The Philippine Flood Control Scandal: Systemic Failure and Central Bank Complicity

 

Today the fashionable philosophy of Statolatry has obfuscated the issue. The political conflicts are no longer seen as struggles between groups of men. They are considered a war between two principles, the good and the bad. The good is embodied in the great god State, the materialization of the eternal idea of morality, and the bad in the "rugged individualism" of selfish men. In this antagonism the State is always right and the individual always wrong. The State is the representative of the commonweal, of justice, civilization, and superior wisdom. The individual is a poor wretch, a vicious fool—Ludwig von Mises 

In this issue

The Philippine Flood Control Scandal: Systemic Failure and Central Bank Complicity

I. ‘Shocked’ or Complicit? The Nexus of Policy and Corruption

II. A Financial System in Cartel’s Grip

III. Structural Failure, Not Just Regulatory Lapse; Virtue-Signaling Over Solution

IV. BSP Withdrawal Caps as Capital Controls: Six Dangers

V. Liquidity Theater and the Politics of Survival

VI. Systemic Risks on the Horizon

VII. Political Survival via Institutional Sacrifice; The Kabuki Commission

VIII. The Political Playbook: Delay, Distract, Dissolve

IX. Historical Parallels: When Economics Ignite Revolutions

X. The Strawman of Fiscal Stability and Revenue Realities

XI. Expenditure Retrenchment and the Infrastructure Dependency Trap

XII. The Keynesian Paradox, Liquidity Trap and Deposit Flight

XIII. PSE’s Sleight of Hand on CMEPA

X. The Horizon Has Arrived

XI. Statolatry and the Endgame 

The Philippine Flood Control Scandal: Systemic Failure and Central Bank Complicity 

What looks like an infrastructure scam is really a mirror of the Philippines’ deeper malaise: politicized finance, central bank accommodation, and a brittle economy propped by debt. 

I. ‘Shocked’ or Complicit? The Nexus of Policy and Corruption 

Media reported that BSP was “shocked” by the scale of corruption. The Philstar quoted the BSP Chief, who also chairs the AMLC: “It was worse than we thought… We knew there was corruption all along, but not on this scale… as much of a shock to the central bank as to the public.” 

“Shocked” at the scale of corruption? Or at their own complicity?

Figure 1

Easy-money ‘trickle-down’ policies didn’t just enable anomalies—they fostered and accommodated them. Banks, under BSP’s watch, have financed the government’s ever-expanding debt-financed deficit spending binge—including flood control projects—through net claims on central government (NCoCG), which hit Php 5.547 trillion last July, the third highest on record. Public debt slipped from July’s record high to Php 17.468 trillion in August. (Figure 1, upper window) 

II. A Financial System in Cartel’s Grip 

Meanwhile, operating like a cartel, bank control of the financial system has surged to a staggering 82.7% of total financial resources/assets, with universal commercial banks alone commanding 77.1% (as of July 2025). (Figure 1, lower chart) 

This mounting concentration is no mere market feature—the scandal exposes the financial system’s structural vulnerability. The scale of transactions, personalities, and institutional fingerprints involved in the scandal was never invisible. It was ignored. 

III. Structural Failure, Not Just Regulatory Lapse; Virtue-Signaling Over Solution 

This isn’t just a regulatory lapse. 

It is structural, systemic, and political—failure implicating not only the heads of finance and monetary agencies, but extends up to political leadership past and present. The iceberg runs deep. 

Worse, the economy’s deepening dependence on deficit spending to prop up the GDP kabuki only enshrines the “gaming” of the system—a choreography sustained by a network of national and local politicians, bureaucrats, financiers, media, and their cronies. 

Corruption scandals of this kind are therefore not confined to infrastructure—it permeates every domain tethered to policy-driven redistribution 

Yet instead of accountability, the BSP hides behind virtue-signaling optics. It flaunts probes and caps withdrawals, likely oblivious to the systemic damage it may inflict on beleaguered banks, stained liquidity, and an already fragile economy. 

The predictable ramifications: lingering uncertainties lead to a potential tightening of credit, and erodes confidence in Philippine assets and the peso. 

Ironically, this impulse response risks amplifying the very imbalances the BSP aims to contain—Wile E. Coyote dynamics in motion. 

Banks attempt to camouflage record NPLs via ‘denominator effects’ from a growth sprint on credit expansion while simultaneously scrambling to mask asset losses via intensifying exposure to Available for Sale Securities (AFS)—a desperate sprint toward the cliff’s edge—as previously discussed. (see reference section for previous discussion) 

IV. BSP Withdrawal Caps as Capital Controls: Six Dangers 

As part of its histrionics to contain the flood-control scandal, the BSP imposed a daily withdrawal cap of Php 500,000. 

First, these sweeping limits target an errant minority while penalizing the wider economy. Payroll financing for firms with dozens of employees, capital expenditures, and cash-intensive investments and many more aspects of commerce all depend on such flows. The economy bears the cost of institutional failure. 

Second, withdrawal caps are a form of capital control—another step in the state’s creeping centralization of the economy. Price controls (MSRP and "20 rice" rollouts), wage controls (minimum wages), and exchange-rate controls (the USDPHP soft peg) are already in place. Capital controls, by nature, bleed into trade restrictions and signal deeper interventionist intent. 

