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

 

Nations have scoured the earth for gold in order to control others only to find that gold has controlled their own fate. The gold at the end of the rainbow is ultimate happiness, but the gold at the bottom of the mine emerges from hell. Gold has inspired some of humanity's greatest achievements and provoked some of its worst crimes. When we use gold to symbolize eternity, it elevates people to greater dignity—royalty, religion, formality; when gold is regarded as life everlasting, it drives people to death—Peter L. Bernstein 

In this issue

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

I. The Muted Signal

II. Two Gold Markets

III. The Clearing Infrastructure

IV. When Logistics Stress Becomes Financial Stress

V. The Collateral Squeeze

VI. The Dollar as Lightning Rod

VII. Fragmentation, Not Failure

VIII. What the Quiet Is Actually Saying

VIIIA. Post Script: "There is No Haven" 

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

Oil is surging, the dollar is rising—and gold isn’t responding. The explanation lies in liquidity stress, collateral dynamics, and the plumbing of the global bullion system.

I. The Muted Signal 

Long regarded as a safe haven, gold is expected to shine in times of crisis—particularly amid geopolitical shocks such as the escalating tensions surrounding the U.S.–Israel–Iran conflict.

Yet as instability deepens in the Middle East, a curious divergence has emerged. Oil prices have surged, and the U.S. dollar has strengthened, but gold has remained conspicuously subdued. 

For many observers, this raises an uncomfortable question: has gold lost its safe-haven status? 

The answer is almost certainly no. What we are witnessing instead is a familiar—but often misunderstood—dynamic in times of financial stress. Gold does not operate within a single, unified market responding to a single force. Rather, it exists at the intersection of multiple systems—monetary, financial, and physical—each reacting differently under pressure. 

To understand gold’s apparent silence today, one must move beyond the simplistic safe-haven narrative and examine the underlying mechanics of how crises actually unfold. 

II. Two Gold Markets 

Gold is not a single market. It is two markets operating simultaneously. 

The financial layer consists of futures traded on COMEX, forward contracts cleared through the London bullion system, and gold ETFs. Prices here move primarily in response to macro variables: the dollar, real interest rates, and shifts in global risk sentiment.

Figure 1

The resurgence in global gold ETF flows early in the year highlights the responsiveness of this financial layer to momentum, liquidity, and broader macroeconomic signals. (Figure 1, upper chart)

Unlike physical markets, positioning here can expand rapidly and at scale, without the need for underlying physical settlement, largely unconstrained by the frictions of moving and storing metal. Yet this flexibility stands in contrast to the more constrained and regionally fragmented nature of physical gold markets—a divergence that becomes evident when comparing pricing across Shanghai and London. 

The physical layer operates very differently. It consists of doré bars produced by mines, bullion refined in Switzerland, jewelry demand across Asia, and steady accumulation by central banks. This layer depends on transportation networks, refinery throughput, vault logistics, and customs clearance. 

Even at the level of demand, gold is not unified. As shown by the World Gold Council, demand is structurally divided across investment, jewelry, and industrial uses—each driven by distinct economic forces and time horizons. (Figure 1, lower graph) 

Figure 2

Rather than moving in lockstep, Shanghai and LBMA pricing in early 2026 oscillated between premium and discount. This back-and-forth reflects a market where arbitrage is active but not seamless—revealing, in practice, the dual structure of gold as both a financial asset and a physical commodity. (Figure 2) 

Under normal conditions, arbitrage keeps these two layers aligned. When physical premiums emerge in Asia or the Middle East, traders move gold to capture the spread, transmitting local signals back into global benchmarks. But when logistics slow or uncertainty rises, that alignment weakens. Physical markets may tighten even as financial benchmarks remain anchored to macro forces. 

III. The Clearing Infrastructure 

The global bullion system relies on a relatively concentrated infrastructure. 

London dominates price discovery through the clearing system associated with the London bullion market, while Switzerland refines a large share of the world’s doré into internationally tradable bars. Logistics hubs in the Gulf, in turn, connect African supply with major consumer markets in Asia. 

This network typically functions smoothly because gold flows continuously between these nodes. 

Figure 3

In effect, the bullion system operates as a hub-and-spoke network: Switzerland serves as a dominant refining center processing a substantial share of global supply, while London anchors pricing and clearing. This concentration enhances efficiency, but also creates critical points of vulnerability. 

When transport routes are disrupted or regional stability deteriorates, those vulnerabilities become visible. 

Geopolitical tensions in the Middle East have begun to complicate these flows. Even partial restrictions on cargo routes or airspace can slow the movement of metal between mining regions, refineries, and end markets. 

In a system where arbitrage depends on the physical movement of bullion, even modest friction does not simply delay flows—it weakens the transmission of price signals between markets. 

IV. When Logistics Stress Becomes Financial Stress 

Disruptions in the physical gold market rarely remain isolated. 

When the movement of metal becomes uncertain, arbitrage trades that normally link markets turn riskier. Traders who once relied on seamless transfer between regions suddenly face basis risk, as the cost and timing of moving bullion becomes unpredictable. 

Clearinghouses respond in the only way they can: by demanding additional collateral. Margin calls follow. 

