Inside the SMC–Meralco–AEV Energy Deal: Asset Transfers That Mask a Systemic Fragility Loop

 

My cynical view is that 90 percent of financial strategy is either tax minimization, regulatory arbitrage (coming up with instruments to comply with the letter of regulations while violating their spirit), or accounting charades (complying with the letter of accounting rules while disguising reality)— Arnold Kling 

In this issue

Inside the SMC–Meralco–AEV Energy Deal: Asset Transfers That Mask a Systemic Fragility Loop 

Segment 1.0: The PSEi Debt Financed Asset Transfer Charade

1A. Debt, Not Productivity, Drives the Philippine Economy

1B. The Big Three Borrowers: MER, SMC, AEV The Mechanism: Asset Transfers

1C. The Circular Boost: A Fragility Loop 

Segment 2.0: San Miguel Corporation — The Minsky Ponzi Finance Core

2A. Fragility in Plain Sight

2B. SMC’s Camouflage Tactics

2C. The Mirage of Liquidity

2D. Political Angle: Deals, Influence, and the Administration’s Footprint 

Segment 2.1 — Meralco: A Utility Showing Profit, But Hiding Stress

2.1A. Chromite Gas Holdings: Meralco’s New Largest Exposure

2.1B. Q3 and 9M Performance: Meralco’s Money Illusion Revenues

2.1C. GDP Mirage and Debt Surge and Asset Inflation

2.1D. What This Really Means: Meralco as the Balance-Sheet Absorber 

Segment 2.2 – AEV: Revenue Spikes as Balance-Sheet Shock Absorption

2.2A AEV’s Q3–9M: Not Evidence of Business Growth 

Segment 3.0 — The Batangas LNG–Ilijan–EERI Triangle

3.A How One Deal Created Three Balance-Sheet Miracles 

Segment 4.0: Conclusion: How Concentration Becomes Crisis: The Philippine Energy Paradox 

Inside the SMC–Meralco–AEV Energy Deal: Asset Transfers That Mask a Systemic Fragility Loop 

SMC, Meralco, and AEV’s energy partnership reveals how asset transfers inflate profits, recycle fragility across balance sheets 

Disclaimer: This article presents an independent analysis and opinion based solely on publicly available financial reports, regulatory filings, and market data. It does not allege any unlawful conduct, nor does it assert knowledge of internal decision-making or intent by any company or individual. All interpretations reflect broader political-economic dynamics and systemic incentives rather than judgments about specific actors. Readers should treat this as an analytical commentary, not as a statement of fact regarding any wrongdoing. 

Segment 1.0: The PSEi Debt Financed Asset Transfer Charade 

1A. Debt, Not Productivity, Drives the Philippine Economy 

Debt, not productivity, is the engine of the Philippine economy. We’ve said this repeatedly, but what’s striking in 2025 is how debt growth has concentrated in just a handful of dominant companies.

Figure 1 

In the first nine months of 2025, the 26 non‑bank members of the elite PSEi 30 added Php 603.149 billion in debt—a growth rate of 11.22%, pushing their total to an all‑time high of Php 5.979 trillion. This was the second fastest pace after 2022. (Figure 1, upper window) 

The banks were not far behind. Bills payable of the four PSEi 30 banks rose Php 191.8 billion to Php 1.125 trillion. 

Meanwhile, BSP data shows bills and bonds payable across the entire banking industry climbed 9.34% YoY in September (Q3) to Php 1.861 trillion, the third highest on record. (Figure 1, lower chart) 

For clarity, let’s stick to the 26 non‑bank PSEi firms. 

Note: these figures exclude the rest of the 284 listed companies as of Q2. Because holding companies consolidate subsidiary debt, there are double counts here. And these are only published debts—some firms appear to have shifted borrowings into other liabilities or kept exposures off balance sheet. 

Even with those caveats, the Php 5.979 trillion in published PSEi non-bank debt is large enough to equal: 

• 16.8% of the Philippine financial system’s September Php 35.582 trillion in resources/assets; and
• 29.74% of the Php 20.15 trillion in nominal GDP over the first nine months. 

The Php 603.15 billion increase alone accounts for 75% of nominal GDP growth (Php 796.224 billion, or 4.96%) in the same period. 

In short, the debt of the non‑bank PSEi 30 is not just a corporate statistic—it is macro‑significant, shaping both banking dynamics and GDP itself.

1B. The Big Three Borrowers: MER, SMC, AEV The Mechanism: Asset Transfers 

Figure 2

In January–September 2025, the top three debt expanders among the non-bank PSEi 30—Meralco [PSE:MER], San Miguel [PSE:SMC], and Aboitiz Equity Ventures [PSE:AEV]—accounted for 52.65% of the Php 603.15 billion increase. (Figure 2, table and chart) 

Meralco (MER) debt more than doubled, rising 139.4% from Php 89.147 billion to Php 213.43 billion Php (+Php 124.283 billion). 

San Miguel (SMC) debt rose 7%, adding Php 103.312B, reaching a record Php 1.581 trillion. Yes, a T-R-I-L-L-I-O-N! 

Aboitiz Equity Ventures (AEV) debt jumped 24.26%, or Php 89.945B, to Php 460.7B. 

This was not coincidence. 

The synchronized surge reflects the Meralco–Aboitiz buy-in to San Miguel’s energy assets. 

