January 2025 Surplus Masks Rising Fiscal Fragility: Slowing Revenues, Soaring Debt Burden

Monetary pumping and government spending cannot remove the dependence of demand on the production of goods. On the contrary, loose fiscal and monetary policies impoverish real wealth generators and reduce their ability to produce goods and services, thus weakening effective demand for other goods—Dr. Frank Shostak 

In this issue

January 2025 Surplus Masks Rising Fiscal Fragility: Slowing Revenues, Soaring Debt Burden

I. The Mirage of Fiscal Prudence: A Closer Look at January’s Surplus

II. January’s Surplus: A Closer Look, Changes in VAT Reporting Effective 2023

III. Diminishing Returns? Slowing Revenue Growth Amid Record Bank Credit Expansion

IV. The VAT Effect, Public Spending Trends and Breaching the Budget: A Shift in Political Power

V. Fiscal Challenges Deepen as Interest Payments Soar and Crowds Out Public Allocation

VI. January’s Record Cash Spike

VII. Rising Public Debt, Increasing FX Financing and Mounting Pressure on the Philippine Peso

VIII. Banks and the BSP as Fiscal Lifelines

IX. Symptoms of Crowding Out: Weak Demand and Slowing GDP

X. Conclusion: Mounting Fragility Beneath Sanguine Statistical Benchmarks 

January Surplus Masks Rising Fiscal Fragility: Slowing Revenues, Soaring Debt Burden 

VAT reporting changes drove January 2025’s surplus, despite slowing revenue growth, record-high interest payments, and ballooning public debt—exposing growing fiscal vulnerabilities.

I. The Mirage of Fiscal Prudence: A Closer Look at January’s Surplus 

Businessworld, March 21, 2025: "FINANCE Secretary Ralph G. Recto said the budget surplus recorded in January is unlikely to continue in the following months. Asked if the surplus will be sustained in the runup to the elections, Mr. Recto told BusinessWorld: “No. Our deficit target this year is 5.3% of the GDP (gross domestic product).”" 

It’s remarkable how media portrays government fiscal management as though it’s a model of efficiency and foresight. 

This supposedly impartial business outlet echoes the optimism with little scrutiny, displaying a certain undue enthusiasm in their narrative. 

-The “manageable” budget? Public outlays continue to grow, often exceeding the allocations set by Congress. 

-Revenues? These are presented as if they align seamlessly with the government’s projections—reality, it seems, is expected to comply. 

-Changes to VAT reporting? The January surplus was largely a result of this adjustment that took effect in 2023. As a media outlet, they should have recognized this. Instead, the omission conveniently aligns with their theme of unquestioning deference. 

-And the political context of deficit spending? It’s treated as a non-issue, as though public resources are always managed with the utmost prudence and altruism. Yet, this framing sidesteps how deficit spending often fuels projects with short-term appeal but long-term consequences. 

Underlying all this is the assumption that the government is all-knowing, omnipotent, and in perfect command of the economy—a notion more fictional than factual. 

II. January’s Surplus: A Closer Look, Changes in VAT Reporting Effective 2023 

Let us dive into the details. 

Back in September, we noted: "So, there you have it: The rescheduling of VAT declarations from monthly to quarterly has magnified revenues and "narrowed" deficits at the "close" of each taxable quarter."  (Prudent Investor, 2024) 

The changes in VAT reporting took effect on January 1, 2023. 

Though expenditures grew by 19.45%, outpacing revenues’ 10.75% increase, in peso terms, January 2025 revenues exceeded outlays, leading to the month’s surplus.         

Revenues of Php 467.15 billion marked the third-largest monthly total in pesos, following April and October 2024.

Figure 1 

Meanwhile, expenditures were the smallest monthly amount since February 2024. Nevertheless, the long-term spending and revenue trends remain intact so far. (Figure 1, upper window) 

III. Diminishing Returns? Slowing Revenue Growth Amid Record Bank Credit Expansion 

However, despite the revenue outperformance—driven by tax collections—growth rates materially declined in January 2025. Total tax and Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) collection growth slowed from 25.03% and 31.35% in 2024 to 13.6% and 15.13% in 2025, respectively.  (Figure 1, lower graph) 

On the other hand, Bureau of Customs (BoC) collections jumped from 3.98% to 7.98% in 2025. Since BIR accounted for 81.2% of the total, tax revenues largely reflected its growth rate.

Figure 2

And this slowdown in revenue growth is occurring alongside record-breaking bank credit expansion! Universal commercial banks reported a 13.3% surge in bank lending growth—the highest rate since December 2020—reaching Php 12.7 trillion in January, slightly below December 2024's record. (Figure 2, upper image)

In a nutshell, the decelerating revenue growth reflects the diminishing returns of the Marcos-nomics fiscal stimulus.

IV. The VAT Effect, Public Spending Trends and Breaching the Budget: A Shift in Political Power

The quarterly shift in VAT reporting resulted in a Php 68.4 billion surplus, the third largest after January 2024 and April 2019. (Figure 2, lower chart)

Although public spending may have appeared subdued in January, the government has an enacted 2025 budget of Php 6.326 trillion, averaging Php 527.2 billion monthly.

Figure 3

Yet, the Executive branch has hardly been frugal—it has consistently outspent legislated allocations since 2016! (Figure 3, upper visual)

If spending, which they have the power to control, cannot be managed, then revenues—being dependent on spontaneous economic and financial interactions—are even less controllable. 

This persistent spending overreach signals an implicit yet pivotal shift in the distribution of political power. As we noted earlier: "More importantly, this repeated breach of the "enacted budget" signals a growing shift of fiscal power from Congress to the executive branch." (Prudent Investor, March 2025) 

This suggests that the monthly average of Php 527 billion represents a floor! We are likely to see months with Php 600-700 billion spending. 

