USD-PHP at Record Highs: The Three Philippine Fault Lines—Energy Fragility, Fiscal Bailouts, Bank Stress

 

The pretended solicitude for the nation’s welfare, for the public in general, and for the poor ignorant masses in particular was a mere blind. The governments wanted inflation and credit expansion, they wanted booms and easy money—Ludwig von Mises

In this issue:

USD-PHP at Record Highs: The Three Philippine Fault Lines—Energy Fragility, Fiscal Bailouts, Bank Stress

I. USDPHP Record, BSP Rate Cuts, and Banking-Fiscal Fragility

II. Strong US Dollar Narrative Debunked

III. BSP’s Easing Cycle, Data vs. Narrative

IV. Cui Bono? (Redux)

V. More Energy Bailouts: Prime Infrastructure-First Gen’s Batangas Energy Buy-in Deal

VI. Political Redistribution: Consumers to Subsidize Debt-Heavy, Elite-Owned Renewables

VII. Averch–Johnson Trap and Public Choice Theory in Action

VIII. Elite Debt vs. Counterparty Exposure, Bank Centralization of Financial Assets

IX. Bank Liquidity Strains Beneath the Surface

X. The Wile E. Coyote Illusion of Stability, Bank’s Strategic Drift to Consumer Lending

XI. Keynesian Malinvestment and Policy Distortions

XII. AFS Losses and HTM Fragility

XIII. Banks Compound the Crowding Out Dynamics

XIV. The Biggest Borrower Is the State

XV. Public Revenues Are Collapsing

XVI. A Budget as Bailout

XVII. The Sovereign–FX–Savings Doom Loop

VIII. Conclusion: The Real Story: Bailouts Everywhere

XIX. Encore: From “Manageable Deficit” to Crisis Trigger 

Notice: This will likely be my last post of 2025 unless something interesting comes up. Have a safe, relaxing, and enjoyable holiday season! 🎄🎅

USD-PHP at Record Highs: The Three Philippine Fault Lines—Energy Fragility, Fiscal Bailouts, Bank Stress 

From peso weakness to systemic unraveling: energy and fiscal bailouts, malinvestment, and the illusion of stability. 

I. USDPHP Record, BSP Rate Cuts, and Banking-Fiscal Fragility 

On December 9, the USDPHP surged to a new record high—its third all-time highs since crossing the BSP’s 59-level “Maginot Line” on October 28. Yet despite the historic print, the pair has traded within an unusually narrow range—depicting active BSP intervention to suppress volatility 

This suppression of volatility has continued to date, with USDPHP retreating to the 58 level. The pair closed at 58.7 on December 19, roughly 0.9% below the record high of 59.22. 

Media outlets swiftly attributed the move to expectations of a BSP rate cut. Others defaulted to the familiar refrain of a “strong dollar.” 

II. Strong US Dollar Narrative Debunked 

Let us address the latter first. 

On the day the peso set a new record low, the US dollar weakened against 24 of the 28 currency pairs tracked by Exante Data. The Philippine peso stood out as one of only four Asian outliers—during a week when Asian FX broadly strengthened.

Figure 1

Moreover, the USDPHP has been on a steady ascent since May 2025, while the dollar index (DXY) peaked in September and has since shown signs of exhaustion. There is zero empirical basis to attribute this peso collapse to dollar strength. (Figure 1, topmost pane) 

But attribution often follows convenience—particularly when political patrons prefer comforting narratives. 

III. BSP’s Easing Cycle, Data vs. Narrative 

Now back to the first premise: interest rates as tinder to the USDPHP fire. 

Two days after the peso hit its latest record, the BSP announced its fifth policy rate cut of 2025 on December 11, the eighth since the easing cycle began in August 2024. This was accompanied by two reserve requirement (RRR) cuts—in September 2024 and March 2025—the latter bundled with a doubling of deposit insurance coverage. 

Why this aggressive easing? 

Like a religious incantation, the establishment rationalized BSP’s actions as growth stimulus. As the Inquirer noted, the BSP acted "as concerns about weakening economic growth outweighed the risks of peso depreciation." 

The BSP claims data-dependence. But has it examined its own history? 

Instead of catalyzing growth, repeated easing cycles have coincided with GDP deceleration— from 2012–2019, and again during the post-pandemic banking system rescue from Q2 2021 onward, even after interim rate hikes. (Figure 1, middle window) 

The much-cited “flood control” episode only emerged in Q3 2025, long after the damage was done. 

So the question remains: cui bono? 

IV. Cui Bono? (Redux) 

Certainly not MSMEs. 

