Why the PSE Failed in 2025: Engineered Markets and Broken Policy Transmission

 

An economist is an expert who will know tomorrow why the things he predicted yesterday didn't happen today—Laurence J. Peter 

Wishing you an exciting 2026: record highs, easy money, and all the risks that come with it. 

In this issue: 

Why the PSE Failed in 2025: Engineered Markets and Broken Policy Transmission

I. The Echo Chamber of Optimism

II. Institutional Conflicts of Interest: Agency Problem and the Information Asymmetry

III. Global Euphoria vs. Local Fragility: A Market That Failed to Respond—Despite Every Attempt to Boost It

IV. Engineered Rallies and the BSP’s Easing Cycle Elixir

V. Mounting Concentration Risk and the ICTSI Distortion

VI. Foreign Selling, CMEPA, and the Gaming Bubble

VII. From Equities to Energy: Bailouts Without Calling Them Bailouts

VIII. A Lone Divergence: Mining and the War Economy

IX. The Philippine Treasury Market Confirms the Diagnosis

X. Conclusion: When Policy Loses Its Grip

XI. Epilogue: The Façade of January Effects 

Why the PSE Failed in 2025: Engineered Markets and Broken Policy Transmission 

Why the PSEi 30 underperformed despite rate cuts, engineered rallies, and unprecedented policy support 

I. The Echo Chamber of Optimism

Figure 1

Does the public even remember the barrage of starry-eyed headlines and sanguine projections that dominated discourse from late-2024 through 2025? (Figure 1) 

From Goldman Sachs’ overweight upgrade on Philippine equities (November 2024), to the relentless amplification of projected PSEi 30 returns by the mainstream echo chamber, to a business media outfit hosting a Pollyannish stock market outlook forum in February 2025, optimism was not merely expressed—it was drilled into the public consciousness. 

Strangely, at the forum, Warren Buffett’s aphorism—“be greedy when everybody is fearful”—was cited ironically at a time when virtually every expert was advocating optimism. Even “cautious optimism” emerged as the most defensive stance. 

All told, media and institutional narratives throughout 2025 projected rising equities anchored on a strengthening GDP—an assumption that would soon have the rug pulled out from under it.

Figure 2

In hindsight, the establishment’s posture resembled a classic denial phase in a deflating PSEi 30 bubble cycle. (Figure 2)

II. Institutional Conflicts of Interest: Agency Problem and the Information Asymmetry 

The fundamental problem lies in the structural conflicts of interest between financial institutions and the investing public. 

This dilemma reflects classic agency problem and asymmetric information. The objectives of buy- and sell-side institutions—fees, commissions, deal flow—diverge materially from those of retail investors seeking risk-adjusted returns. 

As a result, sales pitches camouflaged as institutional research or news are designed to attract savings/capital, not to interrogate risk–reward tradeoffs. The information disseminated to the public is therefore shrouded in adverse selection and biased framing. 

Despite serious unintended consequences from excessive interventions—easy money distortions, fiscal crowding-out, regulatory interference, capital controls, bailouts, and capital-market price manipulation—this savings-depleting dynamic receives scant acknowledgment. 

III. Global Euphoria vs. Local Fragility: A Market That Failed to Respond—Despite Every Attempt to Boost It 

There is also little recognition that the Philippine Stock Exchange has vastly underperformed, despite extraordinary efforts to support it.

Figure 3 

As global central banks embarked on a historic easing campaign and global equities posted a third consecutive year of double-digit gains, the PSEi 30 closed 2025 as the second-worst performer in Asia, ahead of only Thailand. (Figure 3, topmost pane) 

Of 19 national bourses tracked by Bloomberg, 16 ended the year higher, averaging a striking 19.22% return—led by South Korea, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam. The Philippines, alongside Bangladesh and Thailand, stood out as an underperforming outlier. (Figure 3, middle graph) 

This flagrant underperformance—despite substantial engineered pumps in Q4—laid bare the market’s internal fragilities. 

IV. Engineered Rallies and the BSP’s Easing Cycle Elixir 

In December, a series of price-distorting late-session “afternoon delight” and pre-closing “rescue pumps” lifted the PSEi 30 by 0.51% MoM. 

