Stagflation Part 17: Eight Months of Twin Deficits, Record Debt, and the Bill for Deferred Adjustment

 

The financial history of the last century shows a steady increase in the amount of public indebtedness. Nobody believes that the states will eternally drag the burden of these interest payments. It is obvious that sooner or later all these debts will be liquidated in some way or other, but certainly not by payment of interest and principal according to the terms of the contract– Ludwig von Mises  

In this issue:

Stagflation Part 17: Eight Months of Twin Deficits, Record Debt, and the Bill for Deferred Adjustment

I. Introduction: The Path, Not the Print

II. The Fiscal Leg: Php 1.054 Trillion of Deficit, Php 756 Billion of Amortization

III. The Debt Leg: Php 19.61 Trillion and the Peso's Hand in It

IV. Stein's Law and the Two Exits

V. The Trade Leg: Record Exports, Record Imports, Record Gap

VI. Borrowed Stability, Again: August BOP, GIR, and the July Remittance Bounce

VII. Interventions Beget Interventions: The Fare, Wage, and Excise Cascade

VIII. The Global Vise: Bond Vigilantes, Whac-a-Mole Reserves, and a Thinning Treasury Market

IX. The Malinvestment Footprint: The Master Builder's Hotels

X. Conclusion: The Bill Has Arrived

---

Stagflation Part 17: Eight Months of Twin Deficits, Record Debt, and the Bill for Deferred Adjustment 

Php 19.61 trillion of debt, Php 1.9 trillion added in eight months, and the free-lunch politics of price suppression, transfers, and debt finally moving through the balance sheet

I. Introduction: The Path, Not the Print 

Eight months into 2026, the same message keeps appearing on different balance sheets. The adjustment did not disappear. It migrated. 

• The National Government's January–August deficit reached Php 1.054 trillion, up 21.3% from a year earlier and above the pandemic-year 2021 mark for the same stretch, which was just underPhp 1 trillion.
• National Government debt reached a recordPhp 19.61 trillion, withPhp 1.899 trillion added since December.
• The merchandise trade deficit reached $41.56 billion, up 26.3%, with exports and imports both at record year-to-date levels. 

Our Stagflation Part 13 identified the twin deficits. This installment shows the accelerating migration into the sovereign balance sheet, the currency, prices, wages, and the bond market. 

A word on how to read these numbers. This series does not treat official statistics as accurate to the decimal, nor does it litigate their underlying meaning. It does not need to. 

Rather, a process shows in direction, persistence, and the pattern across ledgers, not in whether a figure lands within a rounding error of a forecast. August's blowout is not a surprise to be explained. It is one more step along a path. 

That path was described in our August 2025 piece: "June 2025: A Countdown to Fiscal Shock." The driver was never the oil shock, the pandemic, or any single budget line. It has been the FREE LUNCH POLITICS embedded in Philippine democracy: 

These systems don't just elect leaders—they ratify an ethos: that deficit-fueled expansion is not only moral but inevitable. Redistribution becomes ritual. The annual SONA pipelines new spending schemes, boosting short-term political capital—but the structural anchors are threadbare. Compassion without discipline sedates policy. Time preferences spiral, gravitating toward the instant dopamine hit of political dispensation… 

When such convictions are deeply embedded, a disorderly reckoning is inevitable. 

The 2026 data are that ethos on a bigger stage, and running on a faster clock. The pandemic-era rate and reserve-requirement cuts, the doubling of deposit insurance, and the quiet USDPHP cap intensified the savings-investment gap. 

Today’s EO 110's price suppression, balance-sheet transfers, BSP relief measures, three consecutive timid rate hikes, and an exchange-rate regime the BSP declines to name are accelerating it. Each layer was sold as temporary. 

The deferred cost is what the August data are made of. 

II. The Fiscal Leg: Php 1.054 Trillion of Deficit, Php 756 Billion of Amortization 

Figure 1 

August's deficit was ₱161.3 billion, 90.2% above a year earlier. [Figure 1, upper image] 

The Treasury's explanation: Php 58.6 billion went to settle PhilHealth's arrears, and local governments received larger tax shares. 

Take PhilHealth out and August is still Php 102.7 billion, 21% wider than a year ago. That is the same pace as the eight-month total. The "one-off" did not create the trend. It joined it. An arrears payment is spending that was owed earlier: deferred adjustment arriving on schedule. 

In the eight months of 2026, revenue grew 4.3% to Php 3.22 trillion. Spending grew 8% toPhp 4.27 trillion. Spending is outrunning revenue at nearly twice the speed. 

But the deficit is only the first line of the bill. It does not include amortization. The Treasury's debt service report does. [Figure 1, lower table] 

Total debt service is 1.4 times the deficit and equals roughly 45% of everything the government collected. Interest alone takes about 21% of revenue. The Php 756 billion of principal, Php 631 billion of it—domestic and concentrated in February and April—is not paid from revenue. It is rolled: new borrowing retires old borrowing. Add it to the deficit and the year-to-date gross financing need approaches Php 1.8 trillion.

Figure 2 

In fairness to the data, August itself was a light month for debt service: Php 76.1 billion, the lowest of the year, with amortization at only Php 10.5 billion. The August deficit widened on spending, not on debt service. That makes the YTD picture worse, not better. The heavy rollover months have already passed, and the deficit is still 21% wider. 

YTD debt servicing—interest plus amortization—was lower from last year, but third highest on record. [Figure 2, topmost diagram] 

Now the targets. The 2026 deficit program was ₱1.61 trillion when the year began. It is Php 1.658 trillion now. When the debt ratio reached 62% in 2025, the benchmark was moved to 70%. A ceiling that moves up whenever it is touched is a forecast, not a ceiling. 

