The USD-PHP Breaks 59: BSP’s Soft Peg Unravels, Exposing Economic Fragility

 

Devaluing is a de facto default and the manifestation of the insolvency of a nation—Daniel Lacalle 

In this Issue

The USD-PHP Breaks 59: BSP’s Soft Peg Unravels, Exposing Economic Fragility 

Part I: The USD-Philippine peso Breach at Php59

IA. The Soft Peg’s Strain Finally Shows

IB. "Market Forces" or Managed Retreat?

IC. Gold, GIR, and the Mirage of Strength

ID. Historical Context: Peso Spikes and Economic Stress

Part II: The Savings–Investment Gap (SIG) Illusion

IIA. Savings–Investment Gap—a Flawed Metric and Free Lunch Spending

IIB. Misclassified Investment, ICOR and the Productivity mirage

Part III: Soft Peg Unravels: Systemic Fragility Surfaces, Confidence Breakdown

IIIA. The Keynesian Hangover: How "Spending Drives Growth" Became National Pathology

IIIB. Credit-Fueled Consumption and Fiscal Excess: Twin Deficits

IIIC. CMEPA and the Deepening of Financial Repression: How the State Institutionalized Capital Flight

IIID. Corruption as Symptom, Not Cause: The Flood Control Scandal and Malinvestment Crisis

IIIE. The Soft Peg's Hidden Costs: FX Regime as Subsidy Machine and Flight Accelerant

IIIF. Gold Sales Redux: The 2020–2021 Playbook Returns

IIIG. GIR Theater: Borrowed Reserves and Accounting Opacity, Slowing NFA and Widening BOP Gap

IIIH. Soft Peg Lessons: Where From Here? Historical Patterns and the Road to 62—or 67?

IV. Conclusion: Why This Time May Be Worse, the BSP is Whistling Past the Graveyard 

The USD-PHP Breaks 59: BSP’s Soft Peg Unravels, Exposing Economic Fragility 

How the BSP’s widening savings–investment gap, soft peg, flood control response left the peso exposed—and what it reveals about the Philippine economy.

Part I: The USD-Philippine peso Breach at Php59 

IA. The Soft Peg’s Strain Finally Shows 

This is what we posted at X.com 

After three years, $USDPHP breaks the BSP’s 59 Maginot line. What cracked it?

• 👉 Record savings–investment gap (BSP easing, deficit spending, CMEPA)
• 👉 BSP soft peg (gold sales)
• 👉 Capital controls fueling flight
• 👉 Weak economy + high debt 

The soft peg’s strain finally shows. 

After three years of tacit defense, the BSP’s 59.00 line cracked on October 28. Yet it closed the week—and the month—at 58.85, just below what we’ve long called the BSP’s ‘Maginot line.’ 

IB. "Market Forces" or Managed Retreat? 

The BSP and media attributed the breach to “market forces.” But if the peso’s rate is truly market-determined, why issue a press release at all? To reassure the public? Why the need for reassurance? And if the breakout were merely “temporary,” why frame it at all—unless the goal is to condition perception before the markets interpret the breach as systemic or draw their own conclusions?

Figure 1

Another dead giveaway lies in the BSP’s phrasing: it “allows the exchange rate to be determined by market forces.” (Figure 1, upper image)

That single word—allows—is revealing. 

It presupposes BSP supremacy over the market, implying that exchange rate movements occur only at the central bank’s discretion. FX determination, in this framing, is not a spontaneous process but a managed performance. Market forces operate only within the parameters permitted by the BSP. “Allowing” or “disallowing” thus reflects not market discipline, but bureaucratic control masquerading as market freedom. 

Yet, the irony is striking: they cite “resilient remittance inflows” as a stabilizer—even as the peso weakens. If OFW remittances, BPO earnings, and tourism inflows are as strong as claimed, what explains the breakdown? 

Beneath the surface, the pressures are unmistakable: thinning FX buffers, rising debt service, and the mounting cost of defending a soft peg that was never officially admitted.

IC. Gold, GIR, and the Mirage of Strength

Then there’s the gold angle. 

