The Seen, the Unseen, and the Taxed: CMEPA as Financial Repression by Design

 

When you net out all the assets and liabilities in the economy, the only thing that remains is our stock of productive investments, inventions, education, organizational structures, and unconsumed natural resources. Those are the basis of our national wealth—Dr. John P. Hussman 

In this issue 

The Seen, the Unseen, and the Taxed: CMEPA as Financial Repression by Design

I. Reform as Spectacle: Bastiat’s Warning and the Mask of Inclusion

II. What is Seen: Promises of Efficiency and Modernization

III. The Unseen: How CMEPA Undermines the Socio-Political Economy

Theme 1: Taxing Savings, Undermining Capital Formation

Theme 2: Systemic Financial Risks and Policy Incoherence

Theme 3: Fiscal Extraction, the Wealth Effect and the Political Economy

Theme 4: Institutional and Socio-Political Deterioration

IV. Conclusion: CMEPA—A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing: Behavioral Reprogramming and the Unseen Costs of Reform 

The Seen, the Unseen, and the Taxed: CMEPA as Financial Repression by Design 

A wolf in sheep’s clothing: A policy not only distorting capital markets but reprogramming society toward short-termism, volatility, and fragility. 

I. Reform as Spectacle: From Rhetoric to Repercussion—CMEPA Through Bastiat’s Eyes 

All legislation arrives adorned in rhetoric—its presentation aimed to evoke public trust and collective good. Much like Potemkin villages, reforms such as CMEPA appear to serve Jeremy Bentham’s ‘greater good,’ yet beneath the façade lies the concealed agenda of entrenched interests. 

Echoing Frédéric Bastiat’s indispensable insight, we must learn to discern between what is seen and what is unseen. 

"The entire difference between a bad and a good Economist is apparent here. A bad one relies on the visible effect while the good one takes account both of the effect one can see and of those one must foresee. 

However, the difference between these is huge, for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favorable the later consequences are disastrous, and vice versa. From which it follows that a bad Economist will pursue a small current benefit that is followed by a large disadvantage in the future, while a true Economist will pursue a large benefit in the future at the risk of suffering a small disadvantage immediately" (Bastiat, 1850) [bold added] 

With this lens, we examine the Capital Markets Efficiency Promotion Act (CMEPA)—Republic Act No. 12214, enacted on May 29, 2025, effective July 1. 

II. What is Seen: Promises of Efficiency and Modernization 

CMEPA has been billed as a modernization effort to deepen financial markets and enhance participation. Its measures include:

• A flat 20% tax on passive income, including interest from long-term deposits and peso bonds
• Reduced stock transaction tax (STT) to 0.1%
• Expanded definition of “securities” to widen taxable instruments
• Removal of exemptions for GOCCs and long-term depositors, while retaining perks for FCDUs and lottery bettors 

Portrayed as a reform designed to streamline taxation and deepen the capital markets, CMEPA hides a more troubling reality beneath its glitter. It reveals a policy that taxes the foundations of financial stability and long-term capital formation. While it reduces transaction taxes and simplifies some rates, its deeper impact is a radical shift in how the Philippine state attempts to influence public mindset and choices—how it allocates risk, treats saving, and commandeers private resources. 

III. The Unseen: How CMEPA Undermines the Socio-Political Economy 

This critique identifies several thematic consequences: 

Theme 1: Taxing Savings, Undermining Capital Formation

Figure/Table 1

1 Flattening Tax Across All Maturities 

The new 20% final withholding tax (FWT) rate now applies across all maturities, including long-term deposits and investment instruments previously exempted. (Figure/Table 1) 

Retail savers and retirees, dependent on deposit-based income, now face disincentives for capital preservation. Long-term financial instruments lose their privileged status, undermining capital formation. 

2 Financial Repression by Design

By taxing time deposits, foreign currency deposits, and peso-denominated long-term instruments, CMEPA imposes a de facto penalty on saving. Rather than encouraging financial inclusion or stability, it aligns with financial repression tactics: using policy tools to channel private savings toward public financing. 

Moreover, savings and capital are diverted from productive sectors to fund fiscal deficits, choking investment and inviting misallocation. 

3 Regressive Impact on Small Savers 

The uniform tax rate applies regardless of investor profile. Small savers and retirees lose disproportionately. Meanwhile, the wealthy retain flexibility—shifting funds offshore or into tax-exempt alternatives. 

4 Deepening the Savings-Investment Divide 

CMEPA taxes the engine of investment—savings—while encouraging speculative behavior. As domestic savings weaken, investment becomes more reliant on volatile international capital flows and risky leveraging, heightening systemic vulnerability. 

Theme 2: Systemic Financial Risks and Policy Incoherence 

5 Balance Sheet Mismatches 

CMEPA induces short-term liabilities against long-term assets, eroding liquidity buffers. Banks stretch to meet Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) and Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR) thresholds while chasing yield in speculative sectors—real estate, retail, accommodation, construction. 

FX funding stability worsens as offshore placements rise, increasing currency mismatch risk for entities with dollar-denominated obligations. 

This weakens the stability of the banking system. 

6 Weaker Bank Profitability and Liquidity 

Banks face tighter net interest margins, especially as liabilities are taxed while fixed-yield assets remain unchanged. Asset durations can’t adjust as quickly as funding costs, intensifying balance sheet compression undermining liquidity. 

Combined with BSP’s RRR cuts and other easing, this suggests rising liquidity stress rather than financial deepening.

Figure 2

The weakened deposit base—as revealed by the downtrend in the growth of deposit liabilities—partly explains the doubling of deposit insurance in March, a reactive gesture to rising liquidity risk. Notably, the slowdown appears to have accelerated in 2025. (Figure 2)

Figure 3

But it is not just deposits: the decline in cash and liquid assets—as shown by falling cash-to-deposit and liquid assets-to-deposit ratios—highlights the mounting fragility of bank conditions. (Figure 3)

Figure 4

The law compounds the fragile cash position of Philippine banks, redistributing liquidity into riskier corners of the balance sheet. 

