Inside the SMC–Meralco–AEV Energy Deal: Asset Transfers That Mask a Systemic Fragility Loop

 

My cynical view is that 90 percent of financial strategy is either tax minimization, regulatory arbitrage (coming up with instruments to comply with the letter of regulations while violating their spirit), or accounting charades (complying with the letter of accounting rules while disguising reality)— Arnold Kling 

In this issue

Inside the SMC–Meralco–AEV Energy Deal: Asset Transfers That Mask a Systemic Fragility Loop 

Segment 1.0: The PSEi Debt Financed Asset Transfer Charade

1A. Debt, Not Productivity, Drives the Philippine Economy

1B. The Big Three Borrowers: MER, SMC, AEV The Mechanism: Asset Transfers

1C. The Circular Boost: A Fragility Loop 

Segment 2.0: San Miguel Corporation — The Minsky Ponzi Finance Core

2A. Fragility in Plain Sight

2B. SMC’s Camouflage Tactics

2C. The Mirage of Liquidity

2D. Political Angle: Deals, Influence, and the Administration’s Footprint 

Segment 2.1 — Meralco: A Utility Showing Profit, But Hiding Stress

2.1A. Chromite Gas Holdings: Meralco’s New Largest Exposure

2.1B. Q3 and 9M Performance: Meralco’s Money Illusion Revenues

2.1C. GDP Mirage and Debt Surge and Asset Inflation

2.1D. What This Really Means: Meralco as the Balance-Sheet Absorber 

Segment 2.2 – AEV: Revenue Spikes as Balance-Sheet Shock Absorption

2.2A AEV’s Q3–9M: Not Evidence of Business Growth 

Segment 3.0 — The Batangas LNG–Ilijan–EERI Triangle

3.A How One Deal Created Three Balance-Sheet Miracles 

Segment 4.0: Conclusion: How Concentration Becomes Crisis: The Philippine Energy Paradox 

Inside the SMC–Meralco–AEV Energy Deal: Asset Transfers That Mask a Systemic Fragility Loop 

SMC, Meralco, and AEV’s energy partnership reveals how asset transfers inflate profits, recycle fragility across balance sheets 

Disclaimer: This article presents an independent analysis and opinion based solely on publicly available financial reports, regulatory filings, and market data. It does not allege any unlawful conduct, nor does it assert knowledge of internal decision-making or intent by any company or individual. All interpretations reflect broader political-economic dynamics and systemic incentives rather than judgments about specific actors. Readers should treat this as an analytical commentary, not as a statement of fact regarding any wrongdoing. 

Segment 1.0: The PSEi Debt Financed Asset Transfer Charade 

1A. Debt, Not Productivity, Drives the Philippine Economy 

Debt, not productivity, is the engine of the Philippine economy. We’ve said this repeatedly, but what’s striking in 2025 is how debt growth has concentrated in just a handful of dominant companies.

Figure 1 

In the first nine months of 2025, the 26 non‑bank members of the elite PSEi 30 added Php 603.149 billion in debt—a growth rate of 11.22%, pushing their total to an all‑time high of Php 5.979 trillion. This was the second fastest pace after 2022. (Figure 1, upper window) 

The banks were not far behind. Bills payable of the four PSEi 30 banks rose Php 191.8 billion to Php 1.125 trillion. 

Meanwhile, BSP data shows bills and bonds payable across the entire banking industry climbed 9.34% YoY in September (Q3) to Php 1.861 trillion, the third highest on record. (Figure 1, lower chart) 

For clarity, let’s stick to the 26 non‑bank PSEi firms. 

Note: these figures exclude the rest of the 284 listed companies as of Q2. Because holding companies consolidate subsidiary debt, there are double counts here. And these are only published debts—some firms appear to have shifted borrowings into other liabilities or kept exposures off balance sheet. 

Even with those caveats, the Php 5.979 trillion in published PSEi non-bank debt is large enough to equal: 

• 16.8% of the Philippine financial system’s September Php 35.582 trillion in resources/assets; and
• 29.74% of the Php 20.15 trillion in nominal GDP over the first nine months. 

The Php 603.15 billion increase alone accounts for 75% of nominal GDP growth (Php 796.224 billion, or 4.96%) in the same period. 

In short, the debt of the non‑bank PSEi 30 is not just a corporate statistic—it is macro‑significant, shaping both banking dynamics and GDP itself.

1B. The Big Three Borrowers: MER, SMC, AEV The Mechanism: Asset Transfers 

Figure 2

In January–September 2025, the top three debt expanders among the non-bank PSEi 30—Meralco [PSE:MER], San Miguel [PSE:SMC], and Aboitiz Equity Ventures [PSE:AEV]—accounted for 52.65% of the Php 603.15 billion increase. (Figure 2, table and chart) 

Meralco (MER) debt more than doubled, rising 139.4% from Php 89.147 billion to Php 213.43 billion Php (+Php 124.283 billion). 