V. Fiscal Challenges Deepen as Interest Payments Soar and Crowds Out Public Allocation 

January 2025 interest payments (IP) soared to a record Php 104.4 billion, pushing their share of total expenditures to 26.2%—a peak last seen in 2009! (Figure 3, lower diagram) 

Authorities attributed this to a "shift in coupon payment timing due to the issuance strategy of multiple re-offerings of treasury bonds," as well as "an earlier servicing of a Global Bond with a February 1 coupon date falling on a weekend." 

Nonetheless, the programmed budget for interest payments in 2025 is Php 848 billion. January’s interest payment equates to 12% of this total 2025 allocation for interest payments, while 26.2% represents its share of January’s total expenditures. 

Interest payments and overall debt servicing data in the coming months will shed light on the true conditions. 

Once again, as we noted earlier: "Government spending will increasingly be diverted toward debt payments or rising debt service costs constrain fiscal flexibility, leaving fewer resources for essential public investments" (Prudent Investor, March 2025) 

VI. January’s Record Cash Spike 

Figure 4

Another striking figure in the government’s cash operations report was the January cash balance surplus, which soared to an all-time high of Php 1.23 trillion, despite reported financing of only Php 211 billion. (Figure 4, topmost pane) 

The Bureau of Treasury (BoTr) reported cash flow deficits of Php 104 billion, Php 261 billion, and Php 370.04 billion in the last three months of 2024, totaling Php 735 billion. The BoTr offered no explanation for this discrepancy. One plausible reason could be the USD 3.3 billion ROP Global bond issuance. 

VII. Rising Public Debt, Increasing FX Financing and Mounting Pressure on the Philippine Peso 

During the same period, public debt rose by Php 261.5 billion month-on-month (MoM) or Php 1.134 trillion year-on-year (YoY) to a record Php 16.313 trillion in January.  (Figure 4, middle graph) 

Authorities are programmed to borrow Php 2.545 trillion in 2025, slightly down from Php 2.57 trillion in 2024. 

Yet, outpacing domestic debt growth of 10.3%, external borrowings rose 13% in January, with their share of the total reaching 32.05%—nearly matching November’s 32.13% and reverting to 2020 levels. (Figure 4, lower image) 

Since 2020, reliance on foreign exchange (FX) borrowings has steadily increased. 

Greater dependence on FX financing raises internal pressure for the Philippine peso to devalue. As we have previously explained, the widening credit-financed savings-investment gap (SIG)—a key element of the structural economic model pursued by authorities—has resulted in persistent 'twin deficits,' which has been magnified by the pandemic era. 

Consequently, it is unsurprising that the upper limit of the USD-PHP ‘soft peg’ continues to be tested by mounting liabilities. The government is increasingly resorting to Hyman Minsky’s "Ponzi Finance"—as organic fund flows decline, reliance on debt refinancing to manage the balance sheet deepens. 

VIII. Banks and the BSP as Fiscal Lifelines

Figure 5

Banks remain a primary source of government financing, with Net Claims on Central Government (NCoCG) up 7.42% YoY to Php 5.409 trillion, though slightly down from December’s all-time high of Php 5.541 trillion. (Figure 5, upper window) 

The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) is another source. January’s spending decline mirrored the BSP’s NCoCG, which rose 14.54% YoY to Php 390.3 billion but fell 34% MoM from December’s Php 590 billion. The fluctuations in BSP’s NCoCG have closely tracked public spending, with correlations tightening since its historic rescue of the banking system. (Figure 5, lower graph) 

IX. Symptoms of Crowding Out: Weak Demand and Slowing GDP 

Figure 6

Weak demand, potentially exacerbated by lower public spending in January, contributed to the decline in Core CPI, with non-food and energy inflation falling from 2.6% in January to 2.4% in February 2025. (Figure 6, upper diagram) 

It is worth reiterating that record public spending in Q4 2024 accompanied just 5.2% GDP growth—evidence of the crowding-out syndrome in action. (Figure 6, lower chart) 

X. Conclusion: Mounting Fragility Beneath Sanguine Statistical Benchmarks 

The January 2025 surplus is a fleeting anomaly rather than a sign of sustainable fiscal health. The underlying trends—slowing revenue growth, surging debt servicing costs, and increasing reliance on external borrowings—paint a concerning picture of fiscal vulnerabilities, with long-term consequences for economic stability and growth. 

Given that politics often relies on path-dependent economic policies, meaningful reforms are unlikely to occur until they are forced upon the government by market pressures. 

The BSP’s easing cycle, characterized by cuts in interest rates and the Reserve Requirement Ratio (RRR), further underscores this dynamic. These measures effectively accommodate the government’s borrowing-and-spending cycle, exacerbating fiscal imbalances and delaying necessary structural reforms. 

Or, the establishment may continue to tout the supposed capabilities of the government, but ultimately, the law of diminishing returns will expose the inherent fragility of the political economy. This will likely culminate in a blowout of the twin deficits, a surge in public debt, a sharp devaluation of the Philippine peso, and a spike in inflation, reinforcing the third wave of this cycle—heightening risks of a financial crisis. 

____

References 

Prudent Investor Newsletters, Philippine Government’s July Deficit "Narrowed" from Changes in VAT Reporting Schedule, Raised USD 2.5 Billion Plus $500 Million Climate Financing, September 1, 2024 

Prudent Investor Newsletters, 2024’s Savings-Investment Gap Reaches Second-Widest Level as Fiscal Deficit Shrinks on Non-Tax Windfalls, March 9, 2025

  

Philippine Treasury Markets vs. the Government’s February 2.1% Inflation Narrative: Who’s Right?

 

Inflation is a tax. Money for the government. A tax that people don’t see as a tax. That’s the best kind, for politicians—Lionel Shriver 

In this issue

Philippine Treasury Markets vs. the Government’s February 2.1% Inflation Narrative: Who’s Right?