The eight-month deficit already equals 64% of the program. Staying inside it requires Php 151 billion a month for the last four months, against a year-to-date average of Php 132 billion. 

Last year's final four months came to Php 708 billion, in a year when the flood-control probe was throttling disbursements. Repeat only that, and 2026 closes near Php 1.77 trillion, about Php 103 billion over program. That is arithmetic, not a forecast. 

III. The Debt Leg: Php 19.61 Trillion and the Peso's Hand in It 

Debt rose Php 217.62 billion in August to ₱19.61 trillion, 12.2% above a year ago and 10.7% above December. The milestone is not that debt is high. It is that nearly Php 1.9 trillion of fresh claims on future income piled up in eight months. 

At Php 1.899 trillion, the January–August increase is the largest eight-month increase in the available series, edging above the Php 1.88 trillion increase recorded during the pandemic period. [Figure 2, middle graph] 

Notice what else the numbers say. Debt grew Php 1.899 trillion. The deficit was Php 1.054 trillion. The Php 845 billion difference comes from valuation and from cash the Treasury borrowed ahead of need, in proportions the Treasury's financing report would show. The stock of claims is growing much faster than the deficit that officially explains it. 

The currency is part of that gap. The Treasury valued external debt at 62.209 pesos per dollar in August, against 61.327 in July and 57.042 a year ago. A 1.4% depreciation applied to the roughly Php 6.28 trillion July external-debt stock implies a peso-translation effect of about Php 90 billion. The external stock actually rose Php 87.25 billion, while total NG debt rose Php 217.62 billion. On this simple calculation, the exchange-rate effect alone is equivalent to roughly 41% of August's total increase in NG debt. This treats the external stock as dollar-denominated and holds its foreign-currency amount constant; it is an approximation, not a Treasury decomposition. 

The exposure has hardly been ever static. External debt accounted for 32.47% of outstanding NG debt in August, and its share has been rising from its March 2021 low. [Figure 2, lowest chart] 

As fiscal pressure raises financing requirements, the peso comes under pressure; depreciation then raises the peso value of foreign-currency debt, feeding back into the fiscal burden. 

A weaker peso does double duty: it raises the peso price of imports and the peso value of foreign-currency liabilities. Our Stagflation Part 16's peso discussion feeds directly into this one. The FX problem and the fiscal problem are one problem. 

Two ideas from Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff's study of eight centuries of sovereign debt help explain why the ratio alone is not the number to watch. 

The first is debt intolerance. A government's ability to carry debt depends not only on the current debt-to-GDP ratio but also on its repayment history, inflation history, institutional credibility, and access to financing. Countries with histories of default or monetary instability can encounter financing constraints at debt levels that would be manageable for countries with stronger records. Creditors price the stock of debt, but they also price the history behind it. 

The Philippines has a 1983 debt crisis in that history. A debt-to-GDP ratio approaching two-thirds, with a benchmark moved upward once the ratio touched it, is therefore not just an exercise in comparing one ratio with another country's. It is a question of how much confidence the sovereign can command as the stock keeps rising. 

The second is financial repression. A government that will not sufficiently reduce its deficit can lower its effective financing burden by keeping real interest rates low and creating institutional demand for government paper. The cost does not disappear. It is transferred, often quietly, to savers and financial institutions. 

The pieces are in view. Banks' net claims on the central government were ₱6.24 trillion, about a fifth of their assets, in June. 

Last August, the policy rate was 5.0% against 6.1% inflation, a negative real rate of 1.1 percentage points. 

Against the regulatory and institutional machinery documented throughout this series—portfolio constraints, directed liquidity, reserve and capital rules, and the policy measures that have progressively enlarged the banking system's exposure to the sovereign—this is not merely a low-rate environment. It is financial repression: the cost of financing the state is being shifted onto savers and financial institutions while the sovereign balance sheet continues to expand. 

IV. Stein's Law and the Two Exits 

Herbert Stein's law says that if something cannot go on forever, it will stop. It says that unsustainable dynamics will not last—but says nothing about the timing or the manner. In this case, the political economy decides both. 

Essentially, a deficit that grows faster than the revenue available to service it cannot continue indefinitely. It can stop in two ways. 

• The voluntary exit is a political system choosing to spend less or tax more.
• The involuntary exit is creditors declining to roll the debt at the old price. 

That is the sudden stop: a confidence crisis in which creditors cease to believe that the existing financing path can continue on the old terms. Refinancing suddenly becomes scarce or prohibitively expensive. The adjustment then arrives through some combination of higher yields, capital outflows, currency depreciation, reserve losses, and forced fiscal contraction. The market does not need to refuse every peso. It only needs enough creditors to withdraw or demand a materially higher price for the financing chain to break. 

Our 2025 fiscal shock argument was that the voluntary exit is politically closed, because the system rewards the opposite: voters are offered benefits and billed later. This year's SONA offered more of the same: a higher income-tax threshold, implying about ₱66 billion in forgone revenue, and the removal of system-loss charges. Every proposal moves cost into the future. A political system built that way does not stop itself. 

That leaves the second exit, and the second exit has a door: the Php 756 billion of amortization, and counting. Every maturity has to be refinanced, repaid from available cash, or otherwise absorbed by the balance sheet. So far, the creditors have rolled, with BSP relief measures, held-to-maturity accounting, and banks' captive appetite making the rolling easier. That is why the fiscal story and the bond-market story in Section VIII are one story. 

Stein's Law does not tell us the date. It tells us the constraint: a debt crisis is what happens when an unsustainable political process finally meets an arithmetic constraint it cannot repeal. 

V. The Trade Leg: Record Exports, Record Imports, Record Gap 

The August export headline was spectacular. Exports hit an all-time monthly high of $9.11 billion, up 27.8%. The trade deficit narrowed to $3.85 billion, the smallest in 15 months. 

