Philippine Treasury Markets vs. the Government’s February 2.1% Inflation Narrative: Who’s Right?

 

Inflation is a tax. Money for the government. A tax that people don’t see as a tax. That’s the best kind, for politicians—Lionel Shriver 

In this issue

Philippine Treasury Markets vs. the Government’s February 2.1% Inflation Narrative: Who’s Right?

I. February Inflation: A "Positive Surprise" or Statistical Mirage?

II. Demand Paradox: Near Full-Employment and Record Credit Highs in the face of Falling CPI and GDP?

III. The Financial Black Hole: Where Is Bank Credit Expansion Flowing?

IV. The USDPHP Cap: A Hidden CPI Subsidy

V. Markets versus Government Statistics: Philippine Treasury Markets Diverge from the CPI Data 

Philippine Treasury Markets vs. the Government’s February 2.1% Inflation Narrative: Who’s Right? 

With price controls driving February CPI down to 2.1%, the BSP’s easing narrative gains traction—yet treasury markets remain deeply skeptical

I. February Inflation: A "Positive Surprise" or Statistical Mirage?

ABS-CBN News, March 5: Inflation eased to 2.1 percent in February because of slower price increases in food and non-alcoholic beverages, among others, the Philippine Statistics Authority said Wednesday. In a press briefing, the PSA said food inflation slowed to 2.6 percent in February from 3.8 percent in January. The state statistics bureau noted that rice inflation further slowed to -4.9 percent from -2.3 percent in January…But the PSA noted that pork prices jumped by 12.1 percent in February, while the price of chicken meat leapt by 10.8 percent.  The cost of passenger transport by sea also soared to 56.2 percent in February.  Del Prado said the African swine fever problem continue to hurt pork prices in the Philippines. She said, however, that the Department of Agriculture’s plan to impose a maximum suggested retail price on pork may help ease price hikes. 

The Philippine government recently announced that inflation unexpectedly dropped to 2.1% in February 2025. One official media outlet hailed it a "positive surprise" in its headline. 

But is this optimism warranted? 

While the Philippine Stock Exchange (PSE)—via the "national team"—welcomed this news, interpreting it as a sign that the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) could continue its loose monetary policy—essentially providing a pretext for rate cuts—the more critical Philippine treasury markets, which serve as indicators of interest rate trends, appeared to hold a starkly different view. 

As an aside, the BSP’s reserve requirement ratio (RRR) cut takes effect this March 28th, adding fuel to the easing narrative. 

The odd thing is that a critical detail has been conspicuously absent from most media coverage: on February 3, 2025, authorities implemented the "Food Emergency Security" (FES) measure. 

This policy, centered on price controls—specifically Maximum Suggested Retail Prices (MSRP)—was supported by the release of government reserves. 

Consequently, February’s Consumer Price Index (CPI) reflects political intervention rather than organic market dynamics.

Figure 1

Even more telling is an overlooked trend: the year-on-year (YoY) change in the national average weighted price of rice had been declining since its peak in April 2024—well before the FES was enacted. (Figure 1, topmost graph) 

In a nutshell, the FES merely reinforced the ongoing downtrend in rice prices, serving more as an election-year tactic to demonstrate government action "we are doing something about rice prices," rather than an actual cause of the decline. 

Nevertheless, it won’t be long before officials pat themselves on the back and proclaim the policy a triumph. Incredible. 

But what about its future implications? 

Unlike rice, where government reserves were available to support price controls, the impending implementation of MSRP for pork products next week lacks similar supply-side support. This suggests that any price stabilization achieved will be short-lived. (Figure 1, middle chart) 

As noted in February,  

However, as history shows, the insidious effects of distortive policies surface over time. Intervention begets more intervention, as authorities scramble to manage the unintended consequences of their previous actions. Consequently, food CPI remains under pressure. (Prudent Investor, 2025)  

Nevertheless, manipulating statistics serves a political function—justifying policies through "benchmark-ism."  

Beyond food prices, which dragged down the headline CPI, core CPI also eased from 2.6% in January to 2.4% in February. 

Despite this pullback, the underlying inflation cycle appears intact. (Figure 1, lowest image) 

Government narratives consistently frame inflation as a ‘supply-side’ issue or blame it on "greedflation," yet much of their approach remains focused on demand-side management through BSP’s inflation-targeting policies. 

II. Demand Paradox: Near Full-Employment and Record Credit Highs in the face of Falling CPI and GDP? 

Authorities claim that employment rates have recently declined but remain near all-time highs. 

But how true is this?

Figure 2

The employment rate slipped from an all-time high of 96.9% in December 2024 to 95.7% in January 2025—a level previously hit in December 2023 and June 2024. (Figure 2, topmost image) 

Remarkably, despite near-full employment, the CPI continues to slide. 

