Why the PSE Failed in 2025: Engineered Markets and Broken Policy Transmission

 

An economist is an expert who will know tomorrow why the things he predicted yesterday didn't happen today—Laurence J. Peter 

Wishing you an exciting 2026: record highs, easy money, and all the risks that come with it. 

In this issue: 

Why the PSE Failed in 2025: Engineered Markets and Broken Policy Transmission

I. The Echo Chamber of Optimism

II. Institutional Conflicts of Interest: Agency Problem and the Information Asymmetry

III. Global Euphoria vs. Local Fragility: A Market That Failed to Respond—Despite Every Attempt to Boost It

IV. Engineered Rallies and the BSP’s Easing Cycle Elixir

V. Mounting Concentration Risk and the ICTSI Distortion

VI. Foreign Selling, CMEPA, and the Gaming Bubble

VII. From Equities to Energy: Bailouts Without Calling Them Bailouts

VIII. A Lone Divergence: Mining and the War Economy

IX. The Philippine Treasury Market Confirms the Diagnosis

X. Conclusion: When Policy Loses Its Grip

XI. Epilogue: The Façade of January Effects 

Why the PSE Failed in 2025: Engineered Markets and Broken Policy Transmission 

Why the PSEi 30 underperformed despite rate cuts, engineered rallies, and unprecedented policy support 

I. The Echo Chamber of Optimism

Figure 1

Does the public even remember the barrage of starry-eyed headlines and sanguine projections that dominated discourse from late-2024 through 2025? (Figure 1) 

From Goldman Sachs’ overweight upgrade on Philippine equities (November 2024), to the relentless amplification of projected PSEi 30 returns by the mainstream echo chamber, to a business media outfit hosting a Pollyannish stock market outlook forum in February 2025, optimism was not merely expressed—it was drilled into the public consciousness. 

Strangely, at the forum, Warren Buffett’s aphorism—“be greedy when everybody is fearful”—was cited ironically at a time when virtually every expert was advocating optimism. Even “cautious optimism” emerged as the most defensive stance. 

All told, media and institutional narratives throughout 2025 projected rising equities anchored on a strengthening GDP—an assumption that would soon have the rug pulled out from under it.

Figure 2

In hindsight, the establishment’s posture resembled a classic denial phase in a deflating PSEi 30 bubble cycle. (Figure 2)

II. Institutional Conflicts of Interest: Agency Problem and the Information Asymmetry 

The fundamental problem lies in the structural conflicts of interest between financial institutions and the investing public. 

This dilemma reflects classic agency problem and asymmetric information. The objectives of buy- and sell-side institutions—fees, commissions, deal flow—diverge materially from those of retail investors seeking risk-adjusted returns. 

As a result, sales pitches camouflaged as institutional research or news are designed to attract savings/capital, not to interrogate risk–reward tradeoffs. The information disseminated to the public is therefore shrouded in adverse selection and biased framing. 

Despite serious unintended consequences from excessive interventions—easy money distortions, fiscal crowding-out, regulatory interference, capital controls, bailouts, and capital-market price manipulation—this savings-depleting dynamic receives scant acknowledgment. 

III. Global Euphoria vs. Local Fragility: A Market That Failed to Respond—Despite Every Attempt to Boost It 

There is also little recognition that the Philippine Stock Exchange has vastly underperformed, despite extraordinary efforts to support it.

Figure 3 

As global central banks embarked on a historic easing campaign and global equities posted a third consecutive year of double-digit gains, the PSEi 30 closed 2025 as the second-worst performer in Asia, ahead of only Thailand. (Figure 3, topmost pane) 

Of 19 national bourses tracked by Bloomberg, 16 ended the year higher, averaging a striking 19.22% return—led by South Korea, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam. The Philippines, alongside Bangladesh and Thailand, stood out as an underperforming outlier. (Figure 3, middle graph) 

This flagrant underperformance—despite substantial engineered pumps in Q4—laid bare the market’s internal fragilities. 

IV. Engineered Rallies and the BSP’s Easing Cycle Elixir 

In December, a series of price-distorting late-session “afternoon delight” and pre-closing “rescue pumps” lifted the PSEi 30 by 0.51% MoM. 

