Why Isn't Gold Acting Like a Safe Haven—Yet? Part III: Is This Gold's Next Leg Up?

 

First of all there is need to remember that the gold standard did not collapse. Governments abolished it in order to pave the way for inflation. The whole grim apparatus of oppression and coercion—policemen, customs guards, penal courts, prisons, in some countries even executioners—had to be put into action in order to destroy the gold standard. Solemn pledges were broken, retroactive laws were promulgated, provisions of constitutions and bills of rights were openly defied. And hosts of servile writers praised what the governments had done and hailed the dawn of the fiat-money millennium.—Ludwig von Mises 

In this issue: 

Why Isn't Gold Acting Like a Safe Haven—Yet? Part III: Is This Gold's Next Leg Up?

I. Introduction: From Finding the Bottom to Explaining the Reversal

II. The Gold Cycle: Cyclical bear, Secular bull

III. The New Plaza Accord: Intervention and Its Shrinking Half-Life

IV. Deepening Interventions Becomes Gold's Catalyst

V. When Former Headwinds Become Tailwinds

VII. Central Banks as Dip Buyers, and the Fund-Flow Tailwind

VI. Risk-Off, Inflationary, and Fiscal Signals Converge

VII. Central Banks as Dip Buyers, and the Fund-Flow Tailwind

VIII. Bottom line: Gold Is Pricing the Limits of Intervention 

Why Isn't Gold Acting Like a Safe Haven—Yet? Part III: Is This Gold's Next Leg Up? 

Intervention was supposed to stabilize currencies and bonds. Instead, each attempt is exposing the imbalance underneath—and gold is beginning to price it.

I. Introduction: From Finding the Bottom to Explaining the Reversal 

Figure 1 

This piece started as an attempt to answer whether gold had found a bottom. Events overtook the question. In the space of a week, gold cleared its 200-day moving average at $4,501, broke above $4,600, surpassed the 38.2% retracement of its decline from March's record, and confirmed the rounding-bottom pattern that had been forming since June. It was gold's third straight weekly gain—and its third strongest week of the year. 

The question of the bottom is no longer the interesting one. 

What's worth asking now is whether this is the start of gold's next leg toward its late January record near $5,400-$5,600, and — more importantly for this series — why it's happening.

Part I and Part II of this series argued gold's early-2026 weakness was a liquidity-stress phenomenon, not a failure of its safe-haven role — the gold-oil ratio compressing as energy-importing economies scrambled for dollars, gold sold because it remained liquid enough to fund margin calls, not because confidence in it had broken. Gold peaked above $5,500 intraday in late January, fell in a rounding top that hardened into a roughly 28% decline into late June, then based and turned. That much was covered in the earlier articles. 

What has changed is the pace and the trend—and, as the following analysis shows, the trigger. 

II. The Gold Cycle: Cyclical bear, Secular bull 

Gold's advance since the Nixon shock of August 15, 1971, has never moved in a straight line. It has progressed through a series of secular cycles, with cyclical bear markets occurring within the larger structural trend. Those corrections have varied considerably in both depth and duration.

Figure 2

The shortest cyclical bear market under a secular bullmarket was the 2008 decline, at roughly 26%, which resolved within about eight months. The deepest was the 2011–2015 decline, at roughly 48%, which lasted four years and marked the hiatus before the current cycle. February–June's roughly 28% decline over four months therefore looks much closer, in depth and duration, to the 2008 cyclical correction than to the 2011–2015 secular break. (Figure 2, topmost pane) 

Importantly, the structural forces behind the current advance have not disappeared. Central-bank de-dollarization, fiscal dominance, a geopolitical order drifting toward blocs, a deepening war economy, asset bubbles, and persistent inflation remain part of the monetary and institutional environment supporting gold. 

A liquidity-driven correction can therefore interrupt a secular advance without terminating the forces that produced it. If the current reversal holds, the February–June decline may prove to have been another cyclical bear market nested within the larger secular bull—not the end of the cycle itself. 

And if that interpretation is correct, the current advance would represent the third major leg of gold's post-Bretton Woods secular bull, following the 1970s advance and the 2001–2011 bull market. (Figure 2, middle graph) 

III. The New Plaza Accord: Intervention and Its Shrinking Half-Life 

On July 31, Japan's Ministry of Finance confirmed a coordinated yen-buying intervention with the US—the first joint action since 2011—after the yen slid toward 40-year lows near 163 to the dollar. 

The September 1985 Plaza Accord is the obvious comparison, but the history deserves care. Gold began rising in February 1985, before the Accord, and rallied roughly 50% from the Accord through November 1987—so gold did respond. (Figure 2, lowest image) 

What the Accord did not do was deliver gold's secular low. The dollar devaluation it engineered helped inflate Japan's property and stock bubble, which peaked in 1990 and produced the “lost decades,” with aftershocks plausibly extending through the 1994 Tequila crisis, the 1994 bond crisis (Great Bond Massacre), and the 1997 Asian financial crisis. 

Gold's actual secular bottom wasn't etched until the post-Asian-crisis, post-dot-com years around 1999–2001, symbolically marked by Gordon Brown's UK gold sales near the trough. 

The 1980–1999 gold secular bear was, in effect, the salad days of the dollar standard. 

A Plaza-style intervention can produce a real, tradeable cyclical gold rally without stabilizing the underlying system. Plaza's deeper legacy was several years of instability surfacing elsewhere, not durable currency-regime repair.

Figure 3

The yen's own history since 2022 makes the point more directly. Japanese authorities have repeatedly intervened to support the yen, yet each intervention has ultimately been followed by renewed downward pressure. (Figure 3, topmost pane) 

The pattern has been remarkably consistent: intervention produces an abrupt reversal, but the underlying trend eventually reasserts itself. 

That is the shrinking half-life in practice. The more fundamental forces driving the currency remain in place, so each intervention has to work harder to produce the same effect—and the market increasingly treats the intervention itself as evidence of the underlying imbalance. 

That caution has aged well. It took the bond market almost two weeks to fully erase the initial effect of the Fed-BoJ intervention. Then, on August 19, with 30-year Treasury yields pushing above 5.30%—the highest since 2007—the Treasury unexpectedly doubled its long-end buyback capacity, from a $2 billion to at least a $4 billion cap per operation, effective September 9. Yields fell instantly, equity futures jumped, and gold spiked. 

The Treasury's buyback program had already been operating since May 2024. The August move therefore wasn't the introduction of a new tool, but an expansion of an existing one. The important point is what happened despite that intervention: long-term yields had continued rising, suggesting diminishing returns from efforts to absorb duration and stabilize the long end. (Figure 3, middle image) 

This time the effect lasted one day! By Friday, the 30-year yield had regained the entire drop and then some, closing at 5.27%, while the 10-year sat at 4.74%—a single basis point from its pre-intervention high. 