Officials might argue this reflects productivity gains.  But that claim is misleading.

Consumer credit growth—driven by credit cards and supported by salary loans—has been on a record-breaking tear, rising 24.4% YoY in January 2025, marking its 28th consecutive month above 20%. (Figure 2, middle window) 

Yet, unlike the 2021-2022 period, headline CPI has weakened. 

Could this signal diminishing returns—mainly from refinancing? 

Beyond CPI, total Universal-Commercial (UC) bank loans have surged since Q1 2021—unfazed by official interest rate levels. (Figure 2, lowest diagram)

Figure 3

The slowing growth in salary loans seems to mirror the CPI’s decline. (Figure 3, upper pane) 

And it’s not just inflation. 

Despite an ongoing surge in Universal-Commercial (UC) bank loans since Q1 2021—regardless of official interest rate levels—weak consumption continues to weigh on GDP growth. The second half of 2024 saw GDP growth slow to just 5.2%. (Figure 3, lower chart) 

This boom coincides with record real estate vacancies, near unprecedented hunger rates, and almost milestone highs in self-reported poverty. 

So, where has demand gone? 

In January 2025, UC bank loans (both production and consumer) increased by 13.27% year-on-year. 

Are the government’s employment figures an accurate reflection of labor market conditions? Or, like CPI data, are they another exercise in "benchmark-ism" designed to persuade voters and depositors that the political economy remains stable? 

III. The Financial Black Hole: Where Is Bank Credit Expansion Flowing?

Figure 4 

Ironically, bank financing of the government, as reflected in Net Claims on the Central Government (NCoCG), continues to soar—up 7.4% year-on-year to PHP 5.41 trillion in January 2025, though slightly down from December 2024’s historic PHP 5.54 trillion. 

Meanwhile, since bottoming at 1.5% in April 2023, BSP currency issuance has trended upward, accelerating from May 2024 to January 2025, when it hit 11% YoY. (Figure 4, topmost graph) 

Despite this massive liquidity injection—via bank lending and government borrowing—deflationary forces persist in the CPI. 

Where is this money flowing? What "financial black hole" is absorbing the injected liquidity? 

IV. The USDPHP Cap: A Hidden CPI Subsidy 

The recent weakness of the US dollar—primarily due to a strong euro rally following U.S. President Trump’s pressure on Europe to increase NATO contributions—has driven up the region’s stock markets, particularly defense sector stocks. This, in turn, has triggered a global bond selloff.

The euro’s strength has also bolstered ASEAN currencies, including the Philippine peso. 

As predicted, the BSP’s cap on the USD-PHP exchange rate— a de facto subsidy—has fueled an increase in imports. In January, the nation’s trade deficit widened by 17% to USD 5.1 billion due to a 10.8% jump in imports. (Figure 4, middle window) 

Further, to defend this cap, the BSP sold significant foreign exchange (FX) in January, only to replenish its Gross International Reserves (GIR) in February via a USD 3.3 billion bond issuance. The BSP attributes the GIR increase to "(1) national government’s (NG) net foreign currency deposits with the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), which include proceeds from its issuance of ROP Global Bonds, (2) upward valuation adjustments in the BSP’s gold holdings due to the increase in the price of gold in the international market, and (3) net income from the BSP’s investments abroad." (Figure 5, lowest visual) 

This disclosure confirms the valuable role of gold in the BSP’s reserves. 

In short, the USD-PHP cap has not only subsidized imports but has also artificially suppressed the official CPI figures. 

From 2015 to 2022, the ebbs and flows in the USD-PHP exchange rate were strongly correlated with CPI trends.  

Figure 5

However, since 2022, when the exchange rate cap was strictly enforced, this relationship has broken down, increasing pressure on the credit-financed trade deficit and necessitating further borrowing to sustain both the cap and the Gross International Reserves (GIR). (Figure 5, topmost image) 

V. Markets versus Government Statistics: Philippine Treasury Markets Diverge from the CPI Data 

First, while global bond yields have risen amid the European selloff, this has not been the case for most ASEAN markets—except for the Philippines. This suggests that domestic factors have been the primary driver of movements in the ASEAN treasury markets, including the Philippines. (Figure 5, middle and lowest graphs)

Figure 6

Second, it is important to note that institutional traders dominate the Philippine treasury markets. This dynamic creates a distinction between the public statements of their respective "experts" and the actual trading behavior of market participants—"demonstrated preferences." 

The apparent divergence between the CPI and Philippine 10-year bond yields—despite their previous seven-year correlation—reveals disruptions caused by other influencing factors. (Figure 6, upper chart) 

Or, while analysts often serve as institutional cheerleaders for the traditional market response to an easing cycle, traders seem to be reacting differently.