Third, with strains in the banking system worsening, the caps effectively lock in liquidity—an indirect rescue effort for banks at the expense of depositors. This is moral hazard in action: prudence is punished while recklessness is protected. But locking liquidity in stressed institutions risks triggering a velocity collapse, where money exists but refuses to circulate—amplifying systemic fragility. 

Fourth, once the public realizes that siloed money can be unilaterally withheld at will, the credibility of financial inclusion erodes, risking a collapse in confidence. Combined with CMEPA’s assault on savings, these measures push households and firms toward informal channels, further eroding trust in the banking system itself. The behavioral signal is chilling: your money is conditional; your trust is optional. 

Fifth, such public assurance measures expose the banking system’s inherent weakness. Rather than calming markets, they sow doubt over BSP’s capacity to safeguard stability—risking a surge in cash hoarding outside the formal system and spur credit tightening. 

Sixth, international investors may interpret this as mission creep in financial repression—adding pressure on Philippine risk premiums and the peso. Capital flight doesn’t need a headline—it just needs a signal. 

Finally, history warns us: Argentina’s 2001 corralito, Greece in 2015, and Lebanon in 2019 all saw withdrawal limits destroy trust in banks for a generation. The Philippines now flirts with the same danger. 

What begins as optics may end as rupture. 

V. Liquidity Theater 

Efforts to win public approval by “doing something” haven’t stopped at withdrawal caps or capital controls. The BSP has widened its response to include probes into the industry’s legal, administrative, and compliance frameworks—an escalation designed more for optics than systemic repair. 

While the BSP chief admitted that freezing bank funds tied to the flood control scandal could affect liquidity, he downplayed broader risks, claiming: “Our banks are very, very liquid at this point... No bank runs.” (italics added) 

Figure 2

But BSP’s own metrics tell a different story (as of July 2025): (Figure 2, topmost graph) 

-Cash-to-deposit ratio is at all-time lows

-Liquidity-to-deposit ratio has fallen to 2020 levels 

This isn’t stability—it’s strain. 

VI. Systemic Risks on the Horizon 

Beyond tighter liquidity and credit conditions, several systemic risks loom: 

1) Funding Stigma: Banks under investigation face counterparty distrust. Interbank markets may shrink access or charge higher spreads, amplifying liquidity stress. 

2) Reputational Contagion: Even unaffected banks risk depositor anxiety, particularly if they share infrastructure or counterparties with implicated institutions. Concentration risk thus becomes contagion risk. 

3) Depositor Anxiety: The public often interprets targeted probes as systemic signals. Precautionary withdrawals may accelerate, caps notwithstanding. Was BSP anticipating this when it chopped RRR rates last March and doubled deposit insurance? 

4) Regulatory Overreach: To signal credibility, BSP may impose stricter KYC/AML protocols—slowing onboarding, increasing balance sheet friction, and chilling transaction flows. 

5) Market Pricing of Risk: Equity prices, bond spreads, interbank rates, and FX volatility may rise—exposing incumbent fragilities and financial skeletons in the closet. Philippine assets have been the worst performers per BBG. (Figure 2, middle image) 

6) Earnings Pressure and Capital Hit: Sanctions, fines, and reputational damage translate to earnings erosion and capital buffer depletion—weakening the very liquidity BSP claims is “ample.” 

7) AML Fallout: The probe exposes systemic AML blind spots, risking FATF graylisting. Compliance costs may rise, deterring foreign capital. This episode reveals how the statistical criteria behind AMLA and credit ratings are fundamentally flawed. 

8) Political Pressure: The scandal’s reach into lawmakers and officials may trigger clampdowns on regulators, budget delays, and a slowdown in infrastructure spending. 

VII. Political Survival via Institutional Sacrifice; The Kabuki Commission 

One thing is clear: Diversionary policies—from the war on drugs to POGO crackdowns to nationalism via territorial disputes—have boomeranged. Now, the political war is being waged on governing institutions themselves. 

The BSP’s trifecta—capital controls, signaling channels, and probes—is part of a tactical framework to defend the administration’s survival. It sanitizes executive involvement while letting the hammer fall on a few “fall guys.” This is textbook social democratic conflict resolution: high-profile investigations and figurehead resignations to appease public clamor. 

Case in point: the Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI), reportedly funded by the Office of the President. How “independent” can it be if the OP bankrolls and decides on its output? 

As I noted on X: (Figure 2, lowest picture)

“That’s like asking the bartender to audit his own till. This ‘commission’ smells more like kabuki.” 

After a week, an ICI member linked to the scandal’s villain resigned. 

VIII. The Political Playbook: Delay, Distract, Dissolve 

Authorities hope for three things:

-That time will dull public anger

-That the probe’s outcome satisfies public appetite

-That new controversies bury the scandal 

But history warns us: corruption follows a Whac-a-Mole dynamic—until it hits a tipping point. 

IX. Historical Parallels: When Economics Ignite Revolutions 

Two EDSA uprisings were preceded by financial-economic upheavals:

1983 Philippine debt crisis → 1986 EDSA I

1997 Asian crisis → 2000 EDSA II 

The lesson is stark: Economic distress breeds political crisis. Or vice versa. 

X. The Strawman of Fiscal Stability and Revenue Realities 

The fiscal health of the Philippine government has been splattered with piecemeal evidence of the flood control scandal’s impact on the political economy. 

Authorities may headline that “Tax Revenues Sustain Growth; Budget Deficit Well-Managed and On Track with Full-Year Target”—but this is a strawman, built on selective perception masking structural deterioration. 