The beneficiaries are balance-sheet-heavy incumbents with preferential access to credit, regulatory relief, and FX protection. 

Bank compliance rates for MSME lending fell to historic lows in Q3 2025 as headline GDP slowed to pandemic levels. (Figure 1, lowest chart) 

The post–Global Financial Crisis easing playbook produced the same result: banks found it cheaper to pay penalties than lend to MSMEs. 

Most tellingly, the BSP removed the MSME lending compliance data from its website last week. 

And why now?

Because the data exposes the failure of both the Magna Carta for MSMEs and the BSP’s easing doctrine: liquidity was created, but it never reached the productive economy—the transmission channel broke down. 

This is not a failure of transparency. 

The peso is not reacting to rate cuts as stimulus. It is repricing a regime in which monetary easing now functions as fiscal accommodation and elite stabilization—diverting and diminishing productive credit. 

Removing an indicator does not eliminate the risk factor—it merely eliminates early-warning signaling 

And elite debt is one of the central forces driving this policy response. 

V. More Energy Bailouts: Prime Infrastructure-First Gen’s Batangas Energy Buy-in Deal 

As we have previously noted: “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.” (see reference, PSEi 30 Q3 and 9M 2025 Performance, November) 

And that’s just the PSEi 30. 

Financial fragility has intensified to the point that authorities have begun instituting explicit and implicit bailout measures. 

The regulatory relief via the suspension and forgiveness of real property taxes (RPTs) for independent power producers (IPPs) provided circumstantial—but powerful—evidence that the SMC–AEV–Meralco triangle was not an isolated deal, but part of a phased continuum: transactional camouflage, regulatory condonation, financial backstopping—ultimately leading to either socialization or forced liberalization. (see reference, Oligarchic Bailout—December) 

Crucially, the asset-transfer phenomenon in the energy sector is not confined to the SMC–AEV–MER axis. (see reference Inside the SMC–Meralco–AEV Energy Deal—November) 

Prime Infrastructure, controlled by tycoon Enrique Razon, acquired 60% of Lopez owned First Gen’s Batangas assets for Php50 billion. This occurred alongside broader liquidity-raising measures by the Lopez Group, including the sale of roughly 30,000 square meters of its ABS-CBN headquarters in Quezon City for Php 6.24 billion, and the termination of the ABS-CBN–TV5 partnership due to financial disagreements. 

VI. Political Redistribution: Consumers to Subsidize Debt-Heavy, Elite-Owned Renewables 

At the same time, regulatory support has extended beyond asset transfers. 

The Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) approved the collection of the Green Energy Auction Allowance (GEA-All) on top of the existing Feed-in Tariff Allowance (FIT-All), explicitly allowing renewable developers to recover costs directly from consumers. These mechanisms institutionalize tariff pass-throughs as balance-sheet support.

Figure 2

Aggregate data underscore the scale of the problem. As of 9M 2025, the combined debt of major listed renewable firms—AP, ACEN, FGEN, CREC, SPNEC, and ALTER—surged from Php Php490.1 billion in 2024 to Php 682.2 billion in 2025, a 39.2% increase! (Figure 2, topmost table) 

The sharpest percentage increases came from SPNEC, ALTER, and CREC. 

Taken together, debt is the common thread now binding the Philippine energy sector’s restructuring. 

Beyond the SMC–AEV–Meralco triangle, leverage stress is visible across ownership groups. First Gen’s heavy debt load, the Lopez Group’s asset disposals, and Prime Infrastructure’s acquisition of operating assets all point to balance-sheet defense rather than expansion. These are not growth reallocations but late-cycle capital triage. 

The Prime Infra–First Gen transaction fits the same pattern seen elsewhere: risk is being relocated, not resolved. Mature energy assets migrate toward entities best positioned to manage regulatory and political risk, while leverage remains embedded in the system. Market discipline is deferred, price discovery suppressed, and time is bought—without reducing aggregate debt exposure and systemic malinvestments

These are not M&A events. These are distressed-asset reallocations under sovereign protection. 

Renewables exhibit the same logic through a different channel. 

VII. Averch–Johnson Trap and Public Choice Theory in Action 

Under FIT-All and GEA-All, tariff pass-throughs convert private leverage into consumer-backed cash flows. 

This is the Averch–Johnson trap in practice: capital intensity and debt are rewarded, inefficiency is preserved, and default risk is implicitly backstopped—reaffirming public choice theory in action: concentrated benefits, dispersed costs; privatized gains, socialized losses. 