Finally, further cementing this case for decoupling, the Philippine yield curve steepened (bearish steeper) during the week of the CPI announcement—suggesting that treasury markets are pricing in future inflation risks or tighter policy, potentially discounting the recent CPI decline as temporary. (Figure 6, lowest graph) 

All in all, while the government and the BSP claim to have successfully contained inflation, treasury markets remain highly skeptical—whether about the integrity of the data, the sustainability of current policies, or both. 

Our bet is on the latter.

___

References  

Prudent Investor, January 2025 2.9% CPI: Food Security Emergency andthe Vicious Cycle of Interventionism February 10, 2025

 

2024’s Savings-Investment Gap Reaches Second-Widest Level as Fiscal Deficit Shrinks on Non-Tax Windfalls

 

Deficits add up. Debt needs to be refinanced. And the larger the cost of servicing past spending, the less is available for the present. This is inherently and obviously a crackpot way to run a nation. It guarantees chaos, inflation, defaults and poverty—Bill Bonner 

In this issue

2024’s Savings-Investment Gap Reaches Second-Widest Level as Fiscal Deficit Shrinks on Non-Tax Windfalls 

In 2024, the Philippines' Savings-Investment Gap continued to widen to a near record, driven primarily by fiscal deficit spending—its effects and potential consequences discussed in two connected articles.

A. The Widening Savings-Investment Gap: A Growing Threat to Long-Term Stability

I. The Philippines as a Poster Child of Keynesian Economic Development

II. The Persistent Decline in Savings and the Investment Boom

III. Sectoral Investment Allocation and Bank Lending Trends

IV. Bank Lending Patterns and the Role of Real Estate

V. The SI Gap and the ’Twin Deficits’

VI. Conclusion: Deepening SI Gap a Risk to Long-Term Stability

B. 2024 Fiscal Performance: Narrower Deficit Fueled by Non-Tax Windfalls, Masking Structural Risks

I. 2024 Deficit Reduction: A Superficial Improvement? Revenue Growth: The Role of Non-Tax Windfalls

II. Government Spending Trends: A Recurring Pattern; Symptoms of Centralization

III. 2024 Public Debt and Debt Servicing Costs Soared to Record Highs!

IV. Public "Investments:" Unintended Market and Economic Distortions

V. Conclusion: Current Fiscal Trajectory a Growing Risk to Financial and Economic Stability 

A. The Widening Savings-Investment Gap: A Growing Threat to Long-Term Stability

I. The Philippines as a Poster Child of Keynesian Economic Development

 Figure 1

Businessworld, February 28, 2025: In 2024, the country’s savings rate — defined as gross domestic savings as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) — grew to 9.3%, reaching P2.47 trillion. Meanwhile, the investment rate was 23.7% of GDP, or P6.27 trillion, resulting in a P3.8-trillion gap. The savings-investment gap (S-I) gap — the difference between gross domestic savings and gross capital formation — shows a country’s ability to finance its overall investment needs. An S-I deficit occurs when a country’s investment expenditures exceed its savings, forcing borrowing to fund the gap. (Figure 1, topmost chart)

The Philippines may be considered one of the poster children of Keynesian economic development.

Given that aggregate demand serves as the foundation of the economy, national economic policies have been designed to stimulate and manage a spending-driven growth model, particularly through investment and consumption.

From a Keynesian perspective, the government is expected to compensate for any spending shortfall from the private sector by increasing its own expenditures.

The Savings-Investment Gap (SIG) serves as a key metric for tracking the evolution of aggregate demand management over time.

However, this ratio may be understated due to potential discrepancies in macroeconomic data—GDP figures may be overstated, while inflation (CPI) may be understated. Or, in my humble view, the actual savings rate may be even lower than indicated.

II. The Persistent Decline in Savings and the Investment Boom

The Philippines’ gross domestic savings rate has been in a downtrend since 1985, but it plummeted after 2018, coinciding with an acceleration in government spending. This trend worsened in 2020, when the pandemic triggered a surge in public expenditures. (Figure 1, middle image) 

From 1985 onward, the persistent decline in savings suggests a rise in household consumption, a "trickle-down effect," supported by accommodative monetary policy and moderate fiscal expansion.

Meanwhile, the investment rate surged between 2016 and 2019, driven by government-led initiatives, particularly the ‘Build, Build, Build’ program.

However, the 2020 collapse—where both savings and investment rates fell sharply—highlighted the government’s aggressive "automatic stabilization" response to the pandemic recession, which relied on RECORD deficit spending and monetary stimulus.

The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) introduced unprecedented measures, including ₱2.3 trillion in liquidity injections, historic reductions in reserve requirements and policy rates, a managed USDPHP cap, and various financial relief programs.

III. Sectoral Investment Allocation and Bank Lending Trends 

The distribution of investments can be inferred from sectoral GDP contributions and bank lending trends. 