7 Systemic Leverage Risk 

Taxing interest income inflates debt servicing costs, worsening liquidity stress across sectors already burdened with leverage. The gap between savings returns and borrowing costs widens, deepening household and corporate fragility. 

8 Undermining Financial Deepening 

Instead of encouraging broader access to financial instruments, the reform may drive savers toward informal systems, offshore accounts, or speculative assets—increasing volatility and disintermediation. 

9 Incoherence with Monetary Policy 

When interest income is taxed heavily, monetary policy transmission weakens. A rate hike meant to incentivize saving may be neutralized by post-tax returns that remain unattractive. This creates friction between fiscal and monetary authorities. 

10 Disincentivizing Long-Term Domestic Funding 

Removing exemptions from long-duration peso instruments weakens the domestic funding base. The government may respond by issuing shorter-tenor bonds, amplifying rollover risk—particularly amid widening deficits. 

Theme 3: Fiscal Extraction, the Wealth Effect and the Political Economy 

11 From Market-Based to Tax-Based Government Financing

Figure 5

CMEPA shifts the state's financing strategy from indirect borrowing (via banks' net claims on government) to direct taxation of interest income. This reduces the role of market-based funding and deepens reliance on financial repression. (Figure 5)

Philippine banks have long underwritten the government’s historic deficit spending. But with deposits eroding and liquidity thinning, can CMEPA’s pivot toward direct taxation rebalance this dynamic—or will banks be forced to sustain an inflationary financing regime they may no longer afford?

12 Crowding Out, Capital Misallocation, and Short-Termism

Taxing savings redirects capital from private to public use. Outside of government, the investment community is pushed toward velocity over duration, incentivizing speculative short-term returns rather than productive long-term investments. This leads to boom-bust cycles that consume capital and savings, ultimately lowering the standard of living for the average citizen. 

13 Reform Signals to Mask Fiscal Strain

CMEPA is marketed as efficiency reform, but its primary effect is increased revenue extraction. This is fiscalism masquerading as modernization—a stealth tax hike under the guise of pro-market policy. 

14 Wealth-Effect Ideology and Speculative Diversion 

DOF claims that CMEPA will "diversify income sources," implicitly inviting or encouraging ordinary Filipinos to engage in asset (stock and real estate) speculation. 

The BSP’s inflated real estate index, as discussed last week, aligns perfectly with this narrative. 

Yet if savings have weakened, with what are people supposed to speculate? 

In essence, the law encourages speculative behavior over productive undertakings—gambling on the trickle-down “easy money”-fueled wealth effect to stimulate growth. 

Theme 4: Institutional and Socio-Political Deterioration 

15 Favoring Non-Depository Institutions and Digital Control 

With capital markets shallow, the government’s pivot appears aimed at stock and real estate price inflation to support GDP optics. 

But there might be more to this: could the erosion of savings-based intermediation serve as a stepping-stone—or perhaps a gauntlet—to the advent of a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) regime? 

16 Widening Inequality 

As savings erode and productive investment slows, the burden of taxation and financial volatility falls hardest on low- and middle-income households. Elites with offshore access or alternative vehicles thrive—amplifying the wealth gap. 

17 Capital Consumption and the Attack on Private Property 

CMEPA’s redistributive logic undermines the sanctity of private property. Through financial repression, taxation, and inflation, it transforms capital into consumption, violating the very principles of long-term economic development. 

18 Behavioral Reprogramming Toward Short-Termism 

CMEPA reorients household and institutional incentives by elevating time preferences, nudging actors toward short-term consumption and speculative tendencies. The long-term result encompasses not only economic and financial dimensions, but also social, political, and cultural shifts away from prudence. 

19 Increased State Power and Erosion of Economic and Civil Liberties

The flattening of tax treatment and the reallocation of savings toward the state reassert the growing dominance of the government over economic life. As household and institutional financial autonomy is curtailed, this fiscal centralization represents a creeping erosion of civil liberties. This is not merely fiscal policy—by asserting greater command over private savings and reducing the role of banks and savers in capital allocation, the CMEPA accelerates the centralization of economic control. 

20 Desperation, Not Reform 

Beneath the reformist language lies the scent of desperation. As government spending outpaces revenues and "free lunch" policies proliferate, the state appears increasingly willing to extract resources wherever possible, even at the cost of long-term economic damage. 

CMEPA may be seen less as a policy of modernization and more as a pretext to justify a broader power grab for control over the nation’s remaining financial surpluses. Such fiscal maneuvers reveal a growing reliance on coercive tools to finance political programs and preserve power.

IV. Conclusion: CMEPA—A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing: Behavioral Reprogramming and the Unseen Costs of Reform 

CMEPA is not neutral. 

It is policy with intent—velocity over virtue, spectacle over substance. Beneath its reformist gloss lies a deliberate reordering of incentives: a behavioral reprogramming that elevates time preference across households, businesses, banks, and the state itself. 

The ramifications are profound. As savings erode, the economy pivots toward a spend-and-speculate framework, exposing malinvestments and shortening planning horizons. Bank balance sheets tilt toward short-duration, high-risk assets. Businesses recalibrate toward immediacy, while regulatory structures and political priorities—including education—subtly shift to accommodate the new paradigm: favoring current events over historical depth, short-term fixes over long-term resilience. 

As immediacy becomes institutionalized, political incentives may shift as well—gravitating toward authoritarian tendencies, where centralized authority and executive expedience increasingly replace civic pluralism. 