These were concentrated in banks and property stocks, echoing the mainstream narrative that rate cuts should disproportionately benefit them. (Figure 3, lowest table) 

Additional support came from ICTSI, following its powerful October–November advance. Although the rally peaked on December 12 before a mild pullback, ICT’s surge drove the services sector up 10.5% and lifted the headline index by 1.67% in Q4.

Figure 4

For context, the BSP’s first rate cut in August 2024 was initially sold as an elixir, propelling the PSEi 30 up by a remarkable 13.4% in Q3 2024. Yet a surprise weak Q3 2024 GDP print (+5.2%) triggered a sharp reversal: –10.23% in Q4 2024 and –5.33% in Q1 2025. After another significant setback in Q3 2025 (–6.46%), the index fell –4.9% in 2H 2025. (Figure 4, topmost window) 

Despite repeated interventions, the PSEi 30 closed 2025 down 7.29%. 

V. Mounting Concentration Risk and the ICTSI Distortion 

Since peaking in 2018, the PSEi 30 has recorded six negative return years out of the last eight—an unmistakable sign of a debt-trapped, late-cycle economy. (Figure 5, middle chart) 

The index’s internals underscore this bearish backdrop: 24 of 30 constituents ended 2025 in the red, averaging a –6.87% decline. (Figure 4, lowest image)

Figure 5

Yet again, ICTSI—the PSE’s largest market-cap stock—nearly single-handedly prevented a deeper collapse. Its 46.9% full-year gain pushed its free-float weight to a record 17.8% in mid-December, ending the year at 16.5%. (Figure 5, topmost diagram) 

Consequently, the combined free-float weight of the top 5 heavyweights to a record 53% but closed at 52.16% still proximate to an all-time high. (Figure 5, second to the highest visual) 

Adjusted for the peso’s 1.6% YoY depreciation to a record low, the PSEi 30 fell 8.78% in USD terms—its seventh year of decline since 2017. (Figure 5, second to the lowest image) 

The dollar index DXY fell by about 9.6% in 2025. 

VI. Foreign Selling, CMEPA, and the Gaming Bubble 

The broader PSE fared no better. Outside a handful of names, most issues declined and market internals remained weak. (Figure 5, lowest chart) 

While synchronized “national team” pumping supported headline levels, it was largely offset by persistent foreign selling—a dominant force since 2018.

Figure 6 

Foreign participation rose to 49.18% of gross volume in 2025, the highest since 2021. (Figure 6, topmost window) 

That said, under globalization and financialization, “foreign selling” does not necessarily imply foreign fund liquidation. Many elite-owned firms operate through offshore vehicles and could be part of the ‘foreign’ trading activities. 

In the meantime, gross and main board volume (MBV) rose 14.64% and 19.13% in 2025, but most of this activity peaked around the CMEPA rollout in July and slowed materially thereafter. Ironically, the capital-consumption effects of the law generated unintended consequences: asset bubbles, negative returns, and corroding liquidity. (Figure 6 middle image) 

For example, as the government cracked down on digital gambling, the PLUS gaming bubble accounted for a staggering 11.65% of main board volume in Q3 2025, revealing how speculative excess merely migrated into the PSE—absorbing retail savings in the process. 

In 2025, concentration activities intensified: the top 10 brokers averaged 63.44% of Q4 main board volume; the top 20 accounted for over 82% both in Q4 and full-year 2025 MBV. 

VII. From Equities to Energy: Bailouts Without Calling Them Bailouts 

Engineered rescue rallies are not cost-free. They amplify concentration risk, intensify late-cycle fragility, and expose deeper balance-sheet stress driven by debt-financed asset support and misallocation. 

This pattern extends beyond equities. 

Authorities initiated a soft bailout of the energy sector—first indirectly via the SMC–AEV–MER asset-transfer triangle, and later through Real Property Taxes (RPT) waivers favoring elite-owned IPPs. This was followed by another buy-in: Prime Infrastructure’s acquisition of a 60% stake in FGEN’s Batangas LNG project, alongside higher consumer charges via GEA-All layered on top of FIT-All. 