Wolf Richter's account of the episode is worth noting for its diagnosis: the rise in long-term yields wasn't market dysfunction requiring correction, but the consequence of the government having to sell roughly $1 trillion in new debt over three months to fund the deficit, with buyers demanding compensation for inflation risk, the fiscal trajectory, and the sheer volume of paper that must clear the market every few months. Those pressures cannot be resolved by a signaling exercise from the Treasury secretary. 

Treasury Secretary Bessent himself all but conceded the point on CNBC the following morning, repeatedly describing the move as "signaling." 

Nor is Treasury the only official-sector actor absorbing government debt. The Federal Reserve's balance-sheet reduction ended in December 2025, after which it began purchasing Treasury bills and other short-term Treasuries to maintain an ample supply of reserves. Its outright Treasury holdings have subsequently been rising, reaching roughly $4.54 trillion by August 19, 2026. FRED (Figure 3, lowest visual) 

This may not be technically classified as quantitative easing (QE), but economically it represents renewed official-sector absorption of Treasury securities. And the more revealing point is what has happened alongside it: long-term Treasury yields have continued to rise. 

The implication is straightforward: despite the labeling, official-sector absorption of Treasury debt is increasing, yet it is not preventing the market from demanding higher yields on longer maturities. That is evidence of diminishing intervention effectiveness, not evidence that the underlying pressure has been resolved.

Figure 4 

And the underlying pressure is not static. The US national debt has now crossed $40 trillion, while interest costs have continued to accelerate. According to the figures cited by ZeroHedge, interest expense had already reached roughly $1.37 trillion in 2026, about 20% above the comparable period a year earlier. (Figure 4, topmost and middle images) 

This is where intervention encounters a structural problem. Deficit spending creates the borrowing requirement; rising yields increase the cost of servicing that borrowing; and higher interest costs, in turn, enlarge the deficit and require still more borrowing. The market is therefore confronting a moving target: official-sector intervention may temporarily absorb Treasury supply or suppress yields, but the fiscal requirement generating that supply continues to expand. 

The effectiveness of intervention consequently diminishes as the underlying imbalance grows. What might once have been sufficient to stabilize the market becomes progressively less effective when the volume of debt, the interest burden, and the compensation demanded by investors are all rising together. 

Two interventions in three weeks have produced only temporary relief, while the fiscal, currency, and bond-market pressures behind them have quickly reasserted themselves. That is the more important signal for gold. Yields of 10 and 30 year treasuries were at milestone highs (Figure 4, lowest diagram)

Figure 5 

Japanese Government Bons (JGB) yields tell a similar story. 

They remain below their immediate pre-intervention spike, but have begun climbing again, touching a fresh three-decade high near 2.94% on August 18 before easing only slightly. Figure 5, topmost image) 

The same pattern is emerging in Japan: intervention can alter market prices temporarily, but it does not remove the underlying pressure on the currency and sovereign bond market. 

IV. Deepening Interventions Becomes Gold's Catalyst 

For gold, however, the significance is different. 

Gold had already been trading around and holding the $4,000 level from late June through early August. 

First, the Fed-BoJ intervention provided the catalyst for the first lift-off from that base, reinforcing $4,000 as the floor. 

Then, Bessent's Treasury backstop came afterward, adding fuel to an advance that was already underway. 

The initial decline in long-term yields quickly disappeared, but gold retained its momentum. 

The result was the sequence described at the beginning of this piece: gold broke its 200-day moving average at $4,501, moved above $4,600, surpassed the 38.2% retracement of its March decline, and confirmed the rounding-bottom pattern that had been forming since June. 

The significance therefore goes beyond the failure of either intervention to suppress yields. The interventions themselves are becoming part of the mechanism driving gold higher. Attempts to contain currency and bond-market pressures are adding to the monetary and financial imbalances that gold is increasingly pricing. 

This is where the comparison with the Plaza Accord becomes more interesting. The 1985 agreement did not simply weaken the dollar; it set in motion adjustments that eventually surfaced elsewhere in the financial system. 

Today's bilateral intervention comes against a far more leveraged fiscal and monetary backdrop, with sovereign debt, currency instability, and official-sector intervention increasingly interacting with one another. 

If history rhymes, the contemporary bilateral Plaza Accord may mean more than a break of the recent high—it may mark the beginning of sharply higher gold prices. 

V. When Former Headwinds Become Tailwinds 

WTI crude was up roughly 5% this week, back above $86, as the US-Iran standoff over the Strait of Hormuz shows no sign of resolving and Washington prepares tighter sanctions. (Figure 5, middle graph) 

That is worth pausing on because oil-driven dollar demand was the mechanism Part I and Part II identified as suppressing gold earlier this year: energy importers scrambled for dollars, and gold was sold for liquidity even as the safe-haven case strengthened. 

The same forces are now coinciding with gold's advance rather than working against it. 

That is not a contradiction. It means the liquidity-stress channel has been overtaken by the larger fiscal-currency-risk channel this piece has been tracking. The same energy shock that once forced gold sales for dollar liquidity is now compounding, rather than competing with, the debt and currency concerns driving the bid for gold. 

There is another important change in the relationship between gold and Treasury yields. Earlier in the year, rising 30-year Treasury yields appeared to place a ceiling on gold's advance. Now the relationship appears to be changing: gold is rising even as the 30-year yield pushes above the level at which the Treasury's intervention sought to stabilize it. 

The market is therefore no longer responding to higher yields simply as an opportunity cost for holding gold. It is increasingly interpreting those yields as evidence of the fiscal and currency pressures that make gold more attractive in the first place. 

It is also worth noting that rising gold prices and rising 10-year Treasury yields have historically coexisted during the stagflationary periods of the 1970s. (Figure 5, lowest chart) 

The parallel with today is not exact—the degree of systemic leverage is vastly different—but the coexistence of rising nominal yields and rising gold is not unprecedented when inflation, fiscal pressure, and confidence in the monetary regime become dominant forces. 

VI. Risk-Off, Inflationary, and Fiscal Signals Converge 

Gold's rise also came as risk appetite weakened. The S&P 500 fell about 1.4% on the week, its first weekly decline in a month, dragged by a rough five days for technology; the Nasdaq lost roughly 2%. That gives this week's move a stronger risk-off component: equities fell while gold rose. 

But it was not a conventional flight to safety. Oil was rising, long-term Treasury yields were rising, and gold was rising with them. Growth concerns and inflation/fiscal concerns were therefore appearing simultaneously: stocks were pricing weaker risk appetite, while oil and bond yields were pricing inflation, supply, and fiscal pressures. 

That combination is arguably more important for gold than a conventional risk-off episode. Gold was not merely benefiting from falling risk assets; it was responding to the same underlying deterioration that was simultaneously pushing up oil and long-term yields. 

Curiously, Bitcoin also surged more than 22% during the week, briefly moving above $77,000, reflecting both renewed risk appetite in the crypto market and, potentially, a safe-haven bid amid concerns over currencies and the monetary system. Short covering amplified the move. 

