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

 

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

 

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

In this issue

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

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

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

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

IV. Market Rebellion: When Reality Defies Policy

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

A. Liquidity Deterioration Despite RRR Cuts

B. Cash Crunch Intensifies

C. Deposit Growth Slowdown

D. Loan Portfolio Dynamics: Warning Signs Emerge

E. Investment Portfolio Under Pressure

F. The Liquidity Drain: Government's Role

G. Monetary Aggregates: Emerging Disconnection

H. Banking Sector Adjustments: Borrowings and Repos

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

J. The Crowding Out Effect

VI. Conclusion: The Inevitable Reckoning 

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

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

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

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

The question is: to whose benefit? 

Is it the general economy? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As J. Paul Getty aptly put it: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moreover, regulatory actions appear to favor elite interests. 

On June 17, 2025, ABS-CBN reported: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 1 

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

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

IV. Market Rebellion: When Reality Defies Policy 

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

Figure 2

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

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

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

Figure 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. Liquidity Deterioration Despite RRR Cuts 

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

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

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

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

B. Cash Crunch Intensifies

Figure 4

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

C. Deposit Growth Slowdown 

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

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

D. Loan Portfolio Dynamics: Warning Signs Emerge 

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

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

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

E. Investment Portfolio Under Pressure

Figure 5

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

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

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

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

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

F. The Liquidity Drain: Government's Role 

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

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

G. Monetary Aggregates: Emerging Disconnection 

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

Figure 6

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

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

H. Banking Sector Adjustments: Borrowings and Repos 

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

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

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

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

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

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

J. The Crowding Out Effect 

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

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

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

VI. Conclusion: The Inevitable Reckoning 

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

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

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

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

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

 

Low Prioritization in the Banking System: The Magna Carta for MSMEs as a ‟Symbolic Law‟

 

An ever-weaker private sector, weak real wages, declining productivity growth, and the currency’s diminishing purchasing power all indicate the unsustainability of debt levels. It becomes increasingly difficult for families and small businesses to make ends meet and pay for essential goods and services, while those who already have access to debt and the public sector smile in contentment. Why? Because the accumulation of public debt is printing money artificially—Daniel Lacalle 

Nota Bene: Unless some interesting developments turn up, this blog may be the last for 2024. 

In this issue 

Low Prioritization in the Banking System: The Magna Carta for MSMEs as a ‟Symbolic Law‟

I. MSMEs: The Key to Inclusive Growth

II. The Politicization of MSME Lending

III. Bank's MSME Loans: Low Compliance Rate as a Symptom of the BSP’s Prioritization of Banking Interests

IV. Suppressed MSME Lending and Thriving Shadow Banks: It’s Not About Risk Aversion, but Politics

V. Deepening Thrust Towards Banking Monopolization: Rising Risks to Financial System Stability  

VI. How PSEi 30's Debt Dynamics Affect MSME Struggles

VII. The Impact of Bank Borrowings and Government Debt Financing on MSMEs’ Challenges 

VIII. How Trickle-Down Economics and the Crowding Out Effect Stifle MSME Growth 

IX. Conclusion: The Magna Carta for MSMEs Represents a "Symbolic Law," Possible Solutions to Promote Inclusive MSME Growth 

Low Prioritization in the Banking System: The Magna Carta for MSMEs as a ‟Symbolic Law‟ 

Despite government mandates, bank lending to MSMEs reached its third-lowest rate in Q3 2024, reflecting the priorities of both the government and the BSP. This highlights why the Magna Carta is a symbolic law.

I. MSMEs: The Key to Inclusive Growth 

Inquirer.net December 10, 2024 (bold added): Local banks ramped up their lending to micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) in the third quarter, but it remained below the prescribed credit allocation for the industry deemed as the backbone of the Philippine economy. Latest data from the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) showed total loans of the Philippine banking sector to MSMEs amounted to P500.81 billion in the three months through September, up by 3 percent on a quarter-on-quarter basis. But that amount of loans only accounted for 4.6 percent of the industry’s P11-trillion lending portfolio as of end-September, well below the prescribed credit quota of 10 percent for MSMEs. Under the law, banks must set aside 10 percent of their total loan book as credit that can be extended to MSMEs. Of this mandated ratio, banks must allocate 8 percent of their lending portfolio for micro and small businesses, while 2 percent must be extended to medium-sized enterprises. But many banks have not been compliant and just opted to pay the penalties instead of assuming the risks that typically come with lending to MSMEs. 