Figure 3 

Read the same release for what it also says. Over eight months, exports are up 14.8% to $64.04 billion. Imports are up 19.1% to $105.6 billion. The deficit is $41.56 billion. [Figure 3, topmost image] 

The DBCC's full-year assumption was exports +3% and imports +5%, so the planning numbers were off by a factor of roughly four in both directions. 

Exports are production and services sold abroad. The trade deficit is the excess of imports over exports, and it must be financed by other foreign-exchange income or foreign capital. That is why the celebratory export headline is only half the story. The other half is the financing requirement. 

The composition matters too. Electronics comprised 68.1% of August's exports, semiconductors alone 57.6%.  Chip exports surged 73.5%. [Figure 3, middle window] 

The surge is occurring alongside a broader data-center investment boom. In the United States, spending on data-center construction rose 7.5% in August from July and 73% year over year, reaching a seasonally adjusted annual rate of $85 billion, according to Wolf Street—an indication of the infrastructure buildout underpinning the current semiconductor cycle. [Figure 3, lowest diagram] 

A trade balance that improves because one export category keeps gaining share is not, by itself, evidence of broad-based adjustment. It increases the economy's exposure to the investment cycle driving that category—in this case, the global semiconductor and AI buildout.

If that investment cycle weakens—perhaps partly because of rising global rates, and partly because of potential excess capacity—the export engine weakens with it. 

The global capital-spending cycle becomes part of the Philippine balance sheet. 

The fiscal gap and the trade gap are one fact told in two currencies. The government spends more than it collects. The economy absorbs more tradable goods than it sells abroad. The difference has to be financed. 

Someone had to lend. Debt can finance spending. Foreign capital can finance imports. Remittances can finance consumption. Credit can postpone adjustment. None of them creates the productive capital that makes the structure self-sustaining. 

Carl Menger's point was that production rests on complementary goods and resources arranged through time. Machines, materials, skills, and savings must exist before the output does. A financial claim is not one of those goods. 

You cannot borrow your way around scarcity. 

VI. Borrowed Stability, Again: August BOP, GIR, and the July Remittance Bounce 

The Philippines still has genuine buffers. But cushions are not cures. Part 13 showed that June's BOP surplus ($3.4 billion) and the GIR's bounce to $104.74 billion were borrowed: a $2.5 billion eurobond and a $1 billion World Bank package. Borrowed stability has a half-life. 

August's BOP was a $596 million deficit, against a $359 million surplus a year earlier. The eight-month deficit is $5.94 billion, up 10.11%. The GIR is $104.8 billion, almost exactly where June's borrowed reading left it, 5.4% below end-2025 and 7.5% below February's $113.3 billion peak. 

How do reserves rise in a month when the BOP is negative? 

The BOP counts transactions. The GIR also counts revaluation. The BSP attributes the $1.5 billion rise to gold revaluation and income on foreign investments, partly offset by national government drawdowns of FX deposits for debt service. Gold holdings rose $1.62 billion, more than the entire gain. 

Figure 4 

Foreign-currency securities fell $3.11 billion. Other reserve assets (ORA), the repo-and-derivatives bucket, rose $3.352 billion to $15.48 billion, or 14.8% of August GIR. The BSP does not say what moved that bucket. [Figure 4, upper graph] 

The pattern (securities down, other reserve assets up, peso at records on suppressed volatility) is what intervention through derivative and repo positions would look like. 

Despite the BSP's public characterization of its intervention as selective and aimed at smoothing volatility rather than defending a particular level, the reserve changes—and the intervention evidence traced in Part 16—point to a much larger role for intervention than the official description suggests. The issue is not whether the BSP intervenes. It does. The issue is the extent of interventions. 

Meanwhile, July cash remittances rose 1.9% to $3.24 billion, up 6.6% from June, with school-opening seasonality doing part of the lifting. In dollars, the currency that pays for the import bill, growth is about 2%. In pesos it is roughly 10%, because the peso lost about 9% over the year. However, despite the monthly growth, cumulative remittance growth continues to slow—since peaking in 2014. [Figure 4, lower chart] 

The same depreciation that gives remittance households more pesos per dollar also raises the peso value of the government's dollar liabilities. In Section III, that translation effect was roughly Php 90 billion on the external debt stock. One peso, two ledgers. 

The crux of the matter is whether the economy generates foreign exchange fast enough to support its growing claims on it. The trade gap says those claims are growing faster. 

VII. Interventions Beget Interventions: The Fare, Wage, and Excise Cascade 

Look at the calendar. 

• Sept 25: EO 125 suspends the excise on LPG and kerosene, the second suspension this year:Php 3.36 per kilo of LPG (aboutPhp 37 per 11-kilo tank) and Php 5.60 per liter of kerosene, for three months or until the monthly Dubai average falls below $80.
• Sept 26: Wage Order NCR-28 takes effect: Php 60 on a Php 695 floor (+8.6%).
• Sept 28: the fare hike takes effect after six months of administered delay.
• Oct 14: Central Visayas follows with Php 42, 7.8% to 8.4%. 

Four interventions in 19 days. And these are just the significant ones. 

That is the sequence a price control produces. EO 110 suppressed fares. Operators responded by cutting trips as costs outran revenues. Eventually fares had to rise. The fare hike is a partial repeal: the market getting its price back. 

Let there be no mistake: this is a revelation that price controls eventually fail. 

They can suppress a price, but they cannot suppress the scarcity, cost, or resource constraint that produced it. The adjustment therefore migrates elsewhere—into supply, quality, queues, producer margins, fiscal transfers, or eventually the price itself. 

And yet, almost simultaneously, the next offsetting interventions landed. 