To meet these calls, participants often liquidate the most liquid assets available—typically dollar-denominated instruments. 

What begins as a logistical friction in the physical market thus propagates into the financial system, triggering a collateral-driven tightening that can ripple across broader markets. 

Disruptions in the physical market do not remain isolated. 

V. The Collateral Squeeze 

Gold occupies a unique position in global finance. It is simultaneously a commodity, a reserve asset, and a form of high-quality collateral used across derivatives, repo agreements, and bullion banking. During periods of market stress, this collateral role can temporarily dominate its safe-haven function. 

Three mechanisms typically drive this dynamic: 

• Forced liquidation. Institutions facing margin calls sell the most liquid assets available. Gold is often among the first assets sold—not because confidence in it has vanished, but because it can quickly raise cash. 
• Haircut widening. When volatility rises, clearinghouses increase the discount applied to gold posted as collateral. Positions that were previously adequately margined can suddenly require additional coverage, forcing further liquidation 
• Tightening in the gold lending market. Bullion banks regularly lend gold through swaps and leases. Under stress, these channels can constrict as counterparties become more cautious. 

A current illustration of these dynamics comes from Dubai. Recent reports show that shipments of gold have been delayed due to regional logistical bottlenecks, rising insurance premiums, and higher financing costs amid Middle East tensions. 

Physical gold that is stuck or delayed can be sold locally—often at a discount—to meet liquidity needs even while global confidence in gold remains intact. This episode demonstrates how frictions in the physical market can amplify financial pressures, turning bullion into a source of immediate cash rather than a stable safe-haven. 

These collateral-driven dynamics are not unprecedented. Similar patterns emerged during the global financial crisis, the European sovereign debt crisis, and the market dislocations of 2020. In each case, gold initially weakened during the liquidity phase of the shock before later reasserting its safe-haven role. 

Financial instability theorist Hyman Minsky argued that crises often begin with a scramble for liquidity, forcing investors to sell even high-quality assets to meet obligations. Gold’s early weakness during crises—including today’s Dubai example—fits squarely within this pattern. 

VI. The Dollar as Lightning Rod 

A common explanation for gold’s weakness is that investors fled into U.S. Treasuries, strengthening the dollar.

Figure 4

The broader market picture suggests something different. Bond markets have not been rallying strongly. To the contrary, yields across many sovereign markets have risen as investors reassess inflation risk and fiscal sustainability following the oil shock. (Figure 4, upper image) 

The dollar’s strength reflects another mechanism. The global financial system is largely funded in dollars. (Figure 4, lower diagram) 

When volatility rises and leveraged positions unwind, institutions need dollars to meet margin calls and settle obligations. 

Capital flows into the dollar not necessarily because it is safe, but because it is required. The dollar therefore acts less like a haven and more like a lightning rod for global liquidity stress. 

Recent market behavior reinforces this dynamic. Episodes of rising dollar demand have coincided with sharp declines in gold prices and tightening cross-currency funding conditions—an indication that global markets are paying a premium to access dollars. 

These moves suggest that what appears to be gold weakness is in fact a symptom of a broader liquidity squeeze, in which institutions sell liquid assets to obtain dollars needed to meet obligations. 

Figure 5 

Historical patterns support this interpretation. Gold has often declined during the initial phase of major financial stress events, including the global financial crisis and the pandemic shock, before rallying as liquidity conditions stabilize. (Figure 5) 

Even gold can be temporarily liquidated in this environment, illustrating how financial liquidity dynamics can dominate its intrinsic safe-haven appeal. 

VII. Fragmentation, Not Failure

Figure 6 

Another structural trend may be shaping gold’s muted response. 

Central banks continue to accumulate gold, extending a multi-year pattern of reserve diversification, although the pace of purchases has moderated in recent months. (Figure 6) 

This suggests that while the strategic bid for gold remains intact, accumulation is becoming more measured—less urgent, more sensitive to price and liquidity conditions. 

At the same time, new trading corridors have gradually developed outside the traditional Western clearing system. Asian markets frequently trade at premiums to London, while regional demand and policy dynamics increasingly influence the movement and pricing of physical gold. 

Taken together, these developments point to a gradual shift toward a more multipolar bullion market. Disruptions to established logistics routes may accelerate this transition, encouraging alternative trading channels and settlement infrastructure. 

This signal that the architecture of the gold market is evolving—away from a single, tightly integrated system toward a more fragmented landscape, where multiple hubs and pathways shape pricing, flows, and accumulation decisions. 

While the trajectory of central bank gold policy remains uncertain under current conditions, a stronger dollar and rising fiscal demands—whether from defense spending or domestic support—may incentivize some central banks to mobilize gold reserves for liquidity. 

Yet these same conditions—intensifying geopolitical fragmentation and rising monetary risk—may reinforce the opposite impulse: to accumulate gold as insurance, as a hedge against currency volatility, or as part of a broader strategy of reserve diversification away from the dollar. 

This tension reflects a deeper uncertainty. Whether central banks become net sources of liquidity or continue as structural buyers will depend on how the current crisis evolves—whether it remains a liquidity event or transitions into a broader monetary regime shift. 

VIII. What the Quiet Is Actually Saying 

Gold’s muted reaction to current geopolitical tensions is not a failure of its safe-haven role. It is a signal—just not the one most investors are looking for. 