In reality, August 2025 revenues fell -8.8%. The Bureau of Internal Revenue’s (BIR) growth slowed to 5.04%, barely above July’s 4.8%, and far below 11.5% in August 2024. Bureau of Customs (BoC) collections slipped from +6% in July to -1.4% in August, versus +4.7% a year ago. Non-tax revenues collapsed -67.8%, deepening from July’s -9.7%, in stark contrast to the +281.6% surge a year earlier.

Figure 3

For January–August, revenue growth has decelerated sharply from 15.9% in 2024 to just 3.1% in 2025. BIR collections slowed to 11.44% (from 12.6%) and BoC to 1.14% (from 5.67%). Non-tax revenues plunged -31.41%, against +58.9% a year earlier. (Figure 3, topmost diagram)

XI. Expenditure Retrenchment and the Infrastructure Dependency Trap 

Meanwhile, August expenditures fell -0.74% YoY, with National Government disbursement contracting 11.8% for the second straight month. It shrank by 11.4% in July. 

Eight-month expenditures slowed from 11.32% in 2024 to 7.15% in 2025, driven by a sharp decline in NG spending from 10.6% to 3.98%. (Figure 3, middle and lowest graphs) 

Infrastructure spending dropped 25% in July, per BusinessWorld. The deeper August slump reflects political pressure restraining disbursements—pulling down the eight-month deficit. 

Though nominal revenues and expenditures hit record highs, the 2025 eight-month deficit of Php 784 billion is the second widest since the pandemic-era Php 837.25 billion in 2021 Ironically, today’s deficit remains at pandemic-recession levels even without a recession—yet. 

As we noted back in early September: 

"The unfolding DPWH scandal threatens more than reputational damage—it risks triggering a contractionary spiral that could expose the fragility of the Philippine top-down heavy economic development model.  

"With Php 1.033 trillion allotted to DPWH alone (16.3% of the 2025 budget)—which was lowered to Php 900 billion (14.2% of total budget)—and Php 1.507 trillion for infrastructure overall (23.8% and estimated 5.2% of the GDP), any slowdown in disbursements could reverberate across sectors.  

"Many large firms are structurally tied to public projects, and the economy’s current momentum leans heavily on credit-fueled activity rather than organic productivity.  

"Curtailing infrastructure outlays, even temporarily, risks puncturing GDP optics and exposing the private sector’s underlying weakness. " 

And it’s not just infrastructure. Political pressure has spread to cash aid distribution. ABS-CBN reported that DSWD is preparing rules “to insulate social protection programs from political influence.” Good luck with that. 

For now, rising political pressure points to a drastic slowdown in spending. 

XII. The Keynesian Paradox, Liquidity Trap and Deposit Flight

Figure 4

Remember: the government’s share of national GDP hit an all-time high of 16.7% in 1H 2025. (Figure 4, upper chart) 

This excludes government construction GDP and private sector participation in political projects (PPPs, suppliers, contractors etc.). Yet instead of a Keynesian multiplier, higher government spending has yielded slower GDP—thanks to malinvestments from the crowding out dynamic. 

The BSP is already floating further policy easing this October. BusinessWorld quotes the BSP Chief: “If we see [economic] output slowing down because of the lack of demand, then we would step in, easing policy rates [to] strengthen demand.”

The irony is stark. What can rate cuts achieve in “spurring demand” when the BSP is simultaneously probing banks and imposing withdrawal caps?

And more: what can they do when authorities themselves admit that CMEPA triggered a “dramatic” 95-percent drop in long-term deposits, or when households are hoarding liquidity in response to new tax rules—feeding banks’ liquidity trap?

XIII. PSE’s Sleight of Hand on CMEPA

Meanwhile, the PSE pulled a rabbit from the hat, claiming CMEPA attracted foreign investors from July to September 23. As I posted on X.com: The PSE cherry-picks its data. PSEi is significantly down, volume is sliding. The foreign flows came from a one-day, huge cross (negotiated) sale from Metrobank (PSE:MBT) and/or RL Commercial (PSE: RCR)—untruth does not a bull market make.” (Figure 4, lower picture)

What this really signals is that banks will scale up borrowing from the public to patch widening balance sheet imbalances—our Wile E. Coyote moment (see reference to our previous discussion). Banks, not the public, stand to benefit.

IX. The Debt Spiral Tightens

The bigger issue behind policy easing is government financing. 

As we’ve repeatedly said, the recent slowdown in debt servicing may stem from: “Scheduling choices or prepayments in 2024—or political aversion to public backlash—may explain the recent lull in debt servicing. But the record and growing deficit ensures borrowing and servicing will keep rising.” (see reference)

Figure 5

August 2025 proved the point: Php 601.6 billion in amortization pushed eight-month debt service to Php 1.54 trillion—just shy of last year’s Php 1.55 trillion, and already near the full-year 2023 total (Php 1.572 trillion). (Figure 5, topmost and middle graphs)

Foreign debt servicing’s share rose from 19.86% to 22.3%. 