Ludwig von Mises called this the interventionist spiral: each intervention fails on its own terms, and the failure becomes the case for the next one. Suppress one price, and distortion accumulates. Another price adjusts. Policymakers intervene again. But as the maladjustments spread, the intervention dragnet widens. Each intervention pushes another cost onto consumers, producers, taxpayers, or the government's balance sheet—a vicious feedback loop. 

This is what I call Whac-a-mole economics: suppress one manifestation of the imbalance and it reappears somewhere else. 

The recurring architecture of emergency economics is:

    price suppression → fiscal transfer → balance-sheet transfer → debt 

And this is where the deeply ingrained POLITICS of the FREE LUNCH enters. Price controls make the benefit visible now and the cost invisible until later.  The voter sees the cheaper fare, the cheaper LPG tank, or relief from a price increase. The deferred cost lands elsewhere—on the producer’s margin, the taxpayer, the fiscal balance, the banking system, or the next year’s budget. The political reward is immediate. The adjustment bill is somebody else’s future problem. 

Notice how the NCR order was built. The Php 85 raise under NCR-27 was frozen by a Pasig court injunction. The wage board did not wait for the court. It issued NCR-28, carrying the same Php 60, outside the injunction’s reach. Two orders, one raise. When the court said no, the board reissued the yes. 

The seen: Php 37 off an LPG tank, Php 60 more wage a day, a fare that was overdue. 

The unseen is where each cost lands. 

The excise holiday takes revenue from a deficit already 21% wider. The IMF mission chief's own defense of it is that higher VAT receipts on pricier gasoline have offset the loss. That is a rebate on the Treasury's own windfall: the price spike taxed at 12% and a slice returned through LPG. The underlying scarcity remains. The cost simply moves from the pump to the fiscal balance. 

The wage orders land on the part of the economy with the least access to capital. A mandated raise of 8% or more is a cost increase, not a gain in output. It falls hardest on the small enterprises that employ most workers and receive 4.48% of bank credit (Part 15). Employers absorb it first in margins, and where there are no margins, in hiring, hours, and informality. Labor data lag those decisions, which is why July's jump in unemployment (Part 16) is more likely the first reading of this series than the last. 

A wage floor above what output supports is a regulatory tax on capital, and it widens the savings-investment gap from a second direction. 

Every one of these measures was designed to ease a price. None produced a single additional unit of fuel, a single additional bus trip, or a single additional peso of savings. 

The intervention changes who absorbs the scarcity. It does not remove the scarcity. 

VIII. The Global Vise: Bond Vigilantes, Whac-a-Mole Reserves, and a Thinning Treasury Market 

The external environment is becoming less accommodating just as the domestic economy becomes more dependent on financing.

Figure 5 

On October 1, the US 10-year Treasury yield touched 5.34%, its highest since 2002, before closing at 5.24%. It rose almost 90 basis points in the third quarter, the biggest quarterly increase of this century. The UK 30-year touched 6% for the first time since 1998. US gross debt crossed $40 trillion on August 18. When the world's collateral reprices, every sovereign that borrows against it faces a different price of money. [Figure 5, upper window] 

Philippine yields have repriced too. The 10-year BVAL reference rate stood at 7.6182% on September 30, up roughly 154 basis points year to date, although still below its May 20 peak of 7.8094%. That May peak was already above the 7.72% reached on November 10, 2022, during the Russia-Ukraine oil shock. The September close therefore remains around the territory reached during that earlier episode of external stress. 

It would be too simple to call this a mechanical spillover from US rates. Philippine bonds are mostly sensitive to domestic conditions, policy actions and the peso's exchange rate.  The streak of USD/PHP highs has come alongside—and amplified—the pressure on Philippine yields. [Figure 5, lower visual] 

A rising yield says financing is becoming more expensive. 

Figure 6 

Look at what stands beneath it. BVAL is a valuation model that produces reference rates from available quotes and trades, and it is only as good as the trades beneath it. The PDS data show the market thinning as yields rise. September's market volume was Php 613.8 billion, the lowest month of 2026: 37% below August, 63% below January, and 26% below the average month of 2024. On September 25 alone, government-securities turnover fell to Php 13.54 billion from Php 24.19 billion a week earlier. Daily turnover has slumped to 2024 levels. [Figure 6, topmost window] 

On that score, yields are rising while volume is falling. The reference price is being formed in a market that is becoming thinner precisely as the government needs that market to absorb more financing. 

And this is the market that is supposed to absorb the incremental demand associated with JP Morgan index inclusion. 

Inclusion may attract investors. It cannot manufacture liquidity. Markets price risk, not press releases. 

Then there is the outside world's own relief habit. The US Strategic Petroleum Reserve fell to 283.8 million barrels in the week ending September 25, the lowest since October 1982, after a 172-million-barrel release. [Figure 6, middle chart] 

US diesel set a record of $6.53 a gallon on September 22. Crude tanker rates recently hit all-time highs. The Middle East conflict and the Russia-Ukraine war continue to disrupt supply. The BSP raised its 2027 inflation assumption on El Niño risk. Agricultural commodity prices, as noted in Part 16, remain elevated. 

This is Whac-a-mole economics at the global level: suppress one price, draw down a reserve, subsidize another input, borrow against the future. The shock reappears somewhere else. 

The US draws down its strategic reserve to hold today's price down. The Philippines draws on its balance sheet to do the same. Both buy a quieter price now and leave a smaller buffer for the adjustment ahead—even as the war has not ended. 

Nor is oil the only pressure. The record Bloomberg agricultural index discussed in Part 16, together with the potential effects of El Niño, adds another layer of supply risk. 

IX. The Malinvestment Footprint: The Master Builder's Hotels 

The twin deficits are not only financing problems. They leave a footprint in the allocation of real capital. 