Bank lending to the MSME sector, in my view, is one of the most critical indicators of economic development. After all, as quoted by the media, it is "deemed as the backbone of the Philippine economy." 

Why is it considered the backbone?

Figure 1

According to the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), citing data from the Philippine Statistics Authority, in 2023, there were "1,246,373 business enterprises operating in the country. Of these, 1,241,733 (99.63%) are MSMEs and 4,640 (0.37%) are large enterprises. Micro enterprises constitute 90.43% (1,127,058) of total establishments, followed by small enterprises at 8.82% (109,912) and medium enterprises at 0.38% (4,763)." (Figure 1 upper chart) 

In terms of employment, the DTI noted that "MSMEs generated a total of 6,351,466 jobs or 66.97% of the country’s total employment. Micro enterprises produced the biggest share (33.95%), closely followed by small enterprises (26.26%), while medium enterprises lagged behind at 6.77%. Meanwhile, large enterprises generated a total of 3,132,499 jobs or 33.03% of the country’s overall employment." (Figure 1, lower graph) 

Long story short, MSMEs represent the "inclusive" dimension of economic progress or the grassroots economy—accounting for 99% of the nation’s entrepreneurs, and providing the vast majority of jobs. 

The prospective flourishing of MSMEs signifies that the genuine pathway toward an "upper middle-income" status is not solely through statistical benchmarks, such as the KPI-driven categorization of Gross National Income (GNI), but through grassroots-level economic empowerment. 

Except for a few occasions where certain MSMEs are featured for their products or services, or when bureaucrats use them to build political capital to enhance the administration’s image, mainstream media provides little coverage of their importance.

Why?

Media coverage, instead, tends to focus disproportionately on the elite.

Perhaps this is due to survivorship bias, where importance is equated with scale, or mostly due to principal-agent dynamics. That is, media organizations may prioritize advancing the interests of elite firms to secure advertising revenues, and or, maintain reporting privileges granted by the government or politically connected private institutions. 

II. The Politicization of MSME Lending 

Yet, bank lending to the sector remains subject to political directives—politicized through regulation. 

Even so, banks have essentially defied a public mandate, opting to pay a paltry penalty: "The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas shall impose administrative sanctions and other penalties on lending institutions for non-compliance with provisions of this Act, including a fine of not less than five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00)." (RA 9501, 2010)

Figure 2 

With total bank lending amounting to Php 10.99 trillion (net of exclusions) at the end of Q3, the compliance rate—or the share of bank lending to MSMEs—fell to 4.557%, effectively the third lowest on record after Q1’s 4.4%. (Figure 2, upper window) 

That’s primarily due to growth differentials in pesos and percentages. For instance, in Q3, the Total Loan Portfolio (net of exclusions) expanded by 9.4% YoY, compared to the MSME loan growth of 6.5%—a deeply entrenched trend.(Figure 2, lower image) 

Interestingly, "The Magna Carta for Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs)" was enacted in 1991 (RA 6977), amended in 1997 (RA 8289), and again in 2008 (RA 9501). The crux is that, as the statute ages, industry compliance has diminished 

Most notably, banks operate under cartel-like conditions. They are supervised by comprehensive regulations, with the BSP influencing interest rates through various channels—including policy rates, reserve requirement ratios (RRR), open market operations, inflation targeting, discount window lending, interest rate caps, and signaling channels or forward guidance. 

In a nutshell, despite stringent regulations, the cartelized industry is able to elude the goal of promoting MSMEs. 