As discussed last August 

"Beneath the surface, SMC’s debt dynamics resemble quasi-Ponzi finance—borrowing Php 681 billion to repay Php 727 billion in 1H 2025, while plugging the gap with preferred share issuance and asset monetization. The latter includes the deconsolidation and valuation uplift of its residual stakes in the Ilijan power facility and Excellent Energy Resources Inc. (EERI), as well as the $3.3 billion LNG deal with Meralco and AboitizPower in Batangas. Though framed as strategic partnerships, these transactions involved asset transfers that contributed heavily to the surge in reported profits. 

"The simulacrum of deleveraging—from Php 1.56 trillion in Q4 2024 to Php 1.506 trillion in Q2/1H 2025—appears to be a product of financial engineering, not structural improvement." 

In other words, SMC’s Q2 “deleveraging” was cosmetic. 

Its debt didn’t fall because operations improved; it fell because SMC dumped assets, liabilities, and valuation gains onto Meralco and Aboitiz.

1C. The Circular Boost: A Fragility Loop 

This buyout sequence increasingly resembles an asset transfer charade:

• SMC unloads assets with embedded liabilities.
• Meralco and AEV borrow heavily to “acquire” them.

Both sides book accounting gains via fair-value adjustments, reclassification, and deconsolidation. 

• Optics improve—higher assets, higher income, stronger balance sheets.
• Substance does not—real cash flow remains weak, debt dependence accelerates, and system-wide concentration rises. 

Each company props up another’s balance sheet, recycling fragility and presenting it as growth. 

The Philippine power sector is already intensely politicized, dominated by quasi-monopolies that operate in their respective territories. Markets exist only in form; in substance, the sector functions as a pseudo-market inside an oligopolistic cage. 

Approximate generation market shares illustrate this concentration: SMC Global ~20–25%, Aboitiz Power ~23%, First Gen + EDC ~12–18%, Meralco/MGen ~7–10%, and ACEN ~5–7% (figures vary by region, fuel type, and year). 

Recent deals only deepen this centralization, reinforcing the economic and political power of these dominant players, while regulatory bottlenecks and concentrated capital ensure that true competition remains largely symbolic. 

Segment 2.0: San Miguel Corporation — The Minsky Ponzi Finance Core 

The Chromite Gas Holdings acquisition is central to understanding SMC’s 2025 numbers.

MGen acquired 60% and Aboitiz’s TNGP took 40%, giving Chromite a 67% stake in several former San Miguel Global Power (SMGP) entities. SMGP retained 33%. This was not an expansion — again, it was an asset transfer. 

Q2: The Illusion of Improvement 

This maneuver produced a dramatic one‑off effect in Q2:

• Debt dipped slightly from Php 1.511 trillion (Q1) to Php 1.504 trillion.
• Cash surged +26.5% YoY to Php 321.14 billion.
• Profits exploded +398% YoY, from Php 4.691 billion to Php 23.4 billion. 

Q3: The Underlying Reality Reappears 

But the illusion unraveled in Q3: 

• Revenues contracted –4.5% in a weak economy.
• Profits collapsed –49.5% to Php 11.9 billion.
• Cash rose again +22.4% to Php 344 billion.

Figure 3

Debt soared Php 103.312 billion YoY, Php 76.28 billion QoQ, bringing total debt to a staggering Php 1.58 trillion. (Figure 3, topmost graph, middle table) 

2A. Fragility in Plain Sight 

Even with the current the sharp rebound in SMC’s share price — whether due to benchmark-ism (potential gaming market prices by the establishment to conceal embedded fragilities) or implicit cross-ownership effects from the Chromite transaction — market cap remains below Php 180B. 

• Borrowing growth this quarter alone equaled ≈40-45% of SMC’s entire market cap (as of the third week of November). 
• Debt outstanding exceeds annual sales. 
• Debt equals 4.44% of the entire Philippine financial system’s assets. 

This is not normal corporate leverage. 

This is systemic leverage. 

2B. SMC’s Camouflage Tactics 

SMC has been masking its worsening debt structure through: 

• Preferred share issuances (debt disguised as equity), another Php 48.6 billion raised in October.
• Asset transfers involving Meralco and Aboitiz (the Chromite–Ilijan–EERI triangle)
• Aggressive fair-value reclassification and balance-sheet engineering 

All three are textbook Minsky Ponzi Finance indicators: Cash flows cannot meet obligations; survival depends on rolling over liabilities and selling assets. 

2C. The Mirage of Liquidity 

SMC reports cash reserves (Php 344 billion) rising to nearly matching short‑term debt (Php 358 billion). (Figure 3, lowest diagram) 

But internal breakdowns suggest: 

• A portion of “cash” is restricted
• Some is pledged to lenders
• Some sits inside joint ventures 

Balance-sheet “cash” includes mark-to-model items tied to asset transfers 

Meaning: true liquidity is far lower than reported. 

2D. Political Angle: Deals, Influence, and the Administration’s Footprint 

In the current political climate, the administration’s footprint is crucial for every major economic deal. 

SMC’s transactions likely benefited from proximity to the leadership — but political shifts also show how influence-connection-network shapes outcomes across the corporate landscape. 

Take the Villar group: after apparently losing favor with the administration, their Primewater franchise has been terminated in several provinces, and authorities have cracked down on their real estate assets, claiming prior valuations were inflated. The SEC even revoked the accreditation of the appraiser involved. 

