Is the Philippines on the Brink of a 2025 Fiscal Shock?

 

You should know that credit ratings understate credit risks because they only rate the risk of the government not paying its debt. They don’t include the greater risk that the countries in debt will print money to pay their debts, thus causing holders of the bonds to suffer losses from the decreased value of the money they’re getting (rather than from the decreased quantity of money they’re getting). Said differently, for those who care about the value of their money, the risks for U.S. government debt are greater than the rating agencies are conveying—Ray Dalio

In this issue

Is the Philippines on the Brink of a 2025 Fiscal Shock?

I. A Brewing Fiscal Storm?

II. April 2025 vs April 2024: A Sharp Deterioration

III. Four-Month Performance: Weak Revenue Momentum

IV. Weak Revenue Despite Loose Conditions: A Structural Problem?

V. Budget Math: A Deficit Blowout in the Making?

VI. Economic Fragility Threatens Further Revenue Weakness

A. Manufacturing: Price Softening Amid Trump Tariff Volatility

B. External Trade: Consumer Import Growth Sharply Slows

C. Headline and Core CPI: More Evidence of Demand Weakness

D. Labor Market Deterioration, Hidden Labor Market Realities

VII. The Conundrum of "Aggregate Demand" Policies and Consumer Strain

VIII. The Looming Debt Burden: Financing a Widening Deficit

A. April Financing Activities

B. Debt Payment Dynamics

IX. All-time High April Public Debt: Currency Effects Distorts Debt Composition

X. Crowding Out Effect and Interest Rate Pressures

XI. Crowding Out Effect and Policy Paralysis: The Limits of Monetary Easing

XII. The Inevitable Path: Debt, Inflation, and Future Taxation

XIII. Conclusion: Fiscal Shock Watch 2025 

Is the Philippines on the Brink of a 2025 Fiscal Shock? 

April's budget surplus masks a deeper fiscal crisis brewing beneath record-high deficits and weakening revenue collection

I. A Brewing Fiscal Storm? 

Is the Philippines teetering on the brink of a fiscal shock?  We are about to find out after eight months of government data. 

The Bureau of the Treasury’s April 2025 cash operations report confirms our suspicion that the government is struggling to meet critical fiscal targets, which should raise concerns about economic stability. 

As noted in early May: "A hypothetical Php 200 billion surplus in April would be required to partially offset Q1’s Php 478 billion fiscal gap and keep the official trajectory on track." (Prudent Investor, May 2025) 

The Inquirer.net reported on May 28, 2025: "The national government recorded a budget surplus of P67.3 billion in April, surging by 57.51 percent or P24.6 billion from a year ago, as tax revenues posted stronger growth and spending slowed for the month. However, for the January to April period, the cumulative budget deficit surged by 78.98 percent to P411.5 billion, as public spending rose by 13.57 percent to support economic activity and the priority programs of the Marcos administration." 

Media narratives either echoed the official line on tax revenue strength or highlighted spending restraint as causes for April’s surplus. But both perspectives overlook a critical detail: April’s surplus aligns not just with the 2023 VAT filing shift to a quarterly basis (previously discussed) but—more importantly—with the "annual tax filing deadline"—a period typically associated with a revenue spike. Yet, even this failed to close the fiscal gap. 

Additionally, the record-high deficits in Q1, persisting into the first four months, have gone largely unaddressed in mainstream discussions. 

To cut to the chase: April data signals a further weakening in the revenue base—right in the face of unrelenting public expenditure, pushing the deficit to historic levels. 

Let’s delve into the details to understand the scope of this fiscal challenge. 

II. April 2025 vs April 2024: A Sharp Deterioration 

In April 2025: 

• Revenues fell 2.82%
• Tax revenues grew 7.84%
• Non-tax revenues plunged 68.08%
• Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) growth of 11.1% boosted tax revenues
• Bureau of Customs (BoC) 7.5% declined, which weighed on overall performance

Compare that to April 2024: 

• Revenues soared 21.9%
• Tax revenues surged 13.9%
• Non-tax revenues rocketed 114%
• Tax revenues were anchored by BIR's 12.65% growth and the BoC delivered a strong 19.5%.

Clearly, April 2025 showed a sharp drop in performance despite the same structural advantages related to annual filings.