III. Bank's MSME Loans: Low Compliance Rate as a Symptom of the BSP’s Prioritization of Banking Interests 

Yet, the record-low compliance rate with the Magna Carta for MSMEs points to several underlying factors: 

First, banks appear to exploit regulatory technicalities or loopholes to circumvent compliance—such as opting to pay negligible penalties—which highlights potential conflicts of interest. 

Though not a fan of arbitrary regulations, such lapses arguably demonstrate the essence of regulatory capture, as defined by Investopedia.com, "process by which regulatory agencies may come to be dominated by the industries or interests they are charged with regulating" 

A compelling indication of this is the revolving-door relationship between banks and the BSP, with recent appointments of top banking executives to the BSP’s monetary board. 

Revolving door politics, according to Investopedia.com, involves the "movement of high-level employees from public-sector jobs to private-sector jobs and vice versa" 

The gist: The persistently low compliance rate suggests that the BSP has prioritized safeguarding the banking sector's interests over promoting the political-economic objectives of the Magna Carta legislation for MSMEs.

IV. Suppressed MSME Lending and Thriving Shadow Banks: It’s Not About Risk Aversion, but Politics

Two, with its reduced lending to MSMEs, banks purportedly refrain from taking risk. 

But that’s hardly the truth.

Even with little direct access to formal or bank credit, MSME’s are still borrowers, but they source it from the informal sector. 

Due to the difficulty of accessing bank loans, MSMEs in the Philippines are borrowing from informal sources such as the so-called 5-6 money lending scheme. According to an estimate, 5-6 money lending is now a Php 30 billion industry in the Philippines. These lenders charge at least 20% monthly interest rate, well above the 2.5% rate of the government’s MSME credit program. The same study by Flaminiano and Francisco (2019) showed that 47% of small and medium sized enterprises in their sample obtained loans from informal sources. 

...

An estimate by the International finance Corporation (2017) showed that MSMEs in the Philippines are facing a financing gap of USD 221.8 billion. This figure is equivalent to 76% of the country’s GDP, the largest gap among the 128 countries surveyed in the IFC report. (Nomura, 2020)

The informal lenders don’t print money, that’s the role of the banks, and the BSP.

Simply, the Nomura study didn’t say where creditors of the informal market obtained their resources: Our supposition: aside from personal savings, 5-6 operators and their ilk may be engaged in credit arbitrage or borrow (low interest) from the banking system, and lend (high interest) to the MSMEs—virtually a bank business model—except that they don’t take in deposits.

The fact that despite the intensive policy challenges, a thriving MSME translates a resilient informal credit arbitrage market—yes, these are part of the shadow banking system.

As an aside, uncollateralized 5-6 lending is indeed a very risky business: collections from borrowers through staggered payments occur daily, accompanied by high default rates, which explains the elevated interest rates.

Figure 3

That is to say, the shadow banks or black markets in credit, fill the vacuum or the humungous financing gap posed by the inadequacy of the formal financial sector. (Figure 3, upper diagram)

The financing gap may be smaller today—partly due to digitalization of transactional platforms—but it still remains significant. 

This also indicates that published leverage understates the actual leverage in both the financial system and the economy. 

Intriguingly, unlike the pre-2019 era, there has been barely any media coverage of the shadow banking system—as if it no longer exists.

As a caveat, shadow banking "involves financial activities, mainly lending, undertaken by non-banks and entities not regulated by the BSP," which implies that even formal institutions may be engaged in "unregulated activities." 

Remember when the former President expressed his desire to crack down on 5-6 lending, vowing to "kill the loan sharks," in 2019? 

If such a crackdown had succeeded, it could have collapsed the economy. So, it’s no surprise that the attempt to crush the informal economy eventually faded into oblivion. 

The fact that informal credit survived and has grown despite the unfavorable political circumstances indicates that the suppressed lending to MSMEs has barely been about the trade-off between risk and reward. 

It wasn’t risk that has stymied bank lending to MSMEs, but politics (for example, the artificial suppression of interest rates to reflect risk profiles). 

More below. 

Has the media and its experts informed you about this?

