Why the Philippine Peso's Strength Masks Underlying Vulnerabilities

 

If the governments devalue the currency in order to betray all creditors, you politely call this procedure 'inflation'--George Bernard Shaw 

In this issue

Why the Philippine Peso's Strength Masks Underlying Vulnerabilities

I. Philippine Peso in the Face of a Weak Dollar

II. Is the Peso’s Strength Rooted in Fundamentals? Portfolio Flows: A Mixed Picture

III. Remittances: Diminishing Returns

IV. Tourism: Geopolitical Headwinds

V. Trade Data: Structural Deficiencies Revealed

VI. Balance of Payments and Gross International Reserves: A Fragile Façade (Boosted by Borrowings)

VII. BSP’s Tightening Grip on FX Markets and the Illusion of Stability

VIII. The Speculative Role of the BSP: Other Reserve Assets

IX. Rising External Debt: A Ticking Time Bomb

X. Conclusion: Transitory Strength, Structural Fragility 

Why the Philippine Peso's Strength Masks Underlying Vulnerabilities 

A strong Philippine peso hides the cracks of FX debt, deficits, and interventions.

I. Philippine Peso in the Face of a Weak Dollar 

Figure 1

Surprisingly, the Philippine peso has outperformed its regional peers. Year-to-date, the USD-Philippine peso USDPHP has declined by 2.73% as of April 25. (Figure 1, upper window) 

Despite a generally weak dollar environment, the greenback has risen against some ASEAN currencies: it has appreciated by 4.32% against the Indonesian rupiah (IDR) according to Bloomberg data, and by 2.2% against the Vietnamese dong (VND) based on TradingEconomics data, year-to-date. 

The USDPHP’s behavior has largely mirrored the oscillations of the USD-euro $USDEUR pair and the Dollar Index $DXY, both of which have declined by -9.5% and -9% YTD, respectively. The euro commands the largest weight in the DXY basket at 57.6%, amplifying its influence over the index's performance. (Figure 1, lower image) 

II. Is the Peso’s Strength Rooted in Fundamentals? Portfolio Flows: A Mixed Picture  

Figure 2

Foreign portfolio flows have been volatile. 

The first two months of 2025 recorded a modest net inflow of USD 176.6 million, following significant outflows of USD 283.7 million in January and inflows of USD 460.34 million in February. These inflows were mainly directed towards government securities (USD 366 million), while the Philippine Stock Exchange (PSE) suffered USD 189 million in outflows. (Figure 2 topmost graph) 

In 2024, Philippine capital markets saw foreign portfolio inflows of USD 2.1 billion—the largest since 2013—suggesting a temporary vote of confidence, albeit in a risk-on environment favoring emerging markets more broadly. 

Meanwhile, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) reported that foreign direct investment (FDI) flows fell 20% year-on-year to USD 731 million in January 2025 from USD 914 million the year prior. (Figure 2, middle chart) 

Still, 71% of January’s FDI consisted of debt inflows, rather than equity investments. 

Ironically, despite the administration's aggressive international junkets (2022-2024) aimed at wooing investors through geopolitical alliances, these efforts have borne little fruit. 

What happened? 

As previously noted, an overvalued peso—maintained by a de facto USDPHP soft peg—along with high "hurdle rates" stemming from bureaucratic red tape and regulatory barriers, and the implicit consequences of "trickle-down" easy money policies benefiting the government and their elites (i.e., crony capitalism), have collectively undermined Philippine competitiveness. 

III. Remittances: Diminishing Returns 

Overseas Filipino Worker (OFW) remittance flows continue to grow, but at a marginal and slowing pace. Personal remittances rose 2.6% in February, with cumulative year-to-date growth at 2.7%. (Figure 2, lowest visual) 

However, the long-term trend in remittance growth has been declining since its 2013 peak—a period that coincided with the secular bottoming of the USDPHP. 

This trend reflects the diminishing marginal impact of remittances on the peso’s valuation. 

In short, remittances are becoming less material in influencing the peso’s foreign exchange rate. 

A more sustainable strategy would be to foster structurally inclusive economic growth—creating more high-quality domestic jobs and raising incomes—to reduce the country’s dependence on labor exportation and mitigate brain drain. 

Sadly, the slowdown in remittance growth does not point toward such an outcome. 

IV. Tourism: Geopolitical Headwinds

Figure 3 

The Philippine tourism sector's recovery may have stumbled. 