What we are observing is the early phase of a crisis in which liquidity demand, dollar funding pressures, and market microstructure dominate price formation. In this phase, assets are not repriced based on long-term risk, but on immediate funding needs. 

History suggests that these phases do not persist indefinitely. Energy shocks, financial stress, and monetary instability tend to unfold sequentially, not simultaneously. 

If current tensions deepen into broader economic and financial disruption, the forces suppressing gold today may reverse. The same mechanisms driving liquidity demand—margin calls, collateral tightening, and dollar scarcity—often give way to monetary easing and balance sheet expansion. 

It is typically at that point—not during the initial scramble for liquidity—that gold reasserts its role. 

The signal is not absent. It is delayed. 

Gold is not failing as a safe haven—it is being temporarily subordinated to the needs of a dollar-based financial system under stress 

VIIIA. Post Script: "There is No Haven" 

Recent market behavior reinforces this interpretation. In the past week, the dollar, gold, U.S. Treasuries, bitcoin, and oil have all weakened simultaneously. 

In normal circumstances, at least one of these assets would function as a refuge. When all of them decline together, the signal is different: markets are not seeking safety—they are seeking liquidity. 

In other words, the system is still in the scramble-for-cash phase of adjustment or at times like this, markets behave as if no haven exists at all.

 

Is the Philippine Peso’s Rise a Secret Bargaining Chip in Trump’s Trade War?

Devaluation is not a tool for exports. It is a tool for cronyism and always ends with the demise of the currency as a valuable reserve—Daniel Lacalle

In this issue 

Is the Philippine Peso’s Rise a Secret Bargaining Chip in Trump’s Trade War?

I. BSP Denies Currency Manipulation Amid Trade Talks

II The Mar-a-Lago Framework: Dollar Devaluation as Trade Strategy

III. Asian Geopolitical Allies Lead Currency Appreciation Against USD

IV. Market Signals Point to Implicit Bilateral Deals

V. Taiwan’s Hedging Frenzy: Collateral Damage of FX Realignment?

VI Gross International Reserves Tell a Different Story

VII. Breaking Historical Patterns: GIR Decline Amid Peso Strength

VIII. Yield Spreads and Market Disruptions Signal Intervention

IX. Conclusion: The Hidden Costs of Currency Leverage; Intertemporal Risks and Economic Feedback Loops 

Is the Philippine Peso’s Rise a Secret Bargaining Chip in Trump’s Trade War? 

How the BSP's currency interventions may be hiding an implicit trade deal with Washington

I. BSP Denies Currency Manipulation Amid Trade Talks 

From a syndicated Reuters news, the Interaksyon reported May 20: "The Philippine central bank said there is no indication that its management of the peso’s exchange rate is part of trade negotiations with the U.S. government, as it signalled a preference for non-interest rate tools to manage capital inflows. The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas said while it expected to further ease monetary policy because of a favourable inflation outlook, it favoured a more nuanced approach to managing liquidity and exchange rate volatility. “The BSP does not normally respond to capital flow surges or outflows, or even volatility, using policy interest rate action,” the BSP said in an emailed response to questions from Reuters. Philippine officials met U.S. authorities on May 2 to discuss trade. Although not directly involved in the talks, the BSP said there was no indication foreign exchange considerations were explicitly part of the negotiations. The Philippines has not been spared from President Trump’s tariffs, although it faces a comparatively modest 17% tariff, lower than regional neighbours Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, and Vietnam. “The BSP adopts a pragmatic approach in managing capital flow volatility, combining FX interventions when necessary, the strategic use of the country’s foreign exchange reserve buffer, and macroprudential measures,” it said." (bold added)

II The Mar-a-Lago Framework: Dollar Devaluation as Trade Strategy 

Though the Mar-a-Lago Accord, coined by analysts like Zoltan Pozsar and popularized by Stephen Miran, is a speculative framework, it draws inspiration from the 1985 Plaza Accord, where G5 nations coordinated to depreciate the U.S. dollar to boost American exports. Stephen Miran, now Chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, published a paper in November 2024 titled ‘A User’s Guide to Restructuring the Global Trading System.’ 

It argues that the U.S. dollar’s persistent overvaluation harms American manufacturing by making exports less competitive and imports cheaper, contributing to a $1.2 trillion trade deficit in 2024.

To address this, Miran proposed devaluing the dollar by encouraging foreign central banks to sell dollar assets or adjust monetary policies, while using tariffs as a ‘stick’ to pressure trading partners into currency adjustments or trade concessions.

While dedollarization—reducing reliance on the dollar in global trade and reserves—is often cited as the cause of recent dollar weakness, this may apply to countries with geopolitical tensions with the U.S., such as China or Russia or other members of the BRICs.

However, it doesn’t explain the currency strength among staunch U.S. allies like the Philippines, Japan, and South Korea, suggesting a different motive: implicit negotiations with the Trump administration.