As of 2024, the five largest contributors to GDP were:

-Trade (18.6%)

-Manufacturing (17.6%)

-Finance (10.6%)

-Agriculture (8%)

-Construction (7.5%) (Figure 1, lowest graph) 

However, both manufacturing and agriculture have been in decline since 2000, suggesting that investments have largely flowed into trade, finance, and construction (including government-related projects).

Real estate, once a growing sector, peaked in 2015 and has since been in decline. Nevertheless, it remained the seventh-largest sector in 2024. It trailed professional and business services—which encompasses head office activities, architectural and engineering services, management consultancy, accounting, advertising, and legal services.

The top five GDP contributors accounted for 62.25% of total output, down from 66.06% in 2020, primarily due to the contraction in manufacturing and agriculture. 

IV. Bank Lending Patterns and the Role of Real Estate

Figure 2

While the real estate sector's share of real GDP declined, its share of bank lending expanded significantly. (Figure 2, topmost window) 

From 2014, real estate-related borrowing rose sharply, peaking in 2021, before moderating below 2022 levels. Nevertheless, real estate remained the largest client of the banking system in 2024, accounting for 19.6% of total loans. (Figure 2, middle diagram) 

That is—assuming banks have reported accurate data to the BSP. The reality is that banks often lack transparency regarding loan distribution and utilization (where the money is actually spent). 

Given that many retail investors (mom-and-pop borrowers) are very active in real estate, it is likely that actual exposure is understated, as banks may structure their reporting to circumvent BSP lending caps on the sector—it extended the price cap during the pandemic. 

In the meantime, the share of consumer lending has seen the most significant growth, surging after 2014 and becoming the dominant growth segment of bank credit. 

Meanwhile, the share of loans to the trade industry declined marginally, and manufacturing loans saw a steep drop—reflecting its GDP performance. 

Lending to the financial sector peaked in 2022 but has since declined, whereas credit to the utilities sector increased from 2014 to 2020 and has remained stable since. 

V. The SI Gap and the ’Twin Deficits’ 

The sharp decline in manufacturing underscores the structural imbalances reflected in the SI Gap, which in turn has contributed to the record "twin deficits" (fiscal and external trade). (Figure 2, lowest chart) 

As both consumers and the government spent beyond domestic productive capacity, the economy became increasingly reliant on imports to satisfy aggregate demand. 

Although the deficits have slightly narrowed from their pandemic peaks, they remain at ‘emergency stimulus levels’, posing risks to long-term stability. (see discussion on fiscal health below) 

These deficits have been—and will continue to be—financed through both domestic (household) and foreign (external debt) borrowing.

Figure 3 

The widening SIG has coincided with a decline in M2 savings growth, while the M2-to-GDP ratio surged, reflecting both credit expansion and monetary stimulus (including BSP’s money printing operations). (Figure 3, upper pane) 

External debt has also reached an all-time high in 2024, adding another layer of vulnerability. 

VI. Conclusion: Deepening SI Gap a Risk to Long-Term Stability 

The Philippines' growing S-I gap and declining savings rate reflect deep-seated structural imbalances that raise concerns about long-term economic stability. 

A shrinking domestic savings pool limits capital accumulation, increase dependence on external financing, and expose the economy to risks such as debt distress and currency fluctuations. 

B. 2024 Fiscal Performance: Narrower Deficit Fueled by Non-Tax Windfalls, Masking Structural Risks 

I. 2024 Deficit Reduction: A Superficial Improvement? Revenue Growth: The Role of Non-Tax Windfalls 

Inquirer.net, February 28: "The Marcos administration posted a smaller budget shortfall in 2024, but it was not enough to contain the deficit within the government’s limit as unexpected expenses pushed up total state spending. Latest data from the Bureau of the Treasury (BTr) showed that the budget gap had dipped by 0.38 percent to around P1.51 trillion last year. As a share of gross domestic product (GDP), the deficit improved to 5.7 percent last year, from 6.22 percent in 2023. But it still indicated that the government had spent beyond its means, requiring more borrowings that pushed the state’s outstanding debt load to P16.05 trillion by the end of 2024." (bold added)

Now, let us examine the performance of the so-called "public investment" in 2024.

Officials hailed the alleged improvement in the fiscal balance. One remarked, "This is the lowest since 2020 and shows the good work of the administration's economic team."

Another noted that "the drop in the deficit was ‘better than expected,’" implying that "the government no longer needs to borrow as much if the budget deficit is shrinking."

From my perspective, manipulating popular benchmarks—whether through statistical adjustments or market prices—as a form of political signaling to sway depositors and voters—is what I call "benchmark-ism."