I. February Inflation: A "Positive Surprise" or Statistical Mirage?

II. Demand Paradox: Near Full-Employment and Record Credit Highs in the face of Falling CPI and GDP?

III. The Financial Black Hole: Where Is Bank Credit Expansion Flowing?

IV. The USDPHP Cap: A Hidden CPI Subsidy

V. Markets versus Government Statistics: Philippine Treasury Markets Diverge from the CPI Data 

Philippine Treasury Markets vs. the Government’s February 2.1% Inflation Narrative: Who’s Right? 

With price controls driving February CPI down to 2.1%, the BSP’s easing narrative gains traction—yet treasury markets remain deeply skeptical

I. February Inflation: A "Positive Surprise" or Statistical Mirage?

ABS-CBN News, March 5: Inflation eased to 2.1 percent in February because of slower price increases in food and non-alcoholic beverages, among others, the Philippine Statistics Authority said Wednesday. In a press briefing, the PSA said food inflation slowed to 2.6 percent in February from 3.8 percent in January. The state statistics bureau noted that rice inflation further slowed to -4.9 percent from -2.3 percent in January…But the PSA noted that pork prices jumped by 12.1 percent in February, while the price of chicken meat leapt by 10.8 percent.  The cost of passenger transport by sea also soared to 56.2 percent in February.  Del Prado said the African swine fever problem continue to hurt pork prices in the Philippines. She said, however, that the Department of Agriculture’s plan to impose a maximum suggested retail price on pork may help ease price hikes. 

The Philippine government recently announced that inflation unexpectedly dropped to 2.1% in February 2025. One official media outlet hailed it a "positive surprise" in its headline. 

But is this optimism warranted? 

While the Philippine Stock Exchange (PSE)—via the "national team"—welcomed this news, interpreting it as a sign that the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) could continue its loose monetary policy—essentially providing a pretext for rate cuts—the more critical Philippine treasury markets, which serve as indicators of interest rate trends, appeared to hold a starkly different view. 

As an aside, the BSP’s reserve requirement ratio (RRR) cut takes effect this March 28th, adding fuel to the easing narrative. 

The odd thing is that a critical detail has been conspicuously absent from most media coverage: on February 3, 2025, authorities implemented the "Food Emergency Security" (FES) measure. 

This policy, centered on price controls—specifically Maximum Suggested Retail Prices (MSRP)—was supported by the release of government reserves. 

Consequently, February’s Consumer Price Index (CPI) reflects political intervention rather than organic market dynamics.

Figure 1

Even more telling is an overlooked trend: the year-on-year (YoY) change in the national average weighted price of rice had been declining since its peak in April 2024—well before the FES was enacted. (Figure 1, topmost graph) 

In a nutshell, the FES merely reinforced the ongoing downtrend in rice prices, serving more as an election-year tactic to demonstrate government action "we are doing something about rice prices," rather than an actual cause of the decline. 

Nevertheless, it won’t be long before officials pat themselves on the back and proclaim the policy a triumph. Incredible. 

But what about its future implications? 

Unlike rice, where government reserves were available to support price controls, the impending implementation of MSRP for pork products next week lacks similar supply-side support. This suggests that any price stabilization achieved will be short-lived. (Figure 1, middle chart) 

As noted in February,  

However, as history shows, the insidious effects of distortive policies surface over time. Intervention begets more intervention, as authorities scramble to manage the unintended consequences of their previous actions. Consequently, food CPI remains under pressure. (Prudent Investor, 2025)  

Nevertheless, manipulating statistics serves a political function—justifying policies through "benchmark-ism."  

Beyond food prices, which dragged down the headline CPI, core CPI also eased from 2.6% in January to 2.4% in February. 

Despite this pullback, the underlying inflation cycle appears intact. (Figure 1, lowest image) 

Government narratives consistently frame inflation as a ‘supply-side’ issue or blame it on "greedflation," yet much of their approach remains focused on demand-side management through BSP’s inflation-targeting policies. 

II. Demand Paradox: Near Full-Employment and Record Credit Highs in the face of Falling CPI and GDP? 

Authorities claim that employment rates have recently declined but remain near all-time highs. 

But how true is this?

Figure 2

The employment rate slipped from an all-time high of 96.9% in December 2024 to 95.7% in January 2025—a level previously hit in December 2023 and June 2024. (Figure 2, topmost image) 

Remarkably, despite near-full employment, the CPI continues to slide. 

Officials might argue this reflects productivity gains.  But that claim is misleading.

Consumer credit growth—driven by credit cards and supported by salary loans—has been on a record-breaking tear, rising 24.4% YoY in January 2025, marking its 28th consecutive month above 20%. (Figure 2, middle window) 

Yet, unlike the 2021-2022 period, headline CPI has weakened. 

Could this signal diminishing returns—mainly from refinancing? 

Beyond CPI, total Universal-Commercial (UC) bank loans have surged since Q1 2021—unfazed by official interest rate levels. (Figure 2, lowest diagram)

Figure 3

The slowing growth in salary loans seems to mirror the CPI’s decline. (Figure 3, upper pane) 

And it’s not just inflation. 

Despite an ongoing surge in Universal-Commercial (UC) bank loans since Q1 2021—regardless of official interest rate levels—weak consumption continues to weigh on GDP growth. The second half of 2024 saw GDP growth slow to just 5.2%. (Figure 3, lower chart) 

This boom coincides with record real estate vacancies, near unprecedented hunger rates, and almost milestone highs in self-reported poverty. 

So, where has demand gone? 

In January 2025, UC bank loans (both production and consumer) increased by 13.27% year-on-year. 

Are the government’s employment figures an accurate reflection of labor market conditions? Or, like CPI data, are they another exercise in "benchmark-ism" designed to persuade voters and depositors that the political economy remains stable? 

III. The Financial Black Hole: Where Is Bank Credit Expansion Flowing?

Figure 4 

Ironically, bank financing of the government, as reflected in Net Claims on the Central Government (NCoCG), continues to soar—up 7.4% year-on-year to PHP 5.41 trillion in January 2025, though slightly down from December 2024’s historic PHP 5.54 trillion. 