San Miguel (SMC) debt rose 7%, adding Php 103.312B, reaching a record Php 1.581 trillion. Yes, a T-R-I-L-L-I-O-N! 

Aboitiz Equity Ventures (AEV) debt jumped 24.26%, or Php 89.945B, to Php 460.7B. 

This was not coincidence. 

The synchronized surge reflects the Meralco–Aboitiz buy-in to San Miguel’s energy assets. 

As discussed last August 

"Beneath the surface, SMC’s debt dynamics resemble quasi-Ponzi finance—borrowing Php 681 billion to repay Php 727 billion in 1H 2025, while plugging the gap with preferred share issuance and asset monetization. The latter includes the deconsolidation and valuation uplift of its residual stakes in the Ilijan power facility and Excellent Energy Resources Inc. (EERI), as well as the $3.3 billion LNG deal with Meralco and AboitizPower in Batangas. Though framed as strategic partnerships, these transactions involved asset transfers that contributed heavily to the surge in reported profits. 

"The simulacrum of deleveraging—from Php 1.56 trillion in Q4 2024 to Php 1.506 trillion in Q2/1H 2025—appears to be a product of financial engineering, not structural improvement." 

In other words, SMC’s Q2 “deleveraging” was cosmetic. 

Its debt didn’t fall because operations improved; it fell because SMC dumped assets, liabilities, and valuation gains onto Meralco and Aboitiz.

1C. The Circular Boost: A Fragility Loop 

This buyout sequence increasingly resembles an asset transfer charade:

• SMC unloads assets with embedded liabilities.
• Meralco and AEV borrow heavily to “acquire” them.

Both sides book accounting gains via fair-value adjustments, reclassification, and deconsolidation. 

• Optics improve—higher assets, higher income, stronger balance sheets.
• Substance does not—real cash flow remains weak, debt dependence accelerates, and system-wide concentration rises. 

Each company props up another’s balance sheet, recycling fragility and presenting it as growth. 

The Philippine power sector is already intensely politicized, dominated by quasi-monopolies that operate in their respective territories. Markets exist only in form; in substance, the sector functions as a pseudo-market inside an oligopolistic cage. 

Approximate generation market shares illustrate this concentration: SMC Global ~20–25%, Aboitiz Power ~23%, First Gen + EDC ~12–18%, Meralco/MGen ~7–10%, and ACEN ~5–7% (figures vary by region, fuel type, and year). 

Recent deals only deepen this centralization, reinforcing the economic and political power of these dominant players, while regulatory bottlenecks and concentrated capital ensure that true competition remains largely symbolic. 

Segment 2.0: San Miguel Corporation — The Minsky Ponzi Finance Core 

The Chromite Gas Holdings acquisition is central to understanding SMC’s 2025 numbers.

MGen acquired 60% and Aboitiz’s TNGP took 40%, giving Chromite a 67% stake in several former San Miguel Global Power (SMGP) entities. SMGP retained 33%. This was not an expansion — again, it was an asset transfer. 

Q2: The Illusion of Improvement 

This maneuver produced a dramatic one‑off effect in Q2:

• Debt dipped slightly from Php 1.511 trillion (Q1) to Php 1.504 trillion.
• Cash surged +26.5% YoY to Php 321.14 billion.
• Profits exploded +398% YoY, from Php 4.691 billion to Php 23.4 billion. 

Q3: The Underlying Reality Reappears 

But the illusion unraveled in Q3: 

• Revenues contracted –4.5% in a weak economy.
• Profits collapsed –49.5% to Php 11.9 billion.
• Cash rose again +22.4% to Php 344 billion.

Figure 3

Debt soared Php 103.312 billion YoY, Php 76.28 billion QoQ, bringing total debt to a staggering Php 1.58 trillion. (Figure 3, topmost graph, middle table) 

2A. Fragility in Plain Sight 

Even with the current the sharp rebound in SMC’s share price — whether due to benchmark-ism (potential gaming market prices by the establishment to conceal embedded fragilities) or implicit cross-ownership effects from the Chromite transaction — market cap remains below Php 180B. 

• Borrowing growth this quarter alone equaled ≈40-45% of SMC’s entire market cap (as of the third week of November). 
• Debt outstanding exceeds annual sales. 
• Debt equals 4.44% of the entire Philippine financial system’s assets. 

This is not normal corporate leverage. 

This is systemic leverage. 

2B. SMC’s Camouflage Tactics 

SMC has been masking its worsening debt structure through: 

• Preferred share issuances (debt disguised as equity), another Php 48.6 billion raised in October.
• Asset transfers involving Meralco and Aboitiz (the Chromite–Ilijan–EERI triangle)
• Aggressive fair-value reclassification and balance-sheet engineering 

All three are textbook Minsky Ponzi Finance indicators: Cash flows cannot meet obligations; survival depends on rolling over liabilities and selling assets. 