These were concentrated in banks and property stocks, echoing the mainstream narrative that rate cuts should disproportionately benefit them. (Figure 3, lowest table) 

Additional support came from ICTSI, following its powerful October–November advance. Although the rally peaked on December 12 before a mild pullback, ICT’s surge drove the services sector up 10.5% and lifted the headline index by 1.67% in Q4.

Figure 4

For context, the BSP’s first rate cut in August 2024 was initially sold as an elixir, propelling the PSEi 30 up by a remarkable 13.4% in Q3 2024. Yet a surprise weak Q3 2024 GDP print (+5.2%) triggered a sharp reversal: –10.23% in Q4 2024 and –5.33% in Q1 2025. After another significant setback in Q3 2025 (–6.46%), the index fell –4.9% in 2H 2025. (Figure 4, topmost window) 

Despite repeated interventions, the PSEi 30 closed 2025 down 7.29%. 

V. Mounting Concentration Risk and the ICTSI Distortion 

Since peaking in 2018, the PSEi 30 has recorded six negative return years out of the last eight—an unmistakable sign of a debt-trapped, late-cycle economy. (Figure 5, middle chart) 

The index’s internals underscore this bearish backdrop: 24 of 30 constituents ended 2025 in the red, averaging a –6.87% decline. (Figure 4, lowest image)

Figure 5

Yet again, ICTSI—the PSE’s largest market-cap stock—nearly single-handedly prevented a deeper collapse. Its 46.9% full-year gain pushed its free-float weight to a record 17.8% in mid-December, ending the year at 16.5%. (Figure 5, topmost diagram) 

Consequently, the combined free-float weight of the top 5 heavyweights to a record 53% but closed at 52.16% still proximate to an all-time high. (Figure 5, second to the highest visual) 

Adjusted for the peso’s 1.6% YoY depreciation to a record low, the PSEi 30 fell 8.78% in USD terms—its seventh year of decline since 2017. (Figure 5, second to the lowest image) 

The dollar index DXY fell by about 9.6% in 2025. 

VI. Foreign Selling, CMEPA, and the Gaming Bubble 

The broader PSE fared no better. Outside a handful of names, most issues declined and market internals remained weak. (Figure 5, lowest chart) 

While synchronized “national team” pumping supported headline levels, it was largely offset by persistent foreign selling—a dominant force since 2018.

Figure 6 

Foreign participation rose to 49.18% of gross volume in 2025, the highest since 2021. (Figure 6, topmost window) 

That said, under globalization and financialization, “foreign selling” does not necessarily imply foreign fund liquidation. Many elite-owned firms operate through offshore vehicles and could be part of the ‘foreign’ trading activities. 

In the meantime, gross and main board volume (MBV) rose 14.64% and 19.13% in 2025, but most of this activity peaked around the CMEPA rollout in July and slowed materially thereafter. Ironically, the capital-consumption effects of the law generated unintended consequences: asset bubbles, negative returns, and corroding liquidity. (Figure 6 middle image) 

For example, as the government cracked down on digital gambling, the PLUS gaming bubble accounted for a staggering 11.65% of main board volume in Q3 2025, revealing how speculative excess merely migrated into the PSE—absorbing retail savings in the process. 

In 2025, concentration activities intensified: the top 10 brokers averaged 63.44% of Q4 main board volume; the top 20 accounted for over 82% both in Q4 and full-year 2025 MBV. 

VII. From Equities to Energy: Bailouts Without Calling Them Bailouts 

Engineered rescue rallies are not cost-free. They amplify concentration risk, intensify late-cycle fragility, and expose deeper balance-sheet stress driven by debt-financed asset support and misallocation. 

This pattern extends beyond equities. 

Authorities initiated a soft bailout of the energy sector—first indirectly via the SMC–AEV–MER asset-transfer triangle, and later through Real Property Taxes (RPT) waivers favoring elite-owned IPPs. This was followed by another buy-in: Prime Infrastructure’s acquisition of a 60% stake in FGEN’s Batangas LNG project, alongside higher consumer charges via GEA-All layered on top of FIT-All. 