Cheap credit, policy incentives, and optimistic demand assumptions push capital toward projects whose economics depend on conditions that may not persist. The Philippine hotel sector is one example. 

The great Ludwig von Mises told the story of a master builder who miscounts his materials: the foundation is too large for the bricks available, and the house cannot be finished. The builder may execute perfectly. The error lies in the signal he built on: the apparent availability of resources that do not, in fact, exist in sufficient quantity. 

That is the mechanism of malinvestment. When financing conditions understate the scarcity of savings and capital, investment can be pulled forward into projects that appear viable at the distorted price of credit but cannot all be completed or profitably sustained once the underlying constraint reasserts itself. 

The Philippine hotel pipeline shows the footprint. Of the 20,509 room keys projected for 2026 delivery, 29% have been canceled and fewer than 6,000 delivered on schedule. Yet the 2026–2032 pipeline has grown to 45,884 keys across 213 projects, with Php 387 billion committed. 

The foundation keeps getting larger. 

Demand tells the other half. Foreign arrivals are up only 0.99% year to date through August, while Bohol's first-half arrivals fell 22%. [Figure 6, lowest chart] 

The divergence matters: capital commitments are expanding far faster than the demand evidence that is supposed to justify them. 

Canceled projects are not merely missing hotel rooms. They are evidence that resources were committed on assumptions that did not survive contact with reality. The capital cannot necessarily be redeployed without loss, delay, or impairment. 

The mistake is rarely visible during the boom. It becomes visible when the financing conditions and demand assumptions that supported the investment change. 

That is the malinvestment footprint of deferred adjustment: the distortion does not remain in the financial system. It eventually appears in the physical structure of the economy. 

X. Conclusion: The Bill Has Arrived 

The Philippine economy is now carrying a

• Php 1.054 trillion fiscal deficit,
• Php 756 billion of principal to refinance or repay,
• $41.56 billion trade deficit, and
• Php 19.61 trillion of national debt that grew Php 1.9 trillion in eight months 

It faces higher global financing costs, an energy shock, currency pressure, and renewed commodity inflation.

The policy response remains the same: suppress the price, subsidize the difference, transfer the balance-sheet damage, borrow, repeat. The process runs: 

deficits → debt → debt service → reduced fiscal space → more intervention → more distortion. 

It does not run in isolation. It interacts with the trade deficit, the peso, imported inflation, interest rates, and private balance sheets. The adjustment moves from one ledger to another. 

The numbers say how little room is left. 

The Php 19 trillion-plus debt level that the DBCC had projected for 2026 has already been breached: national government debt reached Php 19.61 trillion in August. The projection did not survive to year-end; the debt stock crossed it with four months still remaining. 

The deficit program has four months to absorb a final-quarter spending pattern that has run above Php 700 billion. 

Foreign reserves are rising through gold revaluation and leveraged based other reserve assets (ORA) rather than an improvement in the underlying external balance. 

The market that must absorb the issuance trades at a fraction of January's volume. 

Economics eventually sends the bill. 

It appears first in prices. Then wages. Then the currency. Then government debt. Then bond yields. And eventually in investment and growth. 

Every debt cycle has its alibi: this time is different. 

This time it was the oil shock. It wasn't. 

The oil shock was the alibi. The underlying cause was the embedded political structure that made deficit-fueled expansion appear both moral and inevitable. Each intervention postponed the adjustment and made the next intervention necessary. Each postponement moved the cost into another ledger. 

Stein's Law does not negotiate with it. 

The adjustment did not disappear. 

It migrated. 

It migrated from prices to wages, from wages to fares, from fares to fiscal transfers, from fiscal transfers to debt, from debt to the currency and bond market, and from the financial system into the allocation of real capital. 

It is now visible in the sovereign balance sheet itself. 

The bill for deferred adjustment has arrived. 

Batten down the hatches. 

_____

References: 

Last four Stagflation series:

Stagflation Part 16: The Peso's 24th Record Low — When the Pressure Valve Widens, September 13, 2026

Stagflation Part 15: The PSEi 30 1H 2026 Earnings Mirage — Nominal Growth, Record Debt, Real Stagnation, August 30, 2026

Stagflation Part 14: Q2 GDP at 2.3% and Falling — A GDP Built on Suppression and Debt, August 9, 2026

Stagflation Part 13: Record Twin Deficits Signal the Cost of Deferred Adjustment August 2, 2026

 

Why Isn't Gold Acting Like a Safe Haven—Yet? Part III: Is This Gold's Next Leg Up?

 

First of all there is need to remember that the gold standard did not collapse. Governments abolished it in order to pave the way for inflation. The whole grim apparatus of oppression and coercion—policemen, customs guards, penal courts, prisons, in some countries even executioners—had to be put into action in order to destroy the gold standard. Solemn pledges were broken, retroactive laws were promulgated, provisions of constitutions and bills of rights were openly defied. And hosts of servile writers praised what the governments had done and hailed the dawn of the fiat-money millennium.—Ludwig von Mises 

In this issue: 

Why Isn't Gold Acting Like a Safe Haven—Yet? Part III: Is This Gold's Next Leg Up?

I. Introduction: From Finding the Bottom to Explaining the Reversal

II. The Gold Cycle: Cyclical bear, Secular bull

III. The New Plaza Accord: Intervention and Its Shrinking Half-Life

IV. Deepening Interventions Becomes Gold's Catalyst

V. When Former Headwinds Become Tailwinds

VII. Central Banks as Dip Buyers, and the Fund-Flow Tailwind

VI. Risk-Off, Inflationary, and Fiscal Signals Converge

VII. Central Banks as Dip Buyers, and the Fund-Flow Tailwind

VIII. Bottom line: Gold Is Pricing the Limits of Intervention 

Why Isn't Gold Acting Like a Safe Haven—Yet? Part III: Is This Gold's Next Leg Up? 