VIII. A Lone Divergence: Mining and the War Economy 

For the first time, the mining sector not only outperformed but diverged meaningfully from the PSEi and broader market. Its performance reflects exposure to global commodity dynamics—finance, geopolitics, and the war economy—rather than domestic demand. (Figure 6, lowest graph) 

While retracements are possible given overbought conditions, current signals suggest any correction may be cyclical rather than trend-reversing. 

IX. The Philippine Treasury Market Confirms the Diagnosis 

The warning signs extend to Philippine treasury markets.

Figure 7

By end-2025, the Philippine BVAL curve had clearly steepened relative to the flattish 2023–2024 profile, though it remained less extreme than the pandemic-era 2022 BSP rescue year. This shift points less to growth optimism and more to rising risk premia. (Figure 7, upper diagram) 

While short-dated T-bill yields have not fallen back to 2022 levels—despite policy rate cuts, aggressive RRR reductions exceeding pandemic-era easing, and the doubling of deposit insurance—long-term yields remain materially higher than in 2023–2024, signaling mounting market concern over fiscal conditions, debt supply, and credibility. 

The resulting mixed yield configuration, occurring alongside slowing GDP growth and persistently elevated bank lending rates, reflects not selective liquidity management but a failure of monetary transmission: BSP sought genuine easing, yet impaired bank balance sheets, malinvestment, and fiscal overhang have rendered markets far less malleable than policymakers expected. 

X. Conclusion: When Policy Loses Its Grip 

Taken together, the events of 2025 expose a Philippine financial system increasingly governed by intervention rather than price discovery—and increasingly constrained by balance-sheet fragility rather than cyclical weakness. 

Despite aggressive policy easing activities, engineered equity support, regulatory inducements, and explicit and implicit bailouts, markets failed to respond as expected. Instead, concentration deepened, liquidity thinned, and monetary transmission weakened. 

The underperformance of the PSEi 30 was not an anomaly but a symptom. Equity pumps masked deterioration; index ‘strength’ concealed internal decay. 

The peso weakened, bond yields re-priced fiscal risk, bank lending rates remained elevated, and savings were quietly consumed through speculation and policy distortion. What appeared as support increasingly functioned as stress transfer—from institutions to households, from balance sheets to prices, and from the present to the future. 

In this sense, 2025 was not merely a bad year for Philippine equities. It was a year in which markets signaled—clearly and repeatedly—that policy credibility, strained by diminishing returns and collapsing transmission/tightening effective liquidity, had become the binding constraint. 

Until balance-sheet repair, fiscal discipline, and genuine price discovery are restored, further intervention may sustain appearances—but not balance-sheet health or durable confidence. 

XI. Epilogue: The Façade of January Effects 

January has historically been a strong month for the PSE, often reflecting the so-called ‘January effect’—seasonal inflows driven by year-end cash balance surpluses, portfolio reallocations, and tactical positioning. 

Using the January 2018 peak as the reference point, the PSEi 30 has posted January gains in five of the past eight years (62.5%). Yet over that same post-2018 cycle, full-year returns have been negatives/deficits in six of those years (75%). The implication is clear: early-year strength has repeatedly failed to translate into durable annual performance. (Figure 7, lower chart) 

Even so, institutional cheerleading is likely to intensify. Seasonal rallies will be framed as confirmation of recovery, even as stimulus-driven activity continues to deepen debt-led imbalances and erode household savings. 

This is not to suggest that the PSEi 30 must necessarily close 2026 in negative territory. Rather, when façade substitutes for structure—when form is elevated over substance—market fragility increases. 

Under such conditions, for the general market, the probability of risk and loss continues to outweigh potential gains, regardless of how loudly institutions beat the drum for a bull market. 

Meanwhile, the risk of a meltdown looms. 