Meanwhile, MVP of Meralco reportedly eyes Primewater, underscoring how political favor reshapes corporate fortunes. Where Villar faces contraction, SMC and its allies (Meralco, Aboitiz) secure expansion through administration‑blessed asset transfers. 

In any case, it is possible that the deal had administrative blessing—or at least the nudge, given the proximity of the principals involved. The other possible angle is that this could be an implicit bailout dressed up as a buy-in deal. 

But the more important point is this: 

Even political closeness cannot permanently mask structural insolvency. 

SMC is too big to fail on paper — but too debt-bloated to hide forever, or political cover buys time, not solvency. 

Segment 2.1 — Meralco: A Utility Showing Profit, But Hiding Stress 

2.1A. Chromite Gas Holdings: Meralco’s New Largest Exposure 

Meralco’s Chromite Gas Holdings investment has become its largest exposure among joint ventures and associates, carried at Php 84.08 billion in 2025. Yet, despite the size, Chromite has contributed no direct revenues so far. 

The assets acquired from San Miguel Global are framed as enhancing Meralco’s ability to deliver reliable, stable, and cost‑effective electricity—but the numbers tell a different story—one shaped more by accounting and regulatory pass-throughs than by genuine economic or demand strength. 

2.1B. Q3 and 9M Performance: Meralco’s Money Illusion Revenues

Figure 4 

The headline 4% GDP in Q3 exposed Meralco’s fragility: 

• Revenues in gwh: –2.08% YoY, –6.64% QoQ.
• Electricity sales in pesos: +7.09% YoY, –3.35% QoQ.
• 9M gwh sales: –0.37% YoY, while peso sales rose +6%.
• Profitability: +18.19% in Q3, +9.93% in 9M. 

This is classic money illusion: peso revenues rise while physical demand falls. (Figure 4, upper and lower graphs) 

Operational output is not driving earnings. Instead, tariff pass‑throughs, higher generation charges, and regulatory adjustments inflate nominal sales. It is a regulatory inflation windfall, not genuine demand strength. 

2.1C. GDP Mirage and Debt Surge and Asset Inflation 

Meralco’s results reinforce that Q3 GDP was effectively lower than the 4% headline once adjusted for inflation and real‑sector contraction. Nominal growth masks real decline—exactly the GDP mirage motif you’ve been threading. 

More troubling is the balance sheet: 

• Debt surged +139% to Php 213.4 billion.
• Assets inflated +34.5% to Php 792 billion. 

This scale of short‑term expansion is not normal for a utility. It only happens when major assets are shuffled, revalued, or purchased at non‑market prices. Capex and operations do not explain it. Asset transfers do. 

2.1D. What This Really Means: Meralco as the Balance-Sheet Absorber 

Regulated returns (tariff-based profits) look stable, but the underlying structure is growing riskier. A utility with: 

• falling physical demand,
• surging debt, and
• massive non-operational asset expansion

is not strengthening — it is absorbing leverage for some entity. 

And that entity is SMC. 

The Chromite/Ilijan/EERI structure effectively places Meralco in the role of balance-sheet absorber for San Miguel’s asset-lightening strategy. 

Meralco’s earnings stability conceals a fragile, debt-heavy balance sheet inflated by SMC-linked asset transfers, not by real demand or utility fundamentals 

Segment 2.2 – AEV: Revenue Spikes as Balance-Sheet Shock Absorption 

Almost the same story applies to Aboitiz Equity Ventures. 

While AEV publicly emphasizes energy security, stability, market dominance, and regulatory influence as its core priorities, the weakening macro economy reveals a different angle.

Figure 5 

AEV posted Q3 revenues of +19.6%, pushing net income up +12.8%. (Figure 5, upper visual) 

But on a 9M basis, revenues were only +2.84% while net income fell –10.6% — a clear mismatch between quarterly momentum and year-to-date weakness. 

In its 17Q report, AEV notes that fresh contributions from Chromite Gas Holdings, Inc. (CGHI) drove the 5% rise in equity earnings from investees. This aligns precisely with the pattern seen in Meralco: newly consolidated or newly transferred assets creating a one-off jump. 

Meanwhile, the balance sheet shows the real story: 

• Debt surged 24.3% to Php 460.7B
• Cash jumped 15% to Php 90.84B
• Assets expanded 14.94% to Php 971B 

A sudden Q3 revenue surge combined with a weak 9M total is entirely consistent with: 

• Newly absorbed assets booking revenue only after transfer
• Acquisition timing falling post–June 2025
• Consolidation effects appearing sharply in Q3 

This means the revenue spike is not organic growth — it is the accounting after-effect of assets acquired or transferred in 1H but only recognized operationally in Q3. 

AEV’s cash swelling amid rapid debt accumulation strongly suggests:

• bridging loans used during staged acquisition payments
• temporary liquidity buffers ahead of full transfer pricing
• staggered settlement structures typical in large utility-energy asset sales
• pending regulatory approvals delaying full cash deployment 

Cash rises first → debt stays elevated → assets revalue → revenue shows up later. 

This pattern is classic in large asset transfers, not in real economic expansion. 

2.2A AEV’s Q3–9M: Not Evidence of Business Growth 

They are the accounting shadow of San Miguel’s 1H asset unloading—financed by AEV’s debt surge and disguised as operational growth. 