Intervention was supposed to stabilize currencies and bonds. Instead, each attempt is exposing the imbalance underneath—and gold is beginning to price it.

I. Introduction: From Finding the Bottom to Explaining the Reversal 

Figure 1 

This piece started as an attempt to answer whether gold had found a bottom. Events overtook the question. In the space of a week, gold cleared its 200-day moving average at $4,501, broke above $4,600, surpassed the 38.2% retracement of its decline from March's record, and confirmed the rounding-bottom pattern that had been forming since June. It was gold's third straight weekly gain—and its third strongest week of the year. 

The question of the bottom is no longer the interesting one. 

What's worth asking now is whether this is the start of gold's next leg toward its late January record near $5,400-$5,600, and — more importantly for this series — why it's happening.

Part I and Part II of this series argued gold's early-2026 weakness was a liquidity-stress phenomenon, not a failure of its safe-haven role — the gold-oil ratio compressing as energy-importing economies scrambled for dollars, gold sold because it remained liquid enough to fund margin calls, not because confidence in it had broken. Gold peaked above $5,500 intraday in late January, fell in a rounding top that hardened into a roughly 28% decline into late June, then based and turned. That much was covered in the earlier articles. 

What has changed is the pace and the trend—and, as the following analysis shows, the trigger. 

II. The Gold Cycle: Cyclical bear, Secular bull 

Gold's advance since the Nixon shock of August 15, 1971, has never moved in a straight line. It has progressed through a series of secular cycles, with cyclical bear markets occurring within the larger structural trend. Those corrections have varied considerably in both depth and duration.

Figure 2

The shortest cyclical bear market under a secular bullmarket was the 2008 decline, at roughly 26%, which resolved within about eight months. The deepest was the 2011–2015 decline, at roughly 48%, which lasted four years and marked the hiatus before the current cycle. February–June's roughly 28% decline over four months therefore looks much closer, in depth and duration, to the 2008 cyclical correction than to the 2011–2015 secular break. (Figure 2, topmost pane) 

Importantly, the structural forces behind the current advance have not disappeared. Central-bank de-dollarization, fiscal dominance, a geopolitical order drifting toward blocs, a deepening war economy, asset bubbles, and persistent inflation remain part of the monetary and institutional environment supporting gold. 

A liquidity-driven correction can therefore interrupt a secular advance without terminating the forces that produced it. If the current reversal holds, the February–June decline may prove to have been another cyclical bear market nested within the larger secular bull—not the end of the cycle itself. 

And if that interpretation is correct, the current advance would represent the third major leg of gold's post-Bretton Woods secular bull, following the 1970s advance and the 2001–2011 bull market. (Figure 2, middle graph) 

III. The New Plaza Accord: Intervention and Its Shrinking Half-Life 

On July 31, Japan's Ministry of Finance confirmed a coordinated yen-buying intervention with the US—the first joint action since 2011—after the yen slid toward 40-year lows near 163 to the dollar. 

The September 1985 Plaza Accord is the obvious comparison, but the history deserves care. Gold began rising in February 1985, before the Accord, and rallied roughly 50% from the Accord through November 1987—so gold did respond. (Figure 2, lowest image) 

What the Accord did not do was deliver gold's secular low. The dollar devaluation it engineered helped inflate Japan's property and stock bubble, which peaked in 1990 and produced the “lost decades,” with aftershocks plausibly extending through the 1994 Tequila crisis, the 1994 bond crisis (Great Bond Massacre), and the 1997 Asian financial crisis. 

Gold's actual secular bottom wasn't etched until the post-Asian-crisis, post-dot-com years around 1999–2001, symbolically marked by Gordon Brown's UK gold sales near the trough. 

The 1980–1999 gold secular bear was, in effect, the salad days of the dollar standard. 

A Plaza-style intervention can produce a real, tradeable cyclical gold rally without stabilizing the underlying system. Plaza's deeper legacy was several years of instability surfacing elsewhere, not durable currency-regime repair.

Figure 3

The yen's own history since 2022 makes the point more directly. Japanese authorities have repeatedly intervened to support the yen, yet each intervention has ultimately been followed by renewed downward pressure. (Figure 3, topmost pane) 

The pattern has been remarkably consistent: intervention produces an abrupt reversal, but the underlying trend eventually reasserts itself. 

That is the shrinking half-life in practice. The more fundamental forces driving the currency remain in place, so each intervention has to work harder to produce the same effect—and the market increasingly treats the intervention itself as evidence of the underlying imbalance. 

That caution has aged well. It took the bond market almost two weeks to fully erase the initial effect of the Fed-BoJ intervention. Then, on August 19, with 30-year Treasury yields pushing above 5.30%—the highest since 2007—the Treasury unexpectedly doubled its long-end buyback capacity, from a $2 billion to at least a $4 billion cap per operation, effective September 9. Yields fell instantly, equity futures jumped, and gold spiked. 

The Treasury's buyback program had already been operating since May 2024. The August move therefore wasn't the introduction of a new tool, but an expansion of an existing one. The important point is what happened despite that intervention: long-term yields had continued rising, suggesting diminishing returns from efforts to absorb duration and stabilize the long end. (Figure 3, middle image) 

This time the effect lasted one day! By Friday, the 30-year yield had regained the entire drop and then some, closing at 5.27%, while the 10-year sat at 4.74%—a single basis point from its pre-intervention high. 

Wolf Richter's account of the episode is worth noting for its diagnosis: the rise in long-term yields wasn't market dysfunction requiring correction, but the consequence of the government having to sell roughly $1 trillion in new debt over three months to fund the deficit, with buyers demanding compensation for inflation risk, the fiscal trajectory, and the sheer volume of paper that must clear the market every few months. Those pressures cannot be resolved by a signaling exercise from the Treasury secretary. 