III. Asian Geopolitical Allies Lead Currency Appreciation Against USD

Figure 1 

Year to June 13, 2025, the USD dropped against 8 of 10 Bloomberg-quoted Asian currencies, led by USDTWD (Taiwan dollar) -9.9%, USDKRW (Korean won) -7.8%, and USDJPY (Japanese yen) -8.35%. (Figure 1, topmost and middle charts) 

These countries, staunch U.S. allies that host American military bases, are the most likely to accommodate Washington’s demands. 

In ASEAN, major currencies appreciated more modestly: USDMYR (Malaysian ringgit) fell 5.05%, USDTHB (Thai baht) 5.49%, and USDPHP (Philippine peso) 2.8%. 

In contrast, USDIDR (Indonesian rupiah) rose 1.06%, indicating rupiah weakening—likely due to Indonesia's neutral stance, persistent fiscal concerns, and weaker ties to the U.S.

IV. Market Signals Point to Implicit Bilateral Deals 

On May 23, MUFG commented: "Markets have seemingly perceived that President Trump is looking for a weaker US dollar versus several Asian currencies as part of bilateral trade negotiations. Bloomberg News recently reported that the Taiwanese authorities had allowed the TWD to appreciate sharply earlier this month. The deputy governor of CBC has said that this strategic move is to allow market expectations for TWD gains to play out. But this is apparently at odds with the Taiwan central bank’s past preference to intervene in the FX market to smooth out volatility. The Korean won has also advanced sharply on the news that the US-South Korea finished the second technical discussions on 22 May." (bold added) (Figure 1, lowest graph) 

This MUFG insight—"A weaker US dollar versus several Asian currencies as part of bilateral trade negotiations"—suggests an implicit bilateral Mar-a-Lago deal.

V. Taiwan’s Hedging Frenzy: Collateral Damage of FX Realignment? 

Notably, Taiwan’s insurers recently suffered massive losses during the USD selloff and may have even contributed to it. Taiwan’s Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC) summoned insurers for reportedly “rushing to hedge their US bond holdings.” This could reflect unintended effects of TWD appreciation, potentially tied to an implicit Mar-a-Lago deal. 

In a nutshell, it’s likely no coincidence that currency appreciation aligns with the U.S.’s closest allies, suggesting implicit bilateral Mar-a-Lago deals driven by Trump’s tariff leverage, despite official denials. 

VI Gross International Reserves Tell a Different Story 

"Never believe anything in politics until it is officially denied"—Ottoman Bismark 

Taiwan’s central bank’s denial of involvement closely mirrors that of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP). 

The BSP has washed its hands from using the peso as a tool for negotiation, despite the Philippines status as a client state in ASEAN, bound by the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty and hosting U.S. military bases. 

Given the Mar-a-Lago framework of coupling dollar devaluation with tariffs, trade negotiations with the U.S. would likely involve the BSP, making its denial implausible. 

While no official agreement exists, the BSP noted it could use a combination of “FX interventions when necessary” and “the strategic use of the country’s foreign exchange reserve buffer” for capital flows management. 

This rhetoric suggests using the Philippine peso as strategic leverage for trade negotiations, aligning with the Mar-a-Lago goal of weakening the dollar to reduce the U.S.$1.2 trillion trade deficit, including the Philippines’ $5 billion surplus from $14.2 billion in exports.

VII. Breaking Historical Patterns: GIR Decline Amid Peso Strength

Figure 2 

Consider the evidence: When the USDPHP fell in 2012 and 2018, the increase BSP’s Gross International Reserves (GIR) accelerated, evidenced by aggregated monthly inflows. 

As a side note, May’s GIR saw a marginal increase, supported ironically by gold, which has served as an anchor. (Figure 2, topmost and middle images) 

Recall that last February, the BSP dismissed gold’s role, citing the "dead asset" logic: Gold prices can be volatile, earn little interest, and incur storage costs, so central banks prefer not to hold excessive amounts." Divine justice? 

Yet ironically, unlike past trends, the current USDPHP decline has led to a reduction in the GIR. (Figure 2, lowest visual) 

The BSP’s template, repeated in January, March, and April, states: "The month-on-month decrease in the GIR level reflected mainly the (1) national government’s (NG) drawdowns on its foreign currency deposits with the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) to meet its external debt obligations and pay for its various expenditures, and (2) BSP’s net foreign exchange operations." 

The USDPHP remains far from the BSP’s ‘Maginot Line’ of Php 59—the upper band of its informal ‘soft-peg’ range—so why is its GIR eroding? 

While part of the decline may be due to ‘revaluation effects’ from rising long-term U.S. Treasury yields (falling bond prices) and a softer dollar, this insufficiently explains the GIR’s decline amid an appreciating peso, contrary to historical patterns.

Figure 3

BSP data shows its net foreign assets contracted year-on-year in April 2025, the first decline since July 2023. (Figure 3, topmost diagram) 

This partly reflects changes in the FX assets of Other Deposit Corporations (ODCs), but the primary driver has been the BSP’s dollar-denominated assets. (Figure 3, second to the highest pane) 

Either we are seeing 'revaluation effects' from a GIR heavily weighted in USD assets—given that the BSP was the largest central bank gold seller in 2024, reducing its gold holdings to bolster reserves—or the BSP has been offloading some of its FX holdings to weaken the USD, thereby supporting the peso’s rise. It could be both, distinguished by scale.