____

Select References 

Prudent Investor Newsletters, The Oligarchic Bailout Everyone Missed: How the Energy Fragility Now Threatens the Philippine Peso and the Economy, Substack, December 07, 2025 

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

Prudent Investor Newsletters, PSEi 30 Q3 and 9M 2025 Performance: Late-Stage Fragility Beneath the Headline Growth, Substack, November 30, 2025 

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

Prudent Investor Newsletters, The Philippine Flood Control Scandal: Systemic Failure and Central Bank Complicity, Substack, October 05, 2025 

Prudent Investor Newsletters, June 2025 Deficit: A Countdown to Fiscal Shock, Substack, August 3, 2025 

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

Prudent Investor Newsletters, The Ghost of BW Resources: The Bursting of the Philippine Gaming Stock Bubble Substack, July 6, 2025 

Prudent Investor Newsletters, How Surging Gold Prices Could Impact the Philippine Mining Industry (3rd of 3 Series), Substack, April 02, 2025 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The BSP’s Seventh Rate Cut, the Goldilocks Delusion, and Technocracy in Crisis

 

Economic interventionism is a self-defeating policy. The individual measures that it applies do not achieve the results sought. They bring about a state of affairs, which—from the viewpoint of its advocates themselves—is much more undesirable than the previous state they intended to alter—Ludwig von Mises 

In this issue

The BSP’s Seventh Rate Cut, the Goldilocks Delusion, and Technocracy in Crisis

I. The Goldilocks Delusion: Rate Cuts as Ritual

II. Cui Bono: Government as the Primary Beneficiary

III. Wile E. Coyote Finance: The Race Between Bank Credit Expansion and the NPL Surge

IV. Minsky’s Warning: Fragility Beneath the Easing

V. Concentration and Contagion, The Exclusion of Inclusion: MSMEs and the Elite Credit Divide

VI. A Demand-Driven CPI? BSP’s Quiet Admission: Demand Weakness Behind Low Inflation

VII. Employment at the Edge of Fiction: Volatility, Illusion, and Structural Decay

VIII. The War on Cash and the Politics of Liquidity

IX. The War on Cash Disguised as Corruption Control

X. From Cash Limits to Systemic Liquidity Locks

XI. The Liquidity Containment Playbook and the Architecture of Control

XII. Curve-Shaping and Fiscal Extraction

XIII. When Discretion Becomes Doctrine: From Institutional Venality to Kindleberger’s Signpost

XIV. Conclusion: The Technocrat’s Mirage: Goldilocks Confronts the Knowledge Problem and Goodhart’s Law 

The BSP’s Seventh Rate Cut, the Goldilocks Delusion, and Technocracy in Crisis 

From rate cuts to cash caps: how the BSP’s containment playbook reshapes power and fragility in the Philippine economy

I. The Goldilocks Delusion: Rate Cuts as Ritual 

In delivering its “surprise” seventh rate cut for this August 2024 episode of its easing cycle, the BSP chief justified their decision on four grounds: 

• 1 Outlook for growth has softened in the near term
• 2 Growth was weaker because demand is weaker. This, in turn, is why inflation is low
• 3 Governance concerns on public infrastructure spending have weighed on business sentiment
• 4 “We’re still refining our estimates. We had thought that our Goldilocks policy rate was closer to 5 percent, now it’s closer to 4 percent. So we have to decide where we really are between 5 percent and 4 percent.” 

For a supposedly data-dependent political-monetary institution, the BSP never seems to ask whether rate cuts have delivered the intended results—or why they haven’t. The rate-cut logic rests on a single pillar: the belief that spending alone drives growth. 

In reality, the BSP’s spree of rate and reserve cuts, signaling channels, and relief measures has produced a weaker, more fragile economy.

Figure 1

GDP rates have been declining since at least 2012, alongside the BSP’s ON RRP rates. Yet none of this is explained by media or institutional experts. These ‘signal channeling’ tactics are designed for the public to unquestioningly accept official explanations. (Figure 1, upper chart) 

II. Cui Bono: Government as the Primary Beneficiary 

Second, cui bono—who benefits most from rate cuts? 

The biggest borrower is the government. Its historic deficit spending spree hit an all-time high in 1H 2025, reaching a direct 16.71% share of GDP. This is supported by the second-highest debt level in history—ballooning to Php 17.468 trillion in August 2025—and with it, surging debt servicing costs. (Figure 1, lower window) 

As explained in our early October post: 

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

The likely effect of headline “governance concerns” and BSP’s liquidity containment measures—via capital and regulatory controls—is a material slowdown in government spending. In an economy increasingly dependent on deficit outlays, this amplifies what the BSP chief calls a “demand slowdown.” 

In truth, the causality runs backward: public spending crowding out and malinvestments cause weak demand. 