Meanwhile, since bottoming at 1.5% in April 2023, BSP currency issuance has trended upward, accelerating from May 2024 to January 2025, when it hit 11% YoY. (Figure 4, topmost graph) 

Despite this massive liquidity injection—via bank lending and government borrowing—deflationary forces persist in the CPI. 

Where is this money flowing? What "financial black hole" is absorbing the injected liquidity? 

IV. The USDPHP Cap: A Hidden CPI Subsidy 

The recent weakness of the US dollar—primarily due to a strong euro rally following U.S. President Trump’s pressure on Europe to increase NATO contributions—has driven up the region’s stock markets, particularly defense sector stocks. This, in turn, has triggered a global bond selloff.

The euro’s strength has also bolstered ASEAN currencies, including the Philippine peso. 

As predicted, the BSP’s cap on the USD-PHP exchange rate— a de facto subsidy—has fueled an increase in imports. In January, the nation’s trade deficit widened by 17% to USD 5.1 billion due to a 10.8% jump in imports. (Figure 4, middle window) 

Further, to defend this cap, the BSP sold significant foreign exchange (FX) in January, only to replenish its Gross International Reserves (GIR) in February via a USD 3.3 billion bond issuance. The BSP attributes the GIR increase to "(1) national government’s (NG) net foreign currency deposits with the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), which include proceeds from its issuance of ROP Global Bonds, (2) upward valuation adjustments in the BSP’s gold holdings due to the increase in the price of gold in the international market, and (3) net income from the BSP’s investments abroad." (Figure 5, lowest visual) 

This disclosure confirms the valuable role of gold in the BSP’s reserves. 

In short, the USD-PHP cap has not only subsidized imports but has also artificially suppressed the official CPI figures. 

From 2015 to 2022, the ebbs and flows in the USD-PHP exchange rate were strongly correlated with CPI trends.  

Figure 5

However, since 2022, when the exchange rate cap was strictly enforced, this relationship has broken down, increasing pressure on the credit-financed trade deficit and necessitating further borrowing to sustain both the cap and the Gross International Reserves (GIR). (Figure 5, topmost image) 

V. Markets versus Government Statistics: Philippine Treasury Markets Diverge from the CPI Data 

First, while global bond yields have risen amid the European selloff, this has not been the case for most ASEAN markets—except for the Philippines. This suggests that domestic factors have been the primary driver of movements in the ASEAN treasury markets, including the Philippines. (Figure 5, middle and lowest graphs)

Figure 6

Second, it is important to note that institutional traders dominate the Philippine treasury markets. This dynamic creates a distinction between the public statements of their respective "experts" and the actual trading behavior of market participants—"demonstrated preferences." 

The apparent divergence between the CPI and Philippine 10-year bond yields—despite their previous seven-year correlation—reveals disruptions caused by other influencing factors. (Figure 6, upper chart) 

Or, while analysts often serve as institutional cheerleaders for the traditional market response to an easing cycle, traders seem to be reacting differently.

Finally, further cementing this case for decoupling, the Philippine yield curve steepened (bearish steeper) during the week of the CPI announcement—suggesting that treasury markets are pricing in future inflation risks or tighter policy, potentially discounting the recent CPI decline as temporary. (Figure 6, lowest graph) 

All in all, while the government and the BSP claim to have successfully contained inflation, treasury markets remain highly skeptical—whether about the integrity of the data, the sustainability of current policies, or both. 

Our bet is on the latter.

___

References  

Prudent Investor, January 2025 2.9% CPI: Food Security Emergency andthe Vicious Cycle of Interventionism February 10, 2025

 

Philippine Uni-Comm Bank Lending in 2024: Why Milestone Bank Credit Expansion and Systemic Leveraging Extrapolates to Mounting Systemic Fragility

 

Credit Expansion No Substitute for Capital. These opinions are passionately rejected by the union bosses and their followers among politicians and the self-styled intellectuals. The panacea they recommend to fight unemployment is credit expansion and inflation, euphemistically called an "easy money policy"—Ludwig von Mises 

In this issue

Philippine Uni-Comm Bank Lending in 2024: Why Milestone Bank Credit Expansion and Systemic Leveraging Extrapolates to Mounting Systemic Fragility

I. Challenging the BSP’s Easing Cycle Narrative

II. How BSP’s Credit Card Subsidies Materially Transformed Banking Business Model

III. Bank Lending to Real Estate Expanded in 2024, Even as Sector’s GDP Slumped to All-Time Lows!

IV. Credit Intensity Hits Second-Highest Levels!

V. Redux: The Debt-to-GDP Myth: A Background

VI. The GDP is Mostly About Debt: 2024 Public Debt-to-GDP Reaches Second Highest Level Since 2005!

VII. The Mirage of Labor Productivity

VIII. Conclusion 

Philippine Uni-Comm Bank Lending in 2024: Why Milestone Bank Credit Expansion and Systemic Leveraging Extrapolates to Mounting Systemic Fragility 

Universal-commercial bank lending performance in 2024 provides some critical insights. Combined with public debt and GDP, these reveal rising financial and economic fragilities. 

I. Challenging the BSP’s Easing Cycle Narrative 

Inquirer.net, February 13, 2025: "Bank lending posted its fastest growth in two years to cross the P13-trillion mark in December, as the start of the interest rate-cutting cycle and the typical surge in economic activities during the holiday season boosted both consumer and business demand for loans. Latest data from the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) showed that outstanding loans of big banks, excluding their lending with each other, expanded by 12.2 percent year-on-year to P13.14 trillion in the final month of 2024, beating the 11.1-percent growth in November. That was the briskest pace of credit growth since December 2022." 

While the BSP kept its policy rate unchanged this week, it has engaged in an 'easing cycle' following three rate cuts, a substantial RRR reduction, and possibly record government spending in 2024.

Figure 1

The notion that the BSP's easing cycle has driven bank lending growth is not supported by the data. While December saw the "briskest...since December 2022," the 13.54% growth rate in that earlier period occurred near the peak of a hiking cycle, suggesting that neither rate hikes nor cuts significantly influence growth rates.

