Philippine Fiscal Performance in Q1 2025: Record Deficit Amid Centralizing Power

 

The greatest threat facing America today is the disastrous fiscal policies of our own government, marked by shameless deficit spending and Federal Reserve currency devaluation. It is this one-two punch -- Congress spending more than it can tax or borrow, and the Fed printing money to make up the difference—that threatens to impoverish us by further destroying the value of our dollars—Dr. Ron Paul 

In this issue:

Philippine Fiscal Performance in Q1 2025: Record Deficit Amid Centralizing Power

I. Public Spending: A Rising Floor, Not a Ceiling

II. Shifting Power Dynamics: The Ascendancy of the Executive Branch

III. A Historic Q1 2025 Deficit: Outpacing the Pandemic Era

IV. Revenue Shortfalls: The Weakest Link

V. Crowding Out: Public Revenues at the Expense of the Private Sector

VI. Expenditure Trends: Centralization in Action as LGUs Left Behind

VII. Debt Servicing: A Growing Burden

VIII. Foreign Borrowing: A Risky Trajectory

IX. Savings and Investment Gap: The Twin Deficits

X. Twin Deficit Structure

XI. Mounting FX Fragility and Systemic Risks

XII. Fiscal Strain Reflected in the Banking and Financial System

XIII. Bank Liquidity Drain and Risky Credit Expansion

XIV. Conclusion: A Fragile Political Economy  

Philippine Fiscal Performance in Q1 2025: Record Deficit Amid Centralizing Power 

A record Php 478.8 billion deficit, driven by soaring spending and slowing revenues, exposes deepening fiscal imbalances and a dangerous shift toward centralized power, increasing risks to the Philippines’ economic stability         

Inquirer.net, May 01, 2025: "The Philippine government in March registered its largest budget deficit in 15 months as revenues contracted amid strong growth in spending. The state’s fiscal shortfall had widened by 91.78 percent year-on-year to P375.7 billion in March, according to the latest cash operations report of the Bureau of the Treasury (BTr). This was the biggest budget gap since the P400.96-billion deficit in December 2023. That sent the fiscal gap in the first quarter to P478.8 billion, 75.62 percent bigger than the shortfall recorded a year ago." (bold mine)

The establishment’s talking heads and pundits tend to gloss over unpalatable economic data, but let us fill in the blanks. 

This article dissects the Q1 2025 fiscal performance, highlighting the record deficit, shifting political power dynamics, and underlying economic vulnerabilities.

I. Public Spending: A Rising Floor, Not a Ceiling 

In March, we noted: "This suggests that the monthly average of Php 527 billion represents a floor! We are likely to see months with Php 600-700 billion spending." (Prudent Investor, March 2025) 

The 2025 enacted budget of Php 6.326 trillion translates to an average monthly expenditure of Php 527 billion.

Figure 1

However, public spending in March 2025 soared to Php 654.98 billion—the second-highest on record, surpassed only by December 2023’s Php 661.03 billion. Excluding seasonal December spikes, March 2025 set a new benchmark or a new high for monthly expenditure. (Figure 1, topmost window)

For Q1, public spending hit Php 1.477 trillion, representing 23.35% of the annual budget. This translates to a monthly average of Php 492.33 billion—Php 34.84 billion short of the official target. Nonetheless, Q1 spending ranked as the sixth-largest quarterly expenditure in history.

This aggressive spending pace underscores a pattern observed over the past six years, where the executive branch consistently overshoots the enacted budget. (Figure 1, middle image) 

Based on this path dependency, the Php 527 billion monthly average should indeed be considered a floor, with monthly expenditures likely to hit Php 600–700 billion—or higher—in subsequent months to meet or exceed the annual target.

II. Shifting Power Dynamics: The Ascendancy of the Executive Branch

Beyond the numbers lies a profound political shift. As we highlighted in March:

"More importantly, this repeated breach of the ‘enacted budget’ signals a growing shift of fiscal power from Congress to the executive branch." (Prudent Investor, March 2025) 

The consistent overspending suggests that Congress has implicitly ceded control over the power of the purse to the executive. 

This erosion of legislative oversight effectively consolidates political supremacy in the executive branch, rendering elections a formality in the face of centralized fiscal authority. 

Indeed, the executive’s growing control over the budget illustrates the erosion of democratic checks and balances among the three branches of the Philippine government. 

The widening gap between actual and allocated spending serves as a tangible indicator of this power shift, with the executive branch wielding increasing discretion over national resources. 

III. A Historic Q1 2025 Deficit: Outpacing the Pandemic Era 

The Q1 2025 budget deficit of Php 478.8 billion represents an All-Time high, surpassing even the deficits recorded during the pandemic-induced recession. (Figure 1, lowest diagram) 

It ranks as the sixth-largest quarterly deficit in history and the largest non-seasonal (non-Q4) shortfall. 