In 2024, the BSP was the world’s largest central bank seller of gold—offloading reserves to raise usable dollars. (Figure 1, lower chart)

Figure 2

Now, higher gold prices inflate its GIRs on paper—an accounting comfort masking liquidity strain. It’s the same irony we saw in 2021–22, when the BSP sold gold amid a pandemic recession and the peso still plunged. (Figure 2, upper graph) 

Adding to the drama, the government announced a price freeze on basic goods just a day before the peso broke Php 59. Coincidence—or coordination to suppress the impact? 

And there was no “strong dollar” to blame. The breakout came as ASEAN peers—the Thai baht, Indonesian rupiah, Singapore dollar, and Malaysian ringgit—strengthened. This was a PHP-specific fracture, not a USD-driven move. (Figure 2, lower table) 

ID. Historical Context: Peso Spikes and Economic Stress

Figure 3

Historically, sharp spikes in USDPHP have coincided with economic strain:

• 1983 debt restructuring
• 1997 Asian Financial Crisis
• 2000 dotcom bubble bust
• 2008–2010 Global Financial Crisis
• 2020 pandemic recession (Figure 3, upper window)

The BSP even admitted “potential moderation in economic growth due in part to the infra spending controversy” for this historic event. That makes reassurance an even more potent motive. 

Remember: USDPHP made seven attempts to breach 59.00—four in October 2022 (3, 10, 13, 17), three from November 21 and 26 to December 19, 2024. That ceiling revealed the BSP’s implicit soft peg. The communique doesn’t explain why the eighth breach succeeded—except to say it was “market determined.” But that’s just another way of saying the market has abandoned the illusion of BSP control. (Figure 3, lower diagram)

As I’ve discussed in earlier Substack notes, this moment was years in the making: 

• The widening savings–investment gap
• CMEPA’s distortions
• Asset bubbles, the creeping financial repression and fiscal extraction that eroded domestic liquidity 

The peso’s breach of 59 isn’t just a technical move. It’s the culmination of structural stress that monetary theater can no longer hide. 

Part II: The Savings–Investment Gap (SIG) Illusion

IIA. Savings–Investment Gap—a Flawed Metric and Free Lunch Spending 

Spending drives the economy.  That ideology underpins Philippine economic policy—from the BSP’s inflation targeting and deficit spending to its regulatory, tax, and FX regimes—and it has culminated in a record savings–investment (SIG) gap. 

This is the Keynesian hangover institutionalized in Philippine policy—confusing short-term demand management with sustainable capital formation 

But this is not merely technocratic doctrine; the obsession with spending anchors the free-lunch politics of ochlocratic social democracy. 

Yet even the SIG is a flawed metric. 

As previously discussed, “savings” in national accounts is a residual GDP-derived figure riddled with distortions, not an empirical aggregation of household or corporate saving. It even counts government savings—retained surpluses and depreciation allowances—when, in truth, fiscal deficits represent outright dissaving. (see reference) 

Worse, the inclusion of non-cash items such as depreciation and retained earnings inflates measured savings, masking the erosion of actual household liquidity.

IIB. Misclassified Investment, ICOR and the Productivity mirage 

Even the “investment” side is overstated. Much of it is public consumption misclassified as capital formation. Because politics—not markets—dictate pricing and returns, the viability of monopolistic political projects cannot be credibly established. 

Consider infrastructure. Despite record outlays, the Incremental Capital-Output Ratio (ICOR) has worsened—proof that spending does not equal productivity.

Figure 4

According to BSP estimates, the Philippines’ ICOR has fallen from around 8.3 in the 1989-92 period to approximately 4.1 in 2017-19, contracted by 12.7% and recovered to around 3.0 by 2022 (see reference) (Figure 4, topmost visual) 

While the ICOR trend suggests some efficiency gains since the 1990s, it remains a blunt and often misleading proxy—distorted by GDP rebasing, project misclassification, and delayed returns. What it does reveal, however, is the widening gap between spending and sustainable productivity 

Listed PPP firms, meanwhile, sustain appearances through leverage, regulatory capture and forbearance, and mark-to-model accounting. The result is concealed fragility, reinforced by the hidden costs of various acts of malfeasance, conveniently euphemized as by the public as “corruption.” 

In the end, the SIG tells a simple truth: domestic savings are too scarce to fund both public and private investment. The gap is bridged by FX borrowing. 