Foreign tourist arrivals fell by 2.42% in Q1 2025, while total arrivals—including overseas Filipino visitors—dropped by 0.51%. This was largely driven by a staggering 28.8% collapse in Chinese tourist arrivals in March and a 33.7% year-on-year plunge in Q1. This slump mirrors the escalating geopolitical tensions between the Philippines and China, particularly as Manila increasingly aligns itself with U.S. strategic interests. (Figure 3, upper diagram) 

Interestingly, American tourist arrivals also fell by 0.7% in March, although they rose by 7.9% for Q1 overall. Nonetheless, the growth in American tourists has hardly offset the sharp loss of Chinese visitors. (Figure 3, lower chart) 

In effect, a ‘war economy’ reduces the Philippines’ attractiveness as a tourism and investment destination. 

V. Trade Data: Structural Deficiencies Revealed

Figure 4

The Philippines' trade deficit narrowed by 11.44% to USD 3.16 billion in February, owing to a 1.8% contraction in imports and a muted 3.94% increase in exports, year-on-year. (Figure 4, upper graph)

While many mainstream talking heads argue that tariff liberalization will eventually benefit the Philippines, external trade figures tell a different story—one marred by structural weaknesses: high energy costs, a persistent credit financed savings-investment gap (a byproduct of trickle-down policies), the USDPHP peg, human capital limitations, economic centralization, regulatory hurdles and more.

Since 2013, total external trade (imports + exports) has grown at a CAGR of 4.84%—driven by imports growing at 5.95%, compared to exports at only 3.42%. Adjusted for currency movement (with the USDPHP CAGR at 3.01%), this yields a real export CAGR of just 0.41% versus 2.85% for imports, implying a real external trade CAGR of only 1.77%. (Figure 4 lower image)

While rising imports may superficially suggest robust consumption, a deeper question emerges: Is consumption fueled by genuine productivity gains—or by unsustainable credit expansion?

Ultimately, the data show that import-driven consumption has widened the trade deficit, and that local manufacturing remains largely uncompetitive relative to regional peers.

Against this backdrop, how realistic is it to expect that Trump's proposed tariffs will magically turn the Philippines into an export hub?

VI. Balance of Payments and Gross International Reserves: A Fragile Façade (Boosted by Borrowings)

Figure 5

The BSP reported a Balance of Payments (BoP) deficit of USD 2 billion for March 2025, following a staggering USD 4.1 billion deficit in January—an 11-year high—and a temporary surplus of USD 3.1 billion in February. The Q1 2025 BoP deficit stood at USD 2.96 billion. (Figure 5, upper window)

The BSP attributed these outflows to "drawdowns on reserves to meet external debt obligations" and to fund foreign exchange operations—justifications previously offered for January’s record deficit.

Meanwhile, February’s surplus largely stemmed from net foreign currency deposits by the National Government, sourced from proceeds of ROP Global Bond issuances and income from BSP’s foreign investments—in other words, from external borrowings.

Notably, the BSP has admitted that the year-to-date BoP deficit mainly reflects the widening goods trade deficit. Either this conflicts with PSA trade data showing a narrowing February deficit, or it hints at a possible sharp deterioration in March's trade balance.

Regardless, the BoP reports clearly indicate heavy BSP intervention in the FX market, even though the USDPHP remains well below the 59-level psychological ceiling.

Consequently, the BSP’s gross international reserves (GIR) dropped from USD 107.4 billion in February to USD 106.7 billion in March—a USD 725 million decline. (Figure 5, lower diagram)

Importantly, much of the GIR’s support comes from the government’s external borrowings deposited with the BSP. Thus, the GIR has been padded up artificially.

Figure 6

Even more striking: gold’s record high prices have prevented a steeper GIR decline, despite the BSP selling small amounts of gold in February.  

Gold's share of GIR slipped marginally from 11.4% in February to 11.22% in March. (Figure 6, upper pane)

Had it not been for ATH (all-time high) gold prices, the GIR would have deteriorated more significantly. 

As previously explained, as with the 2020 episode, sharply falling gold inventories preceded the devaluation of the peso. (Figure 6, lower chart) 

Outside of gold, a large share of GIR now constitutes "borrowed reserves"—a growing vulnerability tied directly to the BSP’s soft peg strategy for the USDPHP. 

This suggests that the recent GIR stability could be masking underlying vulnerabilities.