III. Wile E. Coyote Finance: The Race Between Bank Credit Expansion and the NPL Surge 

Banks are the second biggest beneficiaries. Yet paradoxically, despite the BSP’s easing cycle, the growth rate of bank lending appears to have hit a wall.

Figure 2

Gross Non-Performing Loans (NPL) surged to a record Php 550 billion up from 5.4% in July to 7.3% in August. (Figure 2, topmost image)

Because lending growth materially slowed from 11% to 9.9% over the same period, the gross NPL ratio rose from 3.4% to 3.5%—the highest since November 2024. This is the Wile E. Coyote moment: credit velocity stalls and NPL gravity takes hold. 

As we noted in September: 

“Needless to say, whether in response to BSP policy or escalating balance sheet stress, banks may begin pulling back on credit—unveiling the Wile E. Coyote moment, where velocity stalls and gravity takes hold.” 

Even BSP’s own data confirms that the past rate cuts have barely permeated average bank lending rates. As of July 2025, these stood at 8.17%—still comparable to levels when BSP rates were at their peak (8.23% in August 2024). The blunting of policy transmission reveals deep internal imbalances. (Figure 2, middle graph) 

Production loans (9.8%) signaled the slowdown in lending, while consumer loans (23.4%) continued to sizzle in August. The share of consumer loans reached a historic 15.5% (excluding real estate loans). (Figure 2, lowest visual) 

IV. Minsky’s Warning: Fragility Beneath the Easing 

The BSP’s admission that the economy has softened translates to likely more NPLs and an accelerating cycle of loan refinancing. Whether on the consumer or supply side, this incentivizes rate cuts to delay a reckoning 

From Hyman Minsky’s Financial Instability Hypothesis, this deepens the drift toward Ponzi finance: insufficient cash flows from operations prompt recycling of loans and asset sales to fund mounting liabilities. (see Reference)

Figure 3

As major borrowers, lower rates also benefit banks’ own borrowing sprees. While banks trimmed their August bond and bill issuances (-0.79% YoY, -3.7% MoM, share down from 6.52% to 6.3%), both growth rates and shares remain on an uptrend. (Figure 3, topmost graph) 

The slowdown in bank borrowing stems from drawdowns from BSP accounts—justified by recent reserve rate ratio (RRR) cuts. BSP’s MAS reported a Php 242 billion bounce in liabilities to Other Depository Corporations (ODC) in August, reaching Php 898.99 billion. (Figure 3, middle diagram) 

Ultimately, the seventh rate cut—deepening the easing cycle—is designed to keep credit velocity ahead of the NPL surge, hoping to stall the reckoning or spark productivity-led credit expansion. Growth theater masks the real dynamics. 

Rate cuts today are less about the economy and more about survival management within the financial system. 

V. Concentration and Contagion, The Exclusion of Inclusion: MSMEs and the Elite Credit Divide 

MSME lending—the most vital segment—continues to wane. Its share of total bank lending fell to a paltry 4.6% in Q2, the lowest since 2009. Ironically, MSME lending even requires a mandate. BSP easing has little impact here. (Figure 3, lowest visual) 

Some borrowers engage in wholesale lending or microfinancing—borrowing from banks to relend to SMEs. But if average bank lending rates haven’t come down, why would this segment benefit? 

Informal lenders, who fill the gap left by banks, absorb this risk—keeping rates sticky, as in the case of 5-6 lending. 

If lending to MSMEs remains negligible, who are the real beneficiaries of bank credit?

The answer: elite-owned, politically connected conglomerates.

Figure 4

In 1H 2025, borrowings of the 26 non-financial PSEi members reached a record Php 5.95 trillion—up Php 423.2 billion YoY, or 7.7%. That’s about 16.92% of total financial resources (TFR) as of June 2025. Bills Payable of the PSEi 30’s 4 banks jumped 64.55% YoY to P 859.7 billion. (Figure 4, topmost graph) 

This concentration is reflected in total financial resources/assets: Philippine banks, especially universal-commercial banks, hold 82.7% and 77.1% of total assets respectively as of July. 

Mounting systemic fragility is being masked by deepening concentration. A credit blowup in one major sector or ‘too big to fail’ player could ripple through the financial system, capital markets, interest rate channel, the USD–PHP exchange rate—and ultimately, GDP. 