VIII. A Lone Divergence: Mining and the War Economy 

For the first time, the mining sector not only outperformed but diverged meaningfully from the PSEi and broader market. Its performance reflects exposure to global commodity dynamics—finance, geopolitics, and the war economy—rather than domestic demand. (Figure 6, lowest graph) 

While retracements are possible given overbought conditions, current signals suggest any correction may be cyclical rather than trend-reversing. 

IX. The Philippine Treasury Market Confirms the Diagnosis 

The warning signs extend to Philippine treasury markets.

Figure 7

By end-2025, the Philippine BVAL curve had clearly steepened relative to the flattish 2023–2024 profile, though it remained less extreme than the pandemic-era 2022 BSP rescue year. This shift points less to growth optimism and more to rising risk premia. (Figure 7, upper diagram) 

While short-dated T-bill yields have not fallen back to 2022 levels—despite policy rate cuts, aggressive RRR reductions exceeding pandemic-era easing, and the doubling of deposit insurance—long-term yields remain materially higher than in 2023–2024, signaling mounting market concern over fiscal conditions, debt supply, and credibility. 

The resulting mixed yield configuration, occurring alongside slowing GDP growth and persistently elevated bank lending rates, reflects not selective liquidity management but a failure of monetary transmission: BSP sought genuine easing, yet impaired bank balance sheets, malinvestment, and fiscal overhang have rendered markets far less malleable than policymakers expected. 

X. Conclusion: When Policy Loses Its Grip 

Taken together, the events of 2025 expose a Philippine financial system increasingly governed by intervention rather than price discovery—and increasingly constrained by balance-sheet fragility rather than cyclical weakness. 

Despite aggressive policy easing activities, engineered equity support, regulatory inducements, and explicit and implicit bailouts, markets failed to respond as expected. Instead, concentration deepened, liquidity thinned, and monetary transmission weakened. 

The underperformance of the PSEi 30 was not an anomaly but a symptom. Equity pumps masked deterioration; index ‘strength’ concealed internal decay. 

The peso weakened, bond yields re-priced fiscal risk, bank lending rates remained elevated, and savings were quietly consumed through speculation and policy distortion. What appeared as support increasingly functioned as stress transfer—from institutions to households, from balance sheets to prices, and from the present to the future. 

In this sense, 2025 was not merely a bad year for Philippine equities. It was a year in which markets signaled—clearly and repeatedly—that policy credibility, strained by diminishing returns and collapsing transmission/tightening effective liquidity, had become the binding constraint. 

Until balance-sheet repair, fiscal discipline, and genuine price discovery are restored, further intervention may sustain appearances—but not balance-sheet health or durable confidence. 

XI. Epilogue: The Façade of January Effects 

January has historically been a strong month for the PSE, often reflecting the so-called ‘January effect’—seasonal inflows driven by year-end cash balance surpluses, portfolio reallocations, and tactical positioning. 

Using the January 2018 peak as the reference point, the PSEi 30 has posted January gains in five of the past eight years (62.5%). Yet over that same post-2018 cycle, full-year returns have been negatives/deficits in six of those years (75%). The implication is clear: early-year strength has repeatedly failed to translate into durable annual performance. (Figure 7, lower chart) 

Even so, institutional cheerleading is likely to intensify. Seasonal rallies will be framed as confirmation of recovery, even as stimulus-driven activity continues to deepen debt-led imbalances and erode household savings. 

This is not to suggest that the PSEi 30 must necessarily close 2026 in negative territory. Rather, when façade substitutes for structure—when form is elevated over substance—market fragility increases. 

Under such conditions, for the general market, the probability of risk and loss continues to outweigh potential gains, regardless of how loudly institutions beat the drum for a bull market. 

Meanwhile, the risk of a meltdown looms. 