Eight-month interest payments hit a record Php 584 billion, raising their share of expenditures from 13.8% to 14.8%—the highest since 2009.  (Figure 5, lowest chart) 

All this confirms: BSP’s rate cuts serve the government, banks, and politically connected elite—not the public. (see reference) 

X. The Horizon Has Arrived 

As we noted last August: (See reference) 

-More debt → more servicing → less for everything else

-Crowding out hits both public and private spending

-Revenue gains won’t keep up with servicing

-Inflation and peso depreciation risks climb

-Higher taxes are on the horizon 

That horizon is here. Higher debt, more servicing, more crowding out, faltering revenue gains, and higher taxes in motion (new digital taxes, DOH’s push for sin tax expansion…). 

Inflation and peso depreciation are coming. 

XI. Statolatry and the Endgame 

The paradox is sobering: Reduced public spending may slow diversion from wealth consumption and unproductive activities to a gradual build-up in savings—offering a brief window for capital formation. 

The bad news? Most still believe political angels exist, and that governance can only be solved through statism—a cult which the great economist Ludwig von Mises called statolatry. 

For the historic imbalances this ideology has built, the endgame can only be crisis. 

____

References 

Banks and Fiscal Issues 

Prudent Investor Newsletters, Minsky's Fragility Cycle Meets Wile E. Coyote: The Philippine Banking System’s Velocity Trap, Substack, September 14, 2025 

Prudent Investor Newsletters, When Free Lunch Politics Meets Fiscal Reality: Lessons from the DPWH Flood Control Scandal, Substack, September 7, 2025 

Prudent Investor Newsletters, June 2025 Deficit: A Countdown to Fiscal Shock, Substack, Substack, August 3, 2025 

Prudent Investor Newsletters, The Philippines’ May and 5-Month 2025 Budget Deficit: Can Political Signaling Mask a Looming Fiscal Shock?, Substack, July 7, 2025 

Prudent Investor Newsletters, Goldilocks Meets the Three Bad Bears: BSP’s Sixth Rate Cut and the Late-Cycle Reckoning, Substack, August 31, 2025 

CMEPA 

Prudent Investor Newsletters, The CMEPA Delusion: How Fallacious Arguments Conceal the Risk of Systemic Blowback July 27, 2025 (substack) 

Prudent Investor Newsletters, The Seen, the Unseen, and the Taxed: CMEPA as Financial Repression by Design July 20,2025 (substack)  

Ludwig von Mises, Bureaucracy, NEW HAVEN YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS 1944. p.74  Mises.org

 

 

The BSP’s One-Two Punch: Can RRR Cuts and PDIC Deposit Insurance Avert a Liquidity Crisis?

Historical research on bank runs indicates that the reason people run is run is not fear of people running. People typically ran when the bank was already insolvent. Healthy purpose of closing the bank before the bank lost even more money. True, the losses were unevenly distributed, depending on whether you got on the front of the line or the back of the line. In a way, that provides a useful incentive mechanism: monitor your bank and don't rely on other people to monitor it for you—Lawrence White

In this issue

The BSP’s One-Two Punch: Can RRR Cuts and PDIC Deposit Insurance Avert a Liquidity Crisis?

I. From Full Reserves to Fractional Banking: The Risks of a Zero-Bound RRR

II. Has the BSP’s "Easing Cycle"—Particularly the RRR Cut—Eased Liquidity Strains?

III. Bank Assets: A Tale of Contradictions: Booming Loans and Liquidity Pressures

IV. Bank Credit Boom Amid Contradictions: Soaring Credit Card NPLs as Real Estate NPLs Ease

V. Investments: A Key Source of Liquidity Pressures

VI. Hidden Risks in Held-to-Maturity (HTM) Securities: Government Debt

VII. Slowing Deposit Growth and the Structural Changes in the Banking System’s Asset Distribution

VIII. Liquidity Constraints Fuels Bank Borrowing Frenzy

IX. PDIC’s Doubled Deposit Insurance: A Confidence Tool or a Risk Mitigant?

X. Conclusion: Band-aid Solutions Magnify Risks

The BSP’s One-Two Punch: Can RRR Cuts and PDIC Deposit Insurance Avert a Liquidity Crisis?

Facing the risks from lower bank reserve requirements, the BSP may have pulled a confidence trick by doubling deposit insurance. But will it be enough to avert the ongoing liquidity stress?

I. From Full Reserves to Fractional Banking: The Risks of a Zero-Bound RRR 

Full reserve banking originated during the gold standard era, where banks acted as custodians of gold deposits and issued paper receipts fully backed by gold reserves. This system ensured financial stability by preventing the expansion of money beyond available reserves. However, as banks realized that depositors rarely withdrew all their funds simultaneously, they began lending out a portion of deposits, leading to the emergence of fractional reserve banking.

Over time, governments institutionalized this practice, largely due to its political convenience—enabling the financing of wars, welfare programs, and other government expenditures. This shift was epitomized by 1896 Democratic presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan's famous speech in which he declared, "You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold!" 

Governments reinforced this transition through the creation of central banks and an expanding framework of regulations, including deposit insurance. Ultimately, these policies culminated in the abandonment of the gold standard, most notably with the Nixon Shock of August 1971. 

While fractional reserve banking has facilitated economic growth by expanding credit, it has also introduced significant risks. These include bank runs and liquidity crises, as seen during the Great Depression, the 2008 financial crisis, and the 2023 U.S. banking crisis; inflationary pressures from excessive credit creation; and moral hazard, where banks engage in riskier practices knowing they may be bailed out. 

The system’s reliance on high leverage further contributes to financial fragility. 

