Showing posts with label capital controls. Show all posts
Showing posts with label capital controls. Show all posts

Sunday, October 05, 2025

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

 

 

Sunday, September 10, 2023

The PSE’s Proposed Capital Controls, Metro Pacific’s Mounting Liquidity Challenges: Is the GSIS Providing an Implicit Backstop?

 

All crises have involved debt that, in one fashion or another, has become dangerously out of scale in relation to the underlying means of payment. – John Kenneth Galbraith, A Short History of Financial Euphoria 

 

In this issue 

The PSE’s Proposed Capital Controls, Metro Pacific’s Mounting Liquidity Challenges: Is the GSIS Providing an Implicit Backstop? 

I. The PSE Proposes its Version of Capital Controls: Raise the Barriers of Exit for Listed Firms 

II. Two Perspectives from MPI’s GSIS Transactions 

III. Public Financial Institutions as the Core Driver of the PSE’s Liquidity 

IV. Possible Reason for Delisting? Metro Pacific’s Intensifying Liquidity Challenges 

V. GSIS Expanded Holdings of MPI: A Bailout? An Implicit Backstop? 

 

The PSE’s Proposed Capital Controls, Metro Pacific’s Mounting Liquidity Challenges: Is the GSIS Providing an Implicit Backstop? 

 

The Philippine PSE wants to stanch the "wave of companies" delisting with more rules.  Is the GSIS providing a tacit backstop to the liquidity-challenged Metro Pacific? Are public financial firms the core of PSE's liquidity? 


I. The PSE Proposes its Version of Capital Controls: Raise the Barriers of Exit for Listed Firms 

 

Inquirer.net, September 4: The Philippine Stock Exchange (PSE) is tightening the rules on voluntary delistings amid a wave of companies going private during the market slump. The PSE is revisiting the guidelines anew after amending the rules in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic in December 2020. This came as principals of large firms such as infrastructure-focused Metro Pacific Investments Corp. and cement giant Holcim Philippines announced plans to go private at relatively cheaper valuations, frustrating minority stockholders. One of the key features is the scrapping of the 95-percent ownership threshold to successfully complete a voluntary delisting. This also means the bourse’s proposed revisions could make delisting buyouts more costly in certain cases to protect small investors. 


A company decides to delist when the cost overshadows the benefits of being a publicly listed company.  Those costs include financial, political (regulatory, etc.), economic, a combination of, and even psychic.  

 

The reaction of the PSE manifests the public's mood, reflexively influenced by market actions described hereinto as a "slump," which should be unsurprising. 

 

That is to say, while different reasons may have prompted the "wave of companies" to exit, the bear market could be their common denominator. 

 

Since mainstream institutions have programmed the public's perception of the stock market as an "entitlement," its parallelism in expectations is that speculations deliver "prosperity." 

 

In turn, aside from amplifying volatility, the ramifications of the overriding sentiment—driven by high-time preference or short-term orientation—have been to consume capital.   

 

Turning the stock market into a "casino" has led to material shrinkages in peso volume, which are symptomatic of decreased savings/capital.  

 

Ergo, in response to popular pressures, the PSE proposes to increase the cost of "barriers to exit" to discourage delisting.  In essence, it is the PSE's version of capital controls.  

 

If the PSE does that, high "barriers to exit" will likely transform into high "barriers to entry."  

 

Goodbye to those IPO goals. 

 

Worse, it could also motivate other listed companies to head for the exit doors before its enforcement.  

 

Nonetheless, these collective "denials" reinforce the symptoms of a bear market.  

 

II. Two Perspectives from MPI’s GSIS Transactions 

 

One of the week's prominent developments has been the positioning for Metro Pacific's delisting, which may have culminated with the GSIS's increased exposure to the firm last September 4th.   

 

Inquirer.net, September 5: State pension fund Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) delivered a surprise on Tuesday as it announced an increase in its stake in Manuel V. Pangilinan-led Metro Pacific Investment Corp. by nearly four times to about 12 percent days before the conclusion of the company’s P55-billion privatization bid…GSIS’ upsized stake, worth about P17.8 billion at the tender offer price of P5.20 per share, gives the pension fund enough boardroom sway to block the delisting plan…But several market observers said GSIS was likely strengthening its position to negotiate better buyout terms from the bidding consortium—composed of Indonesian tycoon Anthoni Salim’s First Pacific Group, the Ty family conglomerate GT Capital Holdings, Japan’s Mitsui Group and Manuel V. Pangilinan, chair and CEO of Metro Pacific…Then through a letter to Metro Pacific on Sept. 4, it was revealed that GSIS was aggressively buying the company’s shares from Aug. 23 through Sept. 4, acquiring 2.49 billion shares during this period to arrive at its present stake of 11.98 percent. GSIS shares are classified as public shareholdings, meaning the bidding consortium would need to purchase these to reach the required 95 percent ownership threshold before proceeding with the voluntary delisting. GSIS’ stake would be considered nonpublic once it obtains a board seat in the company, based on a series of revisions being proposed by the PSE. 