What looks like stability is really fragility recycling: AEV, like Meralco, has become a balance-sheet counterparty absorbing the system-wide effects of SMC’s asset-lightening strategy, with short-term profitability masking long-term stress. 

Segment 3.0 — The Batangas LNG–Ilijan–EERI Triangle 

3.A How One Deal Created Three Balance-Sheet Miracles 

If Segment 2 showed the operational weakness across SMC, Meralco, and Aboitiz, Segment 3 explains why their balance sheets still looked strangely “strong.” 

The answer lies in one of 2025’s most consequential but least-understood restructurings: 

The Batangas LNG–Ilijan–EERI triangle. 

This single transaction is the hidden engine behind the debt spikes, asset jumps, and sudden income boosts in Q2–Q3. 

Once you see this triangle, everything else snaps into place. 

1. The Triangle in One Line 

This wasn’t three companies expanding. 

It was one deal split three ways, enabling:

• SMC to book gains and create a “deleveraging” illusion
• Meralco to justify its 139% debt explosion
• Aboitiz to absorb a 24% debt spike while looking “strategically positioned” 

All this happened without producing a single additional unit of electricity. 

While the EERI–Ilijan complex is designed to deliver 1,200–2,500 MW of gas-fired capacity, as of Q3 only 850 MW are fully operational and a 425 MW unit remains uncertified — meaning the promised output exists largely on paper, not yet in reliable commercial dispatch. This reinforces the point: the triangle deal moved balance sheets faster than it delivered power.

2. How the Triangle Worked 

Here’s the real flow: 

• SMC restructured and monetized its stakes in Ilijan, Excellent Energy Resources Inc. (EERI) and Batangas LNG terminal
• Meralco bought in — financed almost entirely by new debt
• AboitizPower bought in — also financed by new debt 

The valuation uplift flowed back to SMC, booked as income and “deleveraging progress” 

The result: 

• All three balance sheets expanded
• None of them improved real output
• This was transaction-driven balance-sheet inflation, not industrial growth. 

3. Why This Triangle Matters: It Solves Every Q3 Puzzle 

Without this transaction, Q3 numbers look impossible:

• Meralco’s debt doubling despite falling electricity volume
• AEV’s Php 90B debt jump despite declining operating income
• SMC’s “improving leverage” despite worsening cash burn 

Once the triangle is added back in, the contradictions vanish:

• Meralco and AEV levered up to buy SMC’s assets
• SMC booked the valuation uplift as earnings
• All three appeared financially healthier — e.g. cash reserves jumped— without becoming economically healthier (Figure 5, middle graph) 

Q3 looked disconnected from reality because it was. 

4. The Illusion of Progress 

On paper:

• SMC: higher profit
• Meralco: larger asset base
• AEV: greater scale 

In substance:

• SMC gave up future revenue streams
• Meralco and AEV loaded up on liabilities
• System-wide fragility increased— e.g. accelerates the rising trend of financing charges. (Figure 5, lowest chart) 

The triangle recycles the same underlying cash flows, but layers more leverage on them. 

This is growth by relabeling, not growth by production. 

5. What This Signals for 2025–2026 

The triangle exposes the real state of Philippine corporate finance:

• cash liquidity is tight
• banks are reaching their risk limits
• debt has become the default funding model
• GDP “growth” is being propped up by inter-corporate transactions, not capex
• conglomerates are supporting each other through balance-sheet swaps 

Most importantly: 

This is a leverage loop, not an investment cycle. The mainstream is confusing balance-sheet inflation for economic progress. 

The Batangas LNG–Ilijan–EERI triangle created no new power capacity. Instead, it created the appearance of corporate strength.

Segment 4.0: Conclusion: How Concentration Becomes Crisis: The Philippine Energy Paradox 

The Philippine energy sector operates as a political monopoly with only the façade of market competition. 

The triad of San Miguel, Aboitiz, and Meralco illustrates deepening centralization, pillared on a political–economic feedback loop. 

Major industry transactions, carried out with either administration blessing or tacit nudging, function as implicit bailouts channeled through oligarchic control. 

This further entrenches concentration, while regulatory capture blinds the BSP, DOE, and ERC to mounting risks—encouraging moral hazard and ever-bolder risk-taking in expectation of eventual government backstops. 

This concentration funnels public and private savings into monopolistic hands, fueling outsized debt that competes directly with banks and government borrowings, intensifying crowding-out dynamics, resulting in worsening savings conditions, suppressing productivity gains, and constraining consumer growth. 

Fragility risks do not stop with the borrowers: counterparties—savers, local and foreign lenders, banks, and bond markets—are exposed as well, creating the potential for contagion across the broader economy. 

The feedback loop is self-reinforcing: policies fuel malinvestments, these malinvestments weaken the economy, and weakness justifies further interventions that deepen concentration, heighten vulnerability, and accelerate structural maladjustments. 

Viewed through a theoretical lens, San Miguel’s ever-expanding leverage fits a Minsky-style financial instability pattern—now extending into deals that serve as camouflaged backstops. This reflects what I call "benchmark-ism": an engineered illusion of stability designed to pull wool over the public’s eyes, mirroring Kindleberger’s cycle of manipulation, fraud, and corruption. 

Taken together, these dynamics reveal unmistakable symptoms of late-cycle fragility. 

What is framed as reform is, in truth, a vicious cycle of concentration, political capture, extraction, and systemic decay. 