Firms such as SPGEN, ALTER, and ACEN are not anomalies. They are rational actors responding to a regulatory regime that socializes balance-sheet stress through electricity prices. 

All these said, asset transfers in conventional power and tariff-embedded support for renewables show that the sector is no longer allocating capital for efficiency or growth. It is preserving leverage. Whether through strategic transactions or regulatory pass-throughs, losses are being deferred and dispersed—into consumers, banks, and ultimately the sovereign—confirming that the energy sector has entered a late-cycle rescue phase rather than a genuine transition. 

In the Philippines, ESG is not a financing premium—it has become a political guarantee of revenue recovery. 

In essence, these bailouts are not energy policy. They are rent-seeking protectionism.  

VIII. Elite Debt vs. Counterparty Exposure, Bank Centralization of Financial Assets 

But elite debt isn’t the only problem. 

For every borrower is a creditor—a counterparty. And banks are heavily exposed. 

Total financial resources (TFR) rose 6.76% to Php 35.311 trillion, with bank assets expanding faster at 7.2% to Php29.21 trillion last October. (Figure 2, middle image) 

Both sit at the second-highest nominal levels on record. Banks now hold 82.74% of TFR, and universal/commercial banks (UCs) account for 76.8% of that. UC banks make up 92.87% of total bank assets. 

The Bank-UC share of TFR has risen steadily since 2007—and the pandemic recession accelerated that centralization trend. 

Fundamentally, bank centralization of financial assets means:

• They dominate credit allocation and distribution.
• They generate and circulate most liquidity and money supply.
• In a low-volume, savings-deprived system, they are the dominant players in capital markets (stocks and bonds).
• They command the financial-intermediation process. 

A BSP-driven concentration of financial assets therefore escalates concentration risk. Yet almost no mainstream analysts address this. 

IX. Bank Liquidity Strains Beneath the Surface 

Even less is said about the intensifying liquidity strains in the banking system. 

Despite supposedly “manageable” NPLs, banks’ cash-to-deposit ratio hit all-time lows last October. Liquid assets-to-deposits plunged to 47.44%— a level last seen during the March 2020 pandemic outbreak—essentially erasing the BSP’s historic Php 2.3 trillion liquidity injection. (Figure 2, lowest graph) 

This signals that tightening bank cash reserves mirrors tightening corporate liquidity. 

And the pressures are not just from the elite portfolios—they span bank operating structure. 

X. The Wile E. Coyote Illusion of Stability, Bank’s Strategic Drift to Consumer Lending

Figure 3

NPL ratios have been propped up by a Wile E. Coyote velocity race: NPLs are near all-time highs, but their growth is masked by faster loan expansion. The 3.33% gross NPL ratio in October reflects gross NPL growth of 2.43% YoY versus 10.7% TLP growth. As long as credit velocity outruns impairment, the illusion of stability persists. (Figure 3, topmost visual) 

Yet NPLs also remain strangely “stable” even as GDP momentum breaks and unemployment rises—an inversion of normal credit dynamics. In a normal cycle, deteriorating growth and labor markets should push impairments higher; the fact that they don’t suggests suppression, rollover refinancing, and delayed recognition rather than genuine asset quality. 

Consumer credit cards illustrate the spiral—receivables at Php 1.094 trillion, NPLs at Php 52.72 billion, both at record highs. (Figure 3, middle diagram) 

Since 2020, the BSP’s rate cap and the recession pushed banks toward a consumer-credit model—where consumer credit growth now outpaces production loans. That dynamic amplifies inflation: too much money chasing too few goods. 

The consumer-loan share of UC lending (ex-real estate) hit a record 13.73% in October, while production loans fell to 86.27%—an all-time low. (Figure 3, lowest chart) 

XI. Keynesian Malinvestment and Policy Distortions 

This reflects Keynesian stimulus ideology—the belief that consumers can borrow and spend their way to prosperity. Its Achilles heel is the disregard for balance sheets and malinvestment risks. 

Banks have now wagered not only on elites but a widening consumer base—including subprime borrowers. And because participation in consumer credit remains limited, concentration keeps rising. 

Pandemic-era regulatory relief still suppresses benchmark NPL recognition.

XII. AFS Losses and HTM Fragility 

Simultaneously, banks accelerated balance-sheet leverage through Available-for-Sale (AFS) assets—another velocity game.

