDP):

• Household spending: +4.1%
• Government spending: +5.8%
• Construction spending: –0.5%
• Gross capital formation: –2.8%
•  Exports: +7%
• Imports: +2.6%

Q2 2025 (5.5% GDP): 

• Household spending: +5.3%
•  Government spending: +8.7%
• Capital formation: +1.2%
• Construction: +0.9%
• Exports and imports: +4.7%, +3.5%

Q3 2024 (5.2% GDP): 

• Household spending: +5.2% 
• Government spending: +5%
• Capital formation: +12.8%
• Construction: +9%
• Exports and imports: –1.3%, +6.5%

X. Government Spending Didn’t Collapse — It Held Up Amid Scandal; Public Construction Implosion 

Despite the corruption scandal, government consumption remained positive and was even higher in Q3 2025 than in Q3 2024. This alone undermines the narrative that the GDP slump was simply "sentiment shock."

Figure 3

Government construction plummeted 26.6%, matching the pandemic lockdown era of Q3 2020. This single line item pulled construction GDP into a mild –0.5% decline. (Figure 3, topmost pane) 

But buried beneath the headline, private construction was strong:

• Private corporate construction: +14.4%
• Household construction: +13.3%

These robust figures cushioned the damage from the government crash.

Absent private-sector strength, construction GDP would have mirrored the government collapse. 

Government construction also contracted –8.2% in Q2, reflecting procurement restrictions during the midterm election ban. 

As we already noted last September: (bold original) 

"Many large firms are structurally tied to public projects, and the economy’s current momentum leans heavily on credit-fueled activity rather than organic productivity."

"Curtailing infrastructure outlays, even temporarily, risks puncturing GDP optics and exposing the private sector’s underlying weakness." 

The Q3 data has now validated this. 

A large network of sectors tied to public works absorbed the first-round impact—and that ‘shock’ bled into already stressed consumers. 

XI. External Sector: Trump Tariffs’ Exports Front-Loaded, Imports Slowing 

Exports rose +7% in Q3 2025, boosted by front-loading ahead of Trump tariffs. 

Imports slowed to +2.6%, the weakest pace in recent periods, reflecting consumer retrenchment. 

This divergence highlights how external momentum was artificially timed, while domestic demand faltered.

XII. Corruption Is the Symptom; Policy Induced Malinvestment Is the Disease

The controversial flood control scandal represents the visible tip of a much deeper corruption iceberg. It is not the anomaly—it is the artifact. 

Political power is, at its core, about monopoly. 

In the Philippines, political dynasties are merely its institutional symptom. The deeper question is: what incentives drive politicians to cling to power, and how do they sustain it? 

Public service often serves as a facade for the real intent: access to political-economic rents, impunity, and the machinery of patronage. Through electoral engineering—name recall, direct and indirect (policy-based) vote-buying, and bureaucratic capture—politicians commodify entitlement, turning public goods into tradable favors.

Dependency is weaponized or transformed into political capital, politicizing people’s basic needs to secure loyalty, votes, and tenure. 

Poverty becomes leverage. 

This erodes the civic ethic of self-reliance and responsibility, and it traps constituents—who participate out of a survival calculus—into legitimizing dynastic monopolies. 

This free-lunch electoral process, built on deepening dependence on ever-growing public funds, represents the social-democratic architecture of a political economy of control, centralization, and extraction—one that incentivizes corruption not as an aberration but as a structural outcome of concentrated power. 

XIII. Increasing Influence of Public Spending in the Economy 

Direct public spending reached 16.1% of 9M 2025 real GDP—the second highest on record after the 2021 lockdown recession.  (Figure 3, middle diagram) 

This figure excludes government construction outlays and the spending of private firms reliant on state contracts and agency revenues, such as PPPs, suppliers, outsourcing, etc. 

In this context, corruption is not merely a moral failure but a symptom of structural defects in the political-economic electoral process, reinforced by the misdirection of resources and finances, which signifies chronic systemic malinvestment. 

GDP metrics mask political decay, economic erosion, and institutional fragility. 

Yet even with statistical concealment, the entropy is visible. 