Figure 1       

The nominal (peso) figures show revenue collections falling significantly short of April 2024's all-time high. (Figure 1, topmost window)

Relative to the VAT’s quarterly cycle, note that the combined January and April 2025 surpluses (Php 135.66 billion) exceeded 2024’s (Php 130.7 billion) by just 3.8%—barely moving the needle against the Q1 fiscal gap. (Figure 1, second to the highest image) 

III. Four-Month Performance: Weak Revenue Momentum 

For January to April 2025: 

• Revenues grew a meager 3.3%.
• Tax revenues rose 11.5%, while non-tax revenues collapsed 51.94%.
• The BIR and BoC posted 14.5% and 2.16% growth, respectively.

In contrast, the first four months of 2024 showed:

• Revenues up 16.8%.
• Tax revenues up 13.22%.
• Non-tax revenues up 48.81%.
• The BIR and BoC grew by 15.35% and 6.47%, respectively. 

Clearly, April 2025 didn’t just underperform—it dragged down the already fragile broader four-month revenue trend. (Figure 1, second to the lowest visual) 

IV. Weak Revenue Despite Loose Conditions: A Structural Problem? 

Critically, Q1’s collection performance coincided with the full effects of the BSP’s first easing cycle in 2024, while April began reflecting partial effects of the second phase. 

Additionally, macro conditions were supportive:

• Bank credit growth was strong.
• Labor market conditions were reported as near full employment.
• Inflation slowed.

Universal-commercial bank loans jumped 11.85% in April to a record Php 12.931 trillion. Yet, public revenues stalled. (Figure 1, lowest graph) 

In short, despite historically loose financial conditions, the government has already been experiencing collection issues—a potential symptom of diminishing returns from BSP’s easy-money regime.

This suggests that further monetary stimulus yields progressively smaller positive impacts on revenue generation or economic growth, potentially reflecting inefficiencies in credit transmission due to mounting balance sheet problems. 

Which leads us to the trillion-peso question: What happens when financial conditions tighten? 

V. Budget Math: A Deficit Blowout in the Making?

From January to April, total revenues reached Php 1.520 trillion. Annualized, that projects Php 4.561 trillion—assuming average monthly intake of Php 380.06 billion. 

Compare that to the 2025 enacted budget of Php 6.326 trillion—already a base case considering six straight years of overspending. Authorities have already disbursed Php 1.932 trillion, implying a remaining monthly average of Php 549.28 billion. 

Bluntly put: At the current pace, 2025 could register a deficit of Php 1.765 trillion—5.7% higher than 2021’s all-time high of Php 1.67 trillion!

The key difference? 2021’s deficit was a deliberate fiscal stabilizer—alongside the BSP's unprecedented monetary and regulatory measures—in response to the pandemic. 

In 2025, no downturn has yet emerged—but the deficit itself threatens to trigger one.

VI. Economic Fragility Threatens Further Revenue Weakness 

A. Manufacturing: Price Softening Amid Trump Tariff Volatility

Figure 2

Since its peak in July 2024, manufacturing loans have been decelerating. March growth was just 2%. However, PPI rose only 0.06% in April YoY—barely moving. (Figure 2, topmost pane)

Though manufacturing volume/value both rose 4.2–4.3% inApril, this likely reflected distortions from new Trump tariffs effective that month.

The S&P PMI index showed a similar spike to 53 in April but slumped to 50 in May. (Figure 2, second to the highest chart)

B. External Trade: Consumer Import Growth Sharply Slows

April imports fell 7.2%, while exports rose 7%, compressing the trade deficit by 26%. (Figure 2, second to the lowest diagram)

But consumer goods imports slumped from 25.8% in March to just 2.83% in April. (Figure 2, lowest graph)

Agri-based products—led by coconut and sugar—boosted exports.

C. Headline and Core CPI: More Evidence of Demand Weakness

Headline CPI slipped from 1.4% in April to 1.3% in May, mainly due to quasi-price controls known as Maximum Suggested Retail Prices (MSRP) on rice and pork. The government also began rolling out Php 20 rice subsidies in select areas, distributing them among targeted groups.

Figure 3

However, Core CPI (non-food and non-energy) steadied at 2.2% for a third straight month, backed by a base-forming month-over-month rate of 0.16%—marking a second consecutive month. A soft CORE CPI reflects underlying weakness in demand. (Figure 3, topmost image)

D. Labor Market Deterioration, Hidden Labor Market Realities

Labor data reveals further vulnerabilities. The unemployment rate rose from 3.9% in March to 4.1% in April, but this excludes an estimated 24 million “functionally illiterate workers” (47% of the labor force or 30% of the population aged 15 and above). Many of these workers are likely employed in the informal sector or MSMEs (67% of employment in 2023, per DTI) or are underemployed, part-time, or not in the labor force. 