Annualized, this deficit projects to Php 1.912 trillion—14.5% above 2021’s record of Php 1.67 trillion! 

This alarming trajectory signals deepening fiscal imbalances, driven by a combination of unrestrained spending growth and the increasing prospect of faltering revenues. 

IV. Revenue Shortfalls: The Weakest Link 

As we observed last December: 

"Briefly, the embedded risks in fiscal health arise from the potential emergence of volatility in revenues versus political path dependency in programmed spending." (Prudent Investor, December 2024)

Figure 2

Q1 2025’s fiscal gap was exacerbated by a 22.4% year-on-year surge in expenditures—the highest since Q2 2020—coupled with a revenue shortfall. (Figure 2, topmost chart) 

March revenues contracted by 3.1%, dragging Q1 revenue growth down to 6.9%, a sharp slowdown from previous quarters. 

Importantly, the shift to quarterly VAT reporting distorts monthly fiscal data, making end-of-quarter figures critical for assessing fiscal health. 

Breaking down the revenue components: 

-Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR): Collection growth decelerated slightly from 17.2% in 2024 to 16.7% in Q1 2025, reflecting steady but insufficient tax performance to close the spending gap. 

-Bureau of Customs (BoC): Growth improved from 2.4% to 5.7%, potentially driven by frontloaded exports and imports in anticipation of U.S. tariff policies under US President Trump. This trade dynamic may also bolster Q1 2025 GDP figures. 

-Non-Tax Revenues: Non-tax revenues plummeted by 41.21%, contributing only Php 66.7 billion in Q1 2025. The Bureau of the Treasury (BTr) attributes this to delayed GOCC dividend remittances, with only three GOCCs remitting Php 0.027 billion in Q1 2025 compared to 18 GOCCs contributing Php 28.23 billion in Q1 2024. The BTr expects non-tax revenues to recover starting May 2025 as GOCC dividends resume. (BTr, April 2025) (Figure 2, middle graph) 

This drastic reduction in GOCC remittances accounts for the bulk of the non-tax revenue shortfall, pulling the total revenue share down to 6.68%—the lowest since at least 2009. Since 2009, non-tax revenues have averaged a 12.4% share of total revenues, underscoring the severity of the Q1 2025 decline. 

The heavy reliance on non-tax revenues through volatile GOCC dividends exposes a structural vulnerability in fiscal planning. Delays in remittances, whether due to operational inefficiencies or governance issues within GOCCs, amplified the Q1 2025 deficit, forcing the government to draw on cash reserves and increase borrowing to bridge the gap. 

The broader implications are concerning. Tax collections from the BIR and BoC, while still growing, are insufficient to offset aggressive expenditure growth. The dependence on non-tax revenue windfalls introduces heightened unpredictability, as future shortfalls could exacerbate fiscal pressures if GOCCs underperform or remittances are further delayed. 

V. Crowding Out: Public Revenues at the Expense of the Private Sector 

Moreover, potential weaknesses in the economy or tax administration could lead to a substantial deceleration in tax revenue collections from the BIR and BoC, further widening the fiscal gap. 

More critically, this revenue crunch highlights a profound economic trade-off: the government’s growing resource demands, through taxes and non-tax collections, divert funds from the private sector, undermining productivity and long-term growth—a phenomenon known as the crowding-out effect.

Compounding these challenges, the inability or failure of near-record employment rates and unprecedented (Universal-commercial) bank credit expansion to significantly boost revenues signals softening domestic demand. (Figure 2, lowest visual) 

In fact, a chart highlighting the growing gap between public revenues and universal bank lending signals an increasing reliance on credit to drive GDP growth and sustain public coffers.

Figure 3

Declining core CPI, rising real estate vacancies, record-high hunger sentiment, and a decelerating GDP growth trajectory all indicate an economy struggling to convert nominal gains into sustainable fiscal outcomes. (Figure 3, topmost pane) 

If public revenue falters and the fiscal deficit explodes, the government may face heightened borrowing needs and rising interest rates, further straining fiscal health and increasing vulnerability to external economic shocks. 

VI. Expenditure Trends: Centralization in Action as LGUs Left Behind 

The 2019 Mandanas-Garcia Ruling mandated a larger revenue share for Local Government Units (LGUs), yet national government (NG) expenditures have consistently outpaced LGU spending since 2022 under the Marcos administration. 

 In Q1 2025: 

-LGU expenditure growth slowed from 12.6% in 2024 to 11.3%, reducing their share of total spending from 21.5% to 19.6%. 

-NG expenditure growth surged from 5.4% to 25.25%, increasing its share from 60.3% to 61.71%. Key drivers included infrastructure projects (DPWH) and public welfare programs (DSWD) in March. (Figure 3, middle image) 

This divergence reflects a deliberate centralization of resources, concentrating fiscal and political power in the national government while diminishing LGU autonomy. 