2C. The Mirage of Liquidity 

SMC reports cash reserves (Php 344 billion) rising to nearly matching short‑term debt (Php 358 billion). (Figure 3, lowest diagram) 

But internal breakdowns suggest: 

• A portion of “cash” is restricted
• Some is pledged to lenders
• Some sits inside joint ventures 

Balance-sheet “cash” includes mark-to-model items tied to asset transfers 

Meaning: true liquidity is far lower than reported. 

2D. Political Angle: Deals, Influence, and the Administration’s Footprint 

In the current political climate, the administration’s footprint is crucial for every major economic deal. 

SMC’s transactions likely benefited from proximity to the leadership — but political shifts also show how influence-connection-network shapes outcomes across the corporate landscape. 

Take the Villar group: after apparently losing favor with the administration, their Primewater franchise has been terminated in several provinces, and authorities have cracked down on their real estate assets, claiming prior valuations were inflated. The SEC even revoked the accreditation of the appraiser involved. 

Meanwhile, MVP of Meralco reportedly eyes Primewater, underscoring how political favor reshapes corporate fortunes. Where Villar faces contraction, SMC and its allies (Meralco, Aboitiz) secure expansion through administration‑blessed asset transfers. 

In any case, it is possible that the deal had administrative blessing—or at least the nudge, given the proximity of the principals involved. The other possible angle is that this could be an implicit bailout dressed up as a buy-in deal. 

But the more important point is this: 

Even political closeness cannot permanently mask structural insolvency. 

SMC is too big to fail on paper — but too debt-bloated to hide forever, or political cover buys time, not solvency. 

Segment 2.1 — Meralco: A Utility Showing Profit, But Hiding Stress 

2.1A. Chromite Gas Holdings: Meralco’s New Largest Exposure 

Meralco’s Chromite Gas Holdings investment has become its largest exposure among joint ventures and associates, carried at Php 84.08 billion in 2025. Yet, despite the size, Chromite has contributed no direct revenues so far. 

The assets acquired from San Miguel Global are framed as enhancing Meralco’s ability to deliver reliable, stable, and cost‑effective electricity—but the numbers tell a different story—one shaped more by accounting and regulatory pass-throughs than by genuine economic or demand strength. 

2.1B. Q3 and 9M Performance: Meralco’s Money Illusion Revenues

Figure 4 

The headline 4% GDP in Q3 exposed Meralco’s fragility: 

• Revenues in gwh: –2.08% YoY, –6.64% QoQ.
• Electricity sales in pesos: +7.09% YoY, –3.35% QoQ.
• 9M gwh sales: –0.37% YoY, while peso sales rose +6%.
• Profitability: +18.19% in Q3, +9.93% in 9M. 

This is classic money illusion: peso revenues rise while physical demand falls. (Figure 4, upper and lower graphs) 

Operational output is not driving earnings. Instead, tariff pass‑throughs, higher generation charges, and regulatory adjustments inflate nominal sales. It is a regulatory inflation windfall, not genuine demand strength. 

2.1C. GDP Mirage and Debt Surge and Asset Inflation 

Meralco’s results reinforce that Q3 GDP was effectively lower than the 4% headline once adjusted for inflation and real‑sector contraction. Nominal growth masks real decline—exactly the GDP mirage motif you’ve been threading. 

More troubling is the balance sheet: 

• Debt surged +139% to Php 213.4 billion.
• Assets inflated +34.5% to Php 792 billion. 

This scale of short‑term expansion is not normal for a utility. It only happens when major assets are shuffled, revalued, or purchased at non‑market prices. Capex and operations do not explain it. Asset transfers do. 

2.1D. What This Really Means: Meralco as the Balance-Sheet Absorber 

Regulated returns (tariff-based profits) look stable, but the underlying structure is growing riskier. A utility with: 

• falling physical demand,
• surging debt, and
• massive non-operational asset expansion

is not strengthening — it is absorbing leverage for some entity. 

And that entity is SMC. 

The Chromite/Ilijan/EERI structure effectively places Meralco in the role of balance-sheet absorber for San Miguel’s asset-lightening strategy. 

Meralco’s earnings stability conceals a fragile, debt-heavy balance sheet inflated by SMC-linked asset transfers, not by real demand or utility fundamentals 

Segment 2.2 – AEV: Revenue Spikes as Balance-Sheet Shock Absorption 

Almost the same story applies to Aboitiz Equity Ventures. 

While AEV publicly emphasizes energy security, stability, market dominance, and regulatory influence as its core priorities, the weakening macro economy reveals a different angle.

Figure 5 

AEV posted Q3 revenues of +19.6%, pushing net income up +12.8%. (Figure 5, upper visual) 

But on a 9M basis, revenues were only +2.84% while net income fell –10.6% — a clear mismatch between quarterly momentum and year-to-date weakness. 