Taken together, the week's price action looks less like a simple flight to safety than a convergence of risk-off, inflationary, and fiscal signals—and gold is increasingly responding to all three. 

VII. Central Banks as Dip Buyers, and the Fund-Flow Tailwind

Figure 6

Central banks were buying into the selloff. The World Gold Council's Q2 2026 data showed central banks adding 102 tonnes of gold during the quarter, even as gold prices fell roughly 16%. (Figure 6, upper diagram) 

As of the first half of 2026, Poland remained the largest reported buyer at 82 tonnes, followed by Uzbekistan at 41 tonnes, China at 40 tonnes, and Kazakhstan at 27 tonnes. World Gold Council: Central Bank Gold Statistics, June 2026 (Figure 6, lower graph) 

The significance is not the absolute volume, but the direction of demand during the correction. While more price-sensitive and leveraged holders were liquidating, official-sector demand was increasing. Central banks were therefore absorbing part of the supply released by the selloff, providing an important counterweight to the liquidation pressure that drove gold lower. 

The longer-term demand signal remains equally important. The World Gold Council's survey found that 89% of reserve managers expect official gold holdings to increase over the next 12 months. That suggests the buying is not simply a reaction to short-term price movements, but part of a broader shift in reserve preferences.

Figure 7

Fund flows provide a second layer of support. Gold held the $4,000 area for close to two months as renewed ETF inflows emerged, while the two previous stretches of stronger fund flows—roughly August–October 2025 and November–February 2026—preceded significant advances, including the run into January's record. (Figure 7, upper image) 

The pattern does not mean ETF flows mechanically determine prices, but it does show that renewed investment demand has tended to accompany—and at times precede—the next major leg higher.  

Independent ETF data reinforce the change in direction: global gold ETFs returned to inflows in July after May–June redemptions had flushed out leveraged positions, with flows continuing into August. The important development is therefore not simply the amount of money flowing into gold, but the transition from forced liquidation to renewed accumulation. 

India's Dhanteras and Diwali season could provide an additional, though more modest, seasonal catalyst into year-end, alongside whatever short covering remains from a positioning backdrop that has been reduced but does not appear fully washed out. (Figure 7, lower visual) 

The ownership dynamics are therefore changing. Central banks were accumulating while weaker and more leveraged holders were liquidating; as that selling pressure subsided, ETF flows turned positive. The correction consequently did not destroy the underlying demand structure. Instead, it transferred gold from more price-sensitive holders toward buyers with a stronger strategic (non-price sensitive) incentive to own it. 

That matters for the next leg. The same selloff that removed speculative excess also created the conditions for a stronger base: official buyers absorbed supply, leveraged positions were reduced, and investment flows are now returning as gold moves higher. 

VIII. Bottom line: Gold Is Pricing the Limits of Intervention 

The question this piece opened with has effectively been answered by the market: gold has bottomed. What deserves scrutiny now is why, because the explanation is not the conventional one. 

Two interventions in three weeks—one in currencies, one in the bond market—have produced only temporary effects in the markets they were intended to stabilize. Yet their significance for gold has been the opposite. 

The Fed-BoJ intervention provided the catalyst for gold's first lift-off from the $4,000 base; Bessent's Treasury backstop then added fuel to an advance already underway. The interventions did not extinguish the underlying pressures. They exposed them—and, in doing so, reinforced the forces driving gold higher. 

The same energy shock that once forced gold into liquidity sales is now moving with gold rather than against it. This week's equity sell-off adds another layer: stocks fell while gold, oil, and long-term yields rose together. That is not a simple flight-to-safety trade. It is a combination of risk-off, inflationary, and fiscal signals—a more distinctly stagflationary configuration. 

The next leg will not necessarily be linear. $4,600 now needs to establish itself as support rather than prove to have been a temporary spike, while a sustained break below $4,300 would materially weaken the bullish structure. But the more important question is no longer technical. 

Gold is increasingly pricing the widening gap between what governments can credibly promise about their currencies and debt markets and what they can actually deliver. The interventions are themselves becoming part of that price signal: each attempt to contain currency or bond-market pressure produces a temporary market response, while the underlying imbalance quickly reasserts itself. 

And that is ultimately what makes this leg different from the earlier stages of the cycle. Gold is no longer simply rising because investors fear what might happen. It is rising because the market is beginning to price what governments are already doing—and the diminishing effectiveness of their attempts to contain the consequences. 

____

References

-Why Isn’t Gold Acting Like a Safe Haven—Yet? The Gold–Oil Ratio and the Liquidity Stress Behind Early-Crisis Gold Weakness (Part II)—April 5, 2026 

-Why Isn’t Gold Acting Like a Safe Haven—Yet? War, Liquidity Stress, and the Fracturing of the Bullion System (Part I)— March 22, 2026

Liquidity Under Pressure: Philippine Banks Struggle in Q1 2025 Amid a Looming Fiscal Storm

 

Truth always originates in a minority of one, and every custom begins as a broken precedent—Nancy Astor 

In this issue: 

Liquidity Under Pressure: Philippine Banks Struggle in Q1 2025 Amid a Looming Fiscal Storm

I. Introduction: A Financial-Political Economic System Under Increasing Strain

II. Liquidity Infusion via RRR Cuts: A Paradox: Declining Cash Amid Lending Boom

III. Mounting Liquidity Mismatches: Slowing Deposits Amid Lending Surge, Liquidity Ratios Flashing Red

IV. Government Banks and Broader Financial Systemic Stress

V. Mounting Liquidity Mismatches: Record Surge in Bank Borrowings and Repo Market Heats Up

VI. RRR Cuts as a Lifeline, Not Stimulus, Why the Strain? Not NPLs, Not Profitability

VII. Bank-Financial Index Bubble and Benchmark-ism: Disconnect Between Profit and Market Valuation

VIII. Financial Assets Rise, But So Do Risks; Spotlight on Held-to-Maturity Assets (HTM); Systemic Risks Amplified by Sovereign Exposure

IX. Brace for the Coming Fiscal Storm

X. Non-Tax Revenues: A High Base Hangover; Rising Risk of a Consecutive Deficit Blowout

XI. April 2025 Data as a Critical Clue of Fiscal Health

XII. Aside from Deficit Spending, Escalating Risk Pressures from Trade Disruptions and Domestic Economic Slack

XIII. Final Thought: Deepening Fiscal-Bank Interdependence Expands Contagion Risk Channels 

Liquidity Under Pressure: Philippine Banks Struggle in Q1 2025 Amid a Looming Fiscal Storm 

Behind the balance sheets: why Philippine banks are bleeding cash even as lending accelerates—and what the looming fiscal blowout means for systemic risk. 

I. Introduction: A Financial-Political Economic System Under Increasing Strain

We begin our analysis of the Philippine banking system in Q1 2025 with our April assessment:

"However, the data suggests a different story: increasing leverage in the public sector, elite firms, and the banking system appears to be the real driver behind the BSP’s easing cycle, which also includes RRR reductions and the PDIC’s doubling of deposit insurance. 