____ 

references 

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

Prudent Investor Newsletters, Is San Miguel’s Ever-Growing Debt the "Sword of Damocles" Hanging over the Philippine Economy and the PSE? December 02, 2024

 

Q2–1H Debt-Fueled PSEi 30 Performance Disconnects from GDP—What Could Go Wrong

A lack of transparency results in distrust and a deep sense of insecurity — Dalai Lama 

In this issue

Q2–1H Debt-Fueled PSEi 30 Performance Disconnects from GDP—What Could Go Wrong

I. PSEi 30 Q2 2025: The Illusion of Resilience

IA. Q2 GDP at 5.5%: Headline Growth vs. Corporate Stagnation

IB. Structural Downtrend and Policy Transmission Breakdown

IC. Real Value Output in Decline, Political Optics and GDP Credibility

ID. Meralco’s Electricity Consumption Story: A Broken Proxy

II. Real Estate: The Recovery That Wasn’t

IIA. Overton Window vs. Market Reality

IIB. Property Developer Falling Revenues, Debt Surge and Liquidity Strain

IIC. Downstream Demand Weakness: Home Improvement & Construction Retail

III. Retail and Food Services: Mixed Signals

IIIA. Retail: Consumer Strain Amid Policy Sweet Spot

IIIB. Divergence Between Store Expansion and Organic Demand, Retail Growth vs. GDP Trends

IIIC. Food Services: Jollibee’s Dominance and Sector’s Growth Deceleration

IV. Banking Revenues and Income: A Stalling Engine

IVA. Banking Sector: Credit Surge, Revenue Stall

V. The PSEi 30 Net Income Story

VA. Earnings Breakdown: SMC’s Income Dominance, Accounting Prestidigitation?

VB. SMC’s Financial Engineering? Escalating Systemic Risk

VI. Debt and Liquidity: The Structural Bind

VIA. Mounting Liquidity Stress: Soaring Debt and The Deepening Leverage Trap

VIB. Transparency Concerns, Desperate Calls for Easing, Cash Reserves Under Pressure

VII. Conclusion: The Illusion of Resilience: As the Liquidity Tide Recedes, Who’s Swimming Naked? 

____

Q2–1H Debt-Fueled PSEi 30 Performance Disconnects from GDP—What Could Go Wrong 

Beneath headline growth lies a fragile mix of policy stimulus, rising leverage, and mounting stagnation—masking systemic fragility. 

I. PSEi 30 Q2 2025: The Illusion of Resilience 

Nota Bene:

PSEi 30 data contains redundancies, as consolidated reporting includes both parent firms and their subsidiaries.

Chart Notes:

1A: Based on same year index members; may include revisions to past data

1B: Historical comparison; includes only members present during the end of each respective period; based on unaudited releases

IA. Q2 GDP at 5.5%: Headline Growth vs. Corporate Stagnation

Q2 GDP at 5.5%?   

On paper, that should have translated into strong corporate earnings—especially when juxtaposed with the financial pulse of the PSEi 30. 

Yet that headline growth masks a deeper dissonance: These firms, positioned as frontline beneficiaries of BSP’s easing cycle and historic deficit spending, should have reflected the policy tailwinds.

Figure 1

Instead, the disconnect is glaring: while nominal GDP surged 7.2% in Q2 and 7.4% in H1, aggregate revenues of the PSEi 30 contracted by 0.3% in Q2 and barely budged at 1.7% for the first half. (Figure 1, upper graph) 

IB. Structural Downtrend and Policy Transmission Breakdown 

More troubling, this isn’t a one-off anomaly. 

2025’s performance merely extends a structural downtrend that peaked in 2022—raising uncomfortable questions about transmission mechanisms, institutional fragility, and the real beneficiaries of expansionary policy. 

Consider this: Universal bank credit hit a historic high in June 2025, with 12.63% growth, the fastest pace since 2022. Yet PSEi 30 revenue growth in H1 limped to just +1.7%. The juxtaposition is telling. (Figure 1, lower window) 

Rather than fueling productive consumption or corporate expansion, credit appears channeled into asset churn and balance sheet patchwork—rolling debt, patching liquidity gaps, gaming duration mismatches. It’s a kinetic mirage, where velocity substitutes for vitality—hallmarks of overleveraging and diminishing returns. 

The very tools meant to stimulate growth now signal policy transmission failure, where liquidity flows but impact stalls. 

IC. Real Value Output in Decline, Political Optics and GDP Credibility 

Worst still, when adjusted using the same deflators applied to GDP, the PSEi 30’s real output doesn’t just stagnate—it slips into quasi-recession. Both Q2 and H1 figures turn negative, ≈ -2% and -.4%, exposing a structural rot beneath the nominal gloss. (Note 1)

Figure 2 

And this isn’t a statistical fluke. 

A full third of the index—10 out of 30 firms—posted revenue contractions, led by holding firms San Miguel, Alliance Global, and Aboitiz Equity. These aren’t fringe players—they’re positional market leaders. (Figure 2, upper table) 

As a side note, AGI’s revenue decline was partly driven by the deconsolidation of Golden Arches Development Corp, following its reclassification as an associate in March 2025 (Note 2) 

The gap is too wide, too persistent a trend, to be dismissed as cyclical noise. 

Was the PSEi 30 shortfall simply papered over by government spending, with a boost from external trade? 