In its 17Q report, AEV notes that fresh contributions from Chromite Gas Holdings, Inc. (CGHI) drove the 5% rise in equity earnings from investees. This aligns precisely with the pattern seen in Meralco: newly consolidated or newly transferred assets creating a one-off jump. 

Meanwhile, the balance sheet shows the real story: 

• Debt surged 24.3% to Php 460.7B
• Cash jumped 15% to Php 90.84B
• Assets expanded 14.94% to Php 971B 

A sudden Q3 revenue surge combined with a weak 9M total is entirely consistent with: 

• Newly absorbed assets booking revenue only after transfer
• Acquisition timing falling post–June 2025
• Consolidation effects appearing sharply in Q3 

This means the revenue spike is not organic growth — it is the accounting after-effect of assets acquired or transferred in 1H but only recognized operationally in Q3. 

AEV’s cash swelling amid rapid debt accumulation strongly suggests:

• bridging loans used during staged acquisition payments
• temporary liquidity buffers ahead of full transfer pricing
• staggered settlement structures typical in large utility-energy asset sales
• pending regulatory approvals delaying full cash deployment 

Cash rises first → debt stays elevated → assets revalue → revenue shows up later. 

This pattern is classic in large asset transfers, not in real economic expansion. 

2.2A AEV’s Q3–9M: Not Evidence of Business Growth 

They are the accounting shadow of San Miguel’s 1H asset unloading—financed by AEV’s debt surge and disguised as operational growth. 

What looks like stability is really fragility recycling: AEV, like Meralco, has become a balance-sheet counterparty absorbing the system-wide effects of SMC’s asset-lightening strategy, with short-term profitability masking long-term stress. 

Segment 3.0 — The Batangas LNG–Ilijan–EERI Triangle 

3.A How One Deal Created Three Balance-Sheet Miracles 

If Segment 2 showed the operational weakness across SMC, Meralco, and Aboitiz, Segment 3 explains why their balance sheets still looked strangely “strong.” 

The answer lies in one of 2025’s most consequential but least-understood restructurings: 

The Batangas LNG–Ilijan–EERI triangle. 

This single transaction is the hidden engine behind the debt spikes, asset jumps, and sudden income boosts in Q2–Q3. 

Once you see this triangle, everything else snaps into place. 

1. The Triangle in One Line 

This wasn’t three companies expanding. 

It was one deal split three ways, enabling:

• SMC to book gains and create a “deleveraging” illusion
• Meralco to justify its 139% debt explosion
• Aboitiz to absorb a 24% debt spike while looking “strategically positioned” 

All this happened without producing a single additional unit of electricity. 

While the EERI–Ilijan complex is designed to deliver 1,200–2,500 MW of gas-fired capacity, as of Q3 only 850 MW are fully operational and a 425 MW unit remains uncertified — meaning the promised output exists largely on paper, not yet in reliable commercial dispatch. This reinforces the point: the triangle deal moved balance sheets faster than it delivered power.

2. How the Triangle Worked 

Here’s the real flow: 

• SMC restructured and monetized its stakes in Ilijan, Excellent Energy Resources Inc. (EERI) and Batangas LNG terminal
• Meralco bought in — financed almost entirely by new debt
• AboitizPower bought in — also financed by new debt 

The valuation uplift flowed back to SMC, booked as income and “deleveraging progress” 

The result: 

• All three balance sheets expanded
• None of them improved real output
• This was transaction-driven balance-sheet inflation, not industrial growth. 

3. Why This Triangle Matters: It Solves Every Q3 Puzzle 

Without this transaction, Q3 numbers look impossible:

• Meralco’s debt doubling despite falling electricity volume
• AEV’s Php 90B debt jump despite declining operating income
• SMC’s “improving leverage” despite worsening cash burn 

Once the triangle is added back in, the contradictions vanish:

• Meralco and AEV levered up to buy SMC’s assets
• SMC booked the valuation uplift as earnings
• All three appeared financially healthier — e.g. cash reserves jumped— without becoming economically healthier (Figure 5, middle graph) 

Q3 looked disconnected from reality because it was. 

4. The Illusion of Progress 

On paper:

• SMC: higher profit
• Meralco: larger asset base
• AEV: greater scale 

In substance:

• SMC gave up future revenue streams
• Meralco and AEV loaded up on liabilities
• System-wide fragility increased— e.g. accelerates the rising trend of financing charges. (Figure 5, lowest chart) 

The triangle recycles the same underlying cash flows, but layers more leverage on them. 

This is growth by relabeling, not growth by production. 

5. What This Signals for 2025–2026 

The triangle exposes the real state of Philippine corporate finance:

• cash liquidity is tight
• banks are reaching their risk limits
• debt has become the default funding model
• GDP “growth” is being propped up by inter-corporate transactions, not capex
• conglomerates are supporting each other through balance-sheet swaps 

Most importantly: 

This is a leverage loop, not an investment cycle. The mainstream is confusing balance-sheet inflation for economic progress. 