____

Select References 

Prudent Investor Newsletters, The Oligarchic Bailout Everyone Missed: How the Energy Fragility Now Threatens the Philippine Peso and the Economy, Substack, December 07, 2025 

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 

Prudent Investor Newsletters, The Philippine Q3 2025 “4.0% GDP Shock” That Wasn’t Substack, November 16, 2025 

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

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

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

Prudent Investor Newsletters, The Ghost of BW Resources: The Bursting of the Philippine Gaming Stock Bubble Substack, July 6, 2025 

Prudent Investor Newsletters, How Surging Gold Prices Could Impact the Philippine Mining Industry (3rd of 3 Series), Substack, April 02, 2025 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Philippine Banks: June’s Financial Losses and Liquidity Strains Expose Late-Cycle Fragility

Debt-fueled booms all too often provide false affirmation of a government’s poli­cies, a financial institution’s ability to make outsized profits, or a country’s standard of living. Most of these booms end badly—Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff 

Philippine Banks: June’s Financial Losses and Liquidity Strains Expose Late-Cycle Fragility 

In this issue: 

Part 1: Earnings Erosion and the Mask of Stability

1.A NPLs Fall, But Provisions Rise: A Tale of Two Signals

1.B Philippine Bank’s Profit Growth Falters: Q2 Deficit Breaks the Streak

1.C Universal and Commercial Banks Lead the Weakness; PSE Listed Banks Echo the Slowdown

1.D Income Breakdown: Lending Boom Masks Structural Risk

1.E CMEPA’s Gambit: Taxing Time Deposits to Diversify Bank Income

1.F The Real Culprit: Exploding Losses on Financial Assets

1.G San Miguel’s Share Plunge: A Canary in the Credit Mine? Beneath the Surface: Banks Signal Stress

1.H The NPL Illusion: Velocity Masks Vulnerability

1.I Benchmark Kabuki: When Benchmark-ism Meets Market Reality

Part 2: Liquidity Strains and the Architecture of Intervention

2.A Behind the RRR Cuts: Extraordinary Bank Dependence on BSP

2.B RRR Infusions: Liquidity Metrics Rebound; Weak Money Creation Amid Record Deficit Spending

2.C Rising Borrowings Reinforce Funding Strains, Crowding Out Intensifies, Record HTM Assets

2.D Divergence: Bank Profits, GDP and the PSE’s Financial Index; Market Concentration

2.E OFCs and the Financial Index: A Coordinated Lift?

2.F Triple Liquidity Drain; Rescue Template Risks: Inflation, Stagflation, Crisis; Fiscal Reflex: Keynesian Response Looms

2.G Finale: Classic Symptoms of Late-Cycle Fragility 

Philippine Banks: June’s Financial Losses and Liquidity Strains Expose Late-Cycle Fragility 

From earnings erosion to monetary theatrics, June’s data shows a banking system caught in late-cycle strain.

Part 1: Earnings Erosion and the Mask of Stability 

1.A NPLs Fall, But Provisions Rise: A Tale of Two Signals 

Inquirer.net August Bad loans in the Philippine banking system fell to a three-month low in June, helped by the central bank’s ongoing interest rate cuts, which could ease debt servicing burden. However, lenders remain cautious and have increased their provisions to cover possible credit losses. Latest data from the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) showed nonperforming loans (NPL), or debts that are 90 days late on a payment and at risk of default, cornered 3.34 percent of the local banking industry’s total lending portfolio. That figure, called the gross NPL ratio, was the lowest since March 2025, when the ratio stood at 3.30 percent. 

But the NPL ratio masks a deeper tension: gross NPLs rose 5.5% year-on-year to Php 530.29 billion, while total loans expanded 10.93% to Php 15.88 trillion. The ratio fell not because bad loans shrank, but because credit growth outpaced them. 

Loan loss reserves rose 5.5% to Php 505.91 billion, and the NPL coverage ratio ticked up to 95.4%. Past due loans climbed 9.17% to Php 670.5 billion, and restructured loans rose 6.27%. Provisioning for credit losses ballooned to Php 84.19 billion in 1H 2025, with Php 43.78 billion booked in Q2 alone—the largest since Q4 2020’s pandemic-era spike. 

So, while the establishment cites falling NPL ratios to reassure the public, banks are quietly bracing for defaults and valuation hits—likely tied to large corporate exposures. The provisioning surge is a tacit admission: risk is rising, even if it hasn’t yet surfaced in headline metrics.