But this is not a sign of strength—it’s a symptom of deepening structural dependence, masked by monetary theater and fiscal illusion, thus amplifying peso vulnerability. Every fiscal impulse now imports external leverage, entrenching the illusion of growth at the expense of stability. 

Part III: Soft Peg Unravels: Systemic Fragility Surfaces, Confidence Breakdown 

IIIA. The Keynesian Hangover: How "Spending Drives Growth" Became National Pathology 

Spending-as-growth isn’t just policy—it’s pathology.

While the BSP’s mandate is "to promote price stability conducive to balanced and sustainable growth," its inflation-targeting framework—tilted toward persistent monetary easing—has effectively become a GDP-boosting machine to finance free-lunch political projects. 

Banks have realigned their balance sheets accordingly. Consumer loans by universal and commercial banks rose from 8.2% of total lending in December 2018 to 13.5% in August 2025—a 64% surge—while the share of industry loans declined from 91.7% to 86.5% over the same period. (Figure 4, middle pane) 

Fueled by interest rate subsidies and real income erosion, households are leveraging aggressively to sustain consumption. Yet as GDP growth slows, the marginal productivity of credit collapses—meaning every new peso of debt generates less output and more fragility for both banks and borrowers. 

Production credit’s stagnation also forces greater import dependence to meet domestic demand.

IIIB. Credit-Fueled Consumption and Fiscal Excess: Twin Deficits 

Meanwhile, deficit spending—now nearing 2021 pandemic levels—artificially props up consumption at the expense of productivity gains. (See reference for last week’s Substack.) 

Together, credit-fueled consumption and fiscal excess have produced record "twin deficits." (Figure 4, lowest chart) 

The fiscal deficit widened from Php 319.5 billion in Q2 to Php 351.8 billion in Q3, while the trade deficit expanded from USD 12.0 billion to USD 12.76 billion—levels last seen in 2020. 

Historically, fiscal deficits lead trade gaps—it raises import demand. If the budget shortfall hits fresh records by year-end, the external imbalance will likely push the trade deficit back to its 2022 peak.

Figure 5

These deficits are not funded by real savings but by credit—domestic and external. The apparent slowdown in approved public foreign borrowings in Q3 likely masks rescheduling (with Q4 FX borrowings set to spike?), delayed recognition, shift to BSP-led financing (to reduce scrutiny) or accounting prestidigitation (Figure 5, topmost diagram) 

Public external debt accounted for roughly 60% of the record USD 148.87 billion in Q2. Even if Q3 slows, the trajectory remains upward. (Figure 5, middle graph) 

In short, widening twin deficits mean more—not less—debt. 

Slowing consumer sales growth, coupled with rising real estate vacancies, signals that private consumption is already being crowded out—a deepening symptom of structural strain in the economy.

IIIC. CMEPA and the Deepening of Financial Repression: How the State Institutionalized Capital Flight

Yet the newly enacted CMEPA (Capital Market Efficiency Promotion Act, R.A. 12214) deepens the financial repression: it taxes savings, institutionalizes these by redirecting or diverting household savings into state-controlled channels or equity speculation, and discriminates against private-sector financing. By weakening the deposit base, it also amplifies systemic fragility. The doubling of deposit insurance last March, following RRR cuts, appears preemptive—an implicit admission of the risk CMEPA introduces. 

Authorities embraced a false choice. Savers are not confined to pesos—they can shift to dollars or move capital abroad entirely. Capital flight is not theoretical; for the monied class, it can be a reflexive response. 

IIID. Corruption as Symptom, Not Cause: The Flood Control Scandal and Malinvestment Crisis 

The recent “flood control” corruption scandal has merely exposed the deeper rot. 

Consensus recently blames the peso’s fall and stock market weakness on “exposed corruption.” But this is post hoc reasoning: both the peso and PSEi 30 peaked in May 2025—months before the scandal broke. (Figure 5, lowest image)

Corruption, as argued last week, is not an aberration—it’s embedded or a natural expression of free-lunch social democracy 

It begins at the ballot box and metastasizes through centralization, cheap money, financial repression, the gaming of the system and rent-seeking. It explains the entrenchment of political dynasties and the extraction economy they operate on. 