The structure of privilege and fragility is now one and the same.

VI. A Demand-Driven CPI? BSP’s Quiet Admission: Demand Weakness Behind Low Inflation 

The BSP chief even admitted "demand is weaker. This, in turn, is why inflation is low."

Contrastingly, when authorities present their CPI data, the penchant is to frame inflation as a supply-side dynamic. Yet in our humble opinion, this marks the first time that the BSP confesses to a demand-driven CPI. 

September CPI rose for the second consecutive month—from 1.5% to 1.7%. If the ‘governance issues’ have exacerbated the demand slowdown, why has CPI risen? Authorities pointed to higher transport and vegetable prices as the culprit. 

Yet core CPI slowed from 2.7% in August to 2.6% in September, suggesting that the lagged effects of earlier easy money have translated to its recent rise. 

But that may be about to change. 

The drop in core CPI to 2.6% YoY was underscored by its month-on-month (MoM) movement, as well as the headline CPI’s MoM, both of which were flat in September. Historically, a plunge in MoM tends to signal interim peaks in CPI. (Figure 4, middle and lowest diagrams) 

So, while the unfolding data suggest that public spending may slow and bank lending continues to decelerate, “demand is weaker” would likely mean not only a softer GDP print but an interim “top” in CPI. 

If inflation reflects weak demand, labor data should show the same — yet the opposite is being claimed 

VII. Employment at the Edge of Fiction: Volatility, Illusion, and Structural Decay 

Authorities also produced another remarkable claim—on jobs.

Figure 5

They say employment rates significantly rebounded from 94.67% in July to 96.1% in August, even as the August–September CPI rebound supposedly showed that “demand is weaker.” This rebound was supported by a sudden surge in labor force participation—from 60.7% in July to 65.06% in August. (Figure 5, topmost and middle charts) 

The PSA’s employment data defies structural logic. Labor swings like stocks despite rigid labor laws and weak job mobility. The data also suggest that the wide vacillation in jobs indicates abrupt shifts between searching for work and refraining from doing so—as reflected in the steep changes in labor force participation. 

Furthermore, construction jobs flourished in August even amid flood-control probes, reflecting either delayed fiscal drag—or inflated data, to project immunity of labor markets from governance scandals. (Figure 5, lowest graph) 

Yet high employment masks poor-quality, low-literacy work—mostly in MSMEs—which explains elevated self-rated poverty and hunger rates. 

Additionally, both employment and labor force data have turned ominous: a rounding top in employment rates, while labor force participation also trends downward. 

Despite tariff woes, the slowdown in manufacturing jobs remains moderate. 

Nonetheless, beneath this façade, record consumer credit and stagnant wages reveal a highly leveraged, increasingly credit-dependent household sector. 

Labor narrative inflation—the embellishment of job metrics—would only exacerbate depressed conditions during the next downturn, leading to sharper unemployment. 

When investors interpret inaccurate data as fact, they allocate resources erroneously. The resulting imbalances won’t just show up in earnings losses—they’ll manifest as outright capital consumption. 

And while public spending may be disrupted, authorities can always divert “budget” caught in controversies to other areas. 

That said, jobs decay could rupture the banks propping up this high-employment illusion. 

VIII. The War on Cash and the Politics of Liquidity 

This week puts into the spotlight two developments which are likely inimical to the banking system, the economy and civil liberties. 

This Philstar article points to the banking system’s implementation of the BSP’s Php 500,000 withdrawal cap, which took effect in October. 

We earlier flagged seven potential risks from the BSP’s withdrawal limit: financial gridlock that inhibits the economy; capital controls that permeate into trade; indirect rescue of the banking system at the expense of the economy; possible confidence erosion in banks—alongside CMEPA; tighter credit conditions; rising risk premiums and capital flight; and, finally, the warning of historical precedent. (see reference) 

For instance, we wrote, "these sweeping limits target an errant minority while penalizing the wider economy. Payroll financing for firms with dozens of employees, capital expenditures, and cash-intensive investments and many more aspects of commerce all depend on such flows." 

The Philstar article noted, "Several social media users, particularly small business owners, expressed frustration over the stricter requirements and said that the P500,000 daily cash limit could disrupt operations and delay payments to suppliers."