Official rates peaked in October 2023, ten months after the December 2022 lending surge.

II. How BSP’s Credit Card Subsidies Materially Transformed Banking Business Model 

Unlike the BSP's 2018 interest rate cycle, where hikes coincided with falling bank lending rates, the current credit market anomalies likely reflect distortions caused by the BSP's pandemic-era policies. These included an interest rate cap on credit cards and various relief measures. (Figure 1, topmost image)

Specifically, the BSP's interest rate cap in September 2020 significantly reshaped or transformed the banking system's business model, demonstrably shifting focus from business to consumer loans. 

The consumer share of universal-commercial (UC) bank loans surged by 27.4% over four years, increasing from 9.5% in 2020 to 12.1% in 2024. (Figure 1, middle window)

The biggest segment growth came from credit cards and salary loans:

-Credit card loans grew at a 22.3% CAGR from 2020 to 2024, increasing their share from 4.6% to 7.1% of total loans. Since 2018, their share has more than doubled from 3.4% to 7.1%. (Figure 1, lowest graph)

-Salary loans grew at an 18.07% CAGR over the same period, expanding their share from 0.9% to 1.2%.

Figure 2

-December's month-on-month (MoM) growth of 3.38% marked the highest since January 2022's 3.98%. Contrary to the assumption of seasonality, the highest monthly growth rates have not been confined to the holiday season. (Figure 2, topmost diagram) 

This astronomical growth in consumer credit, further fueled by December's reacceleration, underscores the substantial leveraging of household balance sheets.  

III. Bank Lending to Real Estate Expanded in 2024, Even as Sector’s GDP Slumped to All-Time Lows! 

In 2024, real estate (Php 222.72 billion) and credit cards (Php 212.1 billion) saw the largest nominal increases in lending. Electricity and Gas, and trade, followed. (Figure 2, middle chart) 

Supply-side real estate loans accounted for 20.5% of total UC bank loans at year-end. This figure excludes consumer mortgage borrowing. 

However, while real estate's GDP share hit an all-time low of 5.4% in 2024, bank exposure to the sector reached its second-highest level. In Q3, BSP data revealed that real estate prices had entered deflationary territory. (Figure 2, lowest pane) 

The continued decline in the sector's GDP raises mounting risks for banks. 

Rising real estate loan growth does not necessarily indicate expansion but rather refinancing efforts or liquidity injections to prevent a surge in delinquencies and non-performing loans.

Figure 3

Moreover, key sectors benefiting from BSP’s rate policies—construction, trade, finance, and real estate—continue to represent a significant share of UC bank portfolios, which share of the GDP has also been rising, posing as systemic risk concerns. (Figure 3, topmost chart) 

IV. Credit Intensity Hits Second-Highest Levels!

A broader perspective reveals more concerning trends.

UC total bank loans grew by 10.8% year-on-year, from Php 11.392 trillion in 2023 to Php 12.81 trillion in 2024 (a net increase of Php 1.42 trillion). In comparison, nominal GDP grew by 8.7%, from Php 24.32 trillion to Php 26.44 trillion (a net increase of Php 2.12 trillion).

This gives a 'credit intensity' of Php 0.67—the amount of bank lending needed to generate one peso of GDP—the highest since 2019. This means UC bank lending has recovered to pre-pandemic levels, while GDP hasn't. 

Factoring in public debt (excluding guarantees), 2024 saw a sharp rise in credit dependency. Credit intensity from systemic debt (public debt + bank lending, excluding capital markets and shadow banking) reached its second-highest level ever, trailing only the peak of 2021. 

It now takes Php 1.35 of debt to generate one peso of GDP, highlighting diminishing returns of a debt-driven economy. (Figure 3, middle image) 

The mainstream thinks debt is a free lunch! 

V. Redux: The Debt-to-GDP Myth: A Background

The BSP’s trickle-down policies operate under an architectural framework called "inflation targeting."

Though its stated goal is to 'promote price stability conducive to balanced and sustainable growth of the economy,' it assumes that inflation can be contained or that the inflation genie can be kept under control.

Its easy money regime has been designed as an invisible tax or a form of financial repression—primarily to fund political boondoggles—by unleashing "animal spirits" through the stimulation of "aggregate demand" or GDP. At the same time, GDP growth is expected to increase tax collections. 

The fundamental problem is that the BSP has no control over the distribution of credit expansion within the economy. 

As it happened, while the "liberalized" consumer-related sectors were the primary beneficiaries, distortions accumulated—principally as the elites took advantage of cheap credit to pursue "build-it-and-they-will-come" projects. 

The result was the consolidation of firms within industries and the buildup of concentration risk. Soon, the cheap money landscape fueled the government’s appetite for greater control over the economy through deficit spending. 

Thus, the "debt-to-GDP" metric became the primary justification for expanding government spending and increasing economic centralization.

This race toward centralization through deficit spending intensified alongside the elite’s "build-it-and-they-will-come" projects during the pandemic.

VI. The GDP is Mostly About Debt: 2024 Public Debt-to-GDP Reaches Second Highest Level Since 2005!

Once again, the consensus has a fetish for interpreting debt-to-GDP as if it were an isolated or standalone factor. It isn’t.

In the recent past, they cited falling debt-to-GDP as a positive indicator. However, let’s clarify: since the economy is interconnected—one dynamic entwined with another, operating within a lattice of interrelated nodes—such a simplistic view is misleading.

When the BSP forced down rates to reinforce its "trickle-down" policies, the consequences extended beyond public spending, affecting overall credit conditions. This policy catalyzed a boom-bust cycle. 

As such, when the public debt-to-GDP declined between 2009 and 2019, it was primarily because bank credit-to-GDP filled most of the gap. 

The proof of the pudding is in the eating: systemic leverage-to-GDP remained range-bound throughout that decade. Debt was merely transferred or juggled from the public to the private sector. 

GDP growth, in large part, was debt-driven.