1.B Philippine Bank’s Profit Growth Falters: Q2 Deficit Breaks the Streak

Figure 1

Philippine banks posted their first quarterly profit contraction in Q2 2025, down -1.96% YoY—a sharp reversal from Q1’s 10.64% growth and Q2 2024’s 5.21%. This marks the first decline since Q3 2023’s -11.75%. (Figure 1, upper window) 

Even more telling, since the BSP’s historic rescue of the banking system in Q2 2021, net profit growth has been trending downward. Peso profits etched a record in Q1 2025, but fell in Q2. 

The Q2 slump dragged down 1H performance: bank profit growth slipped to 4.14%, compared to 2H 2024’s 9.77%, though slightly higher than 1H 2024’s 4.1%. 

1.C Universal and Commercial Banks Lead the Weakness; PSE Listed Banks Echo the Slowdown 

Earnings growth of universal-commercial (UC) banks sank from 8.6% in Q1 2025 to a -2.11% deficit in Q2. 

UC bank profits grew 6.33% in Q2 2024. Still, UC banks eked out a 3.1% gain in 1H 2025 versus 5.3% in the same period last year. UC banks accounted for 93.1% of total banking system profits in 1H 2025—underscoring their dominance or concentration but also their vulnerability. 

PSE listed banks partially echoed BSP data. (Figure 1, Lower Table) 

Aggregate earnings growth for all listed banks hit 6.08% in Q2 and 6.77% in 1H—down from 10.43% and 9.95% in the same periods last year. The top three banks in the PSEi 30 (BDO, BPI, MBT) reported combined earnings growth of 4.3% in Q2 and 5.31% in 1H 2025, substantially lower compared to 13.71% and 15.4% in 2024. 

The discrepancy between BSP and listed bank data likely stems from government, foreign, and unlisted UC banks—whose performance may be masking broader stress. 

1.D Income Breakdown: Lending Boom Masks Structural Risk 

What explains the sharp profit downturn?

Figure 2

Net interest income rose 11.74% in Q2, while non-interest income increased 14.7%—slightly higher than Q1’s 11.7% and 14.5%, respectively. However, net interest income was lower than Q2 2024’s 14.74%, while non-interest income rebounded from -5.71% in the same period. (Figure 2, topmost chart) 

In 1H 2025, net interest income grew 11.7%, and non-interest income rose 14.6%, compared to 15.53% and -8.83% in 1H 2024. Net interest income now accounts for 82.5% of total bank profits—a fresh high, reflecting the lending boom regardless of BSP’s rate levels. 

This share has reversed course since 2013, rising from ~60% to 77% by end-2024—driven by BSP’s easy money policy and historic pandemic-era rescue efforts. Banks’ income structure resembles a Pareto distribution: highly concentrated, and extremely susceptible to duration and credit risks. 

BSP’s easing cycle has not only failed to improve banks’ core business, but actively contributed to its decay.

1.E CMEPA’s Gambit: Taxing Time Deposits to Diversify Bank Income 

The government’s response has been the Capital Market Efficiency Promotion Act (CMEPA). CMEPA, effective July 2025, imposes a flat 20% final withholding tax on all deposit interest income, including long-term placements. 

By taxing time deposits, policymakers aim to push savers into capital markets, boosting bank non-interest income through fees, trading, and commissions. But in reality, this is financial engineering. (Figure 2, middle graph) 

With weak household savings and low financial literacy, deposit outflows will likely shrink banks’ funding base rather than diversify their revenues. 

It would increase time preferences, leading the public to needlessly take risks or gamble—further eroding savings. 

Or, instead of reducing fragility, CMEPA risks layering volatile market income on top of an already over-concentrated interest income model. 

We’ve previously addressed CMEPA—refer to earlier posts for context (see below) 

1.F The Real Culprit: Exploding Losses on Financial Assets 

Beyond this structural weakness, the real culprit behind the downturn was losses on financial assets. 