This drift accelerates leverage and volatility. Coupled with BSP’s easy money, fiscal splurging, deepening economic concentration, the entrenching of the “build and they will come” paradigm, benchmark-ism, and the subtle embrace of a war economy—where economic centralization and speculative asset inflation substitute for organic growth—the system veers toward the bust phase of a boom-bust cycle. 

CMEPA, dressed in reformist language, delivers structural inversion through a reordering of incentives—substituting short-term economic activity for long-term capital formation. It penalizes saving, rewards speculation, and manufactures stability to perform confidence. Its impact is philosophical as much as economic: undermining the sanctity of private property and sabotaging the long-term architecture of capital. 

As Ludwig von Mises warned: 

Saving, capital accumulation, is the agency that has transformed step-by-step the awkward search for food on the part of savage cave dwellers into the modern ways of industry. The pacemakers of this evolution were the ideas that created the institutional framework within which capital accumulation was rendered safe by the principle of private ownership of the means of production. Every step forward on the way toward prosperity is the effect of saving. The most ingenious technological inventions would be practically useless if the capital goods required for their utilization had not been accumulated by saving. (Mises, 1956) 

The unseen consequences of policy often outweigh the visible promises, as Bastiat warned us. 

CMEPA’s structural tax changes reprogram public incentives in ways that may appear benign, but will likely unleash instability, fragility, and misallocation—outcomes not immediately visible, but deeply consequential. 

Unless reversed, CMEPA’s legacy will be one of hollowed market and social institutions, increased fragility of public governance, and ultimately, social unraveling—where the erosion of savings and stability gives way to volatility, inequality, and the breakdown of trust in both economic and civic life. 

CMEPA is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. 

____

References: 

Frédéric Bastiat What is Seen and What is Not Seen, or Political Economy in One Lesson [July 1850], https://oll.libertyfund.org/ 

Ludwig von Mises, The ANTI-CAPITALISTIC MENTALITY, p 39, D. VAN NOSTRAND COMPANY (Canada), LTD 1956, Mises Institute 2008, Mises.org

 

 

 

A Rescue, Not a Stimulus: BSP’s June Cut and the Banking System’s Liquidity Crunch

 

The ultimate cause, therefore, of the phenomenon of wave after wave of economic ups and downs is ideological in character. The cycles will not disappear so long as people believe that the rate of interest may be reduced, not through the accumulation of capital, but by banking policy—Ludwig von Mises 

In this issue

A Rescue, Not a Stimulus: BSP’s June Cut and the Banking System’s Liquidity Crunch

I. Policy Easing in Question: Credit Concentration and Economic Disparity

II. Elite Concentration: The Moody's Warning and Its Missing Pieces

III. Why the Elite Bias? Financial Regulation, Market Concentration and Underlying Incentives

IV. Market Rebellion: When Reality Defies Policy

V. The Banking System Under Stress: Evidence of a Rescue Operation

A. Liquidity Deterioration Despite RRR Cuts

B. Cash Crunch Intensifies

C. Deposit Growth Slowdown

D. Loan Portfolio Dynamics: Warning Signs Emerge

E. Investment Portfolio Under Pressure

F. The Liquidity Drain: Government's Role

G. Monetary Aggregates: Emerging Disconnection

H. Banking Sector Adjustments: Borrowings and Repos

I.  The NPL Question: Are We Seeing the Full Picture?

J. The Crowding Out Effect

VI. Conclusion: The Inevitable Reckoning 

A Rescue, Not a Stimulus: BSP’s June Cut and the Banking System’s Liquidity Crunch 

Despite easing measures, liquidity has tightened, markets have diverged, and systemic risks have deepened across the Philippine banking system. 

I. Policy Easing in Question: Credit Concentration and Economic Disparity 

The BSP implemented the next phase of its ‘easing cycle’—now comprising four policy rate cuts and two reductions in the reserve requirement ratio (RRR)—complemented by the doubling of deposit insurance coverage. 

The question is: to whose benefit? 

Is it the general economy? 

Bank loans to MSMEs, which are supposedly a target of inclusive growth, require a lending mandate and still accounted for only 4.9% of the banking system’s total loan portfolio as of Q4 2024. This is despite the fact that, according to the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), MSMEs represented 99.6% of total enterprises and employed 66.97% of the workforce in 2023. 

In contrast, loans to PSEi 30 non-financial corporations reached Php 5.87 trillion in Q1 2025—equivalent to 17% of the country’s total financial resources. 

Public borrowing has also surged to an all-time high of Php 16.752 trillion as of April. 

Taken together, total systemic leverage—defined as the sum of bank loans and government debt—reached a record Php 30.825 trillion, or approximately 116% of nominal 2024 GDP. 

While bank operations have expanded, fueled by consumer debt, only a minority of Filipinos—those classified as “banked” in the BSP’s financial inclusion survey—reap the benefits. The majority remain excluded from the financial system, limiting the broader economic impact of the BSP’s policies. 

The reliance on consumer debt to drive bank growth further concentrates financial resources among a privileged few. 

II. Elite Concentration: The Moody's Warning and Its Missing Pieces 

On June 21, 2025, Inquirer.net cited Moody’s Ratings: 

"In a commentary, Moody’s Ratings said that while conglomerate shareholders have helped boost the balance sheet and loan portfolio of banks by providing capital and corporate lending opportunities, such a tight relationship also increases related-party risks. The global debt watcher also noted how Philippine companies remain highly dependent on banks for funding in the absence of a deep capital market. This, Moody’s said, could become a problem for lenders if corporate borrowers were to struggle to pay their debts during moments of economic downturn." (bold added) 

Moody’s commentary touches on contagion risks in a downturn but fails to elaborate on an equally pressing issue: the structural instability caused by deepening credit dependency and growing concentration risks. These may not only emerge during a downturn—they may be the very triggers of one. 