Or was GDP itself inflated for political ends—to justify lower interest rates, defend the proposed Php 6.793 trillion 2026 budget (+7.4% YoY), and tighten the administration’s grip on power? 

Most likely, the truth lies in some combination of both. 

ID. Meralco’s Electricity Consumption Story: A Broken Proxy 

That’s not all. 

Meralco’s electricity sales volume contracted −0.33% YoY in Q2, dragging H1 growth down to a mere +0.51%. This isn’t just a soft patch—it’s historic: 

• First Q2 contraction since Q1 2021,
• First negative H1 since 2020, —both periods marked by pandemic-induced recession. 

More tellingly, Meralco’s quarterly GWh chart—once a reliable proxy for real GDP—has broken correlation. The divergence, which began in Q1 2024, has now widened into a chasm. (Figure 2, lower chart) 

To compound this, peso electricity peso sales shrank by 1.74% in Q2, and Meralco’s topline declines—both in pesos and GWh—dovetailed with the 8% sales slump in aircon market leader Concepcion Industries Corporation, as we discussed in an earlier post. (see references) 

When electricity consumption decouples from GDP, it raises uncomfortable questions: 

• Is real consumption being overstated? 
• Are headline figures engineered to justify policy optics—lower rates, ballooning budgets, and political consolidation? 

The numbers suggest more than statistical noise. They hint at a manufactured narrative, where growth is declared, but not felt. 

II. Real Estate: The Recovery That Wasn’t 

IIA. Overton Window vs. Market Reality 

There’s more. The public has recently been bombarded with official-consensus messaging about a supposed real estate ‘recovery.’ 

 The BSP even revised its property benchmark to show consistently rising prices—curiously, at a time of record vacancies. (see references) By that logic, the laws of supply and demand no longer apply. 

To reinforce the recovery echo chamber, authorities published modest Q2 and H1 NGDP/RGDP figures of 5.7% and 5.4%, respectively. 

IIB. Property Developer Falling Revenues, Debt Surge and Liquidity Strain 

Figure 3

Yet the hard numbers tell another story: stagnation gripped the top 5 publicly listed property developers—SMPH, ALI, MEG, RLC, and VLL—whose aggregate Q2 revenues grew by a paltry 1.23% YoY. (Figure 3 topmost image)

Adjusted for GDP deflators, that’s a real contraction. In effect, published rent and real estate sales may be teetering on the brink of recession.

The relevance is clear: these five developers accounted for nearly 30% of the sector’s Q2 GDP, meaning their results are a critical proxy for actual conditions—assuming their disclosures are accurate.

Yet, if there’s one metric that’s consistently rising, it’s debt.

Published liabilities surged 5.5% or Php 53.924 billion, reaching a record Php 1.032 trillion in Q2. Meanwhile, cash reserves plunged to their lowest level since 2019. (Figure 3, middle chart)

And yet, net income rose 11.15% to Php 35.4 billion—a figure that invites scrutiny, given flat revenues, rising leverage, and tightening liquidity.

In reality, developers appear forced to draw down cash to sustain operations and patch liquidity gaps, a fragile foundation to prop up the GDP consensus.

IIC. Downstream Demand Weakness: Home Improvement & Construction Retail

Worse, the sector’s downstream segment remains mired in doldrums.

Sales of publicly listed market leaders in home improvement and construction supplies—Wilcon and AllHome—fell -1.95% and -22.1% in Q2, respectively. Both chains have been struggling since Q2 2023, but the latest data are striking: despite no store expansion, AllHome reported a -28% collapse in same-store sales, while Wilcon’s growth lagged despite opening new outlets in 2024–2025, underscoring weak organic demand and the record vacancies. (Figure 3, lowest visual)

Strip away the official spin, and the underlying pattern emerges: insufficient revenues, surging debt, and shrinking liquidity. Overlay this with record-high employment statistics, historic credit expansion and fiscal stimulus—what happens when these falters? 

Consumers are already struggling to sustain retail and property demand. Yet, embracing the ‘build-and-they-will-come’ dogma, developers continue to expand supply, worsening the malinvestment cycle: supply gluts, strained revenues, debt build-up, and thinning cash buffers—a crucible for a future real estate debt crisis. 

III. Retail and Food Services: Mixed Signals 

IIIA. Retail: Consumer Strain Amid Policy Sweet Spot 

It’s not all bad news for consumers. 

Some segments gained traction from the “sweet spot” of easy money and fiscal stimulus—manifested in record bank credit and near all-time high employment rates. 

Figure 4

The most notable beneficiaries were non-construction retail chains, where expanded selling space (malls, outlets, stores) lifted revenues. The combined sales of the six listed majors—SM, Puregold, Robinsons Retail, Philippine Seven, SSI, and Metro Retail—rose 8.6% in Q2, their strongest showing since Q2 2023. (Figure 4, topmost graph) 

Still, signals remain mixed. In Q2, retail NGDP slipped to its lowest level since Q1 2021, while real consumer GDP bounced to 5.5%, its highest since Q1 2023. 