Treasury Secretary Bessent himself all but conceded the point on CNBC the following morning, repeatedly describing the move as "signaling." 

Nor is Treasury the only official-sector actor absorbing government debt. The Federal Reserve's balance-sheet reduction ended in December 2025, after which it began purchasing Treasury bills and other short-term Treasuries to maintain an ample supply of reserves. Its outright Treasury holdings have subsequently been rising, reaching roughly $4.54 trillion by August 19, 2026. FRED (Figure 3, lowest visual) 

This may not be technically classified as quantitative easing (QE), but economically it represents renewed official-sector absorption of Treasury securities. And the more revealing point is what has happened alongside it: long-term Treasury yields have continued to rise. 

The implication is straightforward: despite the labeling, official-sector absorption of Treasury debt is increasing, yet it is not preventing the market from demanding higher yields on longer maturities. That is evidence of diminishing intervention effectiveness, not evidence that the underlying pressure has been resolved.

Figure 4 

And the underlying pressure is not static. The US national debt has now crossed $40 trillion, while interest costs have continued to accelerate. According to the figures cited by ZeroHedge, interest expense had already reached roughly $1.37 trillion in 2026, about 20% above the comparable period a year earlier. (Figure 4, topmost and middle images) 

This is where intervention encounters a structural problem. Deficit spending creates the borrowing requirement; rising yields increase the cost of servicing that borrowing; and higher interest costs, in turn, enlarge the deficit and require still more borrowing. The market is therefore confronting a moving target: official-sector intervention may temporarily absorb Treasury supply or suppress yields, but the fiscal requirement generating that supply continues to expand. 

The effectiveness of intervention consequently diminishes as the underlying imbalance grows. What might once have been sufficient to stabilize the market becomes progressively less effective when the volume of debt, the interest burden, and the compensation demanded by investors are all rising together. 

Two interventions in three weeks have produced only temporary relief, while the fiscal, currency, and bond-market pressures behind them have quickly reasserted themselves. That is the more important signal for gold. Yields of 10 and 30 year treasuries were at milestone highs (Figure 4, lowest diagram)

Figure 5 

Japanese Government Bons (JGB) yields tell a similar story. 

They remain below their immediate pre-intervention spike, but have begun climbing again, touching a fresh three-decade high near 2.94% on August 18 before easing only slightly. Figure 5, topmost image) 

The same pattern is emerging in Japan: intervention can alter market prices temporarily, but it does not remove the underlying pressure on the currency and sovereign bond market. 

IV. Deepening Interventions Becomes Gold's Catalyst 

For gold, however, the significance is different. 

Gold had already been trading around and holding the $4,000 level from late June through early August. 

First, the Fed-BoJ intervention provided the catalyst for the first lift-off from that base, reinforcing $4,000 as the floor. 

Then, Bessent's Treasury backstop came afterward, adding fuel to an advance that was already underway. 

The initial decline in long-term yields quickly disappeared, but gold retained its momentum. 

The result was the sequence described at the beginning of this piece: gold broke its 200-day moving average at $4,501, moved above $4,600, surpassed the 38.2% retracement of its March decline, and confirmed the rounding-bottom pattern that had been forming since June. 

The significance therefore goes beyond the failure of either intervention to suppress yields. The interventions themselves are becoming part of the mechanism driving gold higher. Attempts to contain currency and bond-market pressures are adding to the monetary and financial imbalances that gold is increasingly pricing. 

This is where the comparison with the Plaza Accord becomes more interesting. The 1985 agreement did not simply weaken the dollar; it set in motion adjustments that eventually surfaced elsewhere in the financial system. 

Today's bilateral intervention comes against a far more leveraged fiscal and monetary backdrop, with sovereign debt, currency instability, and official-sector intervention increasingly interacting with one another. 

If history rhymes, the contemporary bilateral Plaza Accord may mean more than a break of the recent high—it may mark the beginning of sharply higher gold prices. 

V. When Former Headwinds Become Tailwinds 

WTI crude was up roughly 5% this week, back above $86, as the US-Iran standoff over the Strait of Hormuz shows no sign of resolving and Washington prepares tighter sanctions. (Figure 5, middle graph) 

That is worth pausing on because oil-driven dollar demand was the mechanism Part I and Part II identified as suppressing gold earlier this year: energy importers scrambled for dollars, and gold was sold for liquidity even as the safe-haven case strengthened. 

The same forces are now coinciding with gold's advance rather than working against it. 

That is not a contradiction. It means the liquidity-stress channel has been overtaken by the larger fiscal-currency-risk channel this piece has been tracking. The same energy shock that once forced gold sales for dollar liquidity is now compounding, rather than competing with, the debt and currency concerns driving the bid for gold. 

There is another important change in the relationship between gold and Treasury yields. Earlier in the year, rising 30-year Treasury yields appeared to place a ceiling on gold's advance. Now the relationship appears to be changing: gold is rising even as the 30-year yield pushes above the level at which the Treasury's intervention sought to stabilize it. 

The market is therefore no longer responding to higher yields simply as an opportunity cost for holding gold. It is increasingly interpreting those yields as evidence of the fiscal and currency pressures that make gold more attractive in the first place. 

It is also worth noting that rising gold prices and rising 10-year Treasury yields have historically coexisted during the stagflationary periods of the 1970s. (Figure 5, lowest chart) 

The parallel with today is not exact—the degree of systemic leverage is vastly different—but the coexistence of rising nominal yields and rising gold is not unprecedented when inflation, fiscal pressure, and confidence in the monetary regime become dominant forces. 