The risks of fractional reserve banking are amplified when the statutory reserve requirement (RRR) approaches zero. A zero-bound RRR effectively removes regulatory constraints on the proportion of deposits banks can lend, increasing liquidity risk if sudden withdrawals exceed available reserves. 

This heightens the probability of bank runs, making institutions more dependent on central bank intervention for stability. 

Additionally, a near-zero RRR expands the money multiplier effect, increasing the risks of excessive credit creation, exacerbating asset-liability mismatches, fueling asset bubbles, and intensifying inflationary pressures—ultimately turning individual failures into systemic vulnerabilities that repeatedly require central bank intervention. 

Without reserve requirements, banking stability relies entirely on the presumed effectiveness of capital adequacy regulations, liquidity buffers, and central bank oversight, increasing systemic dependence on monetary authorities—further assuming they possess both full knowledge and predictive capabilities (or some combination thereof) necessary to contain or prevent disorderly outcomes arising from the buildup of unsustainable financial and economic imbalances (The knowledge problem). 

Moreover, increased reliance on these authorities leads to greater politicization of financial institutions, fostering inefficiencies such as corruption, regulatory capture, and the revolving door between policymakers and industry players—further distorting market incentives and deepening systemic fragility. 

Consequently, while a zero-bound RRR enhances short-term credit availability, it also raises long-term risks of financial instability and contagion during crises. 

At its core, zero-bound RRR magnifies the inherent fragility of fractional reserve banking, increasing systemic risks and reliance on central bank intervention. By removing a key buffer against liquidity shocks, it transforms banking into a highly unstable system prone to crises. 

II. Has the BSP’s "Easing Cycle"—Particularly the RRR Cut—Eased Liquidity Strains?

Businessworld, March 15, 2025: THE PHILIPPINE BANKING industry’s total assets jumped by 9.3% year on year as of end-January, preliminary data from the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) showed. Banks’ combined assets rose to P27.11 trillion as of end-January from P24.81 trillion in the same period a year ago. Month on month, total assets slid by 1.2% from P27.43 trillion as of end-December. 

In the second half (2H) of 2024, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) launched its "easing cycle," implementing three interest rate cuts and reducing the reserve requirement ratio (RRR) on October 25.

A second RRR reduction is scheduled for March 28, 2025, coinciding with the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC) doubling its deposit insurance coverage, effective March 15.

Yet, despite these measures, the Philippine GDP growth slowed to 5.2% in 2H 2024—a puzzling decline amid record-high public spending, unprecedented employment rates, and historic consumer-led bank borrowing. 

Has the BSP’s easing cycle, particularly the RRR cuts, alleviated the liquidity strains plaguing the banking system? The evidence suggests otherwise. 

III. Bank Assets: A Tale of Contradictions: Booming Loans and Liquidity Pressures 

Philippine bank assets consist of cash, loans, investments, real and other properties acquired (ROPA), and other assets. In January 2025, cash, loans, and investments dominated, accounting for 9.8%, 54.2%, and 28.3% respectively—totaling 92.3% of assets.

Figure 1

Loan growth has been robust. The net total loan portfolio (including interbank loans IBLs and reverse repos RRPs) surged from a 10.7% year-on-year (YoY) increase in January 2024 to 13.7% in January 2025.

As a matter of fact, loans have consistently outpaced deposit growth since hitting a low in February 2022, with the loans-to-deposit ratio accelerating even before the BSP’s first rate cut in August 2024. (Figure 1, topmost graph)

Historical trends, however, reveal a nuanced picture.

Loan growth decelerated when the BSP hiked rates in 2018 and continued to slow even after the BSP started cutting rates. Weak loan demand at the time overshadowed the liquidity boost from RRR cuts. (Figure 1, middle image)

Despite the BSP reducing the RRR from 19% in March 2018 to 12% in April 2020—coinciding with the onset of the pandemic—loan growth remained weak relative to deposit expansion. 

It wasn’t until the BSP's unprecedented bank bailout package—including RRR cuts, a historic Php 2.3 trillion liquidity injection, record-low interest rates, USD/PHP cap, and various bank subsidies and relief programs—that bank lending conditions changed dramatically. 

Loan growth surged even amid rising rates, underscoring the impact of these interventions. 

Last year’s combination of RRR and interest rate cuts deepened the easy money environment, accelerating credit expansion. 

The question remains: why? 

IV. Bank Credit Boom Amid Contradictions: Soaring Credit Card NPLs as Real Estate NPLs Ease 

Authorities claim credit delinquencies remain "low and manageable" despite a January 2025 uptick. Since peaking in Q2 2021, gross and net NPLs, along with distressed assets, have declined from their highs. (Figure 1, lowest chart)

Figure 2

This stability is striking given record-high consumer credit—the banking system’s fastest-growing segment—occurring alongside slowing consumer spending.  (Figure 2, topmost window)

While credit card non-performing loans (NPLs) have surged, their relatively small weight in the system has muted their overall impact.

Real estate NPLs have paradoxically stabilized despite a deflationary spiral in property prices in Q3 2024.

Real estate GDP fell to just 3% in Q4—its lowest level since the pandemic recession—dragging its share of total GDP to an all-time low. (Figure 2, middle visual)

Record bank borrowings, a faltering GDP, and price deflation amidst stable NPLs—this represents 'benchmark-ism,' or 'putting lipstick on a statistical pig,' at its finest.

Ironically, surging loan growth and low NPLs should signal a banking industry awash in liquidity and profits.