Still, this highlights the chronic distributional flaws of GDP: it doesn’t reflect the average experience but is instead skewed toward those who benefit from the skewed political policies. 

In any case, mainstream media and its experts tend to focus on benchmarks like GDP rather than reporting on the deeper structural dynamics of the economy.

V. Deepening Thrust Towards Banking Monopolization: Rising Risks to Financial System Stability

Three, if banks have lent less to MSMEs, then who constituted the core of borrowers?

Naturally, these were the firms of elites (including bank borrowings), the consumers from the "banked" middle and upper classes, and the government.

Total Financial Resources (TFR) reached an all-time high of Php 32.8 trillion as of October, accounting for about 147% and 123% of the estimated real and headline GDP for 2024, respectively. (Figure 3, lower pane)

TFR represents gross assets based on the Financial Reporting Package (FRP) of banking and non-bank financial institutions, which includes their loan portfolios.

The banking system’s share of TFR stood at 83.2% last October, marking the second-highest level, slightly below September’s record of 83.3%. Meanwhile, Universal-Commercial banks accounted for 77.8% of the banking system’s share in October, marginally down from their record 78% in September.

These figures reveal that the banking system has been outpacing the asset growth of the non-banking sector, thereby increasing its share and deepening its concentration.

Simultaneously, Universal-Commercial banks have been driving the banking system’s growing dominance in TFR. 

The significance of this lies in the current supply-side dynamic, which points towards a trajectory of virtual monopolization within the financial system. As a result, this trend also magnifies concentration risk. 

VI. How PSEi 30's Debt Dynamics Affect MSME Struggles

From the demand side, the 9-month debt of the non-financial components of the PSEi 30 reached Php 5.52 trillion, the second-highest level, trailing only the all-time high in 2022. However, its share of TFR and nominal GDP has declined from 17.7% and 30.8% in 2023 to 16.7% and 29.3% in 2024.

Figure 4

Over the past two years, the PSEi 30's share of debt relative to TFR and nominal GDP has steadily decreased. (Figure 4, upper chart) 

It is worth noting that the 9-month PSEi 30 revenues-to-nominal GDP ratio remained nearly unchanged from 2023 at 27.9%, representing the second-highest level since at least 2020. (Figure 4, lower image) 

Thus, the activities of PSEi 30 composite members alone account for a substantial share of economic and financial activity, a figure that would be further amplified by the broader universe of listed stocks on the PSE. 

Nevertheless, their declining share, alongside rising TFR, indicates an increase in credit absorption by ex-PSEi and unlisted firms. 

VII. The Impact of Bank Borrowings and Government Debt Financing on MSMEs’ Challenges

Figure 5

On the other hand, bank borrowings declined from a record high of Php 1.7 trillion (49.7% YoY) in September to Php 1.6 trillion (41.34% YoY) in October. Due to liquidity concerns, most of these borrowings have been concentrated in T-bills. (Figure 5, topmost visual) 

As it happens, Philippine lenders, as borrowers, also compete with their clients for the public’s savings. 

Meanwhile, the banking system’s net claims on the central government (NCoCG) expanded by 8.3% to Php 5.13 trillion as of October. 

The BSP defines Net Claims on Central Government as including "domestic securities issued by and loans and advances extended to the CG, net of liabilities to the CG such as deposits." 

In October, the banks' NCoCG accounted for approximately 23% of nominal GDP (NGDP), 18% of headline GDP, and 15.6% of the period’s TFR. 

Furthermore, bank consumer lending, including real estate loans, reached a record high of Php 2.92 trillion in Q3, supported by an unprecedented 22% share of the sector’s record loan portfolio, which totaled Php 13.24 trillion. (Figure 4, middle graph) 

Concomitantly, the banking system’s Held-to-Maturity (HTM) assets stood at nearly Php 3.99 trillion in October, just shy of the all-time high of Php 4.02 trillion recorded in December 2023. Notably, NCoCG accounted for 128.6% of HTM assets. HTM assets also represented 15.1% of the banking system’s total asset base of Php 26.41 trillion. (Figure 4, bottom chart) 

This means the bank’s portfolio has been brimming with loans to the government, which have been concealed through their HTM holdings.