Company results reflected this divergence:

• SM: +8.9% YoY (best since Q4 2023)
• PGOLD: +12.3%
• RRHI: +5.9%
• SEVN: +8.6%
• SSI: −1.6%
• MRSGI: +6.6%

IIIB. Divergence Between Store Expansion and Organic Demand, Retail Growth vs. GDP Trends 

Interestingly, while Philippine Seven [PSE: SEVN] continues to boost headline growth via new store openings, same-store sales have operated in negative territory from Q4 2024 to Q2 2025. This divergence reveals how money at the fringes conceals internal vulnerabilities—weakening demand paired with oversupply. Once the benefit of new outlets erodes, excess capacity will magnify sales pressure, likely translating into eventual losses. (Figure 4, middle pane) 

Even as listed non-construction retail firms outpaced retail NGDP (6.8%) and RGDP (6.15%), their performance only partially resonates with the real GDP dynamic. 

Yet, the embedded trend across retail sales, consumer GDP, and retail NGDP remains conspicuously downward. 

IIIC. Food Services: Jollibee’s Dominance and Sector’s Growth Deceleration 

The food service industry echoes this entropy. Jollibee’s domestic sales grew 10.13% in Q2, pulling aggregate revenue growth of the four listed food chains—JFC, PIZZA, MAXS, FRUIT—to 9.6%, still below the 10.7% NGDP and 8.34% RGDP for the sector. The growth trajectory, led by JFC, continues to decelerate. (Figure 4, lowest diagram) 

Notably, JFC accounted for 86% of aggregate listed food service sales, yet only 54% of Q2 Food Services GDP—a testament to its PACMAN strategy of horizontal expansion—an approach I first described in 2019—enabled by easy-money leverage in its pursuit of market dominance (see references) 

Unfortunately, visibility on the sector is now diminished. Since AGI reclassified Golden Arches (McDonald’s Philippines) as a non-core segment, its performance is no longer disclosed. For reference, McDonald’s sales plunged 11.5% in Q1 2025. 

Losing this datapoint is regrettable, given McDonald’s is Jollibee’s closest competitor and a critical indicator of industry health. 

IV. Banking Revenues and Income: A Stalling Engine 

IVA. Banking Sector: Credit Surge, Revenue Stall 

Finally, despite all-time high loan volumes, bank revenues slowed sharply in Q2—an unexpected deceleration given the credit surge. The top three PSEi 30 banks—BDO, BPI, and MBT—posted a modest 7.02% revenue increase, dragging 1H growth down to 7.99%. For context, Q1 2025 revenues rose by 9%, while Q2 2024 saw a robust 21.8% jump. Full-year 2024 growth stood at 20.5%, making Q2 2025’s performance less than half of the prior year’s pace. 

We dissected the worsening conditions of the banking sector in depth last week (see reference section) 

V. The PSEi 30 Net Income Story 

VA. Earnings Breakdown: SMC’s Income Dominance, Accounting Prestidigitation? 

For the PSEi 30, if revenue stagnation already stands out, net income tells a similar story.

Figure 5 

Q2 2025 net income rose by 11.5% (Php 28.7 billion), pulling down 1H income growth to 13.8% (Php 68.6 billion). While Q2 gross net income was the highest since 2020, its marginal increase and subdued growth rates marked the second slowest since 2021. (Figure 5, upper chart) 

The devil, of course, lies in the details. 

The biggest contributor to the PSEi 30’s net income growth in Q2 and 1H 2025 was San Miguel Corp. Its net increase of Php 18.7 billion in Q2 and Php 53.19 billion in H1 accounted for a staggering 65.2% and 77.54% of the total PSEi 30 net income growth, respectively—despite comprising just 8.5% and 11.8% of the index’s gross net income. (Figure 5, lower table) 

In effect, SMC was not merely a contributor but the primary engine behind the index’s earnings rebound.

Yet this dominance raises more questions than it answers.

Despite a sharp revenue slowdown and only marginal improvements in profit margins—still below pre-pandemic levels—SMC reported a substantial jump in cash holdings and a deceleration in debt accumulation. But this apparent financial strength stems not from operational resilience, but from non-core gains: fair value revaluations, FX translation effects, and dividends from associates.

The result is a balance sheet that appears healthier than it is, with cash levels inflated by accounting maneuvers rather than organic surplus.

VB. SMC’s Financial Engineering? Escalating Systemic Risk

Beneath the surface, SMC’s debt dynamics resemble quasi-Ponzi finance—borrowing Php 681 billion to repay Php 727 billion in 1H 2025, while plugging the gap with preferred share issuance and asset monetization. The latter includes the deconsolidation and valuation uplift of its residual stakes in the Ilijan power facility and Excellent Energy Resources Inc. (EERI), as well as the $3.3 billion LNG deal with Meralco and AboitizPower in Batangas. Though framed as strategic partnerships, these transactions involved asset transfers that contributed heavily to the surge in reported profits.

The simulacrum of deleveraging—from Php 1.56 trillion in Q4 2024 to Php 1.506 trillion in Q2/1H 2025—appears to be a product of financial engineering, not structural improvement. This disconnect between reported profitability and underlying liquidity mechanics raises concerns about transparency and sustainability.

In a market where banks, corporates, and individuals hold significant exposure to SMC debt (estimated at 4.3% of June 2025’s total financial resources), the company’s accounting-driven cash buildup may signal escalating systemic fragility—a risk that the recent equity selloff seems to be pricing in ahead of the curve.

Stripped of SMC’s potentially inflated income, Q2 and H1 net income for the PSEi 30 would rank as the second-lowest and lowest since 2021, respectively—underscoring the fragility behind the headline performance.