The trend aligns with the broader shift of fiscal authority to the executive, further entrenching centralized control. 

VII. Debt Servicing: A Growing Burden 

In the meantime, interest payments, a primary component of debt servicing, reached a record high in Q1 2025. 

While their growth rate slowed from 35.9% in 2024 to 24.9% in 2025, their share of total expenditures rose from 16% to 16.32%. (Figure 3, lowest chart)

Figure 4

Amortization costs plummeted by 87.26%, reducing the total debt servicing burden by 65.3%. (Figure 4, topmost graph)

Mainstream narratives have previously portrayed this as a sign of fiscal improvement—but this is misleading.

The decline in debt servicing is merely a temporary reprieve. With the historic Q1 deficit, future borrowing—and therefore future debt servicing—will inevitably rise.

Moreover, the touted "fiscal consolidation" rests on a flawed assumption: that economically sensitive, variable revenues will increase in lockstep with programmed spending.

The Q1 2025 deficit necessitated a sharp increase in financing, with the Bureau of the Treasury’s borrowing doubling from Php 280.79 billion in 2024 to Php 644.12 billion this year. (Figure 4, second to the highest image)

While the Treasury’s Q1 2025 cash position reached historic highs, it returned to a deficit of Php 325.56 billion in March. This implies the need for increased short-term borrowing to meet immediate cash requirements.

If the deficit trend persists, full-year borrowing targets may need to be revised upward.

As evidence, Public debt surged by Php 319.257 billion month-on-month to a record Php 16.632 trillion in February 2025, marking a historic high. March data, expected next week, may reveal further escalation. (Figure 4, second to the lowest diagram)

This debt increase, driven by robust programmed spending and slowing revenue growth, underscores the deepening fiscal imbalance. 

Yet, the gap between the nominal figures of public debt and government spending continues to widen, reaching unprecedented levels and signaling heightened fiscal risks.

VIII. Foreign Borrowing: A Risky Trajectory

A notable shift in Q1 2025 was the increased reliance on foreign exchange (FX)-denominated share of debt servicing, which surged from 15% to 47.6% on increases in interest and amortization payments. (Figure 4, lowest pane)

This trend suggests a potential roadmap for 2025, with foreign borrowing likely to rise significantly. The implications are multifaceted: (as previously discussed) 

-Higher debt leads to higher debt servicing—and vice versa—in a vicious self-reinforcing feedback loop. 

-Increasing portions of the budget will be diverted toward debt repayment, crowding out other government spending priorities. In this case, crowding out applies not only to the private sector, but also to public expenditures. 

-Revenue gains may yield diminishing returns as debt servicing costs continue to spiral. 

-Inflation risks will heighten, driven by domestic credit expansion, and potential peso depreciation 

-Mounting pressure to raise taxes will emerge to bridge the fiscal gap and sustain government operations. 

IX. Savings and Investment Gap: The Twin Deficits 

The Philippine economic development model continues to rely heavily on a Keynesian-inspired spending paradigm. This framework is a core driver behind the record-breaking savings-investment gap. 

A key policy anchor supporting this model is the BSP’s long-standing easy money regime, which provides cheap financing primarily to the government and elite sectors. This is intended to stimulate spending through a trickle-down mechanism—boosting GDP while funding government projects, including those often criticized as boondoggles. 

However, this approach comes at a significant cost: it depresses domestic savings. 

Fiscal spending is an integral component of this paradigm. 

During the pandemic recession, the government’s role as a "fiscal stabilizer" expanded significantly, shaping GDP performance in the face of private sector weakness. 

However, government spending does not come without consequences. It competes with the private sector for scarce resources and financing, diverting them in the process. The result is structural supply constraints, forcing the economy to import goods to fill domestic shortages created by demand-side excess. 

Furthermore, the BSP’s USD-PHP foreign exchange ‘soft peg’ has the effect of overvaluing the peso and underpricing the dollar. This policy further fuels demand for imports and external financing, reinforcing the external deficit. 

X. Twin Deficit Structure

Figure 5

Unsurprisingly, this credit-fueled, trickle-down model has produced a classic “twin deficit” scenario—wherein fiscal imbalances are mirrored by trade deficits. (Figure 5, topmost visual)

As the budget gap soared to historic levels during the pandemic, the trade deficit also expanded to record levels.

With the current political and economic thrust toward centralization, this dynamic is unlikely to reverse. This reality highlights a structural barrier that undermines potential benefits from global trade shifts, such as those arising from Trump’s protectionist tariff regime.