"The evidence points to a banking system under strain—record-low cash reserves, a lending boom that fails to translate into deposits, and economic paradoxes like stalling GDP growth despite near-record employment." (Prudent Investor, April 2025) [bold italics original] 

The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) released pivotal data in its April 2025 Central Bank Survey (MAS) and an updated balance sheet and income statement for the Philippine banking system. 

The findings reveal a sector grappling with severe liquidity constraints despite aggressive monetary easing. 

This article dissects these challenges, exploring their causes, implications, and risks to financial stability, while situating them within the broader economic and fiscal landscape. 

II. Liquidity Infusion via RRR Cuts: A Paradox: Declining Cash Amid Lending Boom 

Figure 1

The second leg of the BSP’s Reserve Requirement Ratio (RRR) reduction in March 2025 resulted in a Php 50.9 billion decrease in liabilities to Other Depository Corporations (ODCs) by April. 

When combined with the first RRR cut last October, the cumulative reduction from October to April amounted to a staggering Php 429.4 billion—effectively unleashing nearly half a trillion pesos of liquidity into the banking system via freed-up cash reserves. (Figure 1, topmost window) 

Even more striking was the BSP’s March report on the balance sheets of Philippine banks. The industry's "cash and due from banks" dived 28.95% year-on-year, from Php 2.492 trillion in 2024 to Php 2.09 trillion in 2025—its lowest level since at least 2014! (Figure 1, middle graph) 

This sharp drop calls into question the effectiveness of RRR cuts while also exposing deeper structural issues within the banking system. 

Ironically, this cash drain occurred alongside a robust expansion in bank lending. Yet, deposit growth stalled, which further strained liquidity and weighed on money supply growth. 

The limited impact of RRR reductions may reflect banks using freed-up reserves to cover existing liquidity shortfalls rather than fueling new lending or deposit growth. 

Meanwhile, the BSP’s move to double deposit insurance through the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC) last March—nearly coinciding with the second phase of the RRR cut—signals growing concerns over depositor confidence, potentially foreshadowing broader financial stability risks 

III. Mounting Liquidity Mismatches: Slowing Deposits Amid Lending Surge, Liquidity Ratios Flashing Red 

The decline in cash reserves coincided with decelerating deposit growth, even as bank lending surged. 

Deposit liabilities growth fell to just 5.42% in March—its lowest since August 2019. The deceleration was mainly driven by a slowdown in peso deposits growth, from 6.28% in February to 5.9% in March. Foreign currency (FX) deposits also remained a drag, despite a modest improvement from 2.84% to 3.23%. (Figure 1, lowest diagram) 

In stark contrast, the banking sector’s total net lending portfolio (inclusive of RRPs and IBLs) surged to 14.5% in March from 12.31% in February.

Figure 2 

As a result, the ratio of "cash and due from banks" to total deposits has collapsed to 10.37% in March 2025, levels below those seen in 2013—underscoring an escalating liquidity mismatch! (Figure 2, upper pane) 

This divergence highlights a critical tension: despite BSP’s aggressive monetary easing, lending is not translating into deposit growth. Instead, it has created a liquidity conundrum—intensifying balance sheet strain. 

Beyond cash, the liquid assets-to-deposits ratio has fallen back to levels last seen in April 2020, effectively reversing the gains achieved during the BSP’s pandemic-era historic liquidity rescue. 

This indicates a depletion of liquid assets—comprising cash and net financial assets excluding equities—which are crucial for meeting withdrawal demands and regulatory requirements, making this decline a critical vulnerability. 

Curiously, cash positions reported by publicly listed banks on the PSE showed a 4.43% YoY increase, with only five of the 16 banks reporting a cash decline. This apparent contradiction prompted deeper scrutiny. (Figure 2, lower table) 

The divergence between lending and deposit growth indicates a breakdown in the money multiplier effect, where loans typically generate deposits as borrowers spend. 

Two critical factors likely driving the erosion of savings. 

First, steep competition arising from the financing crowding-out effect of government borrowing (via record deficit spending), which competes with banks and the non-financial sector for access to public savings, has been a key force in suppressing savings. 

Second, extensive debt accumulation from malinvestments in 'build-and-they-will-come' sectors further consumes savings and capital, exacerbating the decline. 

IV. Government Banks and Broader Financial Systemic Stress 

Our initial suspicion pointed to government banks (DBP and LBP) as potential sources of the cash shortfall.

Figure 3

However, BSP data revealed that liquidity pressures were widespread—not only affecting universal and commercial banks but also impacting thrift and rural-cooperative banks.  (Figure 3) 

Interestingly, these smaller banking institutions (rural-cooperative banks) displayed relatively better liquidity positions than their larger peers. 

This discrepancy could reflect differing reporting standards between disclosures to the public and to the BSP. 

Diverging indicators could also signal "benchmark-ism"—where worsening problems are obscured through embellished reporting. 

V. Mounting Liquidity Mismatches: Record Surge in Bank Borrowings and Repo Market Heats Up 

Another red flag is the record-high bank borrowing.

Figure 4

Total bank borrowings soared by 40.3% in March to an all-time high of Php 1.91 trillion. This pushed the borrowing-to-liabilities share to 7.89%—its highest level since the pandemic’s onset in March 2020. (Figure 4, topmost chart) 

The sharp rise was driven by bills payable, which skyrocketed by 65.4% in March. 

In contrast, bonds payable grew by just 4.12%. As a result, bills payable now make up 5.5% of total liabilities—almost double the 2.9% share of longer-term bonds. (Figure 4, middle image)

This asymmetry is mirrored in listed banks’ financials. Excluding BPI (which lumps bills under "other borrowed funds"), bills payable surged by 69.4% in Q1 2025 to Php 1.345 trillion. 

MBT alone reported a 214% increase to Php 608 billion—representing 45.21% of the aggregate from PSE-listed banks. 

Repo transactions also surged in March. (Figure 4, lowest diagram) 

Interbank repos hit an all-time high, while repo trades with the BSP reached the third highest level on record. This reflects increasing reliance on short-term funding mechanisms, a hallmark of tightening liquidity conditions. 

This reliance on short-term borrowing for bridge financing, while cost-effective in the near term, exposes banks to refinancing risks, particularly if interbank rates rise or market confidence falters. 

All this underscores that liquidity stress is not confined to a single quarter—it is deeply embedded in bank balance sheets. 

VI. RRR Cuts as a Lifeline, Not Stimulus, Why the Strain? Not NPLs, Not Profitability 

In hindsight, both legs or phases of the RRR cut were not preemptive monetary tools but reactive measures aimed at alleviating a growing liquidity crisis. 

Similarly, rate cuts—intended to reduce borrowing costs—only served to expose the structural weaknesses in the banking system.