What media and the pundits call “corruption” is merely the visible tip. The deeper pathology is malinvestment—surfacing across: 

• Bank liquidity strains
• Wile E. Coyote NPLs
• Record real estate vacancies
• Slowing consumer spending despite record debt
• Cracks in employment data
• Persistently elevated self-rated poverty ratings (50% + 12% borderline as of September).
• Stubborn price pressures and more… 

The BSP’s populist response to visible corruption? 

Capital controls, withdrawal caps, probes, and virtue signaling. These have worsened the erosion of confidence, potentially accelerating the flight to foreign currency—and escalating malinvestments in the process. (see reference) 

What emerges is not just structural decay, but a slow-motion confidence collapse. 

IIIE. The Soft Peg's Hidden Costs: FX Regime as Subsidy Machine and Flight Accelerant 

And there is more. The BSP also operates a de facto FX soft-peg regime. 

By keeping a lid on its tacit thrust to devalue, its implicit goal is not merely to project macro stability, but to subsidize the USD and manage the CPI within its target band. Unfortunately, this policy overvalues the peso, encouraging USD-denominated borrowing and external savings while providing the behavioral incentive for capital flight.

Figure 6

Including public borrowing, the weak peso has prompted intensified growth in the banking system’s FX deposits. In August 2025, FX deposits rose 11.96%—the second straight month above 10%—reaching 15.07% of total bank liabilities, the highest since November 2017. (Figure 6, topmost window) 

The BSP’s FX regime also includes its reserves management—Gross International Reserves (GIR).

IIIF. Gold Sales Redux: The 2020–2021 Playbook Returns 

As noted above, similar to 2020–2021, the BSP embarked on massive gold sales to defend the USDPHP soft peg. Yet the peso still soared 22.97% from 47.90 in May 2021 to 58.9 in September 2022. That pandemic-era devaluation coincided with a CPI spike—peaking at 8.7% in January 2023. The 2024 gold sales echo this pattern, offering a blueprint for where USDPHP could be heading. 

The BSP insists that benchmarks like the GIR assure the public of sufficient reserves. Yet it has never disclosed the composition in detail. Gold—which the BSP remains averse to—accounts for only ~15% of the GIR (September). A former BSP governor even advocates selling gold "to profit” from it." (2020 gold sales and devaluation occurred in his tenure) 

But since the BSP doesn’t operate for profit-and-loss, but for political objectives such as "price stability," this logic misrepresents intent.

IIIG. GIR Theater: Borrowed Reserves and Accounting Opacity, Slowing NFA and Widening BOP Gap 

A significant portion of GIR—around 5%—consists of repos, derivatives, and other short-term instruments classified as Other Reserve Assets (ORA), introduced during the 2018 peso appreciation. Not only that: national government borrowings deposited with the BSP are also counted as GIR. Hence, “borrowed reserves” make up a substantial share. (Figure 6, middle graph) 

If reserves are truly as strong as officially claimed, why the peso breakout—and the need for a press release? 

All this is reflected in the stagnating growth of BSP net foreign assets (NFA) since 2025, reinforcing a downtrend that began in 2013. While nominally at Php 6.355 trillion, NFA is down 2.1% from the record Php 6.398 trillion in November 2024. (Figure 6, lowest diagram)

Figure 7

This fragility is also evident in the balance of payments (BOP) gap. Though narrowing in recent months, it reached USD 5.315 billion year-to-date—its highest since the post-pandemic recession of 2022. That’s 67% of the November 2022 peak. (Figure 7, topmost graph) 

The apparent improvement merely reflects deferred pressure—delayed borrowings and import compression. 

Despite BSP claims, net outflows reflect more than trade gaps. They signal external debt servicing amid rising leverage, capital flight, and systemic strain.

IIIH. Soft Peg Lessons: Where From Here? Historical Patterns and the Road to 62—or 67? 

Last March, we wrote: 

The USDPHP exchange rate operates under a ‘soft peg’ regime, meaning the BSP will likely determine the next upper band or ceiling. In the previous adjustment, the ceiling rose from 56.48 in 2004 to 59 in 2022, representing a 4.5% increase. If history rhymes, the next likely cap could be in the 61–62 range. (see reference) 

At the time, our lens was historical—measuring breakout levels from 2004 to 2022 and projecting forward to 2025. 