Figure 4

Losses in financial assets have slowed earnings. AFS exposure surged from 3Q 2023 to today, closing the gap with Held-to-Maturity (HTM). As of October, AFS and HTM made up 41.04% and 51.21% of financial assets, respectively. (Figure 4, topmost diagram) 

Financial-asset losses climbed from Php 16.94 B (1Q 2023) to Php 41.45 B (3Q 2025), which capped profit growth—banks earned just 2.5% more in 3Q 2025. (Figure 4, middle image) 

HTMs act as hidden NPLs and suppressed mark-to-market losses, worsening liquidity drought. Cash ratios peaked in 2013 and have declined ever since—mirroring the rise of HTM.

It’s no coincidence that record-high HTMs accompany the surge in banks’ net claims on central government (NCoCG). In October, NCoCG hit Php5.663 T (2nd-highest on record), and HTMs reached Php4.022 T (also near a record). (Figure 4, lowest graphs) 

Siloed government securities—rationalized under "Basel compliance"—combined with NPL overhang (consumer and likely under-reported production) and asset losses help explain slowing deposit growth. 

Velocity masking is inherently pro-cyclical. When velocity slows, NPL truth appears—all at once 

XIII. Banks Compound the Crowding Out Dynamics 

Banks are now forced to compete with elites and the government for scarce household savings.

Figure 5

Bank bonds and bills payable stood at Php1. 548 trillion in October 2025, down 3.44% YoY but still hovering near record highs. (Figure 5, topmost pane) 

To meet FX requirements and even assist the BSP in propping up Gross International Reserves (GIR), banks have increasingly tapped global capital markets. BSP data show the banking system’s external debt rose 0.3% to $28.97 billion in Q3 2025—its third‑highest level. BDO itself raised US$500 million through five‑year fixed‑rate senior notes in November 2025. (Figure 5, middle graph) 

Meanwhile, BSP’s Net Foreign Assets climbed 2.12% YoY, driven by a 26.3% surge in Other Deposits Corporation (ODC) FX assets—a growth spiral over the last three months that underscores a rapid FX-liquidity build-up outside deposit funding and a scramble for offshore liquidity. 

When banks become the transmission channel for fiscal deficits, corporate rescues, consumer support, and green‑subsidy pipelines, the endgame isn’t stability—it is deposit fragility, duration risk (asset‑liability mismatch), and the erosion of market discipline. These are the seeds of a balance sheet crisis, with BSP backstops looming ominously over a weak peso. 

XIV. The Biggest Borrower Is the State 

The biggest borrowers are not only the elites and the banks—the government itself stands at the center. 

Last September, the Bureau of Treasury signaled that public debt would ease toward year-end through scheduled amortizations and a slowdown in issuance. 

We warned that without genuine spending restraint; any dip would be a temporary statistical blip. 

And so it was. After two months of declines, public debt surged 9.6% YoY to Php 17.562 trillion in October—just Php1 billion shy of July’s record Php17.563 trillion. Local borrowings climbed 10.6%, outpacing external debt growth of 7.53%. 

Why would debt slow when deficit spending remains unchecked? 

XV. Public Revenues Are Collapsing 

Authorities and media largely ignored the mechanics behind October’s seasonal surplus (Php 11.154 billion), driven by a reporting artifact (the shift from monthly to quarterly VAT). 

They fixated on the headline numbers: a spending dip linked to the flood-control scandal, and 6.64% shrinkage in collections. 

The bigger picture was ignored: BIR’s 1.02% growth was its weakest since December 2023; Bureau of Customs fell 4.5%; non‑tax revenues collapsed 53.3% 

The 10-month numbers confirm structural decay: revenue growth slid to 1.13%, the weakest since 2020. Tax revenue growth of 7.45% is also at post-pandemic lows. BIR’s 9.6% is a four-year trough; BoC’s 0.9% has drifted toward contraction; non-tax revenues collapsed 36.7%—the weakest since at least 2009. 

A narrow decline in the fiscal deficit (Php1.106 trillion—third-largest on record) provides no comfort. With two months remaining, the deficit can surpass 2022’s Php1.112 trillion and approach 2021’s Php1.203 trillion—entirely dependent on tax performance. (Figure 5, lowest visual) 

Since GDP drives revenues, these numbers reaffirm the dynamic: slowing growth, rising unemployment, yet oddly “stable” NPLs—a contradiction sustained by velocity illusions. 

Expenditure growth may remain muted by political scandal, but revenue weakness is decisive. 

XVI. Debt and Debt Servicing Is Crowding Out Everything Else 

Record public debt now drives record servicing. As of October, Php1.935 trillion in debt payments has nearly breached the Php2.02-trillion 2024 record—a gap of barely 4.3% with two months to go. 