XIV. Crowding Out, Malinvestment, and the Debt Time Bomb 

The ever-rising share of public spending has coincided with a slowdown in GDP growth. Public outlays now prop up output, while pandemic-level deficits have shrunk the consumer share of GDP. (Figure 3, lowest graph) 

Crowding-out effects, combined with “build-and-they-will-come” malinvestments, have drained savings and forced greater reliance on leverage—weakening real consumption.

Figure 4 

Most alarming, nominal public debt rose Php 1.56 trillion YoY in September, equivalent to 126% of the Php 1.237 trillion increase in nominal GDP over the same period. 126%! (Figure 4, topmost visual) 

As a result, 2025 public debt-to-GDP surged to 65.11%—the highest since 2006. (Figure 4, middle graph) 

Needless to say, Corruption is what we see; malinvestment is what drives the crisis path. 

XV. Statistical Mirage: Base Effects and the GDP Deflator 

Yet, the “shocking” Q3 GDP overstates its actual rate. 

Because the headline GDP growth rate is derived from statistical base effects, almost no analyst examines the underlying price base, which is the most critical determinant of real GDP. The focus is always on the percentage change—never on the structural level from which the change is computed. 

For years, the consensus has touted the goal of “upper middle income status,” equating progress with high GDP numbers. 

But whatever outcome they anticipate, the PSA’s nominal and real GDP price base trends have consistently defied expectations. (Figure 4, lowest chart) 

The primary trend line was violated during the pandemic recession and replaced by a weaker secondary trend line. Statistically, this guarantees that base-effect growth will be slower than what the original trajectory implied. 

The economy is no longer expanding along its pre-pandemic path; it is merely oscillating below it. 

XVI. Testing Support: Fragility in the Data, Institutional Silence 

Recent GDP prints have repeatedly tested support levels. The risk is not an upside breakout but a downside violation—the path consistent with a recession.   

Q3 GDP brought both the nominal and real price base to the brink of its crucial support. A further slowdown could trigger its incursion. 

Yet you hear none of this discussed—despite all this coming straight from government data. 

The silence underscores a broader indictment: statistics are deployed as optimism theater, not as diagnostic tools. 

XVII. Overstating GDP via Understating the CPI 

And this brings us to a deeper issue that amplifies the problem. 

Real GDP is computed by dividing nominal GDP by the implicit GDP deflator. For the personal consumption component, the PSA uses CPI-based price indices to adjust nominal household spending.

Figure 5

The implicit price index is technically the GDP deflator. (Figure 5, topmost diagram) 

If CPI becomes distorted by widespread price interventions—such as MSRPs, the Php 20-rice rollout, or palay price floors—its measured inflation rate can diverge from actual market conditions. 

Any downward bias in CPI would mechanically lower the corresponding deflators used in the national accounts. 

A lower deflator raises the computed real GDP. 

Thus, even without access to PSA’s internal methodology, the basic statistical relationship still holds: systematic price suppression in CPI-tracked goods would tend to understate the deflator and, in turn, overstate real GDP. 

As noted in our August post: (bold & italics original) 

"Repressing CPI to pad GDP isn’t stewardship—it’s pantomine. A calculated communication strategy designed to preserve public confidence through statistical theater.  

"Within this top-down, social-democratic Keynesian spending framework, the objective is unmistakable: Cheap access to household savings to bankroll political vanity projects. These are the hallmarks of free lunch politics.  

"The illusion of growth props up the illusion of competence. And both are running on borrowed time.  

XVIII. Real Estate as a Case Study: GDP vs. Corporate Reality 

The GDP headline may be overstating growth due to deviations in calculation assumptions or outright political agenda— what I call as "benchmark-ism." 

Consider the revenues of the Top 4 listed developers—SM Prime, Ayala Land, Megaworld, and Robinsons Land. 

Despite abundant bank credit flowing to both supply and demand sides, their aggregate revenues increased only 1.16% in Q3 2025, barely above Q2’s 1.1%. This mirrors the slowing consumer growth trend: since peaking in Q2 2021, revenue growth rates have been steadily declining, leading to the current stagnation. The slowdown also coincides with rising vacancies. Reported revenues may still be overstated, given that the industry faces slowing cash reserves alongside record debt levels. 