VII. BSP’s Tightening Grip on FX Markets and the Illusion of Stability 

It is therefore almost amusing to encounter this news item, based on the BSP’s publication: 

Inquirer.net, April 24: "The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) tightened regulations on foreign exchange (FX) derivatives involving the Philippine peso to ensure these are not used for currency speculation. Circular No. 1212, signed by Governor Eli Remolona Jr., mandates that banks authorized to transact in non-deliverable FX derivatives must ensure these are used for legitimate economic purposes." 

But who are the likely participants in FX swaps, non-deliverable forwards, and FX derivatives?

Not me. Not the general public. 

Given that PSE participation is only around 1% of the total population (as of 2023), the obvious answer is: banks and their elite clientele—the BSP’s own cartel members. 

Thus, what is the real message behind this announcement? 

First, banks and their elite clients may have been positioning against the peso, in ways inconsistent with BSP policy—prompting the BSP to tighten currency controls. 

Second, the BSP wants to show the public it is taking action, even as real risks accumulate. 

Third, something is amiss if the BSP feels compelled to impose tighter controls even with the USDPHP hovering at 56—well away from their upper band limit. 

Ultimately, who is truly engaged in currency speculation here? 

VIII. The Speculative Role of the BSP: Other Reserve Assets

Figure 7

Since 2018, the BSP has increasingly used Other Reserve Assets (ORA) to manage its GIR. (Figure 7) 

According to IMF IRFCL guidelines, ORA includes:

-Net, marked-to-market value of financial derivatives (forwards, futures, swaps, options)

-Short-term foreign currency loans

-Long-term loans to IMF trust accounts

-Other liquid foreign currency financial assets

-Repo assets 

The BSP’s ORA surged by 210.3% in February, lifting its share of GIR to 9.18%. Yet, even this rise was overshadowed by gold's role in preserving GIR totals. 

In truth, the BSP itself is a speculator—aggressively managing USDPHP levels against market forces. 

In pursuing short-term stability, it risks building imbalances that will eventually unwind with greater force. 

This has been evident in the widening BoP deficit, the rising share of "borrowed reserves," and the sustained gold sales. 

IX. Rising External Debt: A Ticking Time Bomb

Figure 8

Perhaps most revealing is this BSP announcement: 

BSP, April 25, 2025: "The Monetary Board approved USD 6.29 billion worth of proposed public sector foreign borrowings in Q1 2025, up by 118.91% from USD 2.87 billion during the same period last year." (bold mine) [figure 8, upper graph] 

Whatever the justification—whether for infrastructure, green (climate), defense, or welfare or others—debt is debt. 

Even though the BSP paid down nearly half its obligations (posting a Q1 BoP deficit of USD 2.96 billion), the residual balance should add to the swelling external debt stock. (Figure 8, lower chart) 

Recall that as of Q4 2024, government debt already accounted for 58% of total external debt. Banks and non-finance institutions are likely to add to this pile. 

Higher public debt implies higher future debt servicing costs, crowding out resources from productive investments, draining savings, increasing leverage, and deepening the Philippines’ dependence on foreign financing. 

X. Conclusion: Transitory Strength, Structural Fragility 

The Philippine peso’s strength in 2025, buoyed by a weak U.S. dollar, masks underlying vulnerabilities. Structural issues—overvalued currency, uncompetitive manufacturing, declining remittance growth, geopolitical strains, and reliance on borrowed reserves—undermine long-term stability. 

Through the USDPHP soft peg, the BSP’s interventions, while stabilizing the peso in the short term, foster imbalances that could unravel with a global tightening of monetary conditions. 

Without addressing these structural challenges through inclusive growth, deregulation, and reduced dependence on debt and remittances, the Philippines risks a rude awakening. The peso’s current resilience is less a reflection of economic strength and more a temporary reprieve, vulnerable to shifts in global financial tides. 

Nota bene: Although we discussed tourism and remittances, we did not cover business process outsourcing (BPO) and other export services in depth, largely due to limited data and the need to rely on GDP proxies. Regardless, surging debt levels are exposing widening FX liquidity vulnerabilities that services alone cannot offset. 

____

reference 

IMF INTERNATIONAL RESERVES AND FOREIGN CURRENCY LIQUIDITY GUIDELINES FOR A DATA TEMPLATE 2. OFFICIAL RESERVE ASSETS AND OTHER FOREIGN CURRENCY ASSETS (APPROXIMATE MARKET VALUE): SECTION I OF THE RESERVES DATA TEMPLATE, p.25 IMF.org

 

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