The creditor-borrower interdependence between banks and elite-owned corporations reflects a tightly coupled system where benefits, risks, and vulnerabilities are shared. It’s a fallacy to assume one side enjoys the gains while the other bears the risks. 

As J. Paul Getty aptly put it: 

"If you owe the bank $100, that's your problem. If you owe the bank $100 million, that's the bank's problem." 

In practice, this means banks are more likely to continue lending to credit-stressed conglomerates than force defaults, further entrenching financial fragility. 

What’s missing in most mainstream commentary is the causal question: Why have lending ties deepened so disproportionately between banks and elite-owned firms, rather than being broadly distributed across the economy?

The answer lies in institutional incentives rooted in the political regime. 

As discussed in 2019, the BSP’s trickle-down easy money regime played a key role in enabling Jollibee’s “Pacman strategy”—a debt-financed spree of horizontal expansion through competitor acquisitions. 

III. Why the Elite Bias? Financial Regulation, Market Concentration and Underlying Incentives 

Moreover, regulatory actions appear to favor elite interests. 

On June 17, 2025, ABS-CBN reported: 

"In a statement, the SEC said the licenses [of over 400 lending companies] were revoked for failing to file their audited financial statements, general information sheet, director or trustee compensation report, and director or trustee appraisal or performance report and the standards or criteria for the assessment." 

Could this reflect regulatory overreach aimed at eliminating competition favoring elite-controlled financial institutions? Is the SEC becoming a tacit ‘hatchet man’ serving oligopolistic interests via arbitrary technicalities? 

Philippine banks—particularly Universal Commercial banks—now control a staggering 82.64% of the financial system’s total resources and 77.08% of all financial assets (as of April 2025). 

Aside from BSP liquidity and bureaucratic advantages, political factors such as ‘regulatory capture’ and the ‘revolving door’ politics further entrench elite power. 

Many senior officials at the BSP and across the government are former bank executives, billionaires and their appointees, or close associates. Thus, instead of striving for the Benthamite utilitarian principle of “greatest good for the greatest number,” agencies may instead pursue policies aligned with powerful vested interests. 

This brings us back to the rate cuts: while framed as pro-growth, they largely serve to ease the cost of servicing a mountain of debt owed by government, conglomerates, and elite-controlled banks. 

Figure 1 

However, its impact on average Filipinos remains negligible, with official statistics increasingly revealing the diminishing returns of these policies. 

The BSP’s rate and RRR cuts, coming amid a surge in UC bank lending, risk undermining GDP momentum (Figure 1) 

IV. Market Rebellion: When Reality Defies Policy 

Even markets appear to be revolting against the BSP's policies!

Figure 2

Despite plunging Consumer Price Index (CPI) figures, Treasury bill rates, which should reflect the BSP's actions, have barely followed the easing cycle. (Figure 2, topmost window) 

Yields of Philippine bonds (10, 20, and 25 years) have been rising since October 2024 reinforcing the 2020 uptrend! (Figure 2, middle image) 

Inflation risks continue to be manifested by the bearish steepening slope of the Philippine Treasury yield curve. (Figure 2, lower graph)

Figure 3

Additionally, the USD/PHP exchange rate sharply rebounded even before the BSP announcement. (Figure 3, topmost diagram) 

Treasury yields and the USD/PHP have fundamentally ignored the government's CPI data and the BSP's easing policies. 

Importantly, elevated T-bill rates likely reflect liquidity pressures, while rising bond yields signal mounting fiscal concerns combined with rising inflation risks. 

Strikingly, because Treasury bond yields remain elevated despite declining CPI, the average monthly bank lending rates remain close to recent highs despite the BSP's easing measures! (Figure 3, middle chart) 

While this developing divergence has been ignored or glossed over by the consensus, it highlights a worrisome imbalance that authorities seem to be masking through various forms of interventions or "benchmark-ism" channeled through market manipulation, price controls, and statistical inflation. 

V. The Banking System Under Stress: Evidence of a Rescue Operation 

We have been constantly monitoring the banking system and can only conclude that the BSP easing cycle appears to be a dramatic effort to rescue the banking system. 

A. Liquidity Deterioration Despite RRR Cuts 

Astonishingly, within a month after the RRR cuts, bank liquidity conditions deteriorated further: 

·         Cash and Due Banks-to-Deposit Ratio dropped from 10.37% in March to 9.68% in April—a milestone low

·         Liquid Assets-to-Deposit Ratio plunged from 49.5% in March to 48.3% in April—its lowest level since March 2020 

Liquid assets consist of the sum of cash and due banks plus Net Financial assets (net of equity investments). Fundamentally, both indicators show the extinguishment of the BSP's historic pandemic recession stimulus. (Figure 3, lowest window) 

B. Cash Crunch Intensifies

Figure 4

Year-over-year change of Cash and Due Banks crashed by 24.75% to Php 1.914 trillion—its lowest level since at least 2014. Despite the Php 429.4 billion of bank funds released to the banking system from the October 2024 and March 2025 RRR cuts, bank liquidity has been draining rapidly. (Figure 4, topmost visual) 

C. Deposit Growth Slowdown 

The liquidity crunch in the banking system appears to be spreading. 

The sharp slowdown has been manifested through deposit liabilities, where year-over-year growth decelerated from 5.42% in March to 4.04% in April due to materially slowing peso and foreign exchange deposits, which grew by 5.9% and 3.23% in March to 4.6% and 1.6% in April respectively. (Figure 4, middle image) 

D. Loan Portfolio Dynamics: Warning Signs Emerge 

Led by Universal-Commercial banks, growth of the banking system's total loan portfolio slowed from 12.6% in March to 12.2% in April. UC banks posted a deceleration from 12.36% year-over-year growth in March to 11.85% in April. 