The Batangas LNG–Ilijan–EERI triangle created no new power capacity. Instead, it created the appearance of corporate strength.

Segment 4.0: Conclusion: How Concentration Becomes Crisis: The Philippine Energy Paradox 

The Philippine energy sector operates as a political monopoly with only the façade of market competition. 

The triad of San Miguel, Aboitiz, and Meralco illustrates deepening centralization, pillared on a political–economic feedback loop. 

Major industry transactions, carried out with either administration blessing or tacit nudging, function as implicit bailouts channeled through oligarchic control. 

This further entrenches concentration, while regulatory capture blinds the BSP, DOE, and ERC to mounting risks—encouraging moral hazard and ever-bolder risk-taking in expectation of eventual government backstops. 

This concentration funnels public and private savings into monopolistic hands, fueling outsized debt that competes directly with banks and government borrowings, intensifying crowding-out dynamics, resulting in worsening savings conditions, suppressing productivity gains, and constraining consumer growth. 

Fragility risks do not stop with the borrowers: counterparties—savers, local and foreign lenders, banks, and bond markets—are exposed as well, creating the potential for contagion across the broader economy. 

The feedback loop is self-reinforcing: policies fuel malinvestments, these malinvestments weaken the economy, and weakness justifies further interventions that deepen concentration, heighten vulnerability, and accelerate structural maladjustments. 

Viewed through a theoretical lens, San Miguel’s ever-expanding leverage fits a Minsky-style financial instability pattern—now extending into deals that serve as camouflaged backstops. This reflects what I call "benchmark-ism": an engineered illusion of stability designed to pull wool over the public’s eyes, mirroring Kindleberger’s cycle of manipulation, fraud, and corruption. 

Taken together, these dynamics reveal unmistakable symptoms of late-cycle fragility. 

What is framed as reform is, in truth, a vicious cycle of concentration, political capture, extraction, and systemic decay. 

____ 

references 

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

Prudent Investor Newsletters, Is San Miguel’s Ever-Growing Debt the "Sword of Damocles" Hanging over the Philippine Economy and the PSE? December 02, 2024

 

Which Is the Black Swan for the Philippines: The Big One or War?

 

Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime—Ernest Hemingway 

In this issue: 

Which Is the Black Swan for the Philippines: The Big One or War?

Part 1. Thesis: Nature: The Big One

1A. The Wittgenstein Trap

1B. Between Tectonics and Politics

Part 2. Anti-Thesis: Human Action: Man-Made Disasters

2A. Brewing Crisis: Second ‘Ayungin’ Thomas Shoal Incident

2B. Chinese 36 Stratagems in Action

2C. Escalation Beyond the Shoals

2D. The Root of War: Human Action

2E. Thai-Cambodia Border Clash and Thai’s Domestic Policy Fissure

2F. Fatalities: Wars Eclipse Earthquakes

2G. Unknown Unknowns-Black Swan Event: The Final Trigger

Part 3. Synthesis: Nature’s Convulsions vs. Man-Made Catastrophes

3A. The Human Trigger

3B. The Shape of Future Wars and the Grey Swan

3C. War Economies and Systemic Fragility

3D. Conclusion: The Shape of the Next Black Swan

 

Which Is the Black Swan for the Philippines: The Big One or War? 

Nature versus human action—which would happen first, and which would be deadlier?

Part 1. Thesis: Nature: The Big One 

A string of significant earthquakes—magnitude 5 and above—has recently shaken the Philippines.

Figure 1 

From Cebu’s 6.9 (September 30) to Davao Oriental’s 7.4 (October 10), to Negros Occidental and Zambales’s 5.1 (October 11), to Surigao del Sur’s 6.0 (October 11), to Surigao del Norte’s 6.2 (October 17) and to Ilocos Norte’s 5.2 (October 17), the tremors have been relentless and have drawn public anxiety. Both Cebu and Davao Oriental continue to record over a thousand aftershocks. (Figure 1) 

Despite denying possible interconnections among these tremors, officials and media have begun to promote the likelihood of "The Big One" in the National Capital Region—a 7.2-magnitude quake expected to “bring catastrophic destruction” to Metro Manila. 

The Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS) bases its forecast or hazard assessments on the West Valley Fault’s recurrence interval of 400–600 years, suggesting that “its next movement may possibly happen earlier or later than 2058.”

A Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) study further estimates that The Big One could result in 33,500 fatalities and 113,600 injuries.

Adding to the anxiety is talk of a “Culebra Event,” coined by independent researcher Brent Dmitruk, describing a potential chain reaction of earthquakes triggered by tectonic stress transfer across fault systems—like a slithering snake (culebra in Spanish). Though unsupported by mainstream seismology, the idea captures public fear that defies conventional models and timelines.