The “not in the labor force” population, defined by the PSA as those not seeking work due to reasons like housekeeping or schooling or permanent disability, has risen since November 2022, potentially masking the true unemployment rate and raises questions about the true extent of labor underutilization. (Figure 3, middle chart) 

The correlation between universal-commercial bank consumer salary loans and CPI trend since 2021 highlights consumer strain, further eroding aggregate demand. (Figure 3, lowest diagram) 

VII. The Conundrum of "Aggregate Demand" Policies and Consumer Strain 

Amidst all of this, we must ask: what has happened to "aggregate demand," particularly consumer demand? If consumers have shown worsening strains at the start of Q2, its continuity bodes ill for GDP growth and could likely be expressed in potential shortfalls in tax collections. 

So how will the government attempt to keep the GDP afloat? Given their top-down bias, the mechanical recourse would be to front-load public spending, thereby heightening the risks of a fiscal deficit blowout! 

Naturally, because the government is not a wealth generator but rather a redistributor and consumer, someone has to finance that swelling deficit. That "someone" is the individuals in the wealth-generating productive private sector. 

VIII. The Looming Debt Burden: Financing a Widening Deficit

A. April Financing Activities

Figure 4 

With the first four-month deficit at a record high of Php 411.5 billion, authorities raised Php 155.61 billion in April, leading to a 190% spike in financing of Php 799.73 billion in 2025. This effectively reversed the three-year (2021-2024) decline previously hailed by mainstream experts as prudential management. (Figure 4, topmost window)

The financing surge increased BTr's cash reserves to Php 1.205 trillion (Jan-Apr), though authorities held net cash reserves of only Php 188.9 billion in April. 

April's financing was mostly acquired through domestic issuance.

B. Debt Payment Dynamics 

April debt payments soared 73.72% to Php 280.898 billion, accruing to Php 622.921 billion in the first four months of 2025. (Figure 4, middle image) 

Total debt payments remained 45.7% below 2024's record levels. However, FX payments grew 17.3%, partly offsetting the 59.64% plunge in peso payments.

The FX share of debt servicing relative to the total has been rising since 2024. (Figure 4, lowest chart) 

The lag in payment data may be due to scheduling issues or information deliberately withheld for political reasons. 

While we find the preponderance of media announcements showing how debt payment has substantially slowed this year rather amusing, logic dictates that widening deficits will lead to a critical increase in debt that will have to be serviced over time. 

IX. All-time High April Public Debt: Currency Effects Distorts Debt Composition 

April debt hit a record Php 16.753 trillion. Thanks to a strong peso, FX-denominated loans fell 2.7% or Php 142.33 billion. 

Per Bureau of Treasury (BTr): "The reduction was primarily due to the P124.74 billion decrease in the peso value of external debt owing to peso appreciation." 

However, domestic debt grew 1.85% or Php 211 billion, resulting in a net increase of 0.41% or Php 68.690 billion. 

Reality Check: Philippine foreign debt did not actually shrink. The peso simply strengthened, lowering the debt's peso equivalent. Remember, FX liabilities still have to be repaid in dollars or other foreign currencies. In short, it's a revaluation trick—a statistical façade, not a real debt decrease. 

X. Crowding Out Effect and Interest Rate Pressures

Figure 5

In any case, the widening deficit, brought about by the mismatch between accelerating public spending and weakening revenue growth, underwrites the escalation of public debt. The rise in public debt has already been outpacing the growth trend of public spending, driven by the deficit and likely by amortization requirements. (Figure 5, topmost pane)

This escalating fiscal deficit means that competition for access to the public's diminishing savings will intensify, as government requirements will likely crowd out the domestic credit needs of banks and non-private sector firms, thereby putting pressure on interest rates. For businesses, this translates to higher borrowing costs and reduced access to credit, potentially stifling private sector investment and job creation. For ordinary citizens, it could mean higher interest rates on loans for homes, cars, or personal consumption. 

As an aside, the relentless rise in debt levels is not only a manifestation of the consequences of the government-BSP's "trickle-down" policies (debt-financed "savings-investment gap," "twin deficits," and "build and they will come" malinvestments); critically, they also signify the indirect ramifications of the Philippine social democratic system. In essence, this is what you have voted for! 

XI. Crowding Out Effect and Policy Paralysis: The Limits of Monetary Easing 

So, despite authorities' earnest attempts to push down the CPI—mainly via price controls or Maximum Suggested Retail Prices (MSRP) for rice and pork—to accommodate a desired easing cycle, T-bill rates have barely budged since 2022!  (Figure 5, middle chart) 

T-bills, the most sensitive to BSP's rate cuts, have remained unresponsive to April's CPI data! 