Figure 5

According to the BSP, credit delinquency improved in March, with Gross and Net Non-Performing Loans (NPLs) as well as Distressed Assets showing a slight decline. (Figure 5, topmost pane) 

Indeed, the banking system posted a 10.6% YoY increase in Q1 2025 profits—better than last year’s 2.95%, but still significantly weaker than 2022–2023. It was also a deceleration from Q4’s 20.7%. 

While the profit rebound is positive, it may be artificially inflated by 'accounting acrobatics.' The slowdown relative to 2022–2023 suggests diminishing returns from lending—driven by weaker borrower demand, rising unpublished NPLs, or both.’

VII. Bank-Financial Index Bubble and Benchmark-ism: Disconnect Between Profit and Market Valuation 

Despite slowing profit growth, the PSE’s Bank dominated Financial Index continued to hit record highs in Q1 and into May 2025. This signals a disconnect between bank valuations and their actual financial or ‘fundamental’ performance. (Figure 5, middle graph) 

This growing divergence may reflect "benchmark-ism"—where inflated share prices are used to mask the sector’s internal fragilities, as previously discussed. 

Despite a sharp slowdown in revenue growth (10.37% vs. 24% in 2024), listed banks still posted a 7.5% increase in ‘accounting profits.”  (Figure 5, lowest diagram) 

In theory, profits should enhance liquidity, not diminish it—unless those profits are largely cosmetic—"benchmark-ism." 

For investors, the divergence between stock performance and fundamentals signals caution, as inflated valuations could unravel if liquidity pressures escalate. 

VIII. Financial Assets Rise, But So Do Risks; Spotlight on Held-to-Maturity Assets (HTM); Systemic Risks Amplified by Sovereign Exposure 

The rapid contraction in cash reserves cannot be fully attributed to lending, NPLs, or financial asset growth.

Figure 6

Bank financial assets (net) rose 11.8% to an all-time high of Php 7.89 trillion in March. Accumulated unrealized losses narrowed from Php 26.4 billion to Php 21.04 billion. (Figure 6, topmost chart) 

Instead, held-to-maturity (HTM) assets, primarily government securities, offer insight. 

After a period of stagnation, HTMs grew 1.7% in March—breaking the Php 4 trillion ceiling (since 2023) to reach a new high of Php 4.06 trillion. (Figure 6, middle image) 

Despite lower interest rates, banks have not pared back HTM holdings. That’s because most HTMs are composed of government securities, particularly "net claims on the central government" (NCoCG), which surged to a record Php 5.58 trillion in March. (Figure 6, lowest diagram) 

This spike aligns with the record Q1 fiscal deficit—and likely presages a similarly wide Q2 deficit.

IX. Brace for the Coming Fiscal Storm 

As we’ve consistently argued, rising sovereign risk will amplify the banking system’s fragility. 

A blowout fiscal deficit won’t just expose skeletons—such as questionable accounting practices used to inflate profits, understate NPLs, or distort share prices—it will likely push the BSP toward a more aggressive role in stabilizing the financial system. 

This intervention could have sweeping implications for financial markets and the broader economy.

Figure 7

The public and the market's complacency over the government's deteriorating fiscal position has been astonishing. 

In Q1 2025, a steep revenue decline triggered a record fiscal deficit blowout—comparable to historical first-quarter data. As a result, the deficit-to-GDP ratio surged to 7.3%, far above the government’s full-year target of 5.3% (DBCC). (Figure 7, topmost window) 

Markets have largely dismissed these data, buoyed by two ‘available bias’ heuristics: the midterm election cycle and a steady stream of official reassurances. 

Yet it is worth underscoring: the 7.3% deficit-to-GDP ratio masks the extent of dependence on deficit spending. That same deficit spending was a key driver behind Q1 2025’s 5.4% GDP growth—just as it has been in many previous quarters/years. 

Also, it is crucial to distinguish the nature of government spending and revenue: while expenditures are programmed or mandated by Congress, actual disbursements are increasingly prone to executive discretion, with breaches of the enacted budget observed over the past six straight years—symptoms of centralization of power. 

In contrast, revenues depend on both economic activity and administrative collection efforts. 

Despite a 13.6% year-on-year increase in tax revenues in Q1, this gain failed to offset the collapse in non-tax revenues, which plunged by 41.2%. This drop severely weakened the overall revenue base. 

X. Non-Tax Revenues: A High Base Hangover; Rising Risk of a Consecutive Deficit Blowout

Non-tax revenues surged by 57% in 2024, lifting their share of total collections to 13.99%—the highest since 2007’s 17.9%.  (Figure 7, second to the highest chart) 

With a long-term average of 11.7% since 2000, current levels are markedly elevated. Moreover, 2024 figures significantly exceeded the exponential trend, indicating the potential for a substantial retracement. 

While the official breakdown or targets for collection categories remain undisclosed, it is plausible that non-tax revenue targets for 2025 were benchmarked against last year’s elevated base—potentially complicating fiscal planning and exacerbating volatility in public revenue performance 

Authorities expect total revenues to reach 16.5% of GDP in 2025. Yet, in Q1, the revenue-to-GDP ratio slipped to 15.15%, reflecting the substantial shortfall in non-tax collections. 

This implies that the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and Bureau of Customs (BOC)—which posted 16.7% and 5.7% year-on-year growth respectively in Q1—would need to significantly accelerate collections to bridge the gap. 

But the Q1 data suggests that current tax growth trends are unlikely to be sufficient. 

If tax revenue growth merely holds steady—or worse, underperform—then Q1’s historic deficit may not be a one-off.  

Instead, it risks being carried into Q2, leading to a second consecutive quarter of elevated deficits.  

This would reinforce perceptions of fiscal slippage or ‘entropy’, with direct implications for financial markets, interest rates, and banking sector dynamics.  

XI. April 2025 Data as a Critical Clue of Fiscal Health  

The Bureau of the Treasury is expected to release the April 2025 National Government Cash Operations Report (COR) in the final week of May.  

Due to the shift in VAT filing from monthly to quarterly, April’s figures will be the first major test of whether tax receipts can rebound sharply enough to counterbalance the Q1 shortfall.  

April is typically one of the stronger months for collections. For instance, in January 2024, the government recorded a Php 87.95 billion surplus—the highest since 2023—following changes in the VAT reporting regime. (Figure 7, second to the lowest graph) 

To keep the 2025 full-year deficit ceiling of Php 1.54 trillion within reach, the government would need to secure multiple monthly surpluses—or at least significantly smaller deficits. 

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.  

XII. Aside from Deficit Spending, Escalating Risk Pressures from Trade Disruptions and Domestic Economic Slack  

However, this fiscal balancing act is made more difficult by worsening external and domestic conditions.  

The global trade slowdown—exacerbated by ongoing trade tensions and supply chain fragmentation—will likely weigh on the Philippines’ external trade. 

Meanwhile, intensifying signs of slack in the domestic economy further threaten revenue generation, especially for the BIR and BOC. 