But as noted above, USDPHP spikes rarely occur in a vacuum. They tend to coincide with economic stress. Using BSP’s end-of-quarter data, we find: (Figure 7, middle table) 

• 1983 debt restructuring: +121% over 12 quarters (Q1 1982–Q1 1985)
• 1997 Asian Financial Crisis: +66.15% over 6 quarters (Q1 1997–Q3 1998)
• 1999–2004 dotcom bust: +30.6% over 20 quarters (Q2 1999–Q1 2004)
• 2007–2009 Global Financial Crisis: +16.95% over 5 quarters (Q4 2007–Q1 2009)
• 2020–2022 pandemic recession: +22.64% over 7 quarters (Q4 2020–Q3 2022) 

While the USDPHP also rose from 2013–2018, this episode was largely driven by the Fed’s Taper Tantrum, China’s 2015 devaluation, and Trump-era fiscal stimulus—with no comparable economic event.

IV. Conclusion: Why This Time May Be Worse, the BSP is Whistling Past the Graveyard 

The current moment is different. 

Using the post-2022 low—Q2 2025 at 56.581—as a base, a 10% devaluation implies a target of 62.24. But with the late-cycle unraveling, a weakening domestic economy, and rising debt burdens, the odds tilt towards a deepening of stagflation—or worse. If the peso mirrors its pandemic-era response, a 20% devaluation to 67.90 is not far-fetched. 

Even the BSP now concedes "potential moderation in economic growth." 

Yet it continues to cite “resilient inflows” like tourism. The Department of Tourism data tells another story: as of September 2025, foreign arrivals were down 3.5% year-on-year—hardly a sign of strength. (Figure 7, lowest chart) 

Otto von Bismarck’s maxim applies: 

Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. 

Hounded by diminishing returns and Goodhart’s Law—where every target becomes a distortion—the BSP clings to benchmarks that no longer signal strength. From the USDPHP to GIR composition, Net Foreign Assets, and FX deposit ratios, the metrics have become theater. The more they’re defended, the less they reflect reality.

In the face of unraveling malinvestments, deepening institutional opacity, and accelerating behavioral flight, the BSP is whistling past the graveyard. 

Caveat emptor. The illusion is priced in.  

____ 

References 

Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, Discussion Paper Series No. 2024-10: Estimating the Incremental Capital Output Ratio (ICOR) for the Philippines, Towards Greater Efficiency: Estimating the Philippines’ Total Factor Productivity Growth and its Determinants BSP Research Academy, June 2024. 

Prudent Investor Newsletters: 

When Free Lunch Politics Meets Fiscal Reality: Lessons from the DPWH Flood Control Scandal, Substack, September 07, 2025 

The CMEPA Delusion: How Fallacious Arguments Conceal the Risk of Systemic Blowback, Substack, July 27, 2025 

The Seen, the Unseen, and the Taxed: CMEPA as Financial Repression by Design, Substack, July 27, 2025 

The Philippine Flood Control Scandal: Systemic Failure and Central Bank Complicity, Substack, October 05, 2025 

The Political Economy of Corruption: How Social Democracy Became the Engine of Decay, Substack, October 26, 2025 

BSP’s Gold Reserves Policy: A Precursor to a Higher USD-PHP Exchange Rate? Substack, March 03, 2025 

How the BSP's Soft Peg will Contribute to the Weakening of the US Dollar-Philippine Peso Exchange Rate, Substack, January 02, 2025 

June 2025 Deficit: A Countdown to Fiscal Shock, Substack, August 03, 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

 

 

Goldilocks Meets the Three Bad Bears: BSP’s Sixth Rate Cut and the Late-Cycle Reckoning

 

Perhaps more than anything else, failure to recognize the precariousness and fickleness of confidence—especially in cases in which large short-term debts need to be rolled over continuously—is the key factor that gives rise to the this-time-is-different syndrome. Highly indebted governments, banks, or corporations can seem to be merrily rolling along for an extended period, when bang!, confidence collapses, lenders disappear, and a crisis hits—Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff 