The widening spread between market (T-bills) and the CPI suggests that, aside from the crowding-out effect, Treasury markets view the present disinflation as "transitory," or they are hardly convinced of the integrity of the government's data. 

Consider this: The punditry consensus has been clamoring for lower rates on the back of a slumping CPI, but treasury dealers for their companies continue to price Treasuries as if the CPI remains inordinately high!

In short, the crowding out has rendered the government-BSP's easing cycle ineffective: Fiscal stimulus has hit a wall due to diminishing returns!

At worst, the mounting discrepancy could translate into increasing policy risks—or a potential blowback—that could be expressed through an inflation surge or a USD/PHP spike.

As seen in banks' balance sheets, this crowding out has led to a plunge in their liquidity positions (evidenced by falling cash-to-deposits and liquid assets-to-deposits ratios).

This increasing demand for public savings also applies to foreign exchange (FX) requirements. This means that to meet the economy's foreign exchange (FX) requirements and support the BSP's "soft peg" or foreign exchange policy, a surge in external debt can be expected. 

Evidently, public savings have not been sufficient. Authorities have increasingly relied on banks to finance public requirements via net claims on the central government (NCoCG), which have been rising in tandem with public debt. These assets have been siloed via banks' held-to-maturity (HTM) assets. The all-time high in public debt has been accompanied by a near-record NCoCG in April. (Figure 5, lowest diagram)

Figure 6

It is unsurprising that trades in government securities have been booming, even as 10-year yields have been on an uptrend. (Figure 6, topmost diagram) 

This phenomenon suggests two things: potential disguised losses in banks and financial institutions, and second, that these trades have crowded out trading activities in the Philippine Stock Exchange (PSE). 

In 2020, the BSP's historic Php 2.3 trillion intervention occurred partly via its own NCoCG, which is conventionally known as "quantitative easing." Although the present economy has supposedly ‘normalized,” the BSP's NCoCG remains at 2020 levels. This can be expected to surge when public savings and banks' capacity have reached their maximum. (Figure 6, middle image) 

Without a doubt, the BSP will likely rescue the banks and the government, perhaps using the pandemic template of forcing down rates, implementing reserve requirement ratio (RRR) cuts, massive injections (directly and through bank credit expansion), and expanding relief measures—though likely with limits this time. 

We doubt if they can maintain the USD/PHP peg or if they would accommodate a limited peso devaluation. 

XII. The Inevitable Path: Debt, Inflation, and Future Taxation

With this in mind, we can expect both public debt and debt servicing to experience an accelerated rise. Public debt to GDP could hit 2003-2004 levels, while debt servicing should see an equivalent uptrend over the coming years. (Figure 6, lowest chart) 

We should not forget: rising public debt inevitably leads to higher debt servicing, which in turn necessitates more public spending. 

As noted last May 

This trend suggests a potential roadmap for 2025, with foreign borrowing likely to rise significantly. The implications are multifaceted:

-Higher debt leads to higher debt servicing—and vice versa—in a vicious self-reinforcing feedback loop. 

-Increasing portions of the budget will be diverted toward debt repayment, crowding out other government spending priorities. In this case, crowding out applies not only to the private sector, but also to public expenditures. 

-Revenue gains may yield diminishing returns as debt servicing costs continue to spiral. 

-Inflation risks will heighten, driven by domestic credit expansion, and potential peso depreciation 

-Mounting pressure to raise taxes will emerge to bridge the fiscal gap and sustain government operations. (Prudent Investor, May 2025)

Following this, after grappling with debt and inflation, the government is bound to raise taxes. 

XIII. Conclusion: Fiscal Shock Watch 2025 

Unless BSP’s easing gains real economic traction, the first four months of 2025 point to a growing likelihood of a fiscal shock. 

• Revenue collection has deteriorated.
• Economic indicators signal fragility.
• Consumers are heavily indebted and weakening.
• External pressures—Trump's tariffs, deglobalization, and the re-emergence of "bond vigilantes" (investors who sell off government bonds when they believe fiscal policies are unsustainable, thus driving up borrowing costs for the government) could tighten external liquidity and worsen domestic financial conditions. 

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.