Meanwhile, official GDP prints show:

• Real estate nominal GDP: +6.8%
• Real estate real GDP: +4.7% 

Yet inflation-adjusted revenues for the Top 4 translate to zero growth—or contraction. 

Their revenues accounted for 26.4% of nominal real estate GDP in Q3 2025. Real estate’s share of national GDP was 6.2% nominal, 6% real. (Figure 5 middle image) 

This gap between corporate revenues and GDP aggregates suggests statistical inflation of output. 

This highlights a broader point: The industry’s CPI barely explains the wide divergence between revenues and GDP. And this is just one sector. 

Comparing listed company performance with GDP aggregates exposes the disconnect between macro statistics and micro realities, not just episodic shocks—a motif that recurs across retail, consumption, and sentiment indicators. 

Yet, natural calamities—especially typhoons—are often blamed, but their impact on national output is minimal—much like the weak revenue trends, the real slowdown lies deeper than headline statistics suggest. 

XIX. Calamities and GDP: Human Tragedy vs. Statistical Resilience

Despite public perception, the Philippine economy has been structurally resilient to typhoon disruptions—not because disasters are mild, but because GDP barely registers them. 

In Q3 2025, ten tropical cyclones passed through or enhanced the monsoon system, with the July cluster (Crising, Dante, Emong + Habagat) causing an estimated Php 21.3 billion in officially reported damages and the September cluster (Nando/Ragasa, Bualoi/Ompong + Habagat) adding another Php 1.9 billion in infrastructure and agricultural losses. 

The combined Php 23.1 billion destruction sounds enormous, but in macroeconomic terms it is equal to just 0.37% of quarterly nominal GDP. 

This pattern is consistent with past experience: Yolanda (Q4 2013, 5.4%), Odette (Q4 2021, 7.9%), Ompong (Q3 2018, 6.1%), Pablo (Q4 2012, 7.8%), and Glenda (Q3 2014, 5.9%) all inflicted large localized damage yet barely dented national output. (Figure 5, Table) 

The reason is structural: GDP is weighted toward services and urban economic activity, while disasters strike geographically narrow areas. Catastrophic in human terms, typhoons seldom materially affect national accounts. 

The Q3 2025 storms fit the same pattern: human tragedy, fiscal strain, and regional losses—but minimal macroeconomic imprint. Resilience in the data conceals suffering on the ground, because GDP measures transactions, not destroyed livelihoods. 

XX. Calamities as a Convenient Political Explanation and Bastiat’s Broken Window Fallacy 

Given this historical consistency, attributing the Q3 slowdown to typhoons is politically convenient but analytically weak. It reflects self-attribution bias—positive outcomes are claimed as accomplishments, negative ones pinned on exogenous forces. 

GDP simply does not respond to weather shocks of this scale. At most, calamities intensify pre-existing consumption weakness rather than create it. They add entropy to a deteriorating trend; they do not determine it. 

The same applies to earthquakes. The deadly July 1990 Luzon earthquake claimed over 1,600 lives and caused Php 10 billion in damage, yet Q3 1990 GDP posted +3.7% growth. The slowdown that followed led to a technical recession in Q2 (-1.1%) and Q3 1991 (-1.9%), driven more by political crisis (coup attempts, post-EDSA transition) and the US recession (July 1990–March 1991) than by the quake itself. 

Recovery spending from calamities gets factored into GDP, but as Frédéric Bastiat taught us, this is the broken window fallacy—a diversion of resources, not genuine growth. 

XXI. Expanding Marcos-nomics: State of Calamity as Fiscal Stimulus 

The administration has relied on this same narrative today. 

The cited calamities—Typhoon Tino and Uwan, plus the Cebu and Davao earthquakes—occurred in Q4 2025. These events contributed to entropic consumer conditions but did not create them. 

But their political and bureaucratic timing proved useful. 

Authorities tightened the national price freeze a day before the USD/PHP broke 59 (see reference discussion on the USDPHP breakout) 

Typhoon Tino, followed by Uwan, justified declaring a State of Nationwide Calamity for one year—the longest fixed-term declaration in Philippine history. (By comparison, the COVID-era State of Calamity lasted 2.5 years due to repeated extensions.) 