At the same time, and with curious timing, SMC announced its intent to undertake large-scale flood control across Metro Manila and Laguna—"at no cost to the government or the Filipino people". Whether this reflects a genuine civic gesture or a strategic bid to accumulate political capital remains unclear. But the optics are unmistakable: as SMC’s earnings distort the index’s headline strength, it simultaneously positions itself as a public benefactor.

Yet, is this narrative groundwork for a future bailout, or a preemptive reframing of corporate rescue as national service?

VI. Debt and Liquidity: The Structural Bind

VIA. Mounting Liquidity Stress: Soaring Debt and The Deepening Leverage Trap 

Finally, let us move on to the PSEi 30’s liquidity metrics: debt and cash. 

If there’s one structurally entrenched dynamic in the PSEi 30, it’s borrowing.

Figure 6

Published short- and long-term debt of the non-financial PSEi 30 surged to an all-time high of Php 5.95 trillion in 1H 2025—up 7.66% year-on-year. (Figure 6, topmost chart) 

The net increase of Php 423 billion amounted to 74.7% of the gross net income and a staggering 617% of the YoY net income increase. 

Including the bills payable of the four PSEi 30 banks—Php 859.7 billion, excluding bonds—total leverage rises to Php 6.8 trillion—with net borrowing gains of Php 760.5 billion, overshadowing declared net income of Php 566.7 billion. 

In short, the PSEi 30 borrowed Php 1.34 to generate every Php 1 in profit—assuming SMC’s profits are genuine. 

And this borrowing binge wasn’t isolated. Among the 26 non-financial firms, 18 increased their debt in 1H 2025. 

On average, debt now accounts for 27% of assets—or total liabilities plus equity. 

SMC, once the poster child of corporate borrowing, ceded the title this period to Meralco, Ayala Corp, and Aboitiz Equity Ventures. (Figure 6, middle table) 

Notably, MER and AEV’s borrowing spree coincides with their asset transfer deals with SMC. Whether this reflects strategic alignment or a quiet effort to absorb or ‘share’ SMC’s financial burden to deflect public scrutiny—such optics suggest a coordinated dance. 

If true, good luck to them—financial kabuki always yields to economic gravity. 

VIB. Transparency Concerns, Desperate Calls for Easing, Cash Reserves Under Pressure 

The thing is, transparency remains a persistent concern, especially in periods of mounting financial stress or pre-crisis fragility. 

First, there’s no assurance that published debt figures reflect full exposure. Some firms may be masking liabilities through other liabilities (leases, trade payables) or off-balance sheet arrangements. 

Second, asset valuations underpinning declared balance sheets may be unreliable. Accounting ratios offer little comfort when market liquidity evaporates—see the 2023 U.S. bank crisis or China’s ongoing property implosion. 

Despite historic borrowing and declared profits, PSEi 30 cash reserves barely budged—up just 0.96% YoY, with a net increase of Php 14.07 billion following two years of retrenchment. Cash levels have been on a steady decline since their 2020 peak. We suspect that recent upticks in cash are not in spite of borrowing, but because of it. 

This growing debt-income-revenue mismatch explains the establishment’s increasingly desperate calls for “MOAR easing” and declarations of a real estate “recovery.” 

VII. Conclusion: The Illusion of Resilience: As the Liquidity Tide Recedes, Who’s Swimming Naked? 

The PSEi 30’s revenue stagnation belies the optics of headline GDP growth. Even in the supposed “sweet spot”—BSP easing, FX soft-peg subsidies, and record stimulus—consumer strain cuts across sectors.

Stimulus may persist, but its marginal impact is fading—manifesting the law of diminishing returns. The disconnect between policy effort and real economy traction is widening.

Q2 and H1 income growth seem to increasingly reflect on balance sheet theatrics driven more by financial engineering and accounting acrobatics than by operational reality.

When earnings are staged rather than earned, the gap between corporate performance and macro reality doesn’t just widen—it exposes a deepening structural mismatch. 

Deepening leverage also anchors the PSEi 30’s fundamentals. On both the demand and supply sides, debt props up activity while cash thins. The same fragility echoes through the banking system and money supply mechanics. 

This is not resilience—it’s choreography. And when liquidity recedes, the performance ends. 

As Buffett warned: "when the liquidity tide goes out, we’ll see who’s been swimming naked" We might be hosting a nudist festival. 

___ 

Notes: 

Note 1 While GDP measures value-added and corporate revenues reflect gross turnover, applying the same deflators provides a reasonable proxy for real comparison. 

Note 2: Alliance Global 17 Q August 18, 2025: Effective March 17, 2025, GADC was deconsolidated and ceased to be a business segment as it becomes an associate from that date, yet the Group’s ownership interest over GADC has not changed p.2 

References 

Prudent Investor Newsletter, Q1 2025 PSEi 30 Performance: Deepening Debt-Driven Gains Amid Slowing Economic Momentum, June 01, 2025 (Substack) 

Prudent Investor Newsletter, Concepcion Industries Cools Off—And So Might GDP and the PLUS-Bound PSEi 30 (or Not?) July 28, 2025 

Prudent Investor Newsletter, The Confidence Illusion: BSP’s Property Index Statistical Playbook to Reflate Property Bubble and Conceal Financial Fragility, July 13, 2025(Substack) 

Prudent Investor Newsletter, Jollibee’s Fantastic Paradigm Shift: From Consumer Value to Aggressive Debt-Financed Pacman Strategy March 3, 2019 

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