In this Issue 

Goldilocks Meets the Three Bad Bears: BSP’s Sixth Rate Cut and the Late-Cycle Reckoning

I. The BSP’s Sixth Cut and the Goldilocks-Sweet Spot Illusion

II. Data-Driven or Dogma-Driven? The Myth of Low-Rate Growth

III. The Pandemic Rescue Template Returns, The MSME Credit Gap

IV. Fintech’s Limits, Financial Concentration: Banking Cartel by Design

V. Treasury Market Plumbing: Who Really Benefits?

VI. Crowding Out: Corporate Issuers in Retreat

VII. The Free Lunch Illusion: Debt and Servicing Costs

VIII. Banks as the Heart of the Economy: Palpitations in the Plumbing

IX. Q2 2025 Bank Profit Plummets on Credit Loss Provisions

X. Conclusion: Goldilocks Faces the Three Bad Bears 

Goldilocks Meets the Three Bad Bears: BSP’s Sixth Rate Cut and the Late-Cycle Reckoning 

The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas’ latest rate cut is a "Goldilocks" illusion masking a late-cycle reckoning driven by crowding out, surging leverage, and mounting stress in the financial system 

I. The BSP’s Sixth Cut and the Goldilocks-Sweet Spot Illusion 

Reinforcing its "easing cycle," the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) cut policy rates last week—the sixth reduction since August 2024. Officials claimed they had reached a “sweet spot” or “Goldilocks level”—a rate neither inflationary nor restrictive to growth, as the Inquirer reported. 

We’ve used “sweet spot” before, but not as a compliment. In our framing, it signals ultra-loose monetary policy—part of a broader “Marcos-nomics stimulus” package that fuses fiscal, monetary, and FX regimes into a GDP-boosting mirage. A rescue narrative sold as reform. 

II. Data-Driven or Dogma-Driven? The Myth of Low-Rate Growth 

The idea that “low rates equal growth” has calcified into public gospel. 

But if that logic holds, why stop at 5%? Why not abolish interest rates altogether—and for good measure, tax 100% of interest income? By that theory, we’d borrow and spend our way to economic utopia. In short: Such (reductio ad absurdum) logic reduces policy to absurdity: prohibit savings, unleash debt, and expect utopia.

Figure 1

The BSP insists its decisions are data-driven. But have they been? Since the 1998 Asian Crisis, rate cuts have been the default posture. 

And since the 2007–2009 Global Financial Crisis, each successive cut has coincided with slowing headline GDP—through the pandemic recession and beyond. The decline was marginal at first, barely noticed. But post-pandemic, the illusion cracked. (Figure 1 upper pane)

A historic rescue package—Php2.3 trillion in injections, rate cuts, RRR reductions, a USD-PHP soft peg, and sweeping relief measures—combined with unprecedented deficit spending, triggered a temporary growth spike. This extraordinary intervention, combined with global reopening, briefly masked structural weaknesses. 

But since 2021, GDP has resumed its downward drift, with the deceleration becoming conspicuous through Q2 2025. Inflation forced the BSP to hike rates, only to restart its easing cycle in 2024. 

So where is the evidence that low rates boost the economy?

III. The Pandemic Rescue Template Returns, The MSME Credit Gap 

Today’s “sweet spot” eerily mirrors the pandemic-era rescue template—minus the direct injections and relief measures. For now. 

Meanwhile, over half the population still self-identifies as borderline or poor (self-rated poverty surveys—SWS and OCTA). 

GDP, as a measure, fails to capture this disconnect—possibly built on flawed inputs, questionable categorization and assumptions, as well as politically convenient calculations. 

Meanwhile, the BSP’s easy money regime and regulatory bias have allowed banks to monopolize the financial system, now accounting for 83% of total financial assets as of Q2 2025. (Figure 1, lower graph) 

Yet MSMEs—the backbone of employment at 67% (as of 2023, DTI)—remain sidelined. 

Ironically, Republic Act No. 9501 mandates banks to lend 10% of their portfolio to MSMEs (8% to micro and small, 2% to medium enterprises).