VI. Risk-Off, Inflationary, and Fiscal Signals Converge 

Gold's rise also came as risk appetite weakened. The S&P 500 fell about 1.4% on the week, its first weekly decline in a month, dragged by a rough five days for technology; the Nasdaq lost roughly 2%. That gives this week's move a stronger risk-off component: equities fell while gold rose. 

But it was not a conventional flight to safety. Oil was rising, long-term Treasury yields were rising, and gold was rising with them. Growth concerns and inflation/fiscal concerns were therefore appearing simultaneously: stocks were pricing weaker risk appetite, while oil and bond yields were pricing inflation, supply, and fiscal pressures. 

That combination is arguably more important for gold than a conventional risk-off episode. Gold was not merely benefiting from falling risk assets; it was responding to the same underlying deterioration that was simultaneously pushing up oil and long-term yields. 

Curiously, Bitcoin also surged more than 22% during the week, briefly moving above $77,000, reflecting both renewed risk appetite in the crypto market and, potentially, a safe-haven bid amid concerns over currencies and the monetary system. Short covering amplified the move. 

Taken together, the week's price action looks less like a simple flight to safety than a convergence of risk-off, inflationary, and fiscal signals—and gold is increasingly responding to all three. 

VII. Central Banks as Dip Buyers, and the Fund-Flow Tailwind

Figure 6

Central banks were buying into the selloff. The World Gold Council's Q2 2026 data showed central banks adding 102 tonnes of gold during the quarter, even as gold prices fell roughly 16%. (Figure 6, upper diagram) 

As of the first half of 2026, Poland remained the largest reported buyer at 82 tonnes, followed by Uzbekistan at 41 tonnes, China at 40 tonnes, and Kazakhstan at 27 tonnes. World Gold Council: Central Bank Gold Statistics, June 2026 (Figure 6, lower graph) 

The significance is not the absolute volume, but the direction of demand during the correction. While more price-sensitive and leveraged holders were liquidating, official-sector demand was increasing. Central banks were therefore absorbing part of the supply released by the selloff, providing an important counterweight to the liquidation pressure that drove gold lower. 

The longer-term demand signal remains equally important. The World Gold Council's survey found that 89% of reserve managers expect official gold holdings to increase over the next 12 months. That suggests the buying is not simply a reaction to short-term price movements, but part of a broader shift in reserve preferences.

Figure 7

Fund flows provide a second layer of support. Gold held the $4,000 area for close to two months as renewed ETF inflows emerged, while the two previous stretches of stronger fund flows—roughly August–October 2025 and November–February 2026—preceded significant advances, including the run into January's record. (Figure 7, upper image) 

The pattern does not mean ETF flows mechanically determine prices, but it does show that renewed investment demand has tended to accompany—and at times precede—the next major leg higher.  

Independent ETF data reinforce the change in direction: global gold ETFs returned to inflows in July after May–June redemptions had flushed out leveraged positions, with flows continuing into August. The important development is therefore not simply the amount of money flowing into gold, but the transition from forced liquidation to renewed accumulation. 

India's Dhanteras and Diwali season could provide an additional, though more modest, seasonal catalyst into year-end, alongside whatever short covering remains from a positioning backdrop that has been reduced but does not appear fully washed out. (Figure 7, lower visual) 

The ownership dynamics are therefore changing. Central banks were accumulating while weaker and more leveraged holders were liquidating; as that selling pressure subsided, ETF flows turned positive. The correction consequently did not destroy the underlying demand structure. Instead, it transferred gold from more price-sensitive holders toward buyers with a stronger strategic (non-price sensitive) incentive to own it. 

That matters for the next leg. The same selloff that removed speculative excess also created the conditions for a stronger base: official buyers absorbed supply, leveraged positions were reduced, and investment flows are now returning as gold moves higher. 

VIII. Bottom line: Gold Is Pricing the Limits of Intervention 

The question this piece opened with has effectively been answered by the market: gold has bottomed. What deserves scrutiny now is why, because the explanation is not the conventional one. 

Two interventions in three weeks—one in currencies, one in the bond market—have produced only temporary effects in the markets they were intended to stabilize. Yet their significance for gold has been the opposite. 

The Fed-BoJ intervention provided the catalyst for gold's first lift-off from the $4,000 base; Bessent's Treasury backstop then added fuel to an advance already underway. The interventions did not extinguish the underlying pressures. They exposed them—and, in doing so, reinforced the forces driving gold higher. 

The same energy shock that once forced gold into liquidity sales is now moving with gold rather than against it. This week's equity sell-off adds another layer: stocks fell while gold, oil, and long-term yields rose together. That is not a simple flight-to-safety trade. It is a combination of risk-off, inflationary, and fiscal signals—a more distinctly stagflationary configuration. 

The next leg will not necessarily be linear. $4,600 now needs to establish itself as support rather than prove to have been a temporary spike, while a sustained break below $4,300 would materially weaken the bullish structure. But the more important question is no longer technical. 

Gold is increasingly pricing the widening gap between what governments can credibly promise about their currencies and debt markets and what they can actually deliver. The interventions are themselves becoming part of that price signal: each attempt to contain currency or bond-market pressure produces a temporary market response, while the underlying imbalance quickly reasserts itself. 

And that is ultimately what makes this leg different from the earlier stages of the cycle. Gold is no longer simply rising because investors fear what might happen. It is rising because the market is beginning to price what governments are already doing—and the diminishing effectiveness of their attempts to contain the consequences. 

____

References

-Why Isn’t Gold Acting Like a Safe Haven—Yet? The Gold–Oil Ratio and the Liquidity Stress Behind Early-Crisis Gold Weakness (Part II)—April 5, 2026 

-Why Isn’t Gold Acting Like a Safe Haven—Yet? War, Liquidity Stress, and the Fracturing of the Bullion System (Part I)— March 22, 2026