 

PSE, September 5: Metro Pacific Investments Corporation (MPIC) received a letter from GSIS dated September 4, 2023 informing MPIC that during the period from August 23,2023 to September 4,2023, GSIS purchased 2,490,509,574 common shares of MPIC. GSIS also mentioned that as a result of these purchases, GSIS owns 3,438,549,038 common shares which represents approximately 11.98% of the total outstanding common shares of MPIC. 

 

Here are two perspectives from last week's event. 

 

First, Public financial institutions may be dominating the trading activities at the PSE. 

 

Two, the increased MPI shareholdings of GSIS may represent insurance against the financial risk.   

 

III. Public Financial Institutions as the Core Driver of the PSE’s Liquidity 

 

Monday's trading could be one for the books. 

 

The Php 9.011 billion volume of Metro Pacific [PSE: MPI] accounted for 81.96% and 79.6% of the Php 10.995 billion main board (MB) and Php 11.322 billion total turnover.   

 

Cross trades of MPI shares accounted for over Php 4 billion.  As such, the top 10 brokers shanghaied 74.7% share of the mainboard trading volume.  

 

Alternatively, ex-MPI shares, the MB, and the total volume shrunk to an incredible Php 1.984 billion and Php 2.311 billion, respectively. 

 

This means that while the attention shifted to MPI, liquidity in the broader market dissipated. 

Figure 1 


As evidence, the volume in pesos and % share of the Sy group of companies (SM, SMPH, and BDO) representing the top 3 PSEi 30 heavyweights plummeted to 2.9%, a multi-year low.  Meanwhile, cumulative peso volume receded to a mere Php 318 million! 

 

To this point, institutional investors, most likely represented by public financial firms like GSIS, could be the core source of the PSE's liquidity. 

 

In any case, the increased exposure by the GSIS on MPI could further reduce the market's liquidity should the (tender offer) sellers of MPI opt not to plow back the sales proceeds to the PSE.  

 

Since the GSIS announcement, MB trading volume has averaged less than Php 3.5 billion daily! 

 

IV. Possible Reason for Delisting? Metro Pacific’s Intensifying Liquidity Challenges 

 

Departing from the Overtone Window on MPI's delisting, as propounded last May, deteriorating liquidity conditions could signify a critical factor in the company's decision. 

 

I could be wrong; however, does the unrecognized/unappreciated "intrinsic value" constitute the outgrowth of debt over income in the face of falling cash reserves? 

 

Could taking MPI into the private indicate its undertaking remedial liquidity measures through ownership restructuring—post-delisting? That's a guess, though. (Prudent Investor, May 2023) 

 

MPI's Q2 17-Q provides us an overview.  

 

Figure 2 


The downward sloping trend of MPI's cash reserves has more than halved since Q1 2020.  

 

For the first time, short-term debt of Php 35.64 billion surpassed its cash reserves of Php 29.10 billion.  MPI's current ratio was .68 for the period.  

 

Nominal debt has been outpacing gross revenues.   

Figure 3 

 

In marginal net peso changes, sales increased by Php 2.8 billion in Q2 YoY, while debt expanded by Php 22 billion.  Net income?  Php 1.694 billion.  So MPI borrowed Php 10.6 pesos for every Php 1 of sales growth and Php 13 for every peso of net income increase.   

 

Interest expense?  Php 899 million increase in Q2 YoY.  Interest expense has mirrored the surge in BSP rates, which has been gnawing at the profit margins.  

 

Clearly, the liquidity-challenged position by MPI has had a crucial role in its decision to delist. 

 

All these assume the accuracy of the published 17Q. 

 

V. GSIS Expanded Holdings of MPI: A Bailout? An Implicit Backstop? 

 

Now, to the expanded exposure of GSIS (in my humble opinion). 

 

If this tender offer event tacked in sales of some treasury shares, this represents a partial bailout by the GSIS of MPI. 

 

Nevertheless, the expanded exposure of GSIS provides an implicit backstop on MPI.  Should MPI encounter financial turbulence, GSIS could appeal to the BSP and DoF (or even the Office of the President) for a bailout on the pretext that the latter's beneficiaries could be at stake.  

 

In any case, the surge of GSIS exposure as the liquidity-challenged MPI undergoes a delisting process looks like a political maneuver rather than merely about "investments"—as presented by the consensus. 

 

If anything, MPI's episode showcases why the BSP has been dithering over its policies.  The BSP's "trickle-down" effect is in jeopardy, demonstrated by the debt-to-eyeballs firms of the elites, which are on the precipice. 


___ 

references 


Prudent Investor, Is the Delisting of Metro Pacific a Bullish or Bearish Sign for the Philippine PSE? May 3, 2023: SubstackBlogger