While both spending and revenues hit their respective milestones, the 2024 fiscal deficit only decreased marginally from Php 1.512 trillion to Php 1.51 trillion. (Figure 3, lower image)

The so-called "improvement" mainly resulted from a decline in the deficit-to-GDP ratio, which fell from 6.22% in 2023 to 5.7% in 2024—a reduction driven largely by nominal GDP growth rather than actual fiscal restraint.

Authorities credit this "improvement" primarily to revenue growth.

While it's true that fiscal stimulus led to a broad-based increase in revenues, officials either deliberately downplayed or diverted attention from the underlying reality.

Figure 4

Despite record bank credit expansion in 2024, tax revenue only increased 10.8%, driven by the Bureau of Internal Revenue’s (BIR) modest 13.3% growth and the Bureau of Customs’ (BoC) paltry 3.8% rise. Instead, the real driver of revenue growth was an extraordinary 56.9% surge in NON-tax revenues, which pushed total public revenues up 15.56%. (Figure 4, middle image) 

As a result, the share of non-tax revenues spiked from 10.3% in 2023 to 14% in 2024—its highest level since 2007’s 17.9%! (Figure 4, topmost diagram) 

The details or the nitty gritty tell an even more revealing story. According to the Bureau of Treasury (February 27): "Total revenue from other offices (other non-tax, including privatization proceeds, fees and charges, grants, and fund balance transfers) doubled to PHP 335.0 billion from PHP 167.2 billion a year ago and exceeded the P262.6 billion revised program by 27.56% (PHP 72.4 billion) primarily due to one-off remittances." (bold added)

To emphasize: ONE-OFF remittances!

Revenues from "Other Offices" doubled in 2024, with its share jumping from 4.4% to 7.6%.

If this one-time windfall hadn’t occurred, the fiscal deficit would have exploded to a new record of Php 1.84 trillion! 

Despite the minor deficit reduction, public debt still surged. 

Public debt rose by 9.82% YoY (Php 1.435 trillion) in 2024—higher than 8.92% (Php 1.2 trillion) in 2023. (Figure 4, lowest graph) 

Was the increased borrowing in 2024 a response to cosmetically reducing the fiscal deficit? 

And that’s not all.

II. Government Spending Trends: A Recurring Pattern; Symptoms of Centralization

Figure 5

For the sixth consecutive year, the government exceeded the ‘enacted budget’ passed by Congress. The Php 157 billion overrun in 2024 was the largest since the post-pandemic recession in 2021, when the government implemented its most aggressive fiscal-monetary stimulus package. (Figure 5, topmost chart)

More importantly, this repeated breach of the "enacted budget" signals a growing shift of fiscal power from Congress to the executive branch.

Looking ahead, 2025’s enacted budget of Php 6.326 trillion represents a 9.7% increase from 2024’s Php 5.768 trillion.

The seemingly perpetual spending growth has been justified on the assumption of delivering projected GDP growth. 

While some "experts" claim the Philippines is becoming more ’business-friendly,’ the growing expenditure-to-GDP ratio tells a different story:

-The government is increasingly centralizing control over economic resources.

-This trend began in 2014, accelerated in 2016, and peaked in 2021 at 24.1%—the first breach of the enacted budget. After marginally declining to 21.94% in 2023, it rebounded to 22.4% in 2024. (Figure 5, middle image)

However, these figures only account for public spending. When factoring in private sector funds allocated to government projects, the true extent of government influence could easily exceed 30% of economic activity.

Of course, this doesn’t come for free. Government spending is funded through taxation, borrowing, and inflation. 

The more the government "invests," the fewer resources remain for private sector growth—the crowding out effect. 

This spending-driven economic model has distorted production and price structures, evident in: 

-The persistent "twin deficits"

-A second wave of inflation (Figure 5, lowest visual) 

III. 2024 Public Debt and Debt Servicing Costs Soared to Record Highs!

Figure 6

And surging public debt is just one of the consequences of crowding out the private sector. 

Public debt-to-GDP rose from 60.1% in 2023 to 60.7% in 2024—matching 2005 levels. (Figure 6, topmost diagram) 

More strikingly, debt service (interest + amortization) as a share of GDP surged from 6.6% in 2023 to 7.6% in 2024—its highest since 2011.

In fact, both debt-to-GDP and debt service-to-GDP in 2024 exceeded pre-Asian Crisis levels (1996-1997). 

Rising debt service costs imply that: 

1 Government spending will increasingly be diverted toward debt payments or rising debt service costs constrain fiscal flexibility, leaving fewer resources for essential public investments

2 Revenues will suffer diminishing returns as debt servicing costs spiral (Figure 6 middle window)

3 Growing risks of inflation (financial repression or the inflation tax)—as government responds with printing money

4 Mounting pressures for taxes to increase 

The principal enabler of this debt buildup has been the BSP’s prolonged easy money regime. (Figure 6, lowest chart)

Figure 7

The banking system has benefited from extraordinary BSP political support, including: Official rate and RRR cuts, liquidity injections, USDPHP cap and various subsidies and relief measures 

The industry has also functioned as a primary financier of government debt via net claims on central government or NCoCG), with banks acquiring government debt—reaching an all-time high in 2024. (Figure 7, topmost window)

IV. Public "Investments:" Unintended Market and Economic Distortions

This policy stance of propping up the banking system comes with unintended consequences. 