Under Trump’s regime, the Philippines, with one of the region’s lowest tariff rates, remains structurally unprepared to capitalize, due to policies that prioritize consumption over investment, perpetuating reliance on imports and external financing—as previously discussed. 

Although the trade gap widened by 12.8% year-on-year in Q1 2025—from USD 11.264 billion to USD 12.71 billion—the all-time high in the fiscal deficit points to an even larger trade gap in the quarters ahead. This will only deepen the twin deficit conundrum. 

XI. Mounting FX Fragility and Systemic Risks 

Even with support from external borrowings, the growth of BSP’s net foreign assets has largely vacillated following multiple spikes in 2024. This suggests emerging limitations in the central bank’s ability to manage its FX operations effectively. (Figure 5, middle graph) 

Despite a recent rally in the Philippine peso—driven by broad dollar weakness and BSP interventions—fragilities from growing external liabilities remain as explained last week. 

These vulnerabilities are likely to magnify systemic risks, even as establishment economists—fixated on rigid quantitative models—fail to acknowledge them. 

XII. Fiscal Strain Reflected in the Banking and Financial System 

Fiscal strains are increasingly impacting the banking system, a dynamic the public scarcely recognizes.

The BSP and its cartelized network of financial institutions have engaged in inflationary financing.  Philippine banks have been absorbing a significant share of government securities through Net Claims on Central Government (NCoCG). (Figure 5, lowest chart) 

These claims, representing banks’ holdings of government debt, peaked at Php 5.54 trillion in December 2024 but slipped to Php 5.3 trillion in February 2025, reflecting slight easing. 

Meanwhile, the BSP’s NCoCG, following the historic Php 2.3 trillion liquidity injections in 2020-21, remains elevated, fluctuating between Php 400 billion and Php 900 billion since 2023, underscoring its role in deficit financing.

Figure 6

Although the growth of NCoCG for Other Financial Corporations (OFCs), such as investment firms and insurers, has slowed since Q1 2024, it reached a record Php 2.491 trillion in Q3 2024 before declining to Php 2.456 trillion in Q4 2024. (Figure 6, topmost image) 

Notably, the surge in NCoCG for banks, OFCs, and the BSP began in 2019 and accelerated thereafter, coinciding with the "twin deficits." 

Essentially, the Q1 2025 fiscal deficit of Php 478.8 billion and trade deficit of USD 12.71 billion—highlights the financial sector’s entanglement with fiscal imbalances. 

XIII. Bank Liquidity Drain and Risky Credit Expansion 

Compounding this, the spike in the banking system’s record NCoCG has coincided with the all-time high in Held-to-Maturity (HTM) assets, government bonds held by financial institutions until maturity, which have significantly reduced banks’ liquidity. (Figure 6, middle chart) 

This led to the cash-to-deposits ratio hitting a historic low in February 2025, as banks locked funds in HTM assets to finance the government’s borrowing. (Figure 6, lowest graph) 

In response, the BSP has implemented a series of easing measures: two reductions in the Reserve Requirement Ratio (RRR) within six months, the doubling of deposit insurance in March 2025, and four policy rate cuts in eight months—officially marking the start of an easing cycle—as previously analyzed. 

In parallel, banks have ramped up lending, particularly to risk-sensitive sectors such as consumers, real estate, trade, and utilities. This credit expansion is often rationalized as a strategy to improve capital adequacy ratios in line with Basel standards. However, in practice, it raises sovereign exposure, increases sensitivity to interest rate fluctuations, and thereby amplifies credit, economic, and systemic risks. 

XIV. Conclusion: A Fragile Political Economy 

In sum, the buildup in fiscal risks is no longer confined to the government budget spreadsheets—it permeates into the broader economy and financial markets. 

As we concluded last March: "the establishment may continue to tout the supposed capabilities of the government, but ultimately, the law of diminishing returns will expose the inherent fragility of the political economy. This will likely culminate in a blowout of the twin deficits, a surge in public debt, a sharp devaluation of the Philippine peso, and a spike in inflation, reinforcing the third wave of this cycle—heightening risks of a financial crisis." (Prudent Investor, March 2025) 

____ 

References 

Prudent Investor Newsletter, January 2025 Surplus Masks Rising Fiscal Fragility: Slowing Revenues, Soaring Debt Burden March 23, 2025, Substack 

Prudent Investor Newsletter, 2024’s Savings-Investment Gap Reaches Second-Widest Level as Fiscal Deficit Shrinks on Non-Tax Windfalls March 9, 2025 Substack 

Prudent Investor Newsletter, October’s Historic Php 16.02 Trillion Public Debt: Insights on Spending, Employment, Bank Credit, and (November’s) CPI Trends December 9, 2025 Substack 

Philippine Bureau of Treasury, Q1 Revenue Collections and Expenditures Sustain Growth, April 29, 2025 treasury.gov.ph

 

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