The identity is mechanical: (as discussed last August, see reference)

• More debt → more servicing → less for everything else
• Public and private spending are crowded out
• Revenue cannot keep pace with amortization
• FX depreciation and inflation risks accelerate
• Higher taxes become inevitable

This process is becoming more apparent by the month. 

XVI. A Budget as Bailout 

Yet ideology prevails. Despite weakening revenues and slowing nominal GDP, Congress has passed a record Php 6.793‑trillion 2026 budget. 

Figure 6 

The headline implies “just” a 7.4% increase from 2025, but because spending targets for 2025 were revised downward, the 2026 expansion is far larger once fully implemented. (Figure 6, topmost window) 

The cut to DPWH—politically expedient after a corruption uproar—was simply reallocated to entities like PhilHealth. No discipline, just reshuffling. 

Record spending in the face of a deteriorating economy is not stimulus—it is a fiscal bailout in progress. 

XVII. The Sovereign–FX–Savings Doom Loop 

An economy with an extreme savings-investment gap and a quasi-‘soft peg’ to the USD must fund deficits externally. Public sector foreign debt reached USD 90.6 billion in Q3—up 11.7% YoY, with a record 61% share of the total. (Figure 6, middle image) 

Every peso the state cannot fund through revenue must be sourced from bank balance sheets—through deposits, government securities, or offshore borrowing. The sovereign becomes a debtor to the banking system, and the banks become debtors to households. That is the sovereign–bank–household doom loop. 

This external financing occurs despite a stretched fiscal capacity: the Q3 deficit-to-GDP ratio of 6.63% was the fourth-widest on record, achieved at the expense of households via  intensifying financial repression and crowding-out. (Figure 6, lowest chart) 

Despite mainstream optimism about “manageable” fiscal health, current dynamics risk unraveling into fiscal shock. 

Monetary loosening—locally and globally—is masking fragility. When that cover fades, the peso absorbs the shock. 

VIII. Conclusion: The Real Story: Bailouts Everywhere 

While the public fixates on the corruption scandal, bailouts continue in real time—implicit and explicit, fiscal and regulatory. 

• The SMC–AEV–Meralco and Prime Infra–First Gen transactions are political rescue operations transferring assets among leveraged elites. 
• Direct relief has been delivered through taxpayer-funded suspensions (e.g., Real Property Taxes for IPPs) and electricity price hikes to sustain overleveraged “green” portfolios. 
• Record fiscal outlays shift resources toward the state, elite firms, and banks. 
• BSP’s easing cycle provides the monetary channel to accommodate the whole structure. 

This is not reform—it is redistribution upward. 

The great economist Frédéric Bastiat’s "legal plunder" describes the mechanism; Acemoglu-Robinson’s extractive institutions describe the outcome: enrichment of incumbents, depletion of the real economy, and accumulation of malinvestment. 

A fourth fault line left to be discussed: The Philippine real estate bubble. 

XIX. Encore: From “Manageable Deficit” to Crisis Trigger

2025 already saw GDP pull the rug out from under the institutional optimists. 

The next phase is simpler:

• Rising debt
• Weakening revenues
• Record spending
• External borrowing
• Peso strain
• Price pressures
• Monetary accommodation
• Banking-system transmission

This is how sovereign balance-sheet stress becomes a macro-financial shock.

The question is no longer whether debt climbs. 

It is whether the system can finance it without a solvency event. 

Will 2026 be the year national finances follow Ernest Hemingway’s arc—gradually, then suddenly? 

And when the adjustment comes, does the peso simply slip past 60—or does something in the system fracture before it gets there?

Because the endgame of fiscal ochlocratic social democracy isn’t fairness—it’s insolvency masked as compassion. 

_____

References: 

Prudent Investor Newsletter, PSEi 30 Q3 and 9M 2025 Performance: Late-Stage Fragility Beneath the Headline Growth, Substack, November 30, 2025 

Prudent Investor Newsletter, The Oligarchic Bailout Everyone Missed: How the Energy Fragility Now Threatens the Philippine Peso and the Economy, Substack, December 7, 2025 

Prudent Investor Newsletter,  Inside the SMC–Meralco–AEV Energy Deal: Asset Transfers That Mask a Systemic Fragility Loop, Substack, November 23,2025 

Prudent Investor Newsletters, June 2025 Deficit: A Countdown to Fiscal Shock, Substack, Substack, August 3, 2025 

 

The Oligarchic Bailout Everyone Missed: How the Energy Fragility Now Threatens the Philippine Peso and the Economy

 