Bank liquidity has steadily declined—the cash-to-deposit ratio has weakened since 2013, mirroring the rising deficit-to-GDP ratio. (Figure 7, middle graph) 

Market distortions are also evident in declining stock market transactions and the PSEi 30’s prolonged bear market—despite interventions by the so-called "National Team." (Figure 7, lowest chart)

V. Conclusion: Current Fiscal Trajectory a Growing Risk to Financial and Economic Stability 

So, what’s the bottom line? 

Government "investment" is, in reality, consumption. 

It has fueled economic distortions, malinvestment, and ballooning public debt—ultimately crowding out private sector investment and jeopardizing fiscal sustainability. 

Political "free lunches" remain popular, not only among the public but also within the “intelligentsia” class or the intellectual cheerleaders of the government.

As we warned last December: 

"Any steep economic slowdown or recession would likely compel the government to increase spending, potentially driving the deficit to record levels or beyond. 

Unless deliberate efforts are made to curb spending growth, the government’s ongoing centralization of the economy will continue to escalate the risk of a fiscal blowout. 

Despite the mainstream's Pollyannaish narrative, the current trajectory presents significant challenges to long-term fiscal stability." (Prudent Investor 2024)

 ___

References: 

Prudent Investor, Debt-Financed Stimulus Forever? The Philippine Government’s Relentless Pursuit of "Upper Middle-Income" Status December 1, 2025

 

 

How the BSP's Soft Peg will Contribute to the Weakening of the US Dollar-Philippine Peso Exchange Rate

 

Balance of payments crises are created in (soft) pegged arrangement because the monetary authority simultaneously targets both the exchange rate and interest rate and fails on both counts—Steve Hanke 

In this issue

How the BSP's Soft Peg will Contribute to the Weakening of the US Dollar-Philippine Peso Exchange Rate

I. Closing 2024: Major Interventions Boost the Philippine Peso and PSEi 30

II. A Brief History of the USDPHP's Soft Peg

III. USDPHP Peg: Tactical Policy Measures: Magnifying Systemic Risks

IV. The Cost of Cheap Dollars: Financing Challenges and Soaring External Debt

V. USDPHP Peg: The Other Consequences

How the BSP's Soft Peg will Contribute to the Weakening of the US Dollar-Philippine Peso Exchange Rate 

The Philippine peso mounted a strong rally in the last week of 2024, a hallmark of the BSP's defense of the USDPHP soft-peg regime. Why such policies would boost it past 60! 

I Closing 2024: Major Interventions Boost the Philippine Peso and PSEi 30

In the last week of December, I proposed in a tweet that the BSP and their "national team" cohorts might engage in "painting the tape" to boost Philippine asset prices during the final two trading sessions of the year.  

The BSP and their Philippine "national team" have 2 days left in 2024 to steepen Treasury markets, limit $USDPHP gains, and boost #PSEi30 returns after Friday's massive 5 minute pre-closing pump (correction: should have been Monday instead of Friday)

Figure 1 

This post turned out to be prescient. The "national team" apparently didn’t allow any major corrections on the PSEi 30 following Monday’s powerful 5-minute pump, subsequently, following it up with another two-day massive pre-closing rescue pump. (Figure 1, topmost charts)

However, the USD Philippine peso exchange rate (USDPHP) market exhibited even more prominent interventions. Despite the USD surging against 19 out of 28 pairs, based on Exante Data, the Philippine peso stood out by defying this trend, delivering the most outstanding return on December 26th. It was a mixed showing for the other ASEAN currencies. (Figure 1, middle table)

On that day too, the USDPHP traded at its lowest level from the opening and throughout the session, with depressed volatility—a clear indication of an intraday price ceiling set by the market maker, or possibly the BSP. (Figure 1, lowest graph)

By the last trading day of the year, the USDPHP weakened further, resulting in an impressive 1.64% decline over three trading sessions!

Figure 2

Notably, the Philippine peso emerged as the best-performing Asian currency during the final trading week of the year. Still, the USDPHP delivered a 4.47% return compared to the PSEi 30’s 1.22%. (Figure 2)

Figure 3

Over the past 12 years, the USDPHP has outperformed the PSEi 30 in 9 of them. Given its current momentum, this trend is likely to persist into 2025. (Figure 3, upper chart)

It is crucial to understand that such price interventions are not innocuous; they have lasting effects on the market and the broader economy.