However, the banking system's balance sheet revealed a unmistakable divergence: the rapid deceleration  of loan growth. Growth of the Total Loan Portfolio (TLP), inclusive of interbank lending (IBL) and Reverse Repurchase (RRP) agreements, plunged from 14.5% in March to 10.21% in April, reaching Php 14.845 trillion. (Figure 4, lowest graph) 

This dramatic drop in TLP growth contributed significantly to the steep decline in deposit growth. 

E. Investment Portfolio Under Pressure

Figure 5

Banks' total investments have likewise materially slowed, easing from 11.95% in March to 8.84% in April. While Held-to-Maturity (HTM) securities growth slowed 0.58% month-over-month, they were up 0.98% year-over-year. 

Held-for-Trading (HFT) assets posted the largest growth drop, from 79% in March to 25% in April. 

Meanwhile, accumulated market losses eased from Php 21 billion in March to Php 19.6 billion in May. (Figure 5, topmost graph) 

Rising bond yields should continue to pressure bank trading assets, with emphasis on HTMs, which accounted for 52.7% of Gross Financial Assets in May. 

A widening fiscal deficit will likely prompt banks to increase support for government treasury issuances—creating a feedback loop that should contribute to rising bond yields. 

F. The Liquidity Drain: Government's Role 

Part of the liquidity pressures stem from the BSP's reduction in its net claims on the central government (NCoCG) as it wound down pandemic-era financing. 

Simultaneously, the recent buildup in government deposits at the BSP—reflecting the Treasury's record borrowing—has further absorbed liquidity from the banking system. (Figure 5, middle image) 

G. Monetary Aggregates: Emerging Disconnection 

Despite the BSP's easing measures, emerging pressures on bank lending and investment assets, manifested through a cash drain and slowing deposits, have resulted in a sharp decrease in the net asset growth of the Philippine banking system. Year-over-year growth of net assets slackened from 7.8% in April to 5.5% in May. (Figure 5, lowest chart) 

Figure 6

Interestingly, despite the cash-in-circulation boost related to May's midterm election spending—which hit a growth rate of 15.4% in April (an all-time high in peso terms), just slightly off the 15.5% recorded during the 2022 Presidential elections—M3 growth sharply slowed from 6.2% in March to 5.8% in April and has diverged from cash growth since December 2024. (Figure 6, topmost window) 

The sharp decline in M2 growth—from 6.6% in April to 6.0% in May—reflecting the drastic slowdown in savings and time deposits from 5.5% and 7.6% in April to 4.5% and 5.8% in May respectively, demonstrates the spillover effects of the liquidity crunch experienced by the Philippine banking system. 

H. Banking Sector Adjustments: Borrowings and Repos 

Nonetheless, probably because of the RRR cuts, aggregate year-over-year growth of bank borrowings decreased steeply from 40.3% to 16.93% over the same period. (Figure 6, middle graph) 

Likely drawing from cash reserves and the infusion from RRR cuts, bills payable fell from Php 1.328 trillion to Php 941.6 billion, while bonds rose from Php 578.8 billion to Php 616.744 billion. (Figure 6, lowest diagram) 

Banks' reverse repo transactions with the BSP plunged by 51.22% while increasing 30.8% with other banks. 

As we recently tweeted, banks appear to have resumed their flurry of borrowing activity in the capital markets this June. 

I.  The NPL Question: Are We Seeing the Full Picture? 

While credit delinquencies expressed via Non-Performing Loans (NPLs) have recently been marginally higher in May, the ongoing liquidity crunch cannot be directly attributed to them—unless the BSP and banks have been massively understating these figures, which we suspect they are. 

J. The Crowding Out Effect 

Bank borrowings from capital markets amplify the "crowding-out effect" amid growing competition between government debt and elite conglomerates' credit needs. 

The government’s significant role in the financial system further complicates this dynamic, as it absorbs liquidity through record borrowing. 

Or, it would be incomplete to examine banks' relationships with elite-owned corporations without acknowledging the government's significant role in the financial system. 

VI. Conclusion: The Inevitable Reckoning 

The deepening divergent performance between markets and government policies highlights not only the tension between markets and statistics but, more importantly, the progressing friction between economic and financial policies and the underlying economy. 

Is the consensus bereft of understanding, or are they attempting to bury the logical precept that greater concentration of credit activities leads to higher counterparty and contagion risks? Will this Overton Window prevent the inevitable reckoning? 

The evidence suggests that the BSP's easing cycle, rather than supporting broad-based economic growth, primarily serves to maintain the stability of an increasingly fragile financial system that disproportionately benefits elite interests. 

With authorities reporting May’s fiscal conditions last week (to be discussed in the next issue), we may soon witness how this divergence could trigger significant volatility or even systemic instability 

The question is not whether this system is sustainable—the data clearly indicates it is not—but rather how long political and regulatory interventions can delay the inevitable correction, and at what cost to the broader Philippine economy.

 

Is the Philippines on the Brink of a 2025 Fiscal Shock?

 

You should know that credit ratings understate credit risks because they only rate the risk of the government not paying its debt. They don’t include the greater risk that the countries in debt will print money to pay their debts, thus causing holders of the bonds to suffer losses from the decreased value of the money they’re getting (rather than from the decreased quantity of money they’re getting). Said differently, for those who care about the value of their money, the risks for U.S. government debt are greater than the rating agencies are conveying—Ray Dalio

In this issue

Is the Philippines on the Brink of a 2025 Fiscal Shock?