In Q2 2025, banks posted Php 43.78 billion in losses—the largest since the pandemic recession in Q4 2020—driven by Php 49.3 billion in provisions for credit losses!  (Figure 2, lowest image) 

For 1H 2025, losses ballooned 64% to Php 73.6 billion, with provisions reaching Php 84.19 billion. 

Once again, this provisioning surge is a tacit admission: while officials cite falling NPL ratios, banks themselves are bracing for valuation hits and potential defaults, likely tied to concentrated corporate exposures. 

1.G San Miguel’s Share Plunge: A Canary in the Credit Mine? Beneath the Surface: Banks Signal Stress

Figure 3

Could this be linked to the recent collapse in San Miguel [PSE: SMC] shares? 

SMC plunged 14.54% WoW (Week on Week) as of August 15th, compounding its YTD losses to 35.4%. (Figure 3, upper diagram) 

And this share waterfall happened before its Q2 17Q 2025 release, which showed debt slipping slightly from Php 1.511 trillion in Q1 to Php 1.504 trillion in 1H—suggesting that the intensifying selloff may have been driven by deeper concerns. (Figure 3, lower visual) 

SMC’s Q2 (17Q) report reveals increasingly opaque cash generation, aggressive financial engineering, and unclear asset quality and debt servicing capacity. 

Yet, paradoxically, Treasury yields softened across the curve—hinting at either covert BSP intervention through its institutional cartel, a dangerous underestimation of contagion risk, or market complacency—a lull before the credit repricing storm. 

If SMC’s debt is marked at par or held to maturity, deterioration in its credit profile wouldn’t show up as market losses—but would require provisioning. This provisioning surge is a tacit admission: banks are seeing heightened risk, even if it’s not yet reflected in NPL ratios or market pricing. 

We saw this coming. Prior breakdowns on SMC are archived below. 

Of course, this SMC–banking sector inference linkage still requires corroborating evidence or forensic validation—time will tell.

Still, one thing is clear: banks are exhibiting mounting stress—underscoring the BSP’s resolve to intensify its easing cycle through rate cuts, RRR reductions, deposit insurance hikes, and a soft USDPHP peg. The ‘Marcos-nomics’ debt-financed deficit spending adds fiscal fuel to this monetary response. 

1.H The NPL Illusion: Velocity Masks Vulnerability

Figure 4

NPLs can be a deceptive measure of bank health. Residual regulatory reliefs from the pandemic era may still distort classifications, and the ratio itself reflects the relative velocity of bad loans versus credit expansion. 

Both gross NPLs and total loans hit record highs in peso terms in June—Php 530.29 billion and Php 15.88 trillion, respectively—but credit growth outpaced defaults, keeping the NPL ratio artificially low at 3.34%. (Figure 4, topmost pane) 

The logic is simple: to suppress the NPL ratio, loan velocity must accelerate faster than the accumulation of bad debt. Once credit expansion stalls, the entire kabuki collapses—and latent systemic stress will surface. 

1.I Benchmark Kabuki: When Benchmark-ism Meets Market Reality 

This is where benchmark-ism hits the road—and skids. The system’s metrics, once propped up by interventionist theatrics, are now showing signs of exhaustion. 

These are not isolated anomalies, but worsening symptoms of prior rescues—now overrun by the law of diminishing returns. 

And yet, the response is more of the same: fresh interventions to mask the decay of earlier ones. Theatrics, once effective at shaping perception, are now being challenged by markets that no longer play along. 

The system’s health doesn’t hinge on ratios—it hinges on velocity. Velocity of credit, of confidence, of liquidity. When that velocity falters, the metrics unravel. 

And beneath the unraveling lies a fragility that no benchmark can disguise. 

Part 2: Liquidity Strains and the Architecture of Intervention

2.A Behind the RRR Cuts: Extraordinary Bank Dependence on BSP 

There are few signs that the public grasps the magnitude of developments unfolding in Philippine banks. 

The aggregate 450 basis point Reserve Requirement Ratio (RRR) cuts in October 2024 and March 2025 mark the most aggressive liquidity release in BSP history—surpassing even its pandemic-era response. (Figure 4, middle chart) 

Unlike previous easing cycles (2018–2019, 2020), where banks barely tapped BSP liquidity, the current drawdown has been dramatic. 