Yet, the pandemic-era bailout fueled a surge in both public debt-to-GDP and bank credit-to-GDP. Public debt-to-GDP (excluding guarantees) reached 60.72%—its second-highest level after 2022—following the BSP’s COVID-era bailout, which also marked the highest rate since 2005. 

It’s worth remembering that Thailand—the epicenter of the 1997-98 Asian Crisis—had the lowest debt-to-GDP at the time. (Figure 3, lowest table) 

More importantly, public debt has anchored government spending, which has played a crucial role in shaping Philippine GDP since 2016.

V. Systemic Leverage Soars to All-Time Highs! 

Figure 4

On a per capita basis, 2024 debt reached historic highs, increasing its share of per capita GDP (both in nominal and real terms). (Figure 4, topmost visual)

Simply put, rising debt levels have been eroding whatever residual productivity gains are left from the GDP. 

Alternatively, this serves as further proof that GDP is increasingly driven by debt at the expense of productivity. 

It also implies that the deepening exposure of output to credit is highlighting its mounting credit risk profile. 

In 2024, UC bank loans-to-GDP hit 48.5%, the second-highest since 2020 (49.7%), indicating crisis lending via easy money policies. 

Systemic leverage reached a record 109.2% of GDP, surpassing 2022 ATH. (Figure 4, middle chart) 

Despite a Q4 2024 liquidity spike (M3), consumers struggled; household GDP slowed, suggesting households are absorbing increasing leverage while enduring the erosion of purchasing power in the face of inflation. (Figure 4, lowest diagram)

Figure 5

Another point: The growth rate of systemic leverage has shown a strong correlation with the CPI since 2013. However, it appears to have deviated, as rising systemic leverage has yet to result in an accompanying increase in the CPI. Will this correlation hold? (Figure 5, topmost image) 

VI BSP’s ‘Trickle-Down Policies’ Steered a Credit Card and Salary Loans Boom (and coming Bust)

There is more to consider. The banking model's transformation toward consumers didn’t happen overnight; it was the result of cumulative easy money policies that intensified during the pandemic. 

Our central premise: while bank expansion fueled inflation, the pandemic-induced recession—marked by income loss—and, most notably, the BSP’s easy money emergency response (including historic interest rate and RRR cuts, various relief measures such as credit card subsidies, the USDPHP cap, and the unprecedented Php 2.3 billion BSP injections) sparked a consumer credit boom, which subsequently triggered the second wave of this inflation cycle. 

Though the BSP’s intent may have been to compensate for consumers' income losses in order to stabilize or protect the banking system, the economic reopening further stirred up consumers’ appetite for credit, fueling demand amid a recovering, fractured, and impaired supply chain. 

Debt-financed government spending also contributed to the surge in aggregate demand. Together, these factors spurred a rise in "too much money chasing too few goods" inflation. 

The inflation genie was unleashed—yet it was conveniently blamed by everyone on the "supply side." The underlying premise of the echo chamber was that the demand-supply curve had been broken!  Yet, they avoided addressing the question: How could a general price increase occur if the money supply remained stable? 

Ironically, the BSP calibrated its response to the inflation cycle by adjusting interest rates in line with its own interest rate cycle! In other words, they blamed supply-side issues while focusing their policies on demand. Remarkable! 

The BSP’s UC bank credit card and salary loan data provide evidence for all of this (Figure 5 middle and lowest graphs): the escalating buildup of household balance sheets in response to the loss of purchasing power, the CPI cycle, and the BSP and National Government’s free money policies.

Figure 6

It’s also no surprise that the oscillation of UC bank loan growth has mirrored fluctuations in the PSEi 30. (Figure 6, topmost window) 

Unfortunately, the law of diminishing returns has plagued the massive growth of consumer credit, leading to its divergence from consumer spending and PSEi 30 flows. 

As an aside, the upward spiral in cash in circulation last December and Q4 —reflecting both liquidity injections for the real estate industry and pre-mid-term election spending—likely points to higher inflation and the further erosion of consumer spending power. (Figure 6, middle chart) 

Is it any wonder that self-reported poverty ratings and hunger have surged to record highs? 

Does the path to 'middle-income status' for an economy translate into a population drowning in debt? 

VII. The Mirage of Labor Productivity

Businessworld, February 10, 2025: The country’s labor productivity — as measured by gross domestic product per person employed — grew by 4.5% year on year to P456,342 in 2024. This was faster than the 2.7% a year earlier and the fastest in seven years or since the 8.7% in 2017. (Figure 6, lowest image)

While this suggests improving efficiency, it fails to account for GDP’s deepening dependence on credit expansion. When growth is primarily debt-financed, productivity gains become illusory. 

Credit isn’t neutral. Its removal would cause the 'debt-driven GDP-labor productivity' 'castle in the sand' to crumble 

VIII. Conclusion  

The 2024 UC bank lending data reveals critical economic trends: 

>A structural shift in the banking business model, driven by the BSP’s inflation-targeting and pandemic rescue policies. 

>Mounting concentration risks due to industry consolidations and growing sector fragility.

>Public debt-to-GDP reaching its second-highest level since 2005, while systemic leverage has hit an all-time high.

Diminishing returns from the increasing dependence on systemic credit—bank expansion and public debt—highlighting the risks of financial and economic vulnerabilities and instability.

The Philippine political economy operates with a very thin or narrow margin for error.

In an upcoming issue, we are likely to address the banking system's 2024 income statement and balance sheets. 