Uncertainty should not bother you. We may not be able to forecast when a bridge will break, but we can identify which ones are faulty and poorly built. We can assess vulnerability. And today the financial bridges across the world are very vulnerable. Politicians prescribe ever larger doses of pain killer in the form of financial bailouts, which consists in curing debt with debt, like curing an addiction with an addiction, that is to say it is not a cure. This cycle will end, like it always does, spectacularly—Nassim Nicholas Taleb 

In this issue 

The Oligarchic Bailout Everyone Missed: How the Energy Fragility Now Threatens the Philippine Peso and the Economy 

I. Drowning in Debt: Philippine Government Bails Out the Energy Industry!

II. What the RPT Relief Confirms; The Four Phase Bailout Template

III. Phase 1 — Transactional relief: Chromite–San Miguel deal

IV. Phase 2 — RPT Cut: The Regulatory Relief

V. Phase 3 — Financial System Backstopping

VI. Phase 3a — The Policy Trap or the Escalating Systemic Risk Phase

VII. Phase 4 — Political Resolution: Socialization

VIII. Phase 4a – Socialization vs. Forced Liberalization

IX. Why This is s Late-Cycle Phenomenon

X. Conclusion: This Episode Was Never About Electricity Prices 

The Oligarchic Bailout Everyone Missed: How the Energy Fragility Now Threatens the Philippine Peso and the Economy 

The four phases of the SMC–AEV–Meralco rescue reinforce the logic of late‑cycle fragility

I. Drowning in Debt: Philippine Government Bails Out the Energy Industry! 

In the third week of November, we noted: 

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. (bold original) 

That thesis was quietly confirmed weeks later. 

Buried beneath the torrent of daily headlines was a development of first-order importance.

Figure 1

GMANews, December 3, 2025: President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has ordered the reduction and pardon of all interest and penalties on real property taxes (RPTs) levied on independent power producers (IPPs) for 2025. In a statement, Malacañang said the cut in RPT liabilities of IPPs is "to prevent defaults and economic losses that could affect electricity supply and the government’s fiscal stability." (bold added) (Figure 1, upper news clip) 

Bullseye! 

This was not a routine tax adjustment. It was an explicit admission that private-sector leverage—specifically within the power industry—had crossed into systemic risk territory. 

It bears noting that the five largest power firms by market position are San Miguel, Aboitiz Power, First Gen, PSALM, and ACEN (Mordor Intelligence, 2024). 

The sector is tightly concentrated, politically franchised, and structurally shielded from competition. 

Aggregate 9M debt for the proponents of the Batangas LNG–Ilijan–EERI triangle—the SMC–AEV–MER troika—soared 16.4% YoY, reaching a record Php 2.254 trillion. Financing charges likewise jumped 8.3% YoY, hitting Php 101.17 billion, an all-time high. (Figure 1, lower chart) 

In that same November post, we asked what this meant for 2025–2026. The answer was already embedded in the corporate balance sheets: 

• cash liquidity is tightening
• banks are approaching risk limits
• debt has become the default funding model
• headline GDP growth is increasingly sustained by inter-corporate transactions rather than productive capex
• large conglomerates are supporting one another through balance-sheet swaps 

According to the Inquirer.net, this marks the third time (2023, February 2025 and December 2025) the incumbent administration has forgiven or reduced RPT-related financial charges. That pattern matters. 

Because this bailout arc pushes leverage toward the public balance sheet, the Philippine peso becomes the pressure valve of last resort 

II. What the RPT Relief Confirms; The Four Phase Bailout Template 

This latest RPT condonation has four critical implications: 

1. Political brokerage: Confirms the deal was arranged and brokered politically—a backstop to buy time, not reform.

2. Elite rescue: The energy sector operates through de facto monopolistic political franchises; relief accrues to incumbents, not consumers.

3. Late-cycle marker: Preemptive default prevention reflects an economy drifting into business-cycle exhaustion, where failures are no longer politically tolerable.

4. Counterparty contagion: Because creditors to IPPs are also elite-controlled, counterparties will need support—expanding the bailout perimeter. 

What we are now observing is a four-phase bailout arc in the Philippine energy sector:

Transactional Relief → Regulatory Relief → Financial System Backstopping → Resolution by Socialization/Forced Liberalization. 

III. Phase 1 — Transactional relief: Chromite–San Miguel deal 

The opening move comes disguised as a "strategic partnership." 

In reality, AEV/Meralco—through Chromite Gas Holdings—absorbed San Miguel’s stressed LNG and Ilijan assets (SPPC, EERI, related industrial estate and terminal exposure). Balance-sheet pressure is eased without declaring stress; earnings volatility was suppressed, and leverage was redistributed rather than reduced—in the interim. 