As of July, banks had pulled Php 463 billion since October 2024 from the BSP (Claims on Other Depository Corporations)—Php 84.6 billion since March and Php 189.2 billion in June. Notably, 40.9% of the Php 463 billion liquidity drawdown occurred in July alone. 

This surge coincides with mounting losses on financial assets and record peso NPLs—masked by rapid credit expansion, which may be a euphemism for refinancing deteriorating debt. Banks’ lending to bad borrowers to prevent NPL classification is a familiar maneuver. 

When banks incur significant financial losses—whether from rising NPLs, credit impairments, or mark-to-market declines—the immediate impact is not just weaker earnings but a widening hole in their funding structure. The December 2020 episode, when the system booked its largest financial losses, highlighted how such shocks create a liquidity vacuum: instead of recycling liquidity through lending and market channels, banks are forced to patch internal shortfalls, draining capital buffers and eroding interbank trust. 

Into this vacuum steps the BSP. Reserve requirement cuts, while framed as policy easing, have functioned less as a growth stimulus and more as a liquidity lifeline. By drawing on their balances with the BSP, banks convert regulatory reserves into working liquidity—filling gaps left by financial losses. The outcome is growing dependence on central bank support: what appears as easing is in fact the manifestation of extraordinary support, with liquidity migrating from market sources to the BSP’s balance sheet. 

This hidden dependence underscores how financial repression has hollowed out market-based liquidity, leaving the BSP as the primary lender of first resort 

2.B RRR Infusions: Liquidity Metrics Rebound; Weak Money Creation Amid Record Deficit Spending

The liquidity drawdown has filtered into banks’ cash positions. As of June, peso cash reserves rebounded—though still down 19.8% year-on-year. Cash-to-deposit ratios rose from 9.87% in May to 10.67% in June, while liquid assets-to-deposits climbed from 47.29% to 49.24%. (Figure 4, lowest image)

Figure 5

RRR-driven cash infusions also lifted deposits. Total deposit growth rebounded from 4.96% in May to 5.91% in June, led by peso deposits (3.96% to 6.3%) and supported by FX deposits (4.42% to 6.8%). (Figure 5, topmost graph) 

Yet paradoxically, despite a 10.9% expansion in Total Loan Portfolio and ODC drawdown, deposits only managed modest growth—suggesting a liquidity black hole. CMEPA’s impact may deepen this imbalance. 

Despite record deficit spending in 1H 2025, BSP currency issuance/currency in circulation growth slowed from 9% in June to 8.1% in July, after peaking at 14.7% in May during election spending. Substantial money creation has not translated into higher CPI or GDP, and the slowdown suggests a growing demand problem. (Figure 5, middle diagram) 

Even with July’s massive ODC drawdown, BSP’s cash in circulation suggests a financial cesspool has been absorbing liquidity—offsetting whatever expansionary efforts are underway. 

2.C Rising Borrowings Reinforce Funding Strains, Crowding Out Intensifies, Record HTM Assets 

After a brief slowdown in May, bank borrowings surged anew by 24% in June to Php 1.85 trillion, nearing the March record of Php 1.91 trillion. Escalating liquidity strains are pushing banks to increase funding from capital markets. (Figure 5, lowest pane) 

This intensifies the crowding-out effect, as banks compete with the government and private sector for access to public savings.

Figure 6

Meanwhile, as predicted, record-high public debt has translated to greater bank financing of government via Net Claims on the Central Government, showing up in banks’ record-high Held-to-Maturity (HTM) assets. HTM assets have become a prime contributor to tightening liquidity strains in the banking system. (Figure 6, topmost graph) 

2.D Divergence: Bank Profits, GDP and the PSE’s Financial Index; Market Concentration 

Despite slowing profit growth, the PSE’s Financial Index—composed of 7 banks (BDO, BPI, MBT, CBC, AUB, PNB, SECB) plus the PSE—hit a historic high in Q1 2025, before dipping slightly in Q2. (Figure 6, middle visual)

Meanwhile, the sector’s real GDP partially echoed profits, reinforcing the case of a downturn. 