These pressures highlight the structural reliance on debt-financed deficit spending. 

Rising fiscal shortfalls increase sovereign risk, which can ultimately be transmitted into the broader economy through multiple channels—elevated inflation or stagflation risks, weakening credit quality or credit risks, liquidity pressures in the banking system and more. 

Contagion risks may also emerge in financial markets, manifesting through a surge in the USD/Php exchange rate (currency risk), rising bond yields (currently diverging from declining ASEAN counterparts) or interest rate risk, and amplified volatility in the stock market (including related markets—market risk). (Figure 7, lowest image) 

All these factors align with—and reinforce—the deteriorating liquidity and funding conditions apparent in bank balance sheets.

The nexus between fiscal fragility and banking stress is no longer theoretical; their growing interdependence is symptomatic in slowing deposit growth, increased reliance on repo markets, and rising bank borrowing. 

XIII. Final Thought: Deepening Fiscal-Bank Interdependence Expands Contagion Risk Channels 

As fiscal risks mount, so too does the potential for cross-sectoral contagion and cascading effects. The banking system—already struggling with liquidity depletion—faces heightened exposure due to its expanding claims on sovereign securities (implicit quantitative easing). 

Again, though partially obscured, stagflationary pressures, deteriorating credit quality, and rising funding costs may converge, amplifying broader macro-financial instability. 

In short, the fiscal storm is no longer a distant threat—it is approaching fast, and its first casualties may already be visible in the cracks forming across the financial system. 

______   

Reference 

Prudent Investor, BSP’s Fourth Rate Cut: Who Benefits, and at What Cost?, April 13,2025, Substack

BSP’s Aggressive RRR Cuts: A High-Stakes Gamble?

 

If there is one common theme to the vast range of the world’s financial crises, it is that excessive debt accumulation, whether by the government, banks, corporations, or consumers, often poses greater systemic risks than it seems during a boom. Infusions of cash can make a government look like it is providing greater growth to its economy than it really is. Private sector borrowing binges can inflate housing and stock prices far beyond their long-run sustainable levels and make banks seem more stable and profitable than they re­ally are. Such large-scale debt buildups pose risks because they make an economy vulnerable to crises of confidence, particularly when debt is short term and needs to be constantly refinanced—Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff 

In this issue

BSP’s Aggressive RRR Cuts: A High-Stakes Gamble?

I. Decline in 2024 Bank Non-Performing Loans Amidst Record-High Debt Levels and a Slowing Economy

II. Deepening Financialization: Financial Assets Surge in 2024 as Banks Drive Industry Monopolization

III. Viewing Bank’s Asset Growth Through the Lens of the PSE

IV. March 2025 RRR Cuts and the Liquidity Conundrum: Unraveling the Banking System’s Pressure Points

V. Liquidity Drain: Record Investment Risks and Elevated Marked-to-Market Losses

VI. Despite Falling Rates, Bank’s Held-to-Maturity Assets Remain Near Record High

VII. Moral Hazard and the "COVID Bailout Playbook"

VIII. The Bigger Picture: Are We Headed for a Full-Blown Crisis?

IX. Conclusion: RRR Cuts a High-Risk Strategy? 

BSP’s Aggressive RRR Cuts: A High-Stakes Gamble?

The BSP announced another round of RRR cuts in March amid mounting liquidity constraints. Yet, the reduction from 20% in 2018 to 7% in 2024 has barely improved conditions. Will this time be different?

I. Decline in 2024 Bank Non-Performing Loans Amidst Record-High Debt Levels and a Slowing Economy

Inquirer.net, February 14, 2025: Soured loans held by Philippine banks as a ratio of total credit eased to their lowest level in a year by the end of 2024 as declining interest rates and softer inflation helped borrowers settle their debts on time. However, a shallower easing cycle might keep financial conditions still somewhat tight, which could prevent a big decline in bad debts this year. Preliminary data from the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) showed the gross amount of nonperforming loans (NPLs)—or credit that is 90 days late on a payment and at risk of default—had cornered 3.27 percent of the local banking industry’s total lending portfolio as of December, down from November’s 3.54 percent. That figure—also known as the gross NPL ratio—was the lowest since December 2023, when bad loans accounted for 3.24 percent of banks’ total loan book.

An overview of the operating environment 

In any analysis, it is crucial to understand the operating environment that provides context to the relevance of a statistic in discussion.

The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) initiated its ‘easing cycle’ in the second half of 2024, which included three rate cuts and a reduction in the reserve requirement ratio (RRR). Meanwhile, inflation (CPI) rebounded from a low of 1.9% in September to 2.9% in December. Additionally, the BSP tightened its cap on the USDPHP exchange rate. Fiscal spending over the first 11 months of the year reached an all-time high.

Yet, there are notable contradictions.

Despite record-high bank lending—driven largely by real estate and consumer loans—GDP growth slowed to 5.2% in the second half of 2024 primarily due to the weak consumer spending. The employment rate was also near an all-time high.

Figure 1

Meanwhile, real estate prices entered deflationary territory in Q3, with the sector’s real GDP growth falling to its lowest level since the pandemic-induced recession. Its share of total GDP also dropped to an all-time low. 

Notably, the real estate sector remains the largest borrower within the banking system (encompassing universal, commercial, thrift, and rural/cooperative banks). (Figure 1, topmost chart) This data depends on the accuracy of the loans reported by banks. 

However, despite recent rate cuts and significant reductions in RRR, the sector remains under pressure. Additionally, sluggish GDP growth suggests mounting risks associated with record levels of consumer leverage. 

Upon initial analysis, the decline in non-performing loans (NPLs) appears inconsistent with these economic developments. Gross NPLs dropped to one-year lows, while net NPLs reached levels last seen in June 2020. (Figure 1, middle window) 

Ironically, the BSP also announced another round of RRR cuts this March.

II. Deepening Financialization: Financial Assets Surge in 2024 as Banks Drive Industry Monopolization

Let's now turn to the gross assets of the financial system, also known as Total Financial Resources (TFR).

The BSP maintained its policy rate this February.

Ironically, BSP rates appear to have had little influence on the assets of the bank-financial industry. 

In 2024, TFR surged by 7.8% YoY, while bank resources jumped 8.9%, reaching record highs of Php 33.78 trillion and Php 28.255 trillion, respectively. 

Why does this matter? 

Since the BSP started hiking rates in April 2022, TFR and bank financial resources have posted a 9.7% and 10.9% compound annual growth rate (CAGR), respectively. In short, the growth of financial assets has accelerated despite the BSP’s rate hikes. 

Or, the series of rate hikes have barely affected bank and financial market operations. 