January 2025 2.9% CPI: Food Security Emergency and the Vicious Cycle of Interventionism

  

The advocates of public control cannot do without inflation. They need it in order to finance their policy of reckless spending and of lavishly subsidizing and bribing the voters—Ludwig von Mises 

In this issue

January 2025 2.9% CPI: Food Security Emergency and the Vicious Cycle of Interventionism

I. Introduction

II. January 2025 2.9% CPI: Key Highlights

III. The Government’s Convenient Attribution Bias: The Typhoon Fallacy

IV. Baseline Changes: Engineering GDP Growth

V. The Falling Rice Prices: Why the Food Emergency Security?

VI. The Rice Ceiling Trap: A Self-Inflicted Supply Crisis and the Vicious Cycle of Interventionism

VII. Treasury Markets Are Already Telegraphing Inflation Risk

VIII. The Contradiction: Why a Food Security Emergency Amid Falling Prices?

IX. 2024 Fiscal Snapshot: Rising Debt, the Trade-Off for 5.6% GDP

X. Mounting Risks of Philippine Peso Devaluation and Inflation Risks 

January 2025 2.9% CPI: Food Security Emergency and the Vicious Cycle of Interventionism

I. Introduction 

·         January’s CPI provided a temporary breather against the looming risk of an inflation rebound.

·         Despite falling rice prices, authorities pushed forward with a Food Security Emergency—one in a series of interventions aimed at suppressing CPI in the short term.

·         Meanwhile, rising domestic and external debt, coupled with declining foreign reserves (GIR), amplify risks of peso devaluation and feeding the inflation cycle.

II. January 2025 2.9% CPI: Key Highlights 

Businessworld, February 6, 2025: HEADLINE INFLATION remained steady in January as lower utility costs offset a spike in food prices, preliminary data from the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) showed. It also settled within the 2.5%-3.3% forecast from the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP). The January print was also slightly higher than the 2.8% median estimate in a BusinessWorld poll of 16 analysts... Core inflation, which discounts volatile prices of food and fuel, settled at 2.6% during the month — slower than 2.8% in December and 3.8% a year ago…On the other hand, rice inflation contracted to 2.3% in January from the 0.8% clip in December and 22.6% jump a year prior. (bold added) 

Nota Bene: As of January, the BSP has yet to release data on bank lending, liquidity conditions, and its central bank survey. This leaves us with the January CPI—interpreted through the lens of what the government intends to highlight: supply-driven inflation!

Figure 1 

Momentum: January’s data suggests stalling momentum in the year-over-year (YoY) change for both headline and core CPI. 

However, a trend analysis of the month-over-month (MoM) change reveals that while headline CPI remains above the upper boundary of its trend line, core CPI remains rangebound, albeit slightly lower than recent highs. (Figure 1, topmost image)

Bottoming Phase? These MoM rates suggest a bottoming phase. It remains uncertain whether this will remain rangebound or break to the upside, requiring further confirmation.

Uptrend of the Third Wave of the Inflation Cycle Intact. Nonetheless, the broader uptrend in the 10-year headline and core CPI remains intact. In fact, MoM trends reinforce the case for a bottoming—a potential launching pad.

It's important to remember that this CPI backdrop occurs amidst the BSP's pursuit of easy money policies since the second half of 2024. This is coupled with a series of all-time highs in bank credit expansion and a near-record unemployment rate in December 2024. (Figure 1, middle and lowest charts)

Figure 2

Level vs. Rate of Change. It is a misimpression to state that January's CPI is at the same level as December's. While the rate of change may be the same, the level is definitively not.

The Philippine Statistics Authority's (PSA) nominal prices determine the level, whereas the CPI figures represent the base-effect represented in percentages. (Figure 2, topmost graph)

The nominal rates also reveal the cumulative effects of the CPI. Even if growth rates stall or decrease (slow), the continued increase in general prices persists.

This leads to sustained hardship, especially for those living on the margins.

III. The Government’s Convenient Attribution Bias: The Typhoon Fallacy

Authorities often employ self-serving attribution bias—crediting successes to internal factors while attributing failures to external ones—to explain economic phenomena. For instance, they attribute recent food price increases to 'typhoons/weather disturbances' or diseases like African Swine Fever.

The Philippines experiences an average of 20 typhoons annually. If the establishment's logic were consistently true, food prices should be perpetually elevated.

A review of the 10 worst typhoons to hit the country—events that, according to the establishment narrative, should have triggered inflation surges—shows little correlation with CPI spikes. In fact, food CPI exhibited a downtrend in seven of the nine years when these devastating typhoons occurred (the other two took place in 2020). (Figure 2, middle pane)

But, of course, the vulnerable public is expected to accept the official narrative without question—because the echo chamber insists on it!

IV. Baseline Changes: Engineering GDP Growth

Policymakers are always seeking ways to justify their free-lunch economic policies. 

Now, they are signaling a change in the baseline rates of the most sensitive data—particularly the CPI and the GDP—starting in 2026.

Inquirer.net, February 6, 2025: The Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) will change again the base year used to calculate inflation and gross domestic product (GDP) so that key data could better capture the latest economic conditions.

This adjustment, while technical in nature, conveniently offers a tool for reshaping inflation narratives, making future price pressures appear more benign.

Well, if history serves as a guide, "could better capture the latest economic conditions" often implies adjusting baseline rates to lower the CPI. Comparing the CPI with an overlap of the 2006 and 2018 baselines reveals a significant difference, with the 2018 baseline showing a markedly lower CPI. (Figure 2, lowest diagram)

The BSP still publishes data series from 2000, 2006, 2012, and 2018.

Fundamentally, a high Nominal GDP (NGDP) when calculated against a reduced CPI (as a deflator or implicit price index) results in a HIGHER headline GDP! Voilà! A statistical boom! 

Will the Philippine government achieve its coveted "middle-income status" economy by inflating its statistics? 

V. The Falling Rice Prices: Why the Food Emergency Security?

Authorities also claim that "rice inflation contracted to 2.3% in January from the 0.8% clip in December." 

If this is the case, why the sudden need for a Food Emergency Security (FES) program, which includes light-handed price controls (a maximum Suggested Retail Price) and the release of the National Food Authority’s "buffer rice" or reserves?

Figure 3

If anything, these interventions have temporarily suppressed CPI in the short term. 

In any case, here is a timeline of political interventions in the food and agricultural industry, which should serve as template. 