The Philippines, of course, is no stranger to major quakes and has endured two major quakes in modern history:

The Moro Gulf Earthquake (August 17, 1976, magnitude 8.1) near Mindanao and Sulu caused 5,000–8,000 deaths, from both quake and tsunami.

The 1990 Luzon Earthquake (July 16,1990. magnitude 7.8) centered in Rizal, Nueva Ecija, killed 1,621 and injured 3,500, destroying buildings even in Metro Manila—though fatalities in the NCR were limited to three.

First, these events show that even the strongest recorded quakes—occurring decades ago and in poorer eras—produced casualties below 10,000.

Second, with today’s supposed technological advances, stricter building codes, and a “wealthier” economy, it is doubtful that "The Big One" would match JICA’s apocalyptic estimates—unless the quake’s magnitude or duration exceeds historical precedents.

Third, when PHIVOLCS says it may occur "earlier or later than 2058," it essentially admits ignorance or uncertainty, dressed up as science. The 400–600-year interval is a broad statistical range—based on paleoseismic trenching data—not a clock.  

If the Big One hits in 2058 or later, many of us won’t be around to validate the prophecy—unless futurist Ray Kurzweil’s “Singularity” delivers on its promise to merge machine intelligence and humanity in the quest for immortality.

Fourth, earthquake prediction remains closer to numerical choreography than precise science.

As Wikipedia notes: “After a critical review of the scientific literature, the International Commission on Earthquake Forecasting for Civil Protection (ICEF) concluded in 2011 that there was considerable room for methodological improvements. Many reported precursors are contradictory, lack measurable amplitude, or are unsuitable for rigorous statistical evaluation." 

Even behavioral studies of animals as predictors have failed to establish reliability—no constants, no reproducibility. 

As Wikipedia notes, many earthquake ‘predictions’ are remembered only when they appear to hit — a textbook case of selection bias. In reality, misses vanish quietly into obscurity, while lucky coincidences are framed as scientific foresight. 

To date, no model has achieved reproducible accuracy in predicting the exact timing, magnitude, or location of a major quake—anywhere in the world. 

1A. The Wittgenstein Trap 

Seen through Wittgenstein’s Ruler (as applied by Nassim Taleb): 

Unless you have confidence in the ruler’s reliability, if you use a ruler to measure a table, you may also be using the table to measure the ruler. 

Applied here, government agencies present statistical intervals as confidence. If a quake happens within the range, it validates neither the model nor the state—it only confirms that earthquakes happen eventually.

If it doesn’t, the model isn’t falsified—it’s simply "extended." 

Duh! 

That’s the Wittgenstein trap: the model (the ruler) is never truly tested by reality (the table). Every outcome is reinterpreted to preserve authority. 

The likelihood that earthquake models hit their prediction—timing, location, and magnitude—is effectively near zero. 

Their utility lies not in prophecy but in policy: infrastructure codes, disaster preparedness, funding and others. More importantly, the political need to manage fear. 

Keep this in mind, the "Big One" may eventually occur—but whether it happens as predicted is almost entirely coincidental. 

And when it does, its qualitative effects are likely to depart significantly from the scenarios sold to the public by official experts. 

1B. Between Tectonics and Politics

Figure 2

Earlier, we proposed in our October 10 post on X.com that these seismic episodes may be “coincidental geologically, yet symbolically it feels as though the ground beneath us—literally, institutionally, and metaphorically—is shifting.”  (Figure 2) 

That remark, written amid an unfolding corruption probe, captured a deeper truth: instability in governance mirrors instability in nature. Both release pressures accumulated over time—one through tectonic strain, the other through moral decay—manifesting as eroding trust, public fatigue, and cynicism toward those meant to uphold order. 

Thus, the “Big One” is not merely a geological prophecy but an allegory for a state under pressure, its faults widening both underground and within. Economic tectonics—liquidity cycles, capital migrations, and policy misalignments—converge with political fault lines, creating a landscape where what is called “resilience” may simply be the calm before the rupture. 

For while nature’s tremors follow blind physics, the greater danger lies in human volition—where pride, fear, and miscalculation can unleash catastrophes far deadlier than any fault line. 

The next rupture may not come from the earth, but from the choices of men. 

Part 2. Anti-Thesis: Human Action: Man-Made Disasters

Figure 3

2A. Brewing Crisis: Second ‘Ayungin’ Thomas Shoal Incident

While the heebie-jeebies over “The Big One” and other earthquakes often grip the public, a more insidious tremor unfolds daily in the South China Sea. Media reports chronicle near-constant confrontations between China’s military and Philippine forces: Chinese jets tailing Philippine Coast Guard aircraft over Bajo de Masinloc, warships aiming lasers at Filipino fishermen, and water cannons battering resupply missions to contested shoals. (Figure3) 

The Second ‘Ayungin’ Thomas Shoal incident on June 17, 2024 marked one of the most volatile flashpoints in recent years. 