Financial GDP dropped sharply from 6.9% in Q1 2025 and 8% in Q2 2024 to 5.6% in Q2 2025. It accounted for 10.4% of national GDP in Q2, down from the all-time high of 11.7% in Q1—signaling deeper financialization of the economy. (Figure 6, lowest chart)

Figure 7

Bank GDP slowed to 3.7% in Q2 from 4.9% in Q1 2025, far below the 10.2% growth of Q2 2024. Since Q1 2015, bank GDP has averaged nearly half (49.9%) of the sector’s GDP. (Figure 7, topmost window) 

Thanks to the BSP’s historic rescue, the free-float market cap weight of the top three banks (BDO, BPI, MBT) in the PSEi 30 rose from 12.76% in August 2020 to 24.37% by mid-April 2025. As of August 15, their share stood at 21.8%, rising to 23.2% when CBC is included. (Figure 7, middle chart) 

This concentration has cushioned the PSEi 30 from broader declines—suggesting possible non-market interventions in bank share prices, while amplifying concentration risk. 

2.E OFCs and the Financial Index: A Coordinated Lift? 

BSP data on Other Financial Corporations (OFCs) reveals a dovetailing of ODC activity with the Financial Index. OFCs—comprising non-money market funds, financial auxiliaries, insurance firms, pension funds, and money lenders—appear to be accumulating bank shares, possibly at BSP’s implicit behest. 

In Q1 2024, BSP noted: "the sector’s claims on depository corporations rose amid the increase in its deposits with banks and holdings of bank-issued equity shares." 

This suggests a coordinated effort to prop up bank share prices—masking underlying stress. (Figure 7, lowest graph) 

Once a bear market strikes key bank shares and the financial index, losses will add to liquidity stress. Economic reality will eventually expose the choreography propping up both the PSEi 30 and banks. 

2.F Triple Liquidity Drain; Rescue Template Risks: Inflation, Stagflation, Crisis; Fiscal Reflex: Keynesian Response Looms 

In short, three sources of liquidity strain now pressure Philippine banks:

• Record holdings of Held-to-Maturity assets
• Rising Financial losses
• All-time high non-performing loans 

If BSP resorts to its 2020–2021 pandemic rescue template, expect the USDPHP to soar, inflation to spike, and rates to rise—ushering in stagflation or even possibly a debt crisis. 

With the private sector under duress from mounting bad credit, authorities—guided by top-down Keynesian ideology—are likely to resort to fiscal stimulus to boost GDP and ramp up revenue efforts. 

2.G Finale: Classic Symptoms of Late-Cycle Fragility 

The Philippine banking system is showing unmistakable signs of late-cycle fragility.

Velocity-dependent metrics are poised to unravel once credit growth stalls. Liquidity dependence is paraded as resilience. Market support mechanisms blur price discovery. Policy reflexes recycle past interventions while ignoring structural cracks. 

Losses are being papered over with liquidity, fiscal deficits are substituting for private demand, and the veneer of stability rests on central bank backstops. This choreography cannot hold indefinitely. If current trajectories persist, the risks are stark: stagflation, currency instability, and a potential debt spiral. 

The metrics are clear. The real story lies in the erosion of velocity and the quiet migration from market discipline to state lifelines. What appears resilient today may be revealed tomorrow as fragility sustained on borrowed time. 

As the saying goes: we live in interesting times. 

____

Prudent Investor Newsletter Archives: 

1 San Miguel

• Is San Miguel’s Ever-Growing Debt the "Sword of Damocles" Hanging over the Philippine Economy and the PSE? December 02, 2024 (substack)
• Escalating Systemic Risk: As Cash Reserves Plummeted, San Miguel’s 9M Debt Zoomed to an Astonishing Php 1.405 TRILLION! November 20, 2023 (substack)

Just among the many…

2 CMEPA

• The CMEPA Delusion: How Fallacious Arguments Conceal the Risk of Systemic Blowback July 27, 2025 (substack)
• The Seen, the Unseen, and the Taxed: CMEPA as Financial Repression by Design July 20,2025 (substack)