February 15, 2019: GMA News: Duterte signs rice tariffication bill into law

March 11, 2020: DTI: Nationwide price freeze on basic necessities in effect amid COVID-19 emergency 

February 2, 2021: Inquirer: DA: Price ceiling on pork, chicken products to start on Feb. 8

April 8, 2021: Portcalls: Duterte signs EO lowering tariff for pork imports 

June 1 2024: DTI: DTI secures voluntary price freeze commitments for more basic necessities 

However, as history shows, the insidious effects of distortive policies surface over time. Intervention begets more intervention, as authorities scramble to manage the unintended consequences of their previous actions. Consequently, food CPI remains under pressure. (Figure 3, topmost graph)

Ironically, the easing of interventions may have contributed to the decline in CPI from the end of 2022 to mid-2024. 

VI. The Rice Ceiling Trap: A Self-Inflicted Supply Crisis and the Vicious Cycle of Interventionism 

Price ceilings create artificial demand spikes. With buffer stocks being released into the market, their rapid depletion seems inevitable. This means authorities will soon have to replenish reserves—betting that global rice prices remain stable. (Figure 3, middle window)

But even if global rice prices decline, large-scale stockpiling would exacerbate the twin deficits (fiscal and trade deficits). The agricultural sector reported near milestone trade deficit in Q3 2024. (Figure 3, lowest image)

This, in turn, would put additional pressure on the USD-PHP exchange rate, where further peso depreciation would translate into higher import costs, which would help feed into the current inflation cycle.

And now, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) is considering imposing FES on pork prices as well!

It appears authorities believe they can override market dynamics and economic laws through sheer force of policy. But history has shown time and again that such attempts only lead to greater imbalances—necessitating even more interventions in an endless loop of self-inflicted crises.

Good luck to the believers!

VII. Treasury Markets Are Already Telegraphing Inflation Risk

The Philippine Treasury markets are already reflecting this narrative.

Figure 4

The yield curve continues to fall, leading to a bull steepening—a clear signal that the BSP is likely to cut rates. (Figure 4, topmost graph)

While this may provide short-term relief, it also carries risks: looser monetary policy could reignite inflationary pressures while signaling heightened economic uncertainty. 

VIII. The Contradiction: Why a Food Security Emergency Amid Falling Prices? 

If rice prices are declining and core CPI is slowing, why are authorities aggressively pushing a Food Emergency Security (FES) program? 

The short answer: they want their free lunches to continue. 

Whether through subsidies, price controls, or other interventionist policies, they are ensuring a steady flow of populist measures. 

By the way, the National mid-term Election is in May! 

Importantly, this push signifies a calculated move to secure easier access to cheap credit—leveraging monetary easing to sustain economic illusions. 

IX. 2024 Fiscal Snapshot: Rising Debt, the Trade-Off for 5.6% GDP 

The Bureau of the Treasury (BTr) has yet to release its cash operations report for February 28, limiting our full-year assessment of fiscal health. 

Still, while public debt eased slightly from Php 16.09 trillion in November to Php 16.05 trillion in December, total 2024 public debt closed at an all-time high. 

While the consensus was previously pleased that a slowing deficit had led to a decrease in net debt increases, 2024 experienced "a 9.8% or Php 1.44 trillion increase from the end-2023 level."  (Figure 4, middle chart)

The Bureau of Treasury (BTr) further reported that the "corresponding debt-to-GDP ratio of 60.7% was slightly above the 60.6% revised Medium-Term Fiscal Framework estimate, on account of the lower-than-expected full-year real GDP growth outcome of 5.6%" (Figure 4, lowest diagram)

Yet, this debt increase came despite a supposedly “restrained” deficit—largely due to (potential) record government spending in 2024. 

Put simply, the Php 1.44 trillion debt increase was the trade-off for achieving 5.6% GDP growth. 

There is a cost to everything. 

Yet, the full cost of debt servicing has yet to be published. 

Crucially, this 5.6% GDP growth was artificially fueled by: 

-BSP’s easy money policies,

-Record public spending,

-All-time high public debt,

-Historic bank credit expansion, and

-Near full employment.

Any reversal of these factors—or even a partial pullback—could WIDEN the fiscal deficit to new highs and PUSH debt-to-GDP further upward. 

There is more.

X. Mounting Risks of Philippine Peso Devaluation and Inflation Risks

Figure 5

External debt jumped 11.4% in 2024, reaching an all-time high of Php 5.12 trillion. 

Its share of total debt rose for the third consecutive year, now at 31.9%—partly due to peso depreciation but mostly from fresh borrowings totaling Php 401.7 billion. (Figure 5, topmost chart)

Meanwhile, BSP’s January 2025 Gross International Reserves (GIR) shrank by $3.24 billion—its steepest decline since September 2022. This was largely due to their defense of the Philippine peso, even though USD/PHP barely hit 59. (Figure 5, middle pane)

The BSP appears to have adjusted its intervention ceiling or their "upper band" to around 58.7. 

Falling GIR is a price to pay for the USD/PHP peg. (discussed last January)

And remember, 'ample reserves' have barely slowed the USDPHP's juggernaut. (Figure 5, lowest chart)

The BSP also revealed another reason for the GIR decline was a "drawdown on the national government’s (NG) deposits with the BSP to pay off its foreign currency debt obligations." 

Adding another layer of irony, the Philippine government raised $2.25 billion and €1 billion on January 24th. These fresh funds may temporarily boost February’s GIR, reflecting the National Government’s deposits with the BSP. 

Going forward, the government will require even more foreign exchange to service its external debt over time. This suggests continued reliance on foreign borrowing—expanding the BTr’s outstanding FX debt stock and increasing the risk of further peso depreciation. 

With growing dollar scarcity, the BSP’s need to refinance public debt, and the rising FX debt appetite of elite institutions, the government and central bank path-dependence on liquidity injections via easy money and fiscal stimulus have only deepened. 

This, in turn, heightens inflation risks—potentially fueling the third wave of the present inflation cycle. 

Take heed.