Yet how much of unpublished NPLs have been contributing to the bank's liquidity pressures?

Still, more contradictory evidence.

V. Investments: A Key Source of Liquidity Pressures 

Bank investments, another major asset class, grew at a substantially slower pace, dropping from 10.7% YoY in December 2024 to 5.85% in January 2025.

This deceleration stemmed from a sharp slowdown in Available-for-Sale (AFS) assets (from 20.45% to 12% YoY) and Held-for-Trading (HFT) assets, which, despite a 22.17% YoY rise, slumped from December’s 117% spike. This suggests banks may have suffered losses from short-term speculative activities, potentially linked to the PSEi 30’s 11.8% YoY and 10.2% MoM plunge in January. (Figure 2, lowest chart)

Ironically, the Financial Index—comprising seven listed banks—rose 15.23% YoY and 0.72% MoM, indicating that losses in bank financial assets stemmed from non-financial equity holdings.

Figure 3

Despite easing interest rates, market losses on the banks’ fixed-income trading portfolios remained elevated, improving (33.5% YoY) only slightly from Php 42.4 billion in December to Php 38 billion in January. (Figure 3, topmost pane) 

VI. Hidden Risks in Held-to-Maturity (HTM) Securities: Government Debt 

Yet, HTM assets declined just 0.5% YoY. Given that 10-year PDS rates remain elevated, HTMs are likely to reach new record highs soon. (Figure 3, middle image)

Banks play a pivotal role in supporting the BSP’s liquidity injections by monetizing government securities. Their holdings of government debt (net claims on central government—NcoCG) reached an estimated 33% of total assets in January 2025—a record high.  (Figure 3, lowest graph)

Figure 4

Public debt hit a fresh record of Php 16.3 trillion last January 2025. (Figure 4, topmost diagram)

Valued at amortized cost, HTM securities mask unrealized losses, potentially straining liquidity. Overexposure to long-duration HTMs amplifies these risks, while rising government debt holdings heighten banks’ sensitivity to sovereign risk.

With NCoCG at a record high, this tells us that banks' HTMs are about to carve out another fresh milestone in the near future.

In short, losses from market placements and ballooning HTMs have offset the liquidity surge from a lending boom, undermining the BSP’s easing efforts.

VII. Slowing Deposit Growth and the Structural Changes in the Banking System’s Asset Distribution

Deposit growth should ideally mirror credit expansion, as newly issued money eventually finds its way into deposit accounts.

Sure, the informal economy remains a considerable segment. However, unless a huge amount of savings is stored in jars or piggy banks, it’s unlikely to keep a leash on the money multiplier.

The BSP’s Financial Inclusion data shows that more than half of the population has some form of debt outside the banking system. This tells us that credit delinquencies are substantially understated—even from the perspective of the informal economy

Yet, bank deposit liabilities grew from 7.05% YoY in December 2024 to 6.8% in January 2025, led by peso deposits (7% YoY), while FX deposits slowed from 7.14% to 6.14%. Peso deposits comprised 82.8% of total liabilities. (Figure 4, middle image)

Since 2018, deposit growth has been on a structural downtrend, with RRR cuts failing to reverse this trend. (Figure 4, lowest visual)

Figure 5

The gap between the total loan portfolio (excluding RRPs and IBLs) and savings widened, with TLP growth rising from 12.7% to 13.54% YoY, while savings growth doubled from 3.3% to 6.8%. (Figure 5, topmost graph)

How did these affect the bank’s cash reserves?

Despite the October 2024 RRR cut, cash reserves contracted 1.44% YoY in January 2025. In peso terms, cash levels rebounded slightly from an October 2024 interim low—mirroring 2019 troughs—but this bounce appears to be stalling. (Figure 5, middle chart)

The ongoing liquidity drain has effectively erased the BSP’s historic cash injections.

The bank's cash and due-to-bank deposits ratio has hardly bounced despite the RRR cuts from 2018 to the present! (Figure 5, lowest pane)

Figure 6

Liquidity constraints are further evident in the declining liquid-to-deposit assets ratio. (Figure 6, topmost pane)

In perspective, the structural changes in operations have led to a pivotal shift in the distribution of the bank's assets. (Figure 6, middle graph)

Cash’s share of bank assets has shrunk from 23.1% in October 2013 to 9.8% in January 2025.

While the share of loans grew from 45.3% in November 2010 to a peak of 58.98% in May, it dropped to a low of 51.6% in March 2024 before partially recovering.

Meanwhile, investments, rebounding from a 21.42% trough in June 2020, have plateaued since the BSP’s 2022 rescue package.

Still, the Philippine banking system continues to amass significant economic and political clout, effectively monopolizing the industry, as its share of total financial resources reached 83.64% in 2024. How does this mounting concentration risk translate to stability? (Figure 6, lowest chart)

VIII. Liquidity Constraints Fuels Bank Borrowing Frenzy 

In addition to the 'easy money' effect of fractional banking's money multiplier, banks still require financing for their lending operations.

Figure 7

Evidence of growing liquidity constraints, exacerbated by insufficient deposit growth, is seen in banks' aggressive borrowing from capital markets. 