Sentiment is yet to diffuse into economic numbers, but our underlying methodological individualist deductive reasoning is on the right track. 

IX. The War on Cash Disguised as Corruption Control

One of the critical elements in the BSP withdrawal cap is its requirement that the public use ‘traceable channels.’

The “traceable channels” clause reveals the BSP’s dual intent. 

On media, it’s about anti–money laundering and transaction transparency. In practice, it forces liquidity to remain inside the banking perimeter—deposits, e-wallets, and interbank transfers that cannot exit as cash. 

Cash, the last bastion of transactional privacy and immediacy, is being sidelined. This is not a war on crime; it’s a war on cash. 

The effect is to silo money within the formal system, preventing it from circulating freely across the real economy.

Figure 6

In August, cash-to-deposit at 9.84% remained adrift near all-time lows, while the liquid-asset-to-deposit ratio at 47.72% hit 2020 pandemic lows—both trending downward since 2013. (Figure 6, topmost pane) 

X. From Cash Limits to Systemic Liquidity Locks 

What looks like a compliance reform is, in truth, a liquidity containment measure. 

By capping withdrawals at Php 500,000, the BSP traps liquidity in banks already facing balance sheet strain. This buys temporary stability, allowing institutions to meet reserve ratios and avoid visible stress, but it starves the cash economy—especially small businesses dependent on operational liquidity. 

Economic losses eventually translate to non-performing loans, erasing whatever short-term relief liquidity traps provided. When firms struggle to repay, banks hoard liquidity to protect themselves—contracting credit and deepening the slowdown. The policy cure becomes the crisis catalyst. 

XI. The Liquidity Containment Playbook and the Architecture of Control 

This is not an isolated act; it fits a broader policy playbook: 

• Easy Money Policies: Reduce the cost of borrowing in favor of the largest borrowers, often at the expense of savers and small lenders. 
• CMEPA: The Capital Market Efficiency Promotion Act, which expands regulatory reach over capital flows and market behavior, while rechanneling private savings toward state and quasi-state instruments. 
• Soft FX Peg: The USDPHP peg, designed to constrain inflation, masks currency fragility and limits monetary flexibility. 
• Price Controls: MSRP ceilings distort price signals and suppress market clearing, especially in essential goods. 
• Administrative Friction: Regulatory hurdles replace fiscal support, extracting compliance and liquidity rather than injecting relief. 

Add to that the BSP’s ongoing yield curve-shaping—suppressing long-term yields to sustain public debt rollover—and what emerges is a clear strategy of financial containment: liquidity is captured, redirected, and immobilized to defend a strained financial order. 

XII. Curve-Shaping and Fiscal Extraction 

The post–rate cut yield curve behavior in the Philippines reveals a dual narrative that’s more tactical than organic. On one hand, the market is signaling unease about inflation—particularly in the medium term—yet it stops short of pricing in a runaway scenario. This ambivalence is reflected in the belly of the curve, where yields have dropped sharply despite flat month-on-month CPI and only modest year-on-year upticks. (Figure 6, middle and lowest graphs) 

On the other hand, the BSP appears to be engineering a ‘bearish steepening’ through tactical easing, likely aimed at supporting bank margins and stimulating credit amid a backdrop of rising NPLs, slowing loan growth, and liquidity hoarding. 

The rate cut, coming on the heels of July’s CMEPA and amid regulatory tightening, suggests a deliberate attempt to offset balance sheet stress without triggering overt inflation panic. 

Each of these measures—cash caps, regulatory absorption of savings, and engineered curve shifts—forms part of a single containment architecture. What looks like fragmented policy is, in reality, coordinated liquidity triage. 

In sum, fiscal extraction, liquidity controls, and curve manipulation are now moving in tandem. Each reinforces the other, ensuring that capital cannot easily escape the system even as trust erodes. 

The war on cash, then, is not about corruption or transparency—it’s about preserving liquidity in a system that has begun to run dry.

XIII. When Discretion Becomes Doctrine: From Institutional Venality to Kindleberger’s Signpost 

And then the BSP hopes to expand its extraction-based “reform.” This ABS-CBN article reports that the central bank plans to issue "a new policy on a possible threshold for money transfers which will cover even digital transactions." It would also empower banks to "refuse any transaction based on suspicion of corruption." 