I. A Brewing Fiscal Storm?

II. April 2025 vs April 2024: A Sharp Deterioration

III. Four-Month Performance: Weak Revenue Momentum

IV. Weak Revenue Despite Loose Conditions: A Structural Problem?

V. Budget Math: A Deficit Blowout in the Making?

VI. Economic Fragility Threatens Further Revenue Weakness

A. Manufacturing: Price Softening Amid Trump Tariff Volatility

B. External Trade: Consumer Import Growth Sharply Slows

C. Headline and Core CPI: More Evidence of Demand Weakness

D. Labor Market Deterioration, Hidden Labor Market Realities

VII. The Conundrum of "Aggregate Demand" Policies and Consumer Strain

VIII. The Looming Debt Burden: Financing a Widening Deficit

A. April Financing Activities

B. Debt Payment Dynamics

IX. All-time High April Public Debt: Currency Effects Distorts Debt Composition

X. Crowding Out Effect and Interest Rate Pressures

XI. Crowding Out Effect and Policy Paralysis: The Limits of Monetary Easing

XII. The Inevitable Path: Debt, Inflation, and Future Taxation

XIII. Conclusion: Fiscal Shock Watch 2025 

Is the Philippines on the Brink of a 2025 Fiscal Shock? 

April's budget surplus masks a deeper fiscal crisis brewing beneath record-high deficits and weakening revenue collection

I. A Brewing Fiscal Storm? 

Is the Philippines teetering on the brink of a fiscal shock?  We are about to find out after eight months of government data. 

The Bureau of the Treasury’s April 2025 cash operations report confirms our suspicion that the government is struggling to meet critical fiscal targets, which should raise concerns about economic stability. 

As noted in early May: "A hypothetical Php 200 billion surplus in April would be required to partially offset Q1’s Php 478 billion fiscal gap and keep the official trajectory on track." (Prudent Investor, May 2025) 

The Inquirer.net reported on May 28, 2025: "The national government recorded a budget surplus of P67.3 billion in April, surging by 57.51 percent or P24.6 billion from a year ago, as tax revenues posted stronger growth and spending slowed for the month. However, for the January to April period, the cumulative budget deficit surged by 78.98 percent to P411.5 billion, as public spending rose by 13.57 percent to support economic activity and the priority programs of the Marcos administration." 

Media narratives either echoed the official line on tax revenue strength or highlighted spending restraint as causes for April’s surplus. But both perspectives overlook a critical detail: April’s surplus aligns not just with the 2023 VAT filing shift to a quarterly basis (previously discussed) but—more importantly—with the "annual tax filing deadline"—a period typically associated with a revenue spike. Yet, even this failed to close the fiscal gap. 

Additionally, the record-high deficits in Q1, persisting into the first four months, have gone largely unaddressed in mainstream discussions. 

To cut to the chase: April data signals a further weakening in the revenue base—right in the face of unrelenting public expenditure, pushing the deficit to historic levels. 

Let’s delve into the details to understand the scope of this fiscal challenge. 

II. April 2025 vs April 2024: A Sharp Deterioration 

In April 2025: 

• Revenues fell 2.82%
• Tax revenues grew 7.84%
• Non-tax revenues plunged 68.08%
• Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) growth of 11.1% boosted tax revenues
• Bureau of Customs (BoC) 7.5% declined, which weighed on overall performance

Compare that to April 2024: 

• Revenues soared 21.9%
• Tax revenues surged 13.9%
• Non-tax revenues rocketed 114%
• Tax revenues were anchored by BIR's 12.65% growth and the BoC delivered a strong 19.5%.

Clearly, April 2025 showed a sharp drop in performance despite the same structural advantages related to annual filings.

Figure 1       

The nominal (peso) figures show revenue collections falling significantly short of April 2024's all-time high. (Figure 1, topmost window)

Relative to the VAT’s quarterly cycle, note that the combined January and April 2025 surpluses (Php 135.66 billion) exceeded 2024’s (Php 130.7 billion) by just 3.8%—barely moving the needle against the Q1 fiscal gap. (Figure 1, second to the highest image) 

III. Four-Month Performance: Weak Revenue Momentum 

For January to April 2025: 

• Revenues grew a meager 3.3%.
• Tax revenues rose 11.5%, while non-tax revenues collapsed 51.94%.
• The BIR and BoC posted 14.5% and 2.16% growth, respectively.

In contrast, the first four months of 2024 showed:

• Revenues up 16.8%.
• Tax revenues up 13.22%.
• Non-tax revenues up 48.81%.
• The BIR and BoC grew by 15.35% and 6.47%, respectively. 

Clearly, April 2025 didn’t just underperform—it dragged down the already fragile broader four-month revenue trend. (Figure 1, second to the lowest visual) 

IV. Weak Revenue Despite Loose Conditions: A Structural Problem? 

Critically, Q1’s collection performance coincided with the full effects of the BSP’s first easing cycle in 2024, while April began reflecting partial effects of the second phase. 

Additionally, macro conditions were supportive:

• Bank credit growth was strong.
• Labor market conditions were reported as near full employment.
• Inflation slowed.

Universal-commercial bank loans jumped 11.85% in April to a record Php 12.931 trillion. Yet, public revenues stalled. (Figure 1, lowest graph) 

In short, despite historically loose financial conditions, the government has already been experiencing collection issues—a potential symptom of diminishing returns from BSP’s easy-money regime.

This suggests that further monetary stimulus yields progressively smaller positive impacts on revenue generation or economic growth, potentially reflecting inefficiencies in credit transmission due to mounting balance sheet problems. 

Which leads us to the trillion-peso question: What happens when financial conditions tighten? 

V. Budget Math: A Deficit Blowout in the Making?

From January to April, total revenues reached Php 1.520 trillion. Annualized, that projects Php 4.561 trillion—assuming average monthly intake of Php 380.06 billion. 

Compare that to the 2025 enacted budget of Php 6.326 trillion—already a base case considering six straight years of overspending. Authorities have already disbursed Php 1.932 trillion, implying a remaining monthly average of Php 549.28 billion. 

Bluntly put: At the current pace, 2025 could register a deficit of Php 1.765 trillion—5.7% higher than 2021’s all-time high of Php 1.67 trillion!