During a resupply mission to the BRP Sierra Madre—a grounded WWII-era vessel serving as a Philippine outpost—China Coast Guard (CCG) personnel rammed, boarded, and wielded machetes and axes against Philippine Navy boats. The skirmish left several Filipino personnel injured, one severely. Some officials described it as a “near act of war.” 

Even prior to this, China’s repeated use of water cannons had already prompted warnings that a Filipino fatality could trigger the 1951 U.S.–Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT). 

Still, officials refrained from escalating the matter, citing the absence of firearms—an example of legal technicalities serving as political veneer. 

But let’s be candid: this "restraint" was not a purely local decision. 

The United States, already deeply entangled in the Russia–Ukraine war and the Israel–Palestine–Hezbollah–Iran conflict, has been supplying arms, intelligence, logistics, funding and etc., across multiple theaters, likely sought to avoid opening another front with China. With its strategic bandwidth stretched thin, Washington may have quietly signaled Manila to stand down, avoiding direct escalation with Beijing. 

2B. Chinese 36 Stratagems in Action 

China’s tactical behavior in the South China Sea mirrors or aligns with several of the Thirty Six Stratagems, a classical Chinese playbook for deception and maneuver: 

1. Beat the grass to startle the snake – China’s repeated use of water cannons, laser targeting, and close flybys—especially when Philippine vessels are accompanied by media or U.S. observers—serves as deliberate provocation to test: 

A) Philippine resolve and limits under Marcos Jr.’s more assertive maritime stance; 

B) U.S. response thresholds under the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty—will Washington truly go to war for Manila or is this just posturing? 

C) Sphere of Influence: Test ASEAN’s cohesion, identifying weak links, wavering partners, and potential recruits for Chinese influence 

2. Sacrifice the plum tree to preserve the peach tree – Accept small losses to secure larger strategic interests. China may tolerate reputational costs (international condemnation, legal rebukes) to maintain de facto control of contested waters and normalize its presence. 

3 Make a sound in the east, then strike in the west – Create diversions to mask true objectives. While public attention centers on high-profile flashpoints like Second Thomas Shoal, China quietly fortifies other positions such as the Paracel, (Subi Reef) Spratly Islands and Luconia Shoals, expanding influence with minimal resistance U.S. Army Pacific. 

There are more, but we opted to limit it to these. 

2C. Escalation Beyond the Shoals 

Philippine leadership has also amplified its rhetoric on Taiwan, signaling a shift from territorial defense to strategic alignment with U.S. interests. Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro’s visit to Mavulis Island, the northernmost Philippine outpost near Taiwan, was interpreted by Beijing as a provocative move. 

The United States, for its part, has accelerated its military buildup in the Philippines—provoking sharp responses from Beijing. 

• MRC Typhon: Mid-Range missile platform capable of launching SM-6 and nuclear capable Tomahawk missiles 
• NMESIS: Anti-ship missile system
• MADIS: Air defense system designed to counter drones and aerial threats 

These deployments have drawn sharp rebukes from China, which views them as encirclement. 

2D. The Root of War: Human Action 

While wars may have complex causation, their ignition essentially boils down to human action—impulse, emotion, pride, ambition, ideology, faith, fear or the pursuit of power. 

Figure 4 

Whether it’s:

• Mythic provocation (Helen of Troy)
• Territorial hunger (Lebensraum)
• Political culture (Bushido, Spartan honor)
• Ideological clash (nationalism, communism, democracy)
• Faith and doctrine (religious wars)
• Oppression and independence (colonial revolts) 

…each war is a man-made disaster, often more devastating than nature’s fiercest convulsions. (Figure 4) 

Again, history’s wars are rarely accidents of circumstance; they are the culmination of deliberate human choices, ambitions, and fears. Each cause—territorial, ideological, or psychological—reflects a particular configuration of human action under pressure 

2E. Thai-Cambodia Border Clash and Thai’s Domestic Policy Fissure 

Take the recent case of the Thai–Cambodia border clashes, which erupted on July 24, 2025, and lasted five days. The conflict resulted in 38 confirmed deaths, over 300,000 civilians displaced, and dozens injured. A U.S.–China–ASEAN-brokered ceasefire was reached on July 28 in Putrajaya, Malaysia, though violations were reported within days.

While tensions trace back to colonial-era boundary ambiguities—notably the Franco-Siamese Treaties of 1904 and 1907—the immediate trigger was political destabilization in Thailand. A leaked phone call between Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra and Khleang Huot, Deputy Governor of Phnom Penh, exposed internal rifts between Thailand’s civilian leadership and its military establishment. The fallout led to Paetongtarn’s ouster, which reportedly emboldened the Thai military, escalating border hostilities and complicating diplomatic restraint. 