Ironically, BSP Governor Eli Remolona cited as an example a contractor’s ‘huge’ withdrawal from the National Treasury—deposited into a private account—which he defended as "legitimate." 

The war on financials is evolving—from capital controls to behavioral nudging to arbitrary discretionary thresholds. BSP’s move to cap money transfers reframes liquidity as suspicion, and banks as moral adjudicators. 

Discretion to refuse transactions—even without proof—creates a regime where access to private property is conditional, not on law, but on institutional discomfort. 

Remolona’s defense of a bank that released a “huge amount” to a contractor despite unease confirms what we’ve recently argued: the scandal was never hidden—it was institutionally tolerated. 

Bullseye! 

Two revelations from this: 

First, it validates that this venal political-economic framework represents the tip of the iceberg—supported by deeply entrenched gaming of the system, extraction, and control born of top-heavy policies and politics. 

Two. It serves as a Kindleberger’s timeless signpost—that swindles, fraud, and defalcation are often signals of crashes and panic: 

"The propensities to swindle and be swindled run parallel to the propensity to speculate during a boom. Crash and panic, with their motto of sauve qui peut, induce still more to cheat in order to save themselves. And the signal for panic is often the revelation of some swindle, theft, embezzlement, or fraud." (Kindleberger, Bernstein)

In this sense, the BSP’s moralistic posture and arbitrary discretion may not be acts of reform, but symptoms of a system inching toward its own reckoning. The façade of prudence conceals a liquidity-starved order struggling to maintain legitimacy—where control replaces confidence, and “reform” becomes a euphemism for survival. 

All this suggests that, should implementation be rigorous, the recent earthquakes may not be confined geologically but could spill over into financial institutions and the broader economy. If these signify a “do something” parade of ningas cogon policies, then the moral decay born of the public spending spree will soon resurface. 

Either way, because of structural sunk costs, the effects of one intervention diffusing into the next guarantees the acceleration and eventual implosion of imbalances that—like a pressure valve—will find a way to ventilate. 

XIV. Conclusion: The Technocrat’s Mirage: Goldilocks Confronts the Knowledge Problem and Goodhart’s Law 

Finally, the BSP admits to either being afflicted by a knowledge problem or propagating a red herring: "We’re still refining our estimates. We had thought that our Goldilocks policy rate was closer to 5 percent, now it’s closer to 4 percent. So we have to decide where we really are between 5 percent and 4 percent." 

This confession exposes the technocratic folly of believing that economic equilibrium can be engineered by formula. It ignores the fundamental truth of human action—there are no constants—and the perennial lesson of Goodhart’s Law: when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. Protecting the status quo, therefore, translates to chasing short-term fixes while evading long-term consequences. 

What this reveals is not calibration but confusion—policy reduced to trial-and-error within a liquidity-starved system. The “Goldilocks” rhetoric masks a deeper instability: that each attempt to fine-tune the economy only amplifies the distortions born of past interventions. 

We close this article with a quote from our October issue: 

"The irony is stark. What can rate cuts achieve in “spurring demand” when the BSP is simultaneously probing banks and imposing withdrawal caps? 

And more: what can they do when authorities themselves admit that CMEPA triggered a “dramatic” 95-percent drop in long-term deposits, or when households are hoarding liquidity in response to new tax rules—feeding banks’ liquidity trap?" 

____

References 

Ludwig von Mises, Bureaucracy, p.119 NEW HAVEN YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS 1944, mises.org 

Hyman P. Minsky, The Financial Instability Hypothesis The Jerome Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, May 1992 

Charles P Kindleberger & Peter L. Bernstein, The Emergence of Swindles, Manias Panics and Crashes, Chapter 5, p.73 Springer Nature link, January 2015 

Prudent Investor Newsletter, The Philippine Flood Control Scandal: Systemic Failure and Central Bank Complicity, Substack, October 5, 2025 

Prudent Investor Newsletter, Q2–1H Debt-Fueled PSEi 30 Performance Disconnects from GDP—What Could Go Wrong, Substack, August 24, 2025 

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