II. A Brief History of the USDPHP's Soft Peg

The BSP employed a ‘soft peg’ or limited the rise of the USDPHP back in 2004-2005 (56.4 in 2004 and 56 in 2005).  (Figure 3, lower image)

Because of the relatively clean balance sheet following the post-Asian Crisis reforms, the BSP seemed successful—the peso rallied strongly from 2005 to 2007.

Despite the interim spike in the USDPHP during the Great Financial Crisis (GFC), it fell back to the 2007 low levels in 2013. This episode marked both the culmination of the strength of the Philippine peso and its reversal: the 12-year uptrend for the USDPHP.

Figure 4

Thanks to the expanded deployment of new tools called Other Reserve Assets (ORA), the BSP managed to generate substantial gains for the Philippine peso from 2018 to 2021. (Figure 4, upper window)

ORA includes financial derivatives (forwards, futures, swaps, and options), repos, and other short-term FX loans and assets.

However, this did not last, as the BSP launched a multi-pronged bailout of the banking system in response to the pandemic recession. The bailout comprised Php 2.3 trillion in injections (Quantitative Easing via Net claims on Central Government), aggressive RRR cuts, historic interest rate reductions, and various capital and regulatory relief measures, including subsidies. (Figure 4, lower diagram)

The USDPHP soared by about 5.4% from its 2004-2005 cap to reach the 59 level, marking the second series of its soft peg.

The USDPHP hit the 59 level four times in October 2022.

This second phase of USDPHP soft peg signified a part of the pandemic bailout measures.

Fast forward today, as the BSP maintained its implicit support via relatively elevated net claims on central government (NCoCG), the USDPHP’s 2023 countertrend rally was short-lived and rebounded through June 2024.

Promises of easy money from both the US Fed and the BSP sent a risk-on signal for global assets, including those in the Philippines sent the USDPHP tumbling to its low in September 2024.

Unfortunately, renewed signs of ‘tightening’ sent it re-testing the 59 levels three times in November-December 2024.

In short, despite recent interventions to maintain the 59 level, the numerous attempts to breach it signal the growing mismatch between the BSP’s soft peg and market forces.

III. USDPHP Peg: Tactical Policy Measures: Magnifying Systemic Risks

Yet, the BSP’s upper band limit signifies a subsidy on the USD or a price distortion that undervalues the USD while simultaneously overvaluing the peso.

This policy impacts the economy in several significant ways.

Widening Trade Deficit: First, the cap widens the trade deficit by making imports appear cheaper and exports more expensive. An artificial ceiling exacerbates imbalances stemming from the historical credit-financed savings-investment gap.

Figure 5

It is no surprise that the trade deficit hit its all-time high in the second half of 2022 as the BSP cap went into effect.

Meanwhile, in October 2024, the trade deficit reached its third highest on record, following the USDPHP run-up through June 2024 with a quasi-upper band limit of 58.8-58.9. The USDPHP hit the 59 level twice in October. (Figure 5, upper chart)

Reduced Tourism Competitiveness: Second, an artificially strong peso (due to the cap) could make the Philippines a more expensive destination for tourists. This could reduce the country’s competitiveness in the tourism sector, ultimately impacting tourism revenue negatively.

Resource Misallocation: Third, prolonged price distortions lead to resource misallocations. In the short term, an overvalued currency might fuel consumption-driven growth due to cheaper imports. However, businesses may over-import because of the cheap USD, while exporters face challenges, with some potentially shutting down, resulting in job losses.

Over time, this could lead to overinvestment in import-related and dependent sectors while underinvestment could spur declining competitiveness in exports and tourism-related industries. These represent only the first-order effects.

The intertemporal ripple effects extend through supply and demand chains, compounding the long-term economic impact.

Inflation Risks: Fourth, the policy could exacerbate domestic inflation. While one goal of the cap is to suppress rising import costs, dwindling reserves make defending the cap increasingly difficult. Once reserves are depleted, the risk of abrupt devaluation grows, potentially defeating the policy’s original purpose.

Reduced Foreign Direct Investment (FDI): Fifth, pricier peso assets and heightened inflation risks translate to higher ‘hurdle rates’ for Foreign Direct Investments (FDI). This diminishes competitiveness and results in slow or stagnant FDI inflows, hindering long-term economic growth. Since peaking in December 2021, FDI flows have been stagnating and have shown formative signs of a downtrend since falling most last September 2024. (Figure 5, lower graph)

Increased Market Volatility: Sixth, the artificial ceiling could inadvertently magnify market volatility. Although designed to maintain stability, the widening misalignment between the USDPHP and economic fundamentals may prompt speculative pressures. If markets perceive the cap as unsustainable, the result could be a destabilizing devaluation. 