This phase is intentionally ambiguous. No one calls it a rescue. There is no emergency language, no fiscal line item. The objective is clear: prevent immediate balance-sheet failure without triggering market discipline, buying time before the state is forced to intervene. 

It sets a crucial precedent—private leverage can be quietly transferred and restructured under the guise of efficiency. 

This is a classic late-cycle hallmark: defaults become politically unacceptable, but overt bailouts are still premature. 

IV. Phase 2 — RPT Cut: The Regulatory Relief 

The next phase shifts from private camouflage to public condonation. The RPT cut is decisive. 

Malacañang’s own justification—"to prevent defaults and economic losses that could affect electricity supply and fiscal stability"—reframes private leverage as a public-interest problem. That line is the SMOKING GUN! 

At this stage, the bailout is no longer implicit; it is simply reframed as stability policy. 

Fixed costs are reduced, cash flows are protected, local governments (including Special Education Fund allocations) lose revenue, and political risk is shifted from firms to the sovereign. 

Concentrated gains, distributed costs—the political rent-seeking model, public choice theory in action. 

Bluntly, profits remain privatized while costs are socialized—a political free lunch and textbook oligarchic capture.

This phase entrenches moral hazard: elites learn leverage will be accommodated, not disciplined. Smaller players and consumers are sidelined; political-economic imbalances mount, fragility escalates.

Crucially, previous rounds of subsidies have failed to repair balance sheets or deliver durable consumer relief. The evidence is clear: these measures stabilize optics, not fundamentals.

These two phases are ex-post. We now turn to the potential ex-ante stages. 

V. Phase 3 — Financial System Backstopping 

This phase is partly in process and could intensify. 

Why issue such a justification unless there is a clear and present danger? 

The fact that this is the SECOND time in 2025 that authorities have subsidized IPPs through RPTs speaks volumes about the underlying problems 

Despite the BSP’s aggressive easing cycle—rate cuts, reserve‑requirement reductions, doubled deposit insurance, and record public spending that has pushed deficits back toward pandemic levels—liquidity stress persists. This signals a supply-side balance-sheet problem, not a demand shortfall. 

The stress point is becoming unmistakable: elite-owned leverage, particularly in capital-intensive sectors like power—amid slowing growth. 

Figure 2

According to the BSP’s Depository Corporations Survey, as of October the private sector’s share of domestic claims rose to 64.7%, while the combined financial and private sector share of M3 climbed to 80.63%. In Q3, domestic claims reached 77.6% of GDP, nearly matching the pandemic highs of 77.7% in Q1 and Q4 2021. By contrast, M2 and M3 shares of GDP—though still elevated since the pandemic recession—have been slowing, a clear departure from their previous synchronous trajectory during 2006–2020. (Figure 2) 

This divergence underscores the core problem: systemic leverage has risen through domestic claims, concentrated among elite firms, yet its transmission to real economic activity has weakened. 

This is the reason for the rescue mission.

VI. Phase 3a — The Policy Trap or the Escalating Systemic Risk Phase 

As unproductive leverage persists and economic growth slows, bank balance sheets deteriorate. Liquidity tightens, lending slows, and stress migrates from corporates to the financial system. 

The BSP will likely respond with escalating use of its pandemic playbook:

• Deepening easing: policy-rate and RRR cuts
• Implicit injections through BSP facilities.
• Explicit support: direct infusions (e.g., the Php 2.3 trillion precedent).
• Regulatory forbearance: capital relief and provisioning leniency.
• Soft-peg defense: attempts to stabilize USD/PHP. 

Yet contradictions mount.

Figure 3

Monetary easing is constrained by inflation and FX risk; tightening risks amplifying bank stress.  Domestic liquidity and external liabilities have been key drivers of the USDPHP’s rise. (Figure 3) 

As domestic claims rise without generating real-sector activity, liquidity hoarding intensifies, weakening the monetary transmission mechanism and amplifying FX vulnerability. 

The USD/PHP soft-peg becomes fragile—defense drains reserves, while abandonment risks inflation and capital flight. 

Policy enters a trap: support the system and weaken the currency, or guard the currency and fracture the system. 

Diminishing returns begin to cannibalize monetary and economic stability. 

VII. Phase 4 — Political Resolution: Socialization 

When liquidity support and regulatory masking can no longer hold, losses are formally absorbed by the state:

• Nationalization: partial or full state control of critical assets.
• Recapitalization: government injections into systemically important institutions.
• Bad-bank vehicle: a ‘Freddie Mac’–style structure to warehouse distressed assets while preserving legacy ownership. 