By the end of 2024, TFR stood at 128% of headline GDP and 152% of nominal GDP, while bank resources accounted for 107% and 127%, respectively. This reflects the increasing financialization of the Philippine economy—a growing reliance on credit and liquidity—as confirmed by the Money Supply (M series) relative to GDP. (Figure 1, lowest image)

Banking Sector Consolidation

Figure 2

More importantly, the rate hikes catapulted the bank's share of the TFR from 82.3% in 2023 to an all-time high of 83.64% in 2024, powered by universal and commercial banks, whose share jumped from 77.6% to 78.3%! (Figure 2, topmost diagram) 

Effectively, the banking industry—particularly UCBs—has been monopolizing finance, leading to greater market concentration, which translates to a build-up in systemic concentration risk. 

As of December 2024, bank assets were allocated as follows: cash, 10%; total loan portfolio (inclusive of interbank loans and reverse repurchase agreements), 54%; investments, 28.3%; real and other properties acquired, 0.43%; and other assets, 7.14%. 

In 2024, the banking system’s cash reserves deflated 6.01% YoY, while total loans and investments surged by 10.74% and 10.72%, respectively. 

Yet over the years, cash holdings have declined (since 2013), loan growth has been recovering (post-2018 hikes), and investments have surged, partially replacing both. (Figure 2, middle image) 

Notably, despite the BSP’s historic liquidity injections, banks' cash reserves have continued to erode. 

The catch-22 is that if banks were profitable, why would they have shed cash reserves over the years? 

Why the series of RRR cuts? 

III. Viewing Bank’s Asset Growth Through the Lens of the PSE 

During the Philippine Stock Exchange Index (PSEi) 30’s run-up to 7,500, Other Financial Corporations (OFCs)—potentially key players in the so-called "national team"—were substantial net buyers of both bank and non-bank equities. 

BSP, January 31, 2025: "The q-o-q rise in the other financial corporations’ domestic claims was attributable to the increase in its claims on the depository corporations, the other sectors, and the central government. In particular, the other financial corporations’ claims on the depository corporations grew as its holdings of bank-issued debt securities and equity shares increased.  Likewise, the sector’s claims on the other sectors grew as its investments in equity shares issued by other nonfinancial corporations and loans extended to households expanded. The growth in the OFCs’ domestic claims was further supported by the rise in the sector’s investments in government-issued debt securities" (bold added)

The OFCs consist of non-money market investment funds, other financial intermediaries (excluding insurance corporations and pension funds), financial auxiliaries, captive financial institutions and money lenders, insurance corporations, and pension funds.

In Q3 2024, claims on depository corporations surged 12% YoY, while claims on the private sector jumped 8%, both reaching record highs in nominal peso terms.

Meanwhile, the PSEi and Financial Index surged 15.1% and 23.4%, respectively. The Financial Index hit an all-time high of 2,423.37 on October 21st, and as of this writing, remains less than 10% below that peak. The Financial Index, which includes seven banks (AUB, BDO, BPI, MBT, CBC, SECB) and the Philippine Stock Exchange (PSE) as the sole non-bank component, has cushioned the PSEi 30 from a collapse. (Figure 2, lowest chart)

Figure 3

It has also supported the PSEi 30 and the PSE through the private sector claims. (Figure 3, topmost pane)

The irony is that OFCs continued purchasing bank shares even as the banking sector’s profit growth (across universal-commercial, thrift, and rural/cooperative banks) materially slowed (as BSP’s official rates rose)

In 2024, the banking system’s net profit growth fell to 9.8%, the lowest in four years. (Figure 3, middle chart)

Meanwhile, trading income—despite making up just 2.2% share of total operating income—soared 78.3% YoY. 

The crux is that the support provided to the Financial Index by the OFCs may have enabled banks to increase their asset base via their ‘investment’ accounts, while simultaneously propping up the PSEi 30. 

Yet, this also appears to mask the deteriorating internal fundamentals of Philippine banks. (Figure 3, lowest graph) 

There are several possibilities at play: 

1. The BSP’s influence could be a factor;

2. Banks may have acted like a cartel in coordinating their actions

3. The limited depth of Philippine capital markets may have forced the industry’s equity placements into a narrow set of options.

But in my humble view, the most telling indicator? Those coordinated intraday pumps—post-recess "afternoon delight" rallies and pre-closing floats—strongly suggest synchronized or coordinated activities.

The point of this explanation is that Philippine banks and non-bank institutions appear to be relying on asset inflation to boost their balance sheets. 

Aside from shielding banks through liquidity support for the real estate industry, have the BSP's RRR cuts also been designed to boost the PSEi 30?

IV. March 2025 RRR Cuts and the Liquidity Conundrum: Unraveling the Banking System’s Pressure Points 

Philstarnews.com, February 22, 2025: The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) surprised markets yesterday as it announced another major reduction in the amount of deposit banks are required to keep with the central bank. The BSP said it would reduce the reserve requirement ratios (RRR) of local banks, effective March 28, to free up more funds to boost the economy.  “The BSP reiterates its long-run goal of enabling banks to channel their funds more effectively toward productive loans and investments. Reducing RRRs will lessen frictions that hinder financial intermediation,” the central bank said…The regulator slashed the RRR for universal and commercial banks, as well as non-bank financial institutions with quasi-banking functions (NBQBs) by 200 basis points, to five percent from the current level of seven percent. 

The BSP last reduced the reserve requirement ratio (RRR) on October 25, 2024. With the next cut taking effect on March 28, 2025, this marks the fastest and largest RRR reduction in recent history.

In contrast, the BSP previously cut RRR rates from 18% to 14% over an eight-month period between May and December 2019.

Why the RRR Cuts if NPLs Are Not a Concern?

Figure 4

BSP’s balance sheet data from end-September to November 2024 shows that the RRR reduction led to a Php 124.5 billion decline in Reserve Deposits of Other Depository Corporations (RDoDC)—an estimate of the liquidity injected into the system. The downtrend in bank reserves since 2018 reflects the cumulative effect of these RRR cuts.  (Figure 4, topmost image)

Yet, despite the liquidity injection, the banking system’s cash and due-from-bank deposits continued to decline through December. It has been in a downtrend since 2013. (Figure 4, middle pane)

Cash reserves dropped 6% in 2024, marking the third consecutive annual decline. The BSP’s 2020-21 historic Php 2.3 trillion injection has largely dissipated.

Since peaking at Php 3.572 trillion in December 2021, cash levels have fallen by Php 828 billion to Php 2.743 trillion in December 2024—essentially returning to 2019 levels.  (Figure 4, lowest chart)

Figure 5

The BSP’s other key liquidity indicator, the liquid assets-to-deposits ratio has also weakened, resonating with the cash reserve trend. This decline, which began in 2013, was briefly offset by the BSP’s historic Php 2.3 trillion liquidity injection but has now resumed its downward trajectory. (Figure 5, topmost diagram) 

Other Factors Beyond Cash and Reserves

The slowdown isn’t limited to cash reserves. 

Deposit growth has also decelerated since 2013, despite reaching record highs in peso terms. Ironically, a robust 12.7% rebound in bank lending growth (excluding interbank loans and repos) in 2024, which should have spurred deposit growth, failed to translate into meaningful gains. Peso deposits grew by just 7% in 2024. (Figure 5, middle pane) 

The question arises: where did all this money go? 