Capital Flight and Financial Instability: Finally, the growing perception of an imminent, sharp devaluation might spur capital flight from prolonged price controls, increasing the risks of financial instability. 

The Long-Term Costs of Short-Term Policies: Tactical policy measures, such as an artificial cap, magnify risks over time. These stop-gap measures are not "free lunches." Instead, they increase economic inefficiencies, contribute to stagnation, and amplify systemic risks. 

IV. The Cost of Cheap Dollars: Financing Challenges and Soaring External Debt 

On top of that, there is the critical issue of financing. 

>By keeping the dollar artificially cheap, authorities ENCOURAGE USD debt accumulation. This policy may amplify medium- to long-term vulnerabilities, particularly in the face of rising global interest rates or a stronger dollar. 

>Depleting Reserves and Surging External Debt: The artificial ceiling requires substantial central bank intervention through the use of foreign reserves. However, prolonged interventions deplete these reserves and may compel the government to borrow externally to replenish them, thereby increasing public debt. 

Unsurprisingly, external debt soared in Q3 2024. 

What’s more, since the National Government’s (NG) net foreign currency deposits with the BSP include proceeds from the NG's issuance of ROP Global Bonds, external debt inflates the BSP’s Gross International Reserves (GIR).

Figure 6 

Still, the level and growth of Q3 external debt continue to outpace the GIR. (Figure 6, topmost image) 

As a side note, GIR fell by USD 2.6 billion to USD 108.5 billion last November.

>Increasing Refinancing and Liquidity Strains:

As I recently noted, 

rising external debt compounds the government’s predicament, as the lack of revenues necessitates repeated cycles of increased borrowing to fund gaps in the BSP-Banking system’s maturity transformation, creating a "synthetic US dollar short." (Prudent Investor, November 2024)

Increasing requirements for refinancing have only magnified the US dollar shortage, amplifying a race to borrow that heightens the risk of abrupt exchange rate adjustments or repayment shocks.

Additionally, banks (+34.14% YoY) and non-financial institutions (+5.5%) have also been ramping up their external debt. However, government borrowings (+18.7%) continue to outpace those of the private sector (in mil USD). (Figure 6, middle diagram) 

>Growing Short-Term Debt Concerns: Worse yet, while the BSP describes the present growth pace of external debt as "sustainable," short-term external debt has hit a record, and its share of the total has also expanded in Q3. (Figure 6, lowest window) 

The rapid rise in short-term debt is a symptom of mounting US "dollar shorts" or developing liquidity strains, which are likely to be magnified by the BSP’s caps. 

>Rising Debt Crisis Risk: Although one implicit objective of maintaining a USDPHP cap is to artificially lower the cost of debt servicing, the removal of this cap or an eventual devaluation could cause the cost of servicing foreign-denominated debt to skyrocket in local currency terms, potentially triggering a debt crisis. 

Figure 7

Eleven-month debt servicing costs have already hit a record (compared with same period and against the annual), partly due to the increasing share of foreign-denominated debt. Imagine where these costs would land if the USDPHP exchange rate breaches the 60 level!

V. USDPHP Peg: The Other Consequences

And that’s not all. 

The artificial peg may lead to additional consequences:

>Moral Hazard: Economic actors might engage in risky financial behavior, such as excessive USD borrowing, expecting government intervention to shield them from losses by perpetually maintaining a cheap dollar policy.

>Policy Tradeoffs: The BSP’s prioritization of exchange rate stability could worsen imbalances brought about by past and present monetary policy stances.

>Black Market Emergence: As USD supply becomes restricted due to prolonged interventions, a parallel or black market for the dollar may emerge.

>Social Inequality: The benefits of an artificially cheap dollar often skew toward wealthier individuals, who gain access to inexpensive foreign goods and international investment opportunities. In contrast, low-income households may face rising prices for basic goods—especially domestically produced ones—because local producers struggle with higher input costs or reduced competitiveness. 

>Economic Inequality: Moreover, such policies disproportionately favor certain groups, such as importers or holders of foreign currency-denominated assets (and related industries), and USD borrowers, at the expense of others, including exporters, local producers and savers.

>Trade Relations and Currency Manipulation Risks: A significant trade deficit driven by an undervalued dollar could strain trade relationships, potentially inviting retaliatory measures from trading partners or complicating trade negotiations. 

In extreme cases, accusations of "currency manipulation" could lead to sanctions by organizations such as the WTO. These sanctions might allow affected countries to impose tariffs on imports from the Philippines. 

All these factors point to one conclusion: the USDPHP is likely headed past 60 soon.

____

References

Prudent Investor US Dollar-Philippine Peso Retests Its All-Time High of 59, the BSP’s "Maginot Line": It’s Not About the Strong Dollar November 25, 2024