Bank borrowing, comprising bills and bonds payable, reached a new record of PHP 1.78 trillion in January, marking a 47.02% year-over-year increase and a 6.5% month-over-month rise! (Figure 7, topmost diagram) 

Notably, bills payable experienced a 67% growth surge, while bonds payable increased by 17.5%.  The strong performance of bank borrowing has resulted in an increase in their share of overall bank liabilities, with bills payable now accounting for 5.1% and bonds payable for 2.43% in January. (Figure 7, middle pane) 

In essence, banks are competing fiercely among themselves, with non-bank clients, and the government to secure funding from the public's strained savings. 

Moreover, although general reverse repo usage has decreased, largely due to BSP actions, interbank reverse repos have surged to their second-highest level since September 2024. (Figure 7, lowest chart) 

The increasing scale of bank borrowings, supported by BSP liquidity data, reinforces our view that banks are struggling to maintain system stability. 

IX. PDIC’s Doubled Deposit Insurance: A Confidence Tool or a Risk Mitigant? 

The doubling of the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation's (PDIC) deposit insurance coverage took effect on March 15th. 

The public is largely unaware that this measure is linked to the second phase of the reserve requirement ratio (RRR) cut scheduled for March 28th. 

In essence, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), through its attached agency the PDIC, is utilizing the enhanced deposit insurance as a confidence-building measure to reinforce stability within the banking system. 

Inquirer.net, March 15, 2025: The Philippine Deposit Insurance Corp. (PDIC)—which is mandated to safeguard money kept in bank accounts —finally implemented the new maximum deposit insurance coverage (MDIC) of P1 million per depositor per bank, which was double the previous coverage of P500,000. The expanded MDIC is projected to fully insure over 147 million accounts in 2025, or 98.6 percent of the total deposit accounts in the local banking system. In terms of amount, depositor funds amounting to P5.3 trillion will be safeguarded by the PDIC, accounting for 24.1 percent of the total deposits held by the banking sector. To compare, the ratio of insured accounts under the old MDIC was at 97.6 percent as of December 2024. In terms of amount, the share of insured funds to total deposits was at 18.4 percent before. It was the amendments to the PDIC charter back in 2022 that allowed the state insurer to adjust the MDIC based on inflation and other relevant economic indicators without the need for a new law. (bold added)

ABS-CBN News, March 14: PDIC President Roberto Tan also assured the public that PDIC has enough funds to cover all depositors even with a higher MDIC. The Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) is around P237 billion as of December 2024. The ration of DIF to the estimated insured deposits (EID) is 5% this 2025, which Tan said remains adequate to meet potential insurance risks. (bold added) 

Our Key Takeaways: 

1) An Increase in Compensation rather than Coverage Ratio, Yet Systemic Coverage Remains Low

-The total insured deposit amount is capped at PHP 1 million per depositor.

98.6% of accounts are fully insured, up from 97.6% previously.

-The insured deposit amount increased to PHP 5.3 trillion (24.1% of total deposits) from PHP 3.56 trillion (18.4%) prior to the MDIC.

2) Systemic Risk and Vulnerabilities

-Most of the increase in insured deposits stems from small accounts.

-Large corporate and high-net-worth individual deposits remain largely uninsured, maintaining systemic vulnerability.

3) PDIC’s Coverage Limitations

-The PDIC only covers BSP-ordered closures, excluding losses due to fraud.

-If bank failures are triggered by fraud (e.g., misreported loan books, hidden losses), depositor panic may escalate before the PDIC intervenes.

-Runs on solvent banks could still occur if system trust weakens.

Figure/Table 8 

4) Mathematical Constraints on PDIC's Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) and Assets

-The PDIC's 2023 total assets of PHP 339.6 billion account for only 1.74% of total deposits. (Figure/Table 8)

-The Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) of PHP 237 billion represents a mere 6.7% of insured deposits.

-PDIC assets and DIF account for 3.46% and 2.42% of the deposit base of the four PSEi 30 banks.

-In the event of a mid-to-large bank failure, the DIF would be insufficient, necessitating government or BSP intervention.

5) The Systemic Policy Blind Spot

-Such policy assumes an "orderly" distribution of bank failures—small banks failing, not large ones. In reality, tail risks (big bank failures) drive financial crises, not small-bank failures.

6) Impact of RRR Cuts on Risk-Taking Behavior

-The second leg of the RRR cut in March 2025 injects liquidity, potentially encouraging higher risk-taking by banks.

-Once again, the increase in deposit insurance likely serves as a confidence tool rather than a genuine risk mitigant.

7) Rising risk due to moral hazard: The increased insurance may encourage riskier behavior by both depositors and banks.

8) Consequences of Significant Bank Failures

-If funds are insufficient, the Bureau of Treasury might cover the DIF gap. Such a bailout would expand the fiscal deficit, with the BSP likely to monetize debt.

-A more likely scenario is that the BSP intervenes directly, as the PDIC is an agency of the BSP, by rescuing depositors through liquidity injections or monetary expansion.

In both scenarios, this would amplify inflation risks and the devaluation of the Philippine peso, likely exacerbated by increased capital flight and a higher risk premium on peso assets. 

X. Conclusion: Band-aid Solutions Magnify Risks 

The BSP’s easing cycle has fueled a lending boom, masked NPL risks, and propped up government debt holdings, yet liquidity remains elusive. Cash reserves are shrinking, deposit growth is faltering, and banks are borrowing heavily to stay afloat. 

The PDIC’s insurance hike offers little systemic protection, leaving the banking system vulnerable to tail risks. A mid-to-large bank failure would likely burden the government or BSP, triggering further unintended consequences. 