The key difference? 2021’s deficit was a deliberate fiscal stabilizer—alongside the BSP's unprecedented monetary and regulatory measures—in response to the pandemic. 

In 2025, no downturn has yet emerged—but the deficit itself threatens to trigger one.

VI. Economic Fragility Threatens Further Revenue Weakness 

A. Manufacturing: Price Softening Amid Trump Tariff Volatility

Figure 2

Since its peak in July 2024, manufacturing loans have been decelerating. March growth was just 2%. However, PPI rose only 0.06% in April YoY—barely moving. (Figure 2, topmost pane)

Though manufacturing volume/value both rose 4.2–4.3% inApril, this likely reflected distortions from new Trump tariffs effective that month.

The S&P PMI index showed a similar spike to 53 in April but slumped to 50 in May. (Figure 2, second to the highest chart)

B. External Trade: Consumer Import Growth Sharply Slows

April imports fell 7.2%, while exports rose 7%, compressing the trade deficit by 26%. (Figure 2, second to the lowest diagram)

But consumer goods imports slumped from 25.8% in March to just 2.83% in April. (Figure 2, lowest graph)

Agri-based products—led by coconut and sugar—boosted exports.

C. Headline and Core CPI: More Evidence of Demand Weakness

Headline CPI slipped from 1.4% in April to 1.3% in May, mainly due to quasi-price controls known as Maximum Suggested Retail Prices (MSRP) on rice and pork. The government also began rolling out Php 20 rice subsidies in select areas, distributing them among targeted groups.

Figure 3

However, Core CPI (non-food and non-energy) steadied at 2.2% for a third straight month, backed by a base-forming month-over-month rate of 0.16%—marking a second consecutive month. A soft CORE CPI reflects underlying weakness in demand. (Figure 3, topmost image)

D. Labor Market Deterioration, Hidden Labor Market Realities

Labor data reveals further vulnerabilities. The unemployment rate rose from 3.9% in March to 4.1% in April, but this excludes an estimated 24 million “functionally illiterate workers” (47% of the labor force or 30% of the population aged 15 and above). Many of these workers are likely employed in the informal sector or MSMEs (67% of employment in 2023, per DTI) or are underemployed, part-time, or not in the labor force. 

The “not in the labor force” population, defined by the PSA as those not seeking work due to reasons like housekeeping or schooling or permanent disability, has risen since November 2022, potentially masking the true unemployment rate and raises questions about the true extent of labor underutilization. (Figure 3, middle chart) 

The correlation between universal-commercial bank consumer salary loans and CPI trend since 2021 highlights consumer strain, further eroding aggregate demand. (Figure 3, lowest diagram) 

VII. The Conundrum of "Aggregate Demand" Policies and Consumer Strain 

Amidst all of this, we must ask: what has happened to "aggregate demand," particularly consumer demand? If consumers have shown worsening strains at the start of Q2, its continuity bodes ill for GDP growth and could likely be expressed in potential shortfalls in tax collections. 

So how will the government attempt to keep the GDP afloat? Given their top-down bias, the mechanical recourse would be to front-load public spending, thereby heightening the risks of a fiscal deficit blowout! 

Naturally, because the government is not a wealth generator but rather a redistributor and consumer, someone has to finance that swelling deficit. That "someone" is the individuals in the wealth-generating productive private sector. 

VIII. The Looming Debt Burden: Financing a Widening Deficit

A. April Financing Activities

Figure 4 

With the first four-month deficit at a record high of Php 411.5 billion, authorities raised Php 155.61 billion in April, leading to a 190% spike in financing of Php 799.73 billion in 2025. This effectively reversed the three-year (2021-2024) decline previously hailed by mainstream experts as prudential management. (Figure 4, topmost window)

The financing surge increased BTr's cash reserves to Php 1.205 trillion (Jan-Apr), though authorities held net cash reserves of only Php 188.9 billion in April. 

April's financing was mostly acquired through domestic issuance.

B. Debt Payment Dynamics 

April debt payments soared 73.72% to Php 280.898 billion, accruing to Php 622.921 billion in the first four months of 2025. (Figure 4, middle image) 

Total debt payments remained 45.7% below 2024's record levels. However, FX payments grew 17.3%, partly offsetting the 59.64% plunge in peso payments.

The FX share of debt servicing relative to the total has been rising since 2024. (Figure 4, lowest chart) 

The lag in payment data may be due to scheduling issues or information deliberately withheld for political reasons. 

While we find the preponderance of media announcements showing how debt payment has substantially slowed this year rather amusing, logic dictates that widening deficits will lead to a critical increase in debt that will have to be serviced over time. 

IX. All-time High April Public Debt: Currency Effects Distorts Debt Composition 

April debt hit a record Php 16.753 trillion. Thanks to a strong peso, FX-denominated loans fell 2.7% or Php 142.33 billion. 

Per Bureau of Treasury (BTr): "The reduction was primarily due to the P124.74 billion decrease in the peso value of external debt owing to peso appreciation." 

However, domestic debt grew 1.85% or Php 211 billion, resulting in a net increase of 0.41% or Php 68.690 billion. 

Reality Check: Philippine foreign debt did not actually shrink. The peso simply strengthened, lowering the debt's peso equivalent. Remember, FX liabilities still have to be repaid in dollars or other foreign currencies. In short, it's a revaluation trick—a statistical façade, not a real debt decrease. 