___

References 

Prudent Investor Newsletter, Liquidity Under Pressure: Philippine Banks Struggle in Q1 2025 Amid a Looming Fiscal Storm, May 18, 2025 

Prudent Investor Newsletter, Philippine Fiscal Performance in Q1 2025: Record Deficit Amid Centralizing Power, May 4, 2025

 

Q1 2025 5.4% GDP: The Consensus Forecast Miss and the Overton Window’s Statistical Delusion

 

The vulgar Keynesian focus on consumption unfortunately tempts politicians to approve “stimulus” measures aimed at pumping up this part of total spending…Such arguments, however, fail to grasp the true nature of the boom-bust cycle, especially the central role of investment spending in driving it—and, more important, in driving the long-run growth of real output that translates into a rising standard of living for the general public. Politicians, if they truly wish to promote genuine, sustainable recovery and long-run economic growth, need to focus on actions that will contribute to a revival of private investment, not on pumping up consumption—Robert Higgs 

In this issue

Q1 2025 5.4% GDP: The Consensus Forecast Miss and the Overton Window’s Statistical Delusion

I. BSP’s Easing Cycle and Mainstream’s GDP Expectations

II. The Big Consensus Miss Versus a Contrarian View of the GDP

III. On GDP: Methodological Skepticism and Political Incentives

IV. The Financialization of the Economy and the Raging Bank Stock Market Bubble!

V. Slowing Liquidity and Money Supply Trends

VI. Fiscal Surge Confirmed: Government Spending as the Main Growth Driver: A Shift in GDP Composition

VII. The Fiscal Cost of Stimulus Driven GDP: Record Public Debt

VIII. Employment Paradox: Full Employment, Slower GDP—What’s Going On?

IX. Labor Force Shrinking Amid Population Growth, why? Low-Skilled Workforce = Vulnerable to Inflation

X. Liquidity as a Mirror of the GDP; Phase Two of BSP’s Easing Cycle

XI. Salary Loans: A Proxy for Financial Distress?

XII. CPI Distortions and Price Controls; CPI Spread Headline versus the Bottom 30%: Hunger vs. Hope

XIII. Conclusion: The Politics of Numbers: GDP and the CPI, Faith in the Overton Window 

Q1 2025 5.4% GDP: The Consensus Forecast Miss and the Overton Window’s Statistical Delusion 

A crucial Q1 2025 GDP forecast miss by the consensus, and why embracing mainstream ideas can be perilous for investors. 

I. BSP’s Easing Cycle and Mainstream’s GDP Expectations 

Q1 2025 GDP should fully reflect the initial phase of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas’ (BSP) easing cycle, launched in the second half of 2024 with three interest rate cuts and a reduction in the reserve requirement ratio (RRR). 

While this policy shift may be touted as stimulating credit growth and investment, its actual goal may be to inject liquidity into the system while simultaneously lowering debt servicing costs. 

The combined effects of the 2024 and 2025 easing phases are expected to influence the performance of Q2 and first-half 2025 GDP 

II. The Big Consensus Miss Versus a Contrarian View of the GDP

Figure 1

Two days before the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) released its Q1 2025 GDP estimates, consensus forecasts predicted a robust 5.9% growth rate. We challenged this optimism, arguing (in x.com) that it likely overestimated actual performance. (Figure 1, upper image) 

Three critical indicators provide essential clues to the economy’s trajectory: 

1. Bank Revenues Signal Weakening Demand 

First, the combined Q1 2025 gross revenues of two of the Philippines’ largest banks, BDO Unibank [PSE: BDO] and Metropolitan Bank & Trust [PSE:MBT], recorded a fourth consecutive quarterly decline since Q1 2024, with Q1 2025 marking the sharpest deceleration. 

Given that their revenues accounted for approximately 1.72% of 2024 nominal GDP (NGDP), this slowdown signals broader economic weakness. 

Despite aggressive lending, banks appear to be yielding diminishing returns. That said, while banks may be aggressively lending, they may not be "getting a bang for their buck," as an old saw goes. 

This trend underscores inefficiencies in credit allocation, potentially dampening economic activity. 

And yes, Financial GDP slowed in Q1 (Figure 1, lower window) 

2. Declining Headline CPI Reflects Softening Demand 

Headline CPI has now posted three consecutive quarters of decline. We interpret this not merely as a result of supply-side adjustments but primarily as a reflection of weakening aggregate demand—a point we have consistently emphasized. 

3. Fiscal Stimulus: Record Q1 Deficit-Financed Spending

Figure 2 

Third, public spending surged in Q1 2025, resulting in a record fiscal deficit for the period. This aggressive expenditure, designed to bolster GDP, was highlighted in last week’s analysis. (Figure 2, upper graph) 

However, this strategy carries risks, including crowding out private sector activity and exacerbating public debt. 