Losses are socialized; control is recentralized. 

The public balance sheet expands sharply while elite actors exit with preserved equity, retained assets, or negotiated upside. What began as a "strategic deal" ends as systemic capture, with nationalization the final stop in a late-cycle rescue arc. 

VIII. Phase 4a – Socialization vs. Forced Liberalization 

Late-cycle bailout arcs bifurcate. 

If the state retains fiscal and monetary capacity, losses are socialized through nationalization or resolution vehicles. If capacity is lost—via reserve depletion, inflation, or debt saturation—the system drifts toward forced liberalization. Market discipline is not restored deliberately; it re-emerges violently. 

In this scenario, incumbent protections collapse, policy support evaporates, and asset values are repriced downward. It may resemble "liberalization," but it is not reform—it is involuntary liquidation triggered by exhausted savings and unsustainable balance sheets or by unsustainable economics—resulting in disorderly transitions, and heightened political instability. 

Ideology shapes the preferred response. 

The populist embrace of social democracy, with its preference for top-down conflict resolution, skews the political response toward socialization. 

But ideology is not sovereign and cannot override economics: real savings and fiscal capacity, not preference, ultimately determines which path the cycle takes. When the state can no longer absorb fragility, liberalization is not chosen—it is imposed. 

IX. Why This is s Late-Cycle Phenomenon 

These phases occur when:

• Leverage is high.
• Political tolerance for defaults has collapsed.
• Asset extraction has run its course.
• The state becomes the residual risk holder. 

In early or mid-cycle, failure disciplines excess. 

In late cycles, failure is deferred, masked, and ultimately absorbed by the public—after market discipline has already broken down. 

X. Conclusion: This Episode Was Never About Electricity Prices 

This episode was never about electricity prices. 

The Philippine energy-sector rescue is not a single policy choice but a phased continuum: transactional camouflage, regulatory condonation, financial backstopping, and ultimately either socialization or forced liberalization. Each phase follows the same late-cycle logic—fragility is too politically costly to reveal, so it is deferred, disguised, and transferred away from the firms that created it.

What began as a "strategic partnership" now stands exposed as a systemic bailout, with the state increasingly positioned as the residual risk holder. 

This is the defining feature of a late-cycle economy: leverage is high, defaults are politically intolerable, and oligarchic control ensure that private losses migrate toward the public balance sheet. Consumers and taxpayers ultimately bear the burden. 

The real question is not whether the cycle ends in public absorption of losses, but how much fragility will be socialized before a reckoning becomes unavoidable. 

Crucially, not all late-stage bailouts climax in outright socialization. When fiscal capacity collapses—through reserve depletion, inflation pressure, or debt saturation—the path can shift toward forced liberalization or selective deregulation and privatization. 

This is not genuine reform but an involuntary unwind: protection collapses, policy support recedes, and assets are repriced downward. It looks liberal but functions as disorderly liquidation, with distributional costs shifted onto households while elites regroup. 

Ideology shapes the state’s instincts. Populist social democracy, market‑averse and reliant on top‑down resolution, leans toward socialization. Liberalization, by contrast, rests on cooperation, division of labor, property rights, and rule of law — mechanisms that can resolve conflict without central command. 

Yet ideology alone does not decide the path: fiscal capacity and real savings ultimately determine whether fragility is absorbed by the state or forced back into the market. 

Thus, the endgame bifurcates: 

1. Resolution by Socialization – nationalization, recapitalization, or bad-asset vehicles that warehouse losses while preserving incumbent control. 

2. Resolution by Forced Liberalization – selective deregulation, privatization, and asset sales driven not by ideology but by incapacity, where the state abandons protection because it can no longer sustain it. 

Both paths are late-cycle responses to the same underlying condition: systemic fragility accumulated over years of leverage, political accommodation, and institutional rent-seeking capture. 

They differ not in purpose, but in the mechanism through which risk is transferred—and in both cases, the public ultimately shoulders the cost. 

In late cycles, the currency becomes the final referendum on the system’s accumulated fragility 

Caveat emptor.

____ 

References

Prudent Investor Newsletters, Inside the SMC–Meralco–AEV Energy Deal: Asset Transfers That Mask a Systemic Fragility Loop, Substack, November 23, 2025 

Prudent Investor Newsletters, PSEi 30 Q3 and 9M 2025 Performance: Late-Stage Fragility Beneath the Headline Growth, Substack, November 30, 2025