X. Crowding Out Effect and Interest Rate Pressures

Figure 5

In any case, the widening deficit, brought about by the mismatch between accelerating public spending and weakening revenue growth, underwrites the escalation of public debt. The rise in public debt has already been outpacing the growth trend of public spending, driven by the deficit and likely by amortization requirements. (Figure 5, topmost pane)

This escalating fiscal deficit means that competition for access to the public's diminishing savings will intensify, as government requirements will likely crowd out the domestic credit needs of banks and non-private sector firms, thereby putting pressure on interest rates. For businesses, this translates to higher borrowing costs and reduced access to credit, potentially stifling private sector investment and job creation. For ordinary citizens, it could mean higher interest rates on loans for homes, cars, or personal consumption. 

As an aside, the relentless rise in debt levels is not only a manifestation of the consequences of the government-BSP's "trickle-down" policies (debt-financed "savings-investment gap," "twin deficits," and "build and they will come" malinvestments); critically, they also signify the indirect ramifications of the Philippine social democratic system. In essence, this is what you have voted for! 

XI. Crowding Out Effect and Policy Paralysis: The Limits of Monetary Easing 

So, despite authorities' earnest attempts to push down the CPI—mainly via price controls or Maximum Suggested Retail Prices (MSRP) for rice and pork—to accommodate a desired easing cycle, T-bill rates have barely budged since 2022!  (Figure 5, middle chart) 

T-bills, the most sensitive to BSP's rate cuts, have remained unresponsive to April's CPI data! 

The widening spread between market (T-bills) and the CPI suggests that, aside from the crowding-out effect, Treasury markets view the present disinflation as "transitory," or they are hardly convinced of the integrity of the government's data. 

Consider this: The punditry consensus has been clamoring for lower rates on the back of a slumping CPI, but treasury dealers for their companies continue to price Treasuries as if the CPI remains inordinately high!

In short, the crowding out has rendered the government-BSP's easing cycle ineffective: Fiscal stimulus has hit a wall due to diminishing returns!

At worst, the mounting discrepancy could translate into increasing policy risks—or a potential blowback—that could be expressed through an inflation surge or a USD/PHP spike.

As seen in banks' balance sheets, this crowding out has led to a plunge in their liquidity positions (evidenced by falling cash-to-deposits and liquid assets-to-deposits ratios).

This increasing demand for public savings also applies to foreign exchange (FX) requirements. This means that to meet the economy's foreign exchange (FX) requirements and support the BSP's "soft peg" or foreign exchange policy, a surge in external debt can be expected. 

Evidently, public savings have not been sufficient. Authorities have increasingly relied on banks to finance public requirements via net claims on the central government (NCoCG), which have been rising in tandem with public debt. These assets have been siloed via banks' held-to-maturity (HTM) assets. The all-time high in public debt has been accompanied by a near-record NCoCG in April. (Figure 5, lowest diagram)

Figure 6

It is unsurprising that trades in government securities have been booming, even as 10-year yields have been on an uptrend. (Figure 6, topmost diagram) 

This phenomenon suggests two things: potential disguised losses in banks and financial institutions, and second, that these trades have crowded out trading activities in the Philippine Stock Exchange (PSE). 

In 2020, the BSP's historic Php 2.3 trillion intervention occurred partly via its own NCoCG, which is conventionally known as "quantitative easing." Although the present economy has supposedly ‘normalized,” the BSP's NCoCG remains at 2020 levels. This can be expected to surge when public savings and banks' capacity have reached their maximum. (Figure 6, middle image) 

Without a doubt, the BSP will likely rescue the banks and the government, perhaps using the pandemic template of forcing down rates, implementing reserve requirement ratio (RRR) cuts, massive injections (directly and through bank credit expansion), and expanding relief measures—though likely with limits this time. 

We doubt if they can maintain the USD/PHP peg or if they would accommodate a limited peso devaluation. 

XII. The Inevitable Path: Debt, Inflation, and Future Taxation

With this in mind, we can expect both public debt and debt servicing to experience an accelerated rise. Public debt to GDP could hit 2003-2004 levels, while debt servicing should see an equivalent uptrend over the coming years. (Figure 6, lowest chart) 

We should not forget: rising public debt inevitably leads to higher debt servicing, which in turn necessitates more public spending. 

As noted last May 

This trend suggests a potential roadmap for 2025, with foreign borrowing likely to rise significantly. The implications are multifaceted:

-Higher debt leads to higher debt servicing—and vice versa—in a vicious self-reinforcing feedback loop. 

-Increasing portions of the budget will be diverted toward debt repayment, crowding out other government spending priorities. In this case, crowding out applies not only to the private sector, but also to public expenditures. 

-Revenue gains may yield diminishing returns as debt servicing costs continue to spiral. 

-Inflation risks will heighten, driven by domestic credit expansion, and potential peso depreciation 

-Mounting pressure to raise taxes will emerge to bridge the fiscal gap and sustain government operations. (Prudent Investor, May 2025)

Following this, after grappling with debt and inflation, the government is bound to raise taxes. 

XIII. Conclusion: Fiscal Shock Watch 2025 

Unless BSP’s easing gains real economic traction, the first four months of 2025 point to a growing likelihood of a fiscal shock. 

• Revenue collection has deteriorated.
• Economic indicators signal fragility.
• Consumers are heavily indebted and weakening.
• External pressures—Trump's tariffs, deglobalization, and the re-emergence of "bond vigilantes" (investors who sell off government bonds when they believe fiscal policies are unsustainable, thus driving up borrowing costs for the government) could tighten external liquidity and worsen domestic financial conditions. 

Unless authorities rein in spending—which would drag GDP, risking a recession—a fiscal shock could emerge as early as 2H 2025 or by 2026. 

If so, expect magnified volatility across stocks, bonds, and the USDPHP exchange rate.

___

References 

Prudent Investor Newsletter, Liquidity Under Pressure: Philippine Banks Struggle in Q1 2025 Amid a Looming Fiscal Storm, May 18, 2025 

Prudent Investor Newsletter, Philippine Fiscal Performance in Q1 2025: Record Deficit Amid Centralizing Power, May 4, 2025