VIII. Yield Spreads and Market Disruptions Signal Intervention 

The spread between 10-year Philippine and U.S. Treasury yields has drifted to its widest since 2019, when BVAL rates replaced PDST in October 2018 as the benchmark for Philippine bonds. (Figure 3, second to the lowest and lowest graphs) 

Historically, this was linked to deeper USDPHP declines, but since the BSP adopted its ‘soft-peg’ regime in 2022, its interventions have significantly reshaped this correlation—altering market signals and shifting currency allocations within the financial system

Figure 4

Weak organic FX revenues—contracting FDIs (-45.24% YoY Jan-Mar 2025), tourism (-0.82% Jan-Apr, including overseas Filipino visitors), March 2025 remittances at a 9-month low, and volatile portfolio flows ($923 million Jan-Apr)—don’t support the peso’s strength, except for services exports (+7.2% Q1 GDP). (Figure 4) 

Insufficient FX flows explain the surge in external debt, as the Philippines borrows heavily to bridge the gap, with external debt increasing to support trade, fiscal needs, and the defense of the USDPHP soft peg.

Figure 5 

Philippine external debt surged by a staggering 14% in Q1 2025, driven by a 17.4% rise in public FX debt, which now accounts for approximately 59% of the total! 

The BSP calls a sustained spike in FX debt 'manageable'—color us amazed!

IX. Conclusion: The Hidden Costs of Currency Leverage; Intertemporal Risks and Economic Feedback Loops 

These factors strengthen the case that the BSP is using the peso as leverage for trade negotiations—an implicit bilateral Mar-a-Lago deal. 

These interventions have intertemporal effects—or unintended consequences from pursuing short-term goals—that will likely surface over time. 

The USD’s decline will likely accelerate FX-denominated borrowings, becoming more evident once the peso weakens—similar to the 2018 and 2022 episodes—amplifying currency, interest rate, and other risks through mismatches that could exacerbate market disruptions. 

This poses risks of dislocations in sectors reliant on merchandise trade, remittances, or FX or USD fund flows, potentially triggering feedback loops that could negatively impact the broader economy or lead to economic and financial instability. 

And with escalating risks of a fiscal shock—one that could trigger and amplify unforeseen ramifications—that would translate into a perfect storm, wouldn’t it? 

September 2024 Fiscal Deficit Highlights the "Marcos-nomics Stimulus"; How Deficit Spending Drives a WEAKER Philippine Peso

 

A failure to correct unsustainable fiscal trajectories poses major risks to growth, inflation and financial stability—Agustín Carstens, General Manager, Bank for International Settlements 

In this issue

September 2024 Fiscal Deficit Highlights the "Marcos-nomics Stimulus"; How Deficit Spending Drives a WEAKER Philippine Peso

I. September Deficit Highlights Three of the Five Phases of Marcos-nomics Stimulus

II. Untold Aspects of Fiscal Health: How the Shift in Monthly Revenue Reports Impact Quarterly Performance

III. Revealing Hidden Dynamics: How Quarterly Expenditures Shape Fiscal Outcomes

IV. September Debt-Servicing Costs Hits an All-Time High Relative to Historical Annualized Data!

V. How Deficit Spending Drives a WEAKER Philippine Peso; the USD-PHP V-Shape Recovery!

VI. All Time High in Interest Payment as Share of Expenditures Soar to 2009 High!

VII. Pre-Election Spending? All Time High in 9-Month Government Disbursements, Second Highest LGU spending

VIII. The Inflation Tax: BSP and Banking System’s QE

IX. Conclusion: Big Government Comes at The Expense of a Healthy Market Economy

September 2024 Fiscal Deficit Highlights the "Marcos-nomics Stimulus"; How Deficit Spending Drives a WEAKER Philippine Peso

There seems to be little recognition that September's deficit was a milestone of a kind; it actually highlights "Marcos-nomics" in action. With a quarter to go, debt servicing costs hit an all-time high as the USD-Peso mounts a ferocious recovery.

I. September Deficit Highlights Three of the Five Phases of Marcos-nomics Stimulus

Everyone has been conditioned to believe that current economic conditions are "normal."

To reinforce this notion, media narratives often highlight selective aspects of growth while ignoring other salient parts and related data.

That’s right: when the public’s dependence on "political interventions"—referred to as ‘stimulus’—becomes entrenched, this deepening addiction becomes the norm.

As the great Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman presciently stated, "Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program."

But have you heard any expert mention this? You might read piecemeal allusions; for example, the BSP's rate-cutting cycle is expected to boost household spending and business activity.

Nonetheless, the public hardly understands the interconnectedness of what are sold as disparate policies.

As previously discussed, we identify the five phases of the "Marcos-nomics stimulus," subtly operating under the Pandemic Bailout Template (PBT).

The first phase involves record-setting public spending, contributing to a significant deficit.

The second phase highlights the BSP’s monetary policy, characterized by the latest round of interest rate cuts.

The third phase signifies the BSP and bank injections, partially fulfilled by the recent reduction in the banking system’s Reserve Requirement Ratio.

The fourth and fifth phases encompass various subsidies, such as the current credit card interest rate ceiling, along with pandemic relief measures.

The National Government and the BSP have yet to expand their coverage in this area, but it is expected to happen soon.