4. Trendlines and Economic Realities: The Shift to a Slower Growth Path 

Using the PSA’s peso-denominated figures, nominal GDP (NGDP) and real GDP (rGDP) reveal a secondary trendline that has guided economic performance since the pandemic recession. (Figure 2, lower visual) 

Seen from this perspective, this second trendline essentially extrapolates to a slowing GDP trajectory. 

With that said, unless the economy regains its primary growth path, this downward trend will persist, operating under the shadow of significant downside risks. 

We are both amused and amazed by the pervasive optimism—or mass delusion—among establishment analysts, who consistently, or rather perpetually, echo official predictions rather than scrutinizing actual data. 

This tendency, aimed at shaping the Overton Window—the range of ideas deemed acceptable in public discourse—reflects a patent disconnect from economic realities. 

III. On GDP: Methodological Skepticism and Political Incentives 

We are not staunch believers in GDP, which we believe is determined and calculated for political purposes. It relies on structural mismatches between the subjectivism of human actions and the objectivism of the empirical analysis underlying it. Consequently, its calculation is based on numerous flawed assumptions. 

In any case, although authorities can manipulate figures to promote their agenda (as neither the CPI nor GDP is subject to audit), economic reality will ultimately prevail 

Despite this, true enough, the Q1 2025 GDP growth rate of 5.4% fell significantly below consensus estimates, validating our cautious outlook. 

IV. The Financialization of the Economy and the Raging Bank Stock Market Bubble! 

The bank-finance sector’s real GDP growth slowed from 8.3% in Q1 2024 to 7.2% in Q1 2025. (Figure 1, upper chart, again) 

Despite this deceleration, its outperformance relative to other sectors boosted its GDP share to a record 11.7%, signaling the deepening "financialization" of the Philippine economy. 

Strikingly, despite this, bank GDP growth substantially slowed over the last five quarters, from Q1 2024 to Q1 2025 (13.1%, 10.2%, 8.7%, 6.5%, and 5%), affirming my analysis. 

The Raging Financial Stock Market Bubble

Figure 3 

Despite this, the PSE’s bank-dominated financial index continues to hit all-time highs (including this Friday or May 9)—more evidence of the disconnect between share prices and fundamentals or a growing sign of a stock market bubble. (Figure 3, topmost diagram) 

Instead of widespread public participation, its less apparent nature stems from rising share prices being driven mainly by the "national team" or the BSP's cartel- network of banks and financial institutions. 

Bear in mind, the free float market cap share of the top three banks has been instrumental in supporting and currently driving the PSEi 30 to its present levels. 

BDO, BPI, and MBT account for 24.2%—up from a low of 12.76% in August 2020—while including CBC, this rises to 25.9% of the PSEi 30 (as of May 9). These four listed banks rank among the top 10 by free float market cap. (Figure 3, middle chart)

The banks’ outperformance coincides with, or bluntly put, stems from, the BSP’s historic rescue efforts and massive subsidies during the pandemic, which have been carried over to this day.

The percentage share of turnover of the top five banks in the financial index has averaged 23% of the main board volume Year-to-date—indicating a heavy buildup of concentration activities or risk. 

In any case, while banks constitute 60% of the sector’s GDP, the outperformance of non-banks and insurance companies buoyed the sector’s GDP. 

V. Slowing Liquidity and Money Supply Trends 

Liquidity conditions eased further in Q1 2025, with the money supply-to-GDP ratio (M2 and M3) continuing its downward trajectory. (Figure 3, lowest image) 

This trend, which accelerated from 2013 to 2018 and spiked during the 2019–2020 pandemic recession with the BSP’s Php 2.3 trillion injection, has significantly influenced CPI through what the mainstream calls "aggregate demand." 

In the current phase of this cycle, since peaking in 2021, this key measure of credit-driven demand has slowed, contributing significantly to the recent CPI slowdown.

VI. Fiscal Surge Confirmed: Government Spending as the Main Growth Driver: A Shift in GDP Composition 

The third indicator reinforcing our analysis is public spending.

Figure 4

Q1 2025 expenditures surged by 22.43%, outpacing revenue growth and resulting in a record Q1 fiscal deficit of Php 478 billion. 

This nominal spending boom translated into a significant GDP contribution, with government spending GDP spiking by 18.7%—the highest since Q2 2020—excluding government construction spending! (Figure 4, topmost graph) 

However, consumer spending GDP, while rising from 4.7% in Q4 2024 to 5.3% in Q1 2025, saw its share of national GDP decline from 74.7% to 74.3%. (Figure 4, second to the highest window) 

In contrast, government GDP’s share rose from 12.3% to 15.9%, reflecting a structural shift. 