Figure 2

But compliance has collapsed—from 8.5% in 2010 to just 4.63% in Q1 2025. (Figure 2, topmost image) 

Banks, unable to price risk appropriately, prefer paying penalties over lending to the sector. The result: the credit boom inflating GDP primarily benefits 0.37% of firms—the large enterprises that employ only a third of workers. 

While RA 9501 mandates banks to allocate 10% of their loan portfolio to MSMEs, BSP regulations restrict risk-based pricing—directly through caps on consumer and financing loans (BSP Circular 1133) and indirectly in MSME lending through microfinance rules (Circulars 272, 364, 409, and related issuances).   

Again, unable to fully price in higher default risks, banks often find it cheaper to pay penalties than to comply. 

IV. Fintech’s Limits, Financial Concentration: Banking Cartel by Design 

At the same time, banks are aggressively expanding into consumer credit, while the unbanked majority continues to rely on the informal sector at usurious or punitive rates. 

Fintech e-wallets have gained traction, but they remain mostly transactional platforms. Banks, by contrast, are custodial institutions. Even if convergence is inevitable, bridging the informal credit gap will remain elusive unless rates reflect real distribution and collection risks.

This convergence may democratize leverage—but banks still dominate credit usage, reinforcing a top-heavy system. 

Deepening concentration, paired with price restrictions, resembles a cartel. A BSP-led cartel. 

And the first beneficiaries of this low-rate regime? Large enterprises and monied consumers. 

V. Treasury Market Plumbing: Who Really Benefits? 

And like any cartel, it relies not only on market power but also on control of the pipes—the very plumbing of the financial system, now evident in the Treasury market 

The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas has dressed up its latest rate cut as part of a “Goldilocks easing cycle,” but the bond market tells a different story.

Even before the policy shift, the Philippine BVAL Treasury yield curve had been flattening month after month, with long rates falling faster than the front end.  (Figure 2, middle and lower charts) 

That is not a picture of renewed growth but of markets bracing for a slowdown and disinflation. 

The rate cut simply ratified what the curve had preemptively declared: that the economy was softening, and liquidity needed to be recalibrated.

Figure 3

From the Treasury market’s perspective, the real beneficiaries weren’t households or corporates—they were institutional actors navigating a crowded, distorted market. 

Trading volumes at the Philippine Treasury market raced to all-time highs in August, just before and during the cut! (Figure 3, topmost diagram) 

This wasn’t retail exuberance—it was plumbing. 

BSP’s direct and indirect liquidity injections, coupled with foreign inflows chasing carry (data from ADB Online) amid global easing and macro hedges created a bid-heavy environment. The rate cut amplified this dynamic, lubricating government borrowing while sidelining private credit. (Figure 3, middle visual) 

VI. Crowding Out: Corporate Issuers in Retreat 

Meanwhile, the collateral damage is clear: corporate bond issuance has been trending downward, regardless of interest rate levels—both in nominal terms and as a share of local currency debt. (Figure 3, lowest window) 

This is evidence of the crowding-out syndrome, which suggests that BSP easing isn’t reviving private investment—it’s merely accommodating fiscal expansion. 

In the cui bono calculus, the winners of rate cuts are clear: the state, the banks, and foreign macro hedgers. 

The losers? Domestic firms, left behind in a market—where easing no longer means access. 

VII. The Free Lunch Illusion: Debt and Servicing Costs

Figure 4

The deeper reason behind the BSP’s ongoing financial plumbing lies in social democracy’s favorite illusion: the free lunch politics. 

Pandemic-era deficit spending has pushed public debt to historic highs (Php 17.27 trillion in June), and with it, the burden of debt servicing. (Figure 4, topmost chart) 

July’s figures—due next week—may breach Php 17.4 trillion. 

Even with slower amortizations temporarily easing the burden in 2025, interest payments for the first seven months have already set a record.

Rising debt means rising servicing obligations—even at the zero bound. The illusion of cheap debt is just that: an illusion. 

Crowding out isn’t just theoretical. 

It’s visible in the real economy—where MSMEs and half the population (per self-poverty surveys) are squeezed—and in the capital markets, where even the largest firms are feeling the pinch. 