This step-by-step approach underlines the structure of the stimulus, which subtly mirrors the Pandemic Bailout Template.

September’s deficit highlights its first phase.

II. Untold Aspects of Fiscal Health: How the Shift in Monthly Revenue Reports Impact Quarterly Performance

Inquirer.net, October 25, 2024: The country’s budget deficit widened by 8.9 percent to P273.3 billion in September from P250.9 billion in the same month last year, as the increase in revenues was not enough to cover the hike in expenses, the Bureau of the Treasury reported on Thursday. Revenue collections increased by 17.32 percent to P299.7 billion last month, from P255.4 billion last year, while state expenditures also grew by 13.15 percent to P572.9 billion. But for the first nine months, the budget deficit narrowed by 1.35 percent to P970.2 billion from the P983.5-billion budget gap a year ago.

While the Bureau of the Treasury (BuTr) issues a monthly report, recent changes in tax revenue reporting and end-of-quarter budget compliance targets make quarterly reports far more significant.

In fact, monthly reports can be considered largely meaningless without considering the quarterly performance.

For instance, the latest BuTr report sheds light on the reasons behind recent revenue surges.

The increase in VAT collections in 2024 is partly due to the impact of the change in payment schedule introduced by the TRAIN law provision which allows the tax filers to shift from monthly to quarterly filing of VAT return [bold mine] (Bureau of Treasury, October 2024) 

Distortions brought about by changes in the BuTr’s reporting methods pose a crucial factor in analyzing the fiscal health of the Philippines. 

This brings us to September’s performance. 

Indeed, public revenue in September grew by 17.3%, but this increase is primarily due to base effects. 

Additionally, administrative policy changes and one-off charges contributed to the month’s revenue growth.         

This is attributed to higher personal income tax (PIT) particularly on withholding on wages due to the release of salary differentials of civilian government personnel pursuant to Executive Order No. 64, series of 20242 , which updated from the Salary Standardization Law (SSL) of 2019… 

Non-tax revenues surged to P46.2 billion in September, more than twice the level attained a year ago primarily due to the one-off windfall from the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) concession agreement…the higher outturn for the period was attributed to the P30.0 billion remittance from the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA), representing the upfront payment for the MIAA-Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) PPP Project [bold added] (Bureau of Treasury, October 2024) 

Importantly, aside from the factors mentioned above, as noted by the BuTr, the shift in VAT payment timing played a crucial role in boosting 2024 revenues.

Figure 1

That is to say, since VAT payments are made at the end of each quarter but recorded in the first month of the following quarter, this quarterly revenue cycle inflates reported revenues for January, April, July and October, often resulting in a narrowed deficit or even a surplus for these months. (Figure 1, topmost chart) 

Therefore, we should anticipate either a surplus or a narrower deficit this October.

In any case, Q3 2024 revenues increased by 16.95%—the highest growth rate since Q3 2022, which was a record in nominal terms for Q3 historically. However, this was also the second-highest quarterly revenue in pesos after Q2 2024. (Figure 1, middle image)

What might collections look like if we consider only “core” operations? Would deficits be larger without these reporting distortions? Or could the government be “padding” its revenue reports? 

III. Revealing Hidden Dynamics: How Quarterly Expenditures Shape Fiscal Outcomes 

The mainstream media and their expert cohorts rarely mention the most critical segment: historic public (deficit) spending. 

Although public spending rose by only 13.2% in September due to a high base effect, it marked the largest non-December outlay on record. It was also the third-largest overall, trailing only the year-end budget expenditures of December 2023 and December 2022. (Figure 1, lowest graph) 

Notably, 2024 has already seen three months of spending exceeding Php 500 billion—even before the year-end budget allocations. This pattern isn’t an anomaly but rather a path-dependent trajectory of political decisions. 

Figure 2

In the context of quarterly performance, Q3 spending grew by 6.4% year-over-year, also constrained by high base effects. Still, this represents the third-highest quarterly outlay on record, following Q2 2024 and Q4 2023, and a milestone high when compared with previous Q3 performances. (Figure 2, topmost diagram)

Similarly, the monthly deficit resulting from September’s historic expenditure constituted the second largest non-December monthly deficit, following the pandemic recession in April 2020, which saw a deficit of Php 273.9 billion. This was the sixth largest deficit when including the year-end closing budget.

Furthermore, the pressure to meet quarterly compliance targets push the burden of expenditures to the closing month of each period; thus, the largest deficits occur at the end of each quarter (March, June, September, and December). (Figure 2, middle pane) 

Simply put, this new schedule has introduced significant distortions in the Bureau of Treasury’s (BuTr) fiscal balance reporting. 

Revenues at the start of each quarter are likely to close the gap with expenditures in October, potentially leading to a surplus or a narrowed deficit. In contrast, end-of-month spending for each quarter should boost expenditures and consequently increase deficits. 

However, for now, the alteration in BuTr reporting has artificially inflated the government’s fiscal health. 

Still, it goes without saying that the year-end expenditure target will likely push December 2024’s fiscal deficit to a fresh milestone! 