These numbers reflect an ongoing trend: they reveal the peak of consumer spending at 80.6% in Q3 2002, which steadily declined to the 2020 range (67–75%), while conversely, since its 8% low in Q4 2005, government GDP has nearly doubled, with its trend accelerating since 2020. 

All these are evidence that there is no such thing as a free lunch, as whatever the government takes from the private sector for its expenditures or consumption comes at the latter’s expense—the crowding-out syndrome in motion. 

VII. The Fiscal Cost of Stimulus Driven GDP: Record Public Debt 

This shift comes at a cost—record Q1 2025 public debt. Public debt soared from Php 16.05 trillion in Q4 2024 to a historic Php 16.68 trillion, a net increase of Php 633 billion, financing the period’s Php 478.8 billion fiscal deficit! 

This quarterly debt increase, the highest since Q3 2022, reflects an upward trend! (Figure 4, second to the lowest chart) 

Furthermore, a weaker US dollar in March tempered debt growth, reducing the foreign exchange (FX) debt share to 31.8%. However, the FX debt share has been rising since its March 2021 trough. (Figure 4, lowest graph) 

Consequently, Q1 2025’s deficit-to-GDP ratio surged to 7.27%, far exceeding the government’s 5.3% target! 

Looking at all this, both macro (CPI, deficit spending) and micro (bank revenues, bank GDP) factors have converged to highlight a significant economic slowdown, yet despite the establishment’s cheerleading, the diminishing returns of artificial growth driven by implicit backstops—BSP easing and fiscal stimulus—will gradually take their toll and heighten risks. 

As it stands, this marks another round for this contrarian analyst. 

VIII. Employment Paradox: Full Employment, Slower GDP—What’s Going On? 

Let us now examine the other critical forces shaping the statistical economy—GDP.

Figure 5 

Not one among the establishment punditry seems to ask: While the Philippine economy nears full employment, instead of a boost, GDP has been declining—what the heck is going on? 

Employment reached 96.1% in March 2025, averaging 96.02% in Q1 2025 and 95.9% over the 25 months since January 2023, according to Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) data. (Figure 5, topmost visual) 

However, this near-full employment masks structural weaknesses. 

Consumer per capita GDP, which peaked at 8.98% year-on-year in Q2 2021, has decelerated, with Q1 2025’s 4.4% growth—up slightly from 3.84% in Q4 2024—marking the second-slowest pace since the pandemic. 

IX. Labor Force Shrinking Amid Population Growth, why? Low-Skilled Workforce = Vulnerable to Inflation

While the workforce population continues to grow, the labor force participation rate has formed a "rounding top" pattern, indicating a gradual peak and a potential decline. In simpler terms, more people are being counted outside the labor force. (Figure 5, middle diagram) 

Why is this happening? 

A recent Congressional report on functional illiteracy in the education sector provides a critical clue. 

The Manila Times, May 7, 2025: "BETWEEN 2019 and 2024, 18 million students graduated from the country's basic education system despite being functionally illiterate. This was found by the Senate Committee on Basic Education during its April 30, 2025 hearing on the initial results of the 2024 Functional Literacy, Education, and Mass Media Survey (Flemms)." 

Assuming 16.2 million of these graduates remain in the labor force or are employed, while 10% (1.8 million) have joined the "not in the labor force" category (due to migration, mortality, or disengagement), approximately 32% of the labor force or 33% of the employed population is engaged in low-skilled work 

That’s right. Despite near full-employment data from the PSA, a large segment of the workforce is likely in low-skill, low-wage jobs, possibly concentrated in MSMEs or previously informal sectors, often earning at or below the minimum wage. 

This dovetails with Social Weather Stations (SWS) sentiment surveys, which continue to show elevated self-rated poverty (April 2025) and milestone hunger rates in Q1 2025.

In a nutshell, the most vulnerable population segments—those in low-wage, low-skilled jobs—are also the most exposed to inflation. 

These dynamics explain why poverty perceptions remain high despite supposedly strong employment numbers. 

The shrinking labor force could also be a symptom of “grade inflation,” producing a flood of graduates ill-equipped for skilled work. 

A closer look at PSA employment classifications reveals more. From January 2023 to March 2025, full-time employment averaged 67.3%, while part-time work averaged 31.9%. 

This implies a substantial portion of the workforce is underemployed or working in precarious conditions. The near-full employment figures may therefore overstate the true health of the labor market. 