This brings attention back onto the BSP’s stated goal of "enabling banks to channel funds more effectively toward productive loans and investments." This growing divergence between total loan portfolio growth and peso deposit expansion in the face of RRR cuts—20% before March 2018, now down to just 7% last October—raises further questions about its effectiveness in boosting productive lending and investment.

A Deeper Liquidity Strain: Rising Borrowings

Adding to signs of the increasing liquidity stress, bank borrowings hit an all-time high in 2024, both in gross and net terms. (Figure 5, lowest graph)

Figure 6

Total borrowings surged by Php 394.5 billion, pushing outstanding bank debt to a record Php 1.671 trillion.

More importantly, the focus of borrowing was in bill issuance, which accounted for 65% of total bank borrowings in 2024 (!)—a strong indicator of tightening liquidity. (Figure 6, topmost image)

If banks are highly profitable and NPLs are not a major issue, why are they borrowing so aggressively and requiring additional RRR cuts?

The liquidity squeeze cannot be attributed solely to RRR levels alone—otherwise, the 2018–2020 cut from 20% to 12% should have stemmed the tide.

V. Liquidity Drain: Record Investment Risks and Elevated Marked-to-Market Losses

There’s more to consider.

Beyond lending, bank investments—another key bank asset class—also hit a record high in peso terms in 2024.

Yet, despite lower fixed-income rates, banks continued to suffer heavy losses on their investment portfolios: Accumulated investment losses stood at Php 42.4 billion in 2024, after peaking at Php 122.85 billion in 2022. (Figure 6, middle diagram)

Banks have now reported four consecutive years of investment losses.

These losses undoubtedly strain liquidity, but what’s driving them?

The two primary investment categories—Available-for-Sale (AFS) and Held-to-Maturity (HTM) securities—accounted for 40% and 52.6% of total bank investments, respectively.

Accumulated losses likely stem from AFS positions, reflecting volatility in equity, fixed-income, foreign exchange, and other trading activities.

VI. Despite Falling Rates, Bank’s Held-to-Maturity Assets Remain Near Record High

Interestingly, despite easing fixed-income rates, HTM assets remained close to their all-time high at Php 3.95 trillion in December 2024, barely below the December 2023 peak of Php 4.02 trillion.

Since January 2023, HTM holdings have hovered tightly between Php 3.9 trillion and Php 4 trillion.

Government Financing and Liquidity Risks

Yet, this plateau may not persist.

Beyond RRR cuts, the banking system’s Net Claims on Central Government (NCoCG) surged 7% to a new high of Php 5.541 trillion in December 2024.

Per BSP: "Net Claims on CG include domestic securities issued by, and loans extended to, the central government, net of liabilities such as deposits."

While this is often justified under Basel III capital adequacy measures, in reality, it functions as a quasi-quantitative easing (QE) mechanism—banks injecting liquidity into the financial system by financing the government.

The likely impact?

The losses in government securities are categorized as HTMs, effectively locking away liquidity.

BSP led Financial Stability Coordination Council (FSCC) noted in their 2017 Financial Stability Report in 2018 that: "Banks face marked-to-market (MtM) losses from rising interest rates. Higher market rates affect trading since existing holders of tradable securities are taking MtM losses as a result. While some banks have resorted to reclassifying their available-for-sale (AFS) securities into held-to-maturity (HTM), some PHP845.8 billion in AFS (as of end-March 2018) are still subject to MtMlosses. Furthermore, the shift to HTM would take away market liquidity since these securities could no longer be traded prior to their maturity" (bold mine) 

Curiously, discussions of HTM risks vanished from BSP-FSCC Financial Stability Reports after the 2017 and 2018 H1–2019 H1 issues.

VII. Moral Hazard and the "COVID Bailout Playbook"

Although NCoCG has been growing since 2015, banks accelerated their accumulation of government securities as part of the BSP’s 2020 pandemic rescue package. 

Are banks aggressively lending to generate liquidity solely to finance the government? Are they also using government debt to expand the collateral universe for increased lending? Government debt is also used as collateral for interbank loans and repo transactions. 

Have accounting regulations—such as HTM—transformed into a silo that shields Mark-to-Market losses? 

The growth of HTM has aligned with NCoCG. (Figure 6, lowest chart)

While this may satisfy Basel capital adequacy requirements, ironically, it also exposes the banking system to investment concentration risk, sovereign risk, and liquidity risk.

This suggests that reported bank "profits"—likely inflated by subsidies and relief measures—are overshadowed by a toxic mix of trading losses, HTM burdens, and potentially undeclared or hidden NPLs. 

These pressures have likely forced the BSP to aggressively cut RRR rates.

As anticipated, authorities appear poised to replicate the COVID-era bailout playbook, which they view as a success in averting a crisis.

The likely policy trajectory template includes DIRECT BSP infusions via NCoCG, record fiscal deficits, further RRR and policy rate cuts, accelerated bank infusions NCoCG, a higher cap on the USD/PHP exchange rate, and additional subsidies and relief measures for banks.

This is unfolding before us, one step at a time.

VIII. The Bigger Picture: Are We Headed for a Full-Blown Crisis?

Given the moral hazard embedded in this bailout mindset, banks may take on excessive risks, exacerbating "frictions in financial intermediation". Debt will beget more unproductive debt. "Ponzi finance" risks will intensify heightening liquidity constraints that could escalate into a full-blown crisis. 

Further, given the banking system’s fractional reserve operating framework, riskier bank behavior, whetted by reduced cash buffers, heightens the risks of lower consumer confidence in the banking system—which translates to a higher risk of a bank run. 

The Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC) reportedly has funds to cover 18.5% of insured deposits, or P3.53 trillion, as of 2023. 

So, with the RRR cuts, is the BSP gambling with this?

IX. Conclusion: RRR Cuts a High-Risk Strategy?

BSP’s statistics cannot be fully relied upon to assess the true health of the banking system.

1. The decline in non-performing loans (NPLs) is inconsistent with slowing economic growth and the deflationary spiral in the real estate sector. Likewise, falling NPLs contradict the ongoing liquidity pressures faced by banks.

2. Evidence of these liquidity strains is clear: bank borrowings have surged to record levels, with bill issuances dominating the market. The BSP’s RRR cuts only reinforce the mounting liquidity constraints. 

3. Beyond lending, banks have turned to investments to strengthen their balance sheets—including supporting the Philippine Stock Exchange (PSE), even as asset prices have become increasingly misaligned with corporate earnings.

4. In a bid to further boost systemic liquidity, implied quantitative easing (QE) spiked to an all-time high in December, which will likely translate into a higher volume of Held-to-Maturity (HTM) assets.

Through aggressive RRR cuts, is the BSP taking a high-risk approach merely to uphold its statistical narrative?