From a quarterly perspective, revenues remain above their polynomial trendline, while spending hovers slightly below it, reflecting revenue outperformance in comparison to trend-aligned spending. (Figure 2, lower graph) 

Meanwhile, the widening gap between the deficit and its trendline may signal increased volatility ahead. 

IV. September Debt-Servicing Costs Hits an All-Time High Relative to Historical Annualized Data!

Despite the potential embellishment of budget statistics through inflated revenues or understated deficits, it remains essential to recognize that this spending requires funding. 

Some mainstream experts have attributed the recent decline in Bureau of Treasury (BuTr) financing to prudent “rationalization” by budget overseers. 

However, we have consistently argued that this perspective is grotesquely misguided; it is the government’s default action to indulge in a spending binge. 

This behavior serves not only to advance its political agenda of centralizing the economy and promoting its interests in the upcoming elections but also because such fiscal transfers create a temporary illusion of economic boom. 

For a spending-based GDP, ramping up expenditures is necessary to increase tax revenue and, more importantly, to depress interest rates, which allows the government to access public savings cheaply to fund its expenditures. 

True, revenue expansion in August reduced that month’s deficit, which led to an improvement in the 9-month deficit, dropping from last year’s level. However, we suspect this improvement may be short-lived, as December 2024’s massive spending is likely to push the deficit above last year’s figures. 

Still, it is noteworthy that the 9-month deficit for 2024 remains the fourth largest since the pandemic bailout template (PBT) measures began in 2020. 

Any improvement in the deficit has been inconsequential, as the post-PBT deficits have remained in an “emergency” mode. 

It only takes a substantial downturn in GDP for this deficit to set a new high—which is likely what its polynomial trendline suggests.

Figure 3

Despite improvements in the 9-month deficit, financing reversed its downward trend, rising 12.6% year-over-year to Php 1.875 trillion. (Figure 3, topmost chart)

This trend reversal means not only an increase in the public debt stock—recently improved due to the peso’s substantial gains against the USD—but also higher costs of servicing public debt.

The BuTr will report on September’s public debt figures next week, but with the substantial V-shaped recovery of the USD, October is expected to yield interesting data.

Nevertheless, the 9-month cost of servicing public debt has reached an ALL-TIME HIGH relative to annual historical data, with a full quarter left to go! (Figure 3, middle graph)

Interestingly, amortizations have exceeded the annual 2023 data by 8.7%, while interest payments remain just 7.2% below this benchmark.

Signs of normal times?

V. How Deficit Spending Drives a WEAKER Philippine Peso; the USD-PHP V-Shape Recovery!

Although the 9-month growth rate for debt servicing slowed to 17.4% due to base effects, it set a record in peso terms.

More importantly, the share of external financing has been increasing, which not only indicates rising credit levels in the local currency but also amplifies external borrowing, effectively exacerbating "USD shorts" (implied short positions on the USD). (Figure 3, lowest window)

Borrowings ultimately need repayment. However, if organic USD revenue sources prove insufficient to meet debt obligations and refinance existing loans, the government will need to take on more debt to cover existing obligations—essentially, a recycling of debt, or what is known as Ponzi finance.

Figure 4 

Compounding these challenges, debt-financed government spending, a preference for easy-money conditions, and domestic banks’ bias toward consumer lending all contribute to a widening savings-investment gap, fueling the country’s "twin deficits." This combination of factors will likely increase reliance on external financing, leading to a structural depreciation of the peso. 

The crux of the matter is this: the widening fiscal deficit results in a weaker Philippine peso, raising external credit risks. (Figure 4, upper image) 

Oddly enough, some media outlets and pseudo-experts have recently attributed the recent V-shape recovery of the USDPHP exchange rate to a “Trump presidency!” 

Huh? Are they suggesting that a Harris administration would result in a strong peso? 

As I recently posted on x.com: During the Trump 1.0 presidency 1/20/17 (49.92) -1/20/21 (48.054), the USDPHP fell by 3.74%! How about Biden? So far, at 58.32, the USDPHP is up 21.4% (as of October 25, 2024)! 

Certainly, the recent strength of the dollar has played a role, contributing to a broad-based rebound of Asian currencies this week. While the USD Index (DXY) rose by 0.8%, the Philippine peso fell by 1.39%. 

In the context of the USD-Philippine USDPHP reclaiming its old trendline, this represents a "signal," while the peso’s recent bounce signifies "noise" or an anomaly. (Figure 4, lower chart) 

On the other hand, the DXY remains below its immediate broken trendline. 

So, is the USDPHP market suggesting a retest of 59 soon? 

This partially illustrates the "exorbitant privilege" of the US dollar standard, where global central banks rely on building up their USD reserves, to "back" or "anchor" their domestic monetary or currency operations that fund their economies and imports. 

In any case, over the long term, the relative performance of a currency against regional peers vis-à-vis the USD might signal developing vulnerabilities within that currency.

This inability to recognize causality represents the heuristic of attribution bias— giving credit to endogenous activities while attributing deficiencies to exogenous forces.

VI. All Time High in Interest Payment as Share of Expenditures Soar to 2009 High!

Circling back to debt servicing, it's important to note that amortizations are not included in the published budget. As the government defines it, this represents "a financing transaction rather than an expenditure" (Ombudsman, 2012). 