In effect, the PSA’s employment data provides a façade—masking the fragility of both the labor market and broader economy. 

This explains the sluggish per capita consumption and, by extension, the national GDP. 

X. Liquidity as a Mirror of the GDP; Phase Two of BSP’s Easing Cycle 

Following the BSP’s historic rescue of the banking system during the pandemic, money supply metrics—particularly M1—have closely tracked GDP trends. (Figure 5, lowest chart) 

GDP peaked in Q1 2021, following the M1-to-GDP spike from Q3 2019 to Q3 2023. This spike reflected the pre-pandemic bank credit expansion, intensified by the BSP’s Php 2.3 trillion liquidity injection and other pandemic-related rescue measures. 

Since then, both GDP and M1 have slowed in tandem, though M1 has decelerated at a faster rate. 

This matters, because M1—comprising cash in circulation and demand deposits—underpins the transactions that generate GDP. 

Despite the BSP’s initial easing cycle in 2H 2024, liquidity growth continues to decelerate, even as Universal-Commercial bank credit expansion reaches record highs in peso terms (Q1, 2025) 

The lack of liquidity response to the first easing cycle prompted the BSP to implement a second phase: a deeper RRR cut, the doubling of deposit insurance coverage, and a fourth policy rate cut in April. 

However, monetary policy can only do so much in the face of structural issues. 

XI. Salary Loans: A Proxy for Financial Distress?

Figure 6

Wage earners are increasingly relying on salary loans to bridge the gap to offset reduced purchasing power 

While total salary loans (in pesos) have reached all-time highs, the growth rate of these loans has been slowing since Q1 2022—(strikingly) mirroring the trend in headline CPI. (Figure 6, topmost chart) 

However, slowing growth raises questions: Has the banking system reached peak salary loans? 

Has the pool of eligible borrowers maxed out? Are employees hitting credit limits for salary loans? Or are rising non-performing loans (NPLs) forcing lenders to tighten? (Figure 6, middle graph) 

Either way, the data signals distress among middle-income and lower-income workers, who are increasingly stretched and vulnerable.         

XII. CPI Distortions and Price Controls; CPI Spread Headline versus the Bottom 30%: Hunger vs. Hope

Headline CPI fell to just 1.4% in April (for 2Q GDP)—driven mainly by sharp food price declines. 

Yet little is said about the regulatory basis for this fall. Both rice and pork prices are subject to quasi-price controls via Maximum Suggested Retail Prices (MSRPs). And even here, compliance—particularly for pork—has been reportedly low. (Figure 6, lowest image)

Figure 7

Core CPI stabilized at 2.2% in April 2025, outperforming headline CPI since the MRSP. This reinforces the headline CPI’s decline due to regulatory maneuvers. The core index’s downtrend since Q2 2023 signals persistent demand weakness. 

However, rising month-on-month (MoM) rates suggest a potential bottom. This pattern mirrors previous episodes (2015, 2019), where food prices fell below Core CPI, acting as a staging point for the next inflation cycle. (Figure 7, topmost and middle charts) 

Regulatory and statistical distortions raise doubts about whether CPI distortions accurately reflect real market conditions. 

Another revealing metric is the spread between the national CPI and the Bottom 30% CPI, where food deflation for the Bottom 30% in April drove the spread sharply negative—reaching its lowest level since 2022—yet, while these numbers suggest that falling food prices for the poor should reduce hunger, the latest SWS survey indicates persistently high hunger rates. (Figure 7, lowest graph) 

Once again, the statistical data points diverge from lived experience. 

XIII. Conclusion: The Politics of Numbers: GDP and the CPI, Faith in the Overton Window 

The government’s CPI reveals numerous distortions, clearly being manipulated downward through regulation and statistical adjustments "benchmark-ism" to justify the BSP’s continued easing cycle, aimed at addressing debt and liquidity dynamics, as well as boosting GDP—which the establishment promotes as a stimulus. 

Yet behind the curated optimism—such as "upper-middle-income status"—lies a more disturbing truth: government statistics increasingly defy both economic logic and market signals. 

Market prices—USD Philippine peso exchange rate and Philippine Treasury yields—offer little support for these narratives. 

And yet, the Overton Window shaped by official optimism persists. 

Analysts, pundits, and policymakers alike remain obsessed with the hope it offers—ignoring hard realities staring them in the face. 

Until these contradictions are resolved, the statistical economy and the real economy will continue to drift further apart. 

Or, confronting these realities is essential to understanding the Philippine economy’s true trajectory.

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