The entropy in financial performance among PSE-listed firms, especially the PSEi 30, underscores that the spillover has reached even the politically privileged class. (see previous discussion—references) 

Monthly returns of the PSEi 30 similarly reflect the waning impact of the BSP’s cumulative easing measures since 2009. (Figure 4, middle image) 

In a world of scarcity, there is no such thing as a permanent free lunch. 

VIII. Banks as the Heart of the Economy: Palpitations in the Plumbing 

If the government is the brain of the political economy, banks are its heart. And the pulse is showing increasing signs of palpitations.

The banking system’s books reveal the scale of the plumbing, most visible in the record-high net claims on central government (NCoCG) held by the banking system and Other Financial Corporations (OFCs). 

Bank NCoCG surged 7.5% YoY to an all-time high Php 5.591 trillion in Q2 2025, pushing Held-to-Maturity (HTM) assets up 1.8% YoY to a milestone Php 4.075 trillion. (Figure 4, lowest graph)

Figure 5 

OFCs saw an even sharper jump—14.7% in Q1 to a record Php 2.7 trillion! (Figure 5, topmost diagram) 

According to the BSP, OFCs are composed of non-money market investment funds, other financial intermediaries (excluding insurance corporations and pension funds), financial auxiliaries, captive financial institutions and money lenders, insurance corporations, and pension funds. 

Yet despite these massive reallocations—and even with banks drawing a staggering Php 189 billion from their freed-up reserves (Claims on Other Depository Corporations) after March’s RRR cut—liquidity remains tight. (Also discussed last August, see references) (Figure 5, middle chart) 

Cash reserves continue to decline. Though cash-to-deposit ratios bounced in June from May’s all-time low, the trend remains downward—accelerating even as RRR rates fall to 5%. (Figure 5, lowest image) 

Liquid assets-to-deposit ratios have slumped to levels last seen in May 2020, effectively nullifying the supposed benefits of the BSP’s Php 2.3 trillion pandemic-era injections. 

This strain is now reflected in bank stocks and the financial index—dragging down the PSE and the PSEi 30. 

Goldilocks, eh? 

After the rate cut, the BSP immediately floated the possibility of a third RRR reduction—“probably not that soon.” Highly doubtful. Odds are it lands in Q4 2025 or Q1 2026. 

But even if the BSP dismantles the Reserve Requirement entirely, unless it confronts the root cause—the Keynesian dogma that credit-financed spending is a growth elixir—the downtrend will persist. 

At zero RRR, the central bank will run out of excuses. And the risk of bank runs will amplify.

IX. Q2 2025 Bank Profit Plummets on Credit Loss Provisions

Figure 6 

The toll on banks is already visible—profits are unraveling. From +10.96% in Q1 to -1.96% in Q2.  (Figure 6, upper visual) 

The culprit? 

Losses on financial assets—driven by surging provisions for credit losses, which ballooned 89.7% to Php 43.78 billion in Q2. That’s pandemic-recession territory—December 2020. (Figure 6, lower graph) 

X. Conclusion: Goldilocks Faces the Three Bad Bears 

The cat is out of the bag. 

The “stimulative effect” is a political smokescreen—designed to rescue banks and the elite network tethered to them. It’s also a justification for continued deficit spending and the rising debt service that comes with it. 

But “sweet spots” don’t last. They decay—subject to the law of diminishing returns. 

Paradoxically, under the Goldilocks fairy tale, there were three bears. In our case: three ‘bad’ bears:

• Crowding out and malinvestments
• Surging systemic leverage
• Benchmark-ism to sanitize worsening fundamentals 

Even the Bank for International Settlements has quietly replaced Philippine real estate pricing bellwethers with BSP’s version—one that paints booming prices over record vacancies. 

Nonetheless, the bears are already in the house. The porridge is cold. And the bedtime story is over. What remains is the reckoning—and the question of who’s prepared to face it without the comfort of fairy tales 

All signs point to a late-stage business cycle in motion. 

___

references 

Prudent Investor Newsletters, Q2–1H Debt-Fueled PSEi 30 Performance Disconnects from GDP—What Could Go Wrong, August 24, 2025 Substack 

Prudent Investor Newsletters, Philippine Banks: June’s Financial Losses and Liquidity Strains Expose Late-Cycle Fragility, August 17, 2025 Substack