This one-year window: 

• Reinforces the price freeze, aggravating distortions.
• Enables liberalized public spending under relief and rehabilitation cover.
• Allows budget realignments, procurement exemptions (RA 9184 Sec. 53[b]), calamity/QRF access, and inter-agency mobilization (RA 10121). 

In effect, the national calamity declaration acts as a workaround to the spending constraints imposed by the flood-control corruption scandal. It restores fiscal maneuvering room under the guise of emergency relief and rehabilitation. 

This is emergency Marcos-nomics, designed to lift headline GDP via public-sector outlays—on top of pandemic-level deficits, easy-money liquidity, and the FX soft-peg regime. 

XXII. More Easing? The Rate-Cut Expectations Game 

Layered onto this is the growing consensus expectation of a jumbo BSP rate cut in November. One must ask: 

• Are establishment institutions applying indirect pressure on the BSP?
• Or is the BSP conditioning the public for an outsized cut to stem a crisis of confidence? 

Both interpretations are possible—and neither signals macro-stability. 

Meanwhile, supermarkets warn that “noche buena” food items may rise due to relief-driven demand—a symptom of distortions. 

This is the predictable byproduct of a price-freeze regime: shortages, hoarding, cost-pass-through, and black-market substitution.

XXIII. A Fiscal Shock in the Making, Black Swan Dynamics 

At worst, emergency stimulus during a slowdown widens the deficit and accelerates fiscal deterioration—pushing the economy toward the fiscal shock we warned about in June: 

"Unless authorities rein in spending—which would drag GDP, risking a recession—a fiscal shock could emerge as early as 2H 2025 or by 2026.  

"If so, expect magnified volatility across stocks, bonds, and the USDPHP exchange rate."

Figure 6 

Market behavior is already signaling intensifying stress: the USDPHP and the PSE remain under pressure despite repeated rescue efforts. (Figure 6) 

XXIV. Conclusion: Crisis as the Only Reform 

A political-economic crisis—a black swan event—doesn’t happen when expected. It occurs because almost everyone is in entrenched denial and complacency, blinded by past resilience. Like substance abuse, they believe unsustainable events can extend indefinitely: It hasn’t happened, so it won’t (appeal to ignorance). 

But history gives us a blueprint: 

economic strains → political tensions → revolution/reforms

• EDSA I followed the 1983 debt crisis.
• EDSA II followed the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis.

Economic strains were visible even before the flood-control scandal. This is Kindleberger’s and Minsky’s late-cycle phase: swindles/fraud/deflacation emerge when liquidity thins, growth slows, tenuous relationships and political coalitions fracture. 

More improprieties—public and private—will surface as slowing growth exposes hidden malfeasance, nonfeasance, and misfeasance. 

The sunk-cost architecture of vested interests, built on free-lunch trickle-down policies, points to a grand finale: either EDSA 3.0 or a putsch. 

A crisis, not politics, will force change. 

To repeat our conclusion last October, 

In the end, because both political and economic structures are ideological and self-reinforcing, reform from within is improbable.  

The deepening economic and financial imbalances will not resolve through policy, but will ventilate through a crisis—again the lessons of the post-1983 debt restructuring of EDSA I and the post-Asian Financial Crisis of EDSA II.  

____

References

Prudent Investor Newsletter, When Free Lunch Politics Meets Fiscal Reality: Lessons from the DPWH Flood Control Scandal, Substack, September 07, 2025 

Prudent Investor Newsletter, The 5.5% Q2 GDP Mirage: How Debt-Fueled Deficit Spending Masks a Slowing Economy, Substack, August 10, 2025 

Prudent Investor Newsletter, Is the Philippines on the Brink of a 2025 Fiscal Shock? Substack, June 08, 2025

Prudent Investor Newsletter, The Political Economy of Corruption: How Social Democracy Became the Engine of Decay, Substack, October 26, 2025 

Prudent Investor Newsletter, The USD-PHP Breaks 59: BSP’s Soft Peg Unravels, Exposing Economic Fragility, Substack, November 02, 2025