Consequently, this aspect has barely been addressed by the headlines or the experts.

Figure 5

Despite attempts to downplay discussions around interest payments, the nine-month interest payments have surged to an all-time high, with their share of disbursements climbing to 13.7%—the highest level since 2009! (Figure 5, topmost diagram)

The growing debt burden from deficit spending, amid elevated rates, translates into an even larger cost of servicing, impacting both the budget’s allocated expenditures and its mandatory cash flows.

How’s that for "prudential" debt management or "rationalizing" the budget?

VII. Pre-Election Spending? All Time High in 9-Month Government Disbursements, Second Highest LGU spending

Aside from interest payments, what might be the other major spending items? 

The nine-month central government’s disbursement growth surged by 11.64% to an all-time high of Php 2.78 trillion, which, according to the Bureau of the Treasury (BuTr), signifies "the implementation of capital outlay projects by the Department of Public Works and Highways and larger personnel services expenditures due to the implementation of the first tranche of salary adjustments." (Figure 5, middle window)

It is worth noting that, aside from aiming for GDP targets, this spending appears to be tactically timed for pre-election purposes.

Meanwhile, local government spending growth rebounded sharply from a 16.6% contraction in 2023 to 8.8% this year, reaching the second highest level in 2024. (Figure 5, lowest image)

A crucial segment of this substantial recovery may involve direct and indirect financing of local pre-election campaign activities.

The nine-month share of national disbursement was 65.24%, slightly higher than 2023’s 65.2%, while the share of local government unit (LGU) spending declined from 18.2% in 2023 to 17.72% in 2024.

In any event, given the embedded accelerated trajectory in deficit spending for socio-political (pre-elections, war economy, infrastructure-led GDP) and financing goals in the face of volatile economically sensitive revenues or collections, what could go wrong?

VIII. The Inflation Tax: BSP and Banking System’s QE

Direct taxation and debt have not only served as the primary sources of financing for the increasing scale of spending and deficits; the inflation tax has also taken on a more significant role in funding deficit spending.

It's important to remember that the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) operates under an "inflation targeting" regime.

The unstated objective is not to "eliminate" inflation—since that is never the goal—but rather to contain the inflation "genie" within manageable limits.

The BSP aims to utilize the inflation tax alongside direct taxes and borrowing, while carefully controlling it to prevent social discord.

Consequently, attributing the current inflationary episode solely to supply-side factors has proven to be a convenient way to deflect blame from the BSP to the broader market economy, often framing it as “greedflation.”

Given this context, it’s hardly surprising that none of the establishment experts anticipated the surge in inflation, despite our repeated warnings about the inflation cycle.

Figure 6

When authorities began ramping up spending even before the pandemic in 2019, the BSP’s net claims on the central government (NCoCG)—essentially a local version of quantitative easing—started to escalate and has remained on an upward trajectory ever since. (Figure 6, topmost chart)

Even as mainstream narratives tout the aspiration of achieving "upper middle-income status," little has changed in the BSP’s NCoCG since their historic Php 2.3 trillion bailout of the banking system during 2020-2021.

The same holds true for the Philippine banking system’s NCoCG, which continues to be a vital source of financing for public debt. (Figure 6, middle window)

As of last August, the banking system’s holdings of government securities were just shy of the all-time high reached in July.

Although bank holdings of held-to-maturity (HTM) assets dipped in August, they remained tantalizingly close to the record high set in December 2023. Philippine NCoCG are entwined with HTMs. (Figure 6, lowest chart)

When have these been signs of "normal?"

IX. Conclusion: Big Government Comes at The Expense of a Healthy Market Economy

Figure 7

We shouldn’t overlook the fact that the accelerating surge in the nominal value of public debt has diverged from the rising trajectory of public spending, suggesting a potential understatement of the fiscal deficit. (Figure 7, topmost graph)

The establishment often emphasizes the importance of public spending, claiming it has a ‘multiplier effect.’ However, from the perspective of the banking system, the reality appears to be the opposite: instead of stimulating growth, increased public spending has led to a diminishment of savings, as evidenced by the declining growth of peso deposits. (Figure 7, middle chart)

The impact of diminishing savings is also evident in the capital markets, with trading volumes on the Philippine Stock Exchange (PSE) declining further due to the surge in pandemic-era deficits. Yes, PSEi 30 have risen on the backdrop of declining volumes. Amazing! (Figure 7, lowest diagram)

In short, the greater the centralization of the economy— through: (1) intensifying public spending, (2) increasing political control over the economy—such as Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs), which can be viewed as a neo-fascist or crony capitalist model, (3) the expansion of the bureaucratic state due to welfare and warfare sectors, and (4) the increasing reliance on the inflation tax, the lower the productivity.

Simply put, a big government comes at the expense of a healthy market economy.

Given these circumstances, could this scenario catalyze a third wave of inflation?

When has the Philippine economy truly returned to a pre-pandemic "normal?"

___

References:

Bureau of Treasury September 2024 Budget Deficit at P273.3 Billion Nine-Month Deficit Narrowed to P970.2 Billion, October 24, 2024 Treasury.gov.ph

Office of the Ombudsman, I. Basic Concepts in Budgeting, December 2012, www.ombudsman.gov.ph