This episode exemplifies how domestic political fractures—especially civil-military dissonance—can act as a proximate cause of war, even when historical grievances simmer in the background. 

Although the engagement occurred without the direct involvement of superpowers, the casualties, displacement, and property damage were almost comparable to those from a major earthquake. 

2F. Fatalities: Wars Eclipse Earthquakes 

But this is a mere tremor compared to the tectonic toll of modern wars. In the Russia–Ukraine conflict and the Israel–Palestine–Hezbollah–Iran escalation, aggregate casualties have surged into the tens of thousands, with entire cities reduced to rubble and economies hollowed out. 

Zooming out, the 20th century offers even starker metrics:

• World War I: ~20 million deaths
• World War II: ~60–85 million deaths (approximately 500,000 to 1 million Filipinos perished)
• Korean War: ~3 million deaths
• Vietnam War: ~2–3 million deaths

 These are not just numbers.  Wars inflict far greater devastation on society—its people, its social fabric, capital, financial and economic wellbeing—than most natural disasters. 

2G. Unknown Unknowns-Black Swan Event: The Final Trigger 

Former U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, defending the absence of evidence linking Iraq to weapons of mass destruction, famously invoked the concept of “unknown unknowns”—the things we don’t know we don’t know. 

In many ways, Black Swan events fall under this same category. They share three defining traits: they are unpredictable, highly improbable, and extremely consequential—whether catastrophic or transformative. 

Part 3. Synthesis: Nature’s Convulsions vs. Man-Made Catastrophes 

The fault lies not in our stars, but in ourselves—Shakespeare (Julius Caesar) 

Geological cycles and seismic displacements will inevitably occur—whether tomorrow, next year, or within our lifetime. But despite their scientific veneer, no current technology can predict their timing or magnitude with precision. And when framed within historical context, their feared impact may be less apocalyptic than media portrayals suggest. 

Still, situational awareness and preparedness should remain a universal goal—to prevent one from becoming a collateral of what Nature or Providence may unleash. 

3A. The Human Trigger 

By contrast, wars are man-made disasters—often triggered not by grand strategy, but by accidents, miscalculations, and misinterpretations, all fueled by human frailties. The daily confrontations in the South China Sea could easily escalate into a bilateral kinetic engagement, like the Thai–Cambodia or India–Pakistan border clashes.

Should escalation occur—and if the Philippines invokes the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty with the United States—the world could awaken to the unthinkable: a third world war. This is not hyperbole—it’s a structurally plausible outcome.

And this could happen anytime. As long as belligerence dominates bilateral policy, the spark could ignite today, tomorrow, next week, or a year from now. The extent of destruction remains deeply unknown—dependent on the nature and scale of warfare employed.

3B. The Shape of Future Wars and the Grey Swan

Unlike World War II, which pursued territorial conquest, modern warfare is more strategic than expansive. In the Russia–Ukraine war, occupation has largely focused on Donetsk and Luhansk —ethnically Russian regions—with limited push toward Kyiv. In contrast, the Israel–Middle East conflict may reflect ambitions for a Greater Israel, with broader territorial implications.

Yet the Philippine public remains benumbed—desensitized by repetition and diversion, dulled by inertia. This jaded reaction blinds us to escalation, even when its architecture is already in place.

It’s not a Black Swan—it’s a Grey Swan: known, possible, but broadly discounted. 

3C. War Economies and Systemic Fragility 

Meanwhile, internal economic fragilities mirror these geopolitical tensions.

Figure 5 

The war economies of Thailand and the Philippines have been among the worst-performing Asian stock markets in 2025, down -8.97% and -6.73% year-to-date, respectively (as of October 17). Though internal fragility remains the primary concern, this also suggests that geopolitical tensions have contributed to the erosion of investor confidence. 

Despite global equities reaching record highs amid easy-money policies and the weak dollar, these two “war economies” remain laggards. 

If liquidity tightens globally, could leaders resort to military conflict—a survival mechanism cloaked in patriotism— as a means to divert public attention from political economic entropy? 

That’s our Black Swan. 

War is conscious cruelty compounded over time—the most preventable catastrophe, yet the one that most often eclipses nature’s fiercest convulsions.

3D. Conclusion: The Shape of the Next Black Swan 

In the end, both earthquakes and wars spring from ruptures—one from the shifting of tectonic plates, the other from the collision of human wills. The former is inevitable, a law of Nature; the latter is avoidable, yet repeatedly chosen. 

One humbles man before forces beyond comprehension; the other exposes the peril of his own hubris. Between Providence and pride lies the fragile equilibrium of civilization. Whether the next Black Swan rises from the earth’s crust or from the depths of human ambition, its impact will test not our technology, but our wisdom—our ability to foresee, restrain, and prepare before the unthinkable unfolds.