As contradictions mount, a critical question persists: can this stealth loose financial environment sustain itself, or is it a prelude to a deeper crisis?

 

Quote of the Day: How Fractional Reserve Banking System Causes Bank Runs

Economist Tim Worstall writing at the Forbes eloquently explains how the central bank- fractional reserve banking system causes bank runs and originated the 2008 crisis or the Great Financial Crisis

To explain this we need to take a step backwards: we can usefully, if not wholly accurately, divide investors into two types. Those who invest with their own money, those who are unleveraged, and those who invest with borrowed money, the leveraged investors. Further, among the leveraged investors we would want to distinguish between the banks who are doing this (at least, in a fractional reserve banking system we want to) and the others. And the danger comes when those banks, those people working with the deposits made into the banks, invest in either illiquid or volatile assets.

Liquidity is a problem because those depositors can come along at any time and ask for their money back. And banks borrow short and lend long: the things they invest in are notably more illiquid than the deposits they take to finance them. That’s how we get bank runs: people turn up for their money, the bank says that actually, they lent it to someone to buy a house, and then panic starts and everyone wants their money back right now.

Volatility is a problem because they’re using leverage: if prices move so much that the bank loses its capital then it still owes the same amount to depositors but it is also bust. Cue bank run again. What happened to Lehman Brothers was this second, what rocked the other Wall Street banks was the first.

Bottom line: liquidity and volatility problems are mainly symptoms of imbalances from highly leveraged systems brought about by the central bank fractional reserve banking. 

Asian Crisis Watch: Myanmar Central Bank Denies Bank Run. When there’s Smoke…

When there’s smoke there’s fire? 

Myanmar’s central bank goes on air to deny a bank run.

From Myanmar Times:

Rumours of a run on several major banks are untrue, said the Central Bank of Myanmar in a television statement late on August 17.

Rumours had spread on social media that Asia Green Development (AGD) Bank, part of Htoo Group of Companies, and Kanbawza Bank (KBZ) would close.

The reports started after Htoo Group’s airline Air Bagan temporarily suspended flights at the weekend. A company spokesperson has said flights will resume in October.

Throughout August 17, comments on social media suggested that depositors were withdrawing funds from accounts at several banks including AGD Bank, AYA Bank, CB Bank and KBZ.

Frequent bank run tremors (or the boy who cried wolf?): 

The Central Bank has helped financial institutions in times of need since the 2003 banking crisis – a major run on the country’s private banks, said U Thura, former manager of Myanma Economic Bank (MEB). At that time, the Central Bank assigned state-owned MEB to provide funding to commercial banks, he said.

U Thura is now chief Yangon representative for South Korea’s Woori Bank, which has had a representative office in Yangon since 2012.

“The Central Bank must respond quickly and transparently in this sort of situation. In the past, suspicions were resolved when U Aung Ko Win [chair of KBZ] communicated directly with the public,” he said.

In 2012 depositors withdrew funds from KBZ after reports spread that the chair had been arrested, he said, adding that rumours can trigger bank runs anywhere in the world and the issue is not specific to Myanmar.

In Myanmar however, reports of bank runs are frequent. Once or twice a year, stories emerge about the reputation of bank shareholders or related businesses.

Last year for example, depositors at AGD Bank withdrew funds after Htoo Group’s chair U Tay Za reportedly sold a majority stake in the bank to a number of shareholders.

Myanmar currency the kyat has been under pressure. Like the rest of Asia, the USD kyat has been soaring. It’s a sign of the shrinking US Dollar liquidity being aggravated by domestic factors.

Myanmar balance of trade deficit has been ballooning

This has contributed to her deteriorating current account balance

Add to this Myanmar’s government budget deficit

Curiously government debt has been shrinking.

So what has funded those deficits? My guess: subsidies from zero bound rates via banking credit expansion.

I have no updated data although a credit boom could have been manifested via signs of a property bubble

Anyway, Myanmar has been no stranger to a banking crisis. In 2003, bank credit growth soared to only 8% of GDP enough to trigger a crisis.

Here is how Wikipedia explains of the Myanmar 2003 Banking crisis: The 2003 banking crisis of Myanmar was a major bank run in private banking that hit Myanmar (Burma) in February 2003. It started with a decline in the trust for private financial institutions following the collapse of small financial enterprises and proliferating rumors about the liquidity of major private banks. Leading to a bank run on the Asia Wealth Bank, the crisis quickly spread to all major private banks in the country. It led to severe liquidity problems for private banks and scarcity of the kyat. Though exact data is not available, it is believed that the crisis caused major economic hardship for many in Myanmar

Why are banks prone to bank run?

The great dean of the Austrian school of economics Murray N. Rothbard explained:

But in what sense is a bank "sound" when one whisper of doom, one faltering of public confidence, should quickly bring the bank down? In what other industry does a mere rumor or hint of doubt swiftly bring down a mighty and seemingly solid firm? What is there about banking that public confidence should play such a decisive and overwhelmingly important role?

The answer lies in the nature of our banking system, in the fact that both commercial banks and thrift banks (mutual-savings and savings-and-loan) have been systematically engaging in fractional-reserve banking: that is, they have far less cash on hand than there are demand claims to cash outstanding.

“Less cash on hand than there are demand claims to cash outstanding” equated to “severe liquidity problems for private banks and scarcity of the kyat” That’s in 2003.

Again, when there’s smoke, there’s fire?