Figure 6

Alongside non-performing loans (NPLs), these factors have contributed to the draining of the industry’s liquidity.  Despite the June 2023 RRR cuts and the 2024 easing cycle (interest rate cuts), the BSP's measures of liquidity—cash-to-deposits and liquid assets-to-deposits—remain on a downward trend. (Figure 6, upper window)

VIII. How Trickle-Down Economics and the Crowding Out Effect Stifle MSME Growth 

It is not just the banking system; the government has also been absorbing financial resources from non-banking institutions (Other Financial Corporations), which amounted to Php 2.34 trillion in Q2 (+11.1% YoY)—the second highest on record. (Figure 6, lower graph)

These figures reveal a fundamental political dimension behind the lagging bank lending performance to MSMEs: the "trickle-down" theory of economic development and the "crowding-out" syndrome affecting credit distribution. 

The banking industry not only lends heavily to the government—reducing credit availability for MSMEs—but also allocates massive amounts of financial resources to institutions closely tied to the government. 

This is evident by capital market borrowings by the banking system, as well as bank lending and capital market financing and bank borrowings by PSE firms. 

A clear example is San Miguel Corporation's staggering Q3 2024 debt of Php 1.477 trillion, where it is reasonable to assume that local banks hold a significant portion of the credit exposure. 

The repercussions, as noted, are significant: 

Its opportunity costs translate into either productive lending to the broader economy or financing competitiveness among SMEs (Prudent Investor, December 2024)

Finally, in addition to the above, MSMEs face further challenges from the "inflation tax," an increasing number of administrative regulations (such as minimum wage policies that disproportionately disadvantage MSMEs while favoring elites), and burdensome (direct) taxes.

IX. Conclusion: The Magna Carta for MSMEs Represents a "Symbolic Law," Possible Solutions to Promote Inclusive MSME Growth 

Ultimately, the ideology-driven "trickle-down" theory has underpinned the political-economic framework, where government spending, in tandem with elite interests, anchors economic development. 

Within this context, the Magna Carta for MSMEs stands as a "Symbolic Law" or "Unenforced Law"—where legislation "exists primarily for symbolic purposes, with little to no intention of actual enforcement." 

Politically, a likely short-term populist response would be to demand substantial increases in penalty rates for non-compliance (to punitive levels, perhaps tied to a fraction of total bank assets). However, this approach would likely trigger numerous unintended consequences, including heightened corruption, reduced transparency, higher lending rates, and more. 

Moreover, with the top hierarchy of the BSP populated by banking officials, this scenario is unlikely to materialize. There will be no demand for such measures because only a few are aware of the underlying issues. 

While the solution to this problem is undoubtedly complex, we suggest the following:

1 Reduce government spending: Roll back government expenditures to pre-pandemic levels and ensure minimal growth in spending.

2 Let markets set interest rates: Allow interest rates to reflect actual risks rather than artificially suppressing them.

3 Address the debt overhang through market mechanisms: Let markets resolve the current debt burden instead of propping it up with unsustainable liquidity injections and credit expansions by both the banking system and the BSP.

4 Liberalize the economy: Enable greater economic and market liberalization to reflect true economic conditions.

5 Adopt a combination of the above approaches.

The mainstream approach to resolving the current economic dilemma, however, remains rooted in a consequentialist political scheme—where "the end justifies the means."

This mindset often prioritizes benchmarks and virtue signaling in the supposed pursuit of MSME welfare. For example, the establishment of a credit risk database for MSMEs is presently touted as a solution.

While such measures may yield marginal gains, they are unlikely to address the root issues for the reasons outlined above.

_____

References 

Republic Act 5901: Guide to the Magna Carta for Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (RA 6977, as amended by RA 8289, and further amended by RA 9501), p.17 SME Finance Forum 

Margarito Teves and Griselda Santos, MSME Financing in the Philippines: Status, Challenges and Opportunities, 2020 p.16 Nomura Foundation 

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