The USD-PHP Breaks 59: BSP’s Soft Peg Unravels, Exposing Economic Fragility

 

Devaluing is a de facto default and the manifestation of the insolvency of a nation—Daniel Lacalle 

In this Issue

The USD-PHP Breaks 59: BSP’s Soft Peg Unravels, Exposing Economic Fragility 

Part I: The USD-Philippine peso Breach at Php59

IA. The Soft Peg’s Strain Finally Shows

IB. "Market Forces" or Managed Retreat?

IC. Gold, GIR, and the Mirage of Strength

ID. Historical Context: Peso Spikes and Economic Stress

Part II: The Savings–Investment Gap (SIG) Illusion

IIA. Savings–Investment Gap—a Flawed Metric and Free Lunch Spending

IIB. Misclassified Investment, ICOR and the Productivity mirage

Part III: Soft Peg Unravels: Systemic Fragility Surfaces, Confidence Breakdown

IIIA. The Keynesian Hangover: How "Spending Drives Growth" Became National Pathology

IIIB. Credit-Fueled Consumption and Fiscal Excess: Twin Deficits

IIIC. CMEPA and the Deepening of Financial Repression: How the State Institutionalized Capital Flight

IIID. Corruption as Symptom, Not Cause: The Flood Control Scandal and Malinvestment Crisis

IIIE. The Soft Peg's Hidden Costs: FX Regime as Subsidy Machine and Flight Accelerant

IIIF. Gold Sales Redux: The 2020–2021 Playbook Returns

IIIG. GIR Theater: Borrowed Reserves and Accounting Opacity, Slowing NFA and Widening BOP Gap

IIIH. Soft Peg Lessons: Where From Here? Historical Patterns and the Road to 62—or 67?

IV. Conclusion: Why This Time May Be Worse, the BSP is Whistling Past the Graveyard 

The USD-PHP Breaks 59: BSP’s Soft Peg Unravels, Exposing Economic Fragility 

How the BSP’s widening savings–investment gap, soft peg, flood control response left the peso exposed—and what it reveals about the Philippine economy.

Part I: The USD-Philippine peso Breach at Php59 

IA. The Soft Peg’s Strain Finally Shows 

This is what we posted at X.com 

After three years, $USDPHP breaks the BSP’s 59 Maginot line. What cracked it?

• 👉 Record savings–investment gap (BSP easing, deficit spending, CMEPA)
• 👉 BSP soft peg (gold sales)
• 👉 Capital controls fueling flight
• 👉 Weak economy + high debt 

The soft peg’s strain finally shows. 

After three years of tacit defense, the BSP’s 59.00 line cracked on October 28. Yet it closed the week—and the month—at 58.85, just below what we’ve long called the BSP’s ‘Maginot line.’ 

IB. "Market Forces" or Managed Retreat? 

The BSP and media attributed the breach to “market forces.” But if the peso’s rate is truly market-determined, why issue a press release at all? To reassure the public? Why the need for reassurance? And if the breakout were merely “temporary,” why frame it at all—unless the goal is to condition perception before the markets interpret the breach as systemic or draw their own conclusions?

Figure 1

Another dead giveaway lies in the BSP’s phrasing: it “allows the exchange rate to be determined by market forces.” (Figure 1, upper image)

That single word—allows—is revealing. 

It presupposes BSP supremacy over the market, implying that exchange rate movements occur only at the central bank’s discretion. FX determination, in this framing, is not a spontaneous process but a managed performance. Market forces operate only within the parameters permitted by the BSP. “Allowing” or “disallowing” thus reflects not market discipline, but bureaucratic control masquerading as market freedom. 

Yet, the irony is striking: they cite “resilient remittance inflows” as a stabilizer—even as the peso weakens. If OFW remittances, BPO earnings, and tourism inflows are as strong as claimed, what explains the breakdown? 

Beneath the surface, the pressures are unmistakable: thinning FX buffers, rising debt service, and the mounting cost of defending a soft peg that was never officially admitted.

IC. Gold, GIR, and the Mirage of Strength

Then there’s the gold angle. 

In 2024, the BSP was the world’s largest central bank seller of gold—offloading reserves to raise usable dollars. (Figure 1, lower chart)

Figure 2

Now, higher gold prices inflate its GIRs on paper—an accounting comfort masking liquidity strain. It’s the same irony we saw in 2021–22, when the BSP sold gold amid a pandemic recession and the peso still plunged. (Figure 2, upper graph) 

Adding to the drama, the government announced a price freeze on basic goods just a day before the peso broke Php 59. Coincidence—or coordination to suppress the impact? 

And there was no “strong dollar” to blame. The breakout came as ASEAN peers—the Thai baht, Indonesian rupiah, Singapore dollar, and Malaysian ringgit—strengthened. This was a PHP-specific fracture, not a USD-driven move. (Figure 2, lower table) 

ID. Historical Context: Peso Spikes and Economic Stress

Figure 3

Historically, sharp spikes in USDPHP have coincided with economic strain:

• 1983 debt restructuring
• 1997 Asian Financial Crisis
• 2000 dotcom bubble bust
• 2008–2010 Global Financial Crisis
• 2020 pandemic recession (Figure 3, upper window)

The BSP even admitted “potential moderation in economic growth due in part to the infra spending controversy” for this historic event. That makes reassurance an even more potent motive. 

Remember: USDPHP made seven attempts to breach 59.00—four in October 2022 (3, 10, 13, 17), three from November 21 and 26 to December 19, 2024. That ceiling revealed the BSP’s implicit soft peg. The communique doesn’t explain why the eighth breach succeeded—except to say it was “market determined.” But that’s just another way of saying the market has abandoned the illusion of BSP control. (Figure 3, lower diagram)

As I’ve discussed in earlier Substack notes, this moment was years in the making: 

• The widening savings–investment gap
• CMEPA’s distortions
• Asset bubbles, the creeping financial repression and fiscal extraction that eroded domestic liquidity 

The peso’s breach of 59 isn’t just a technical move. It’s the culmination of structural stress that monetary theater can no longer hide. 

Part II: The Savings–Investment Gap (SIG) Illusion

IIA. Savings–Investment Gap—a Flawed Metric and Free Lunch Spending 

Spending drives the economy.  That ideology underpins Philippine economic policy—from the BSP’s inflation targeting and deficit spending to its regulatory, tax, and FX regimes—and it has culminated in a record savings–investment (SIG) gap. 

This is the Keynesian hangover institutionalized in Philippine policy—confusing short-term demand management with sustainable capital formation 

But this is not merely technocratic doctrine; the obsession with spending anchors the free-lunch politics of ochlocratic social democracy. 

Yet even the SIG is a flawed metric. 

As previously discussed, “savings” in national accounts is a residual GDP-derived figure riddled with distortions, not an empirical aggregation of household or corporate saving. It even counts government savings—retained surpluses and depreciation allowances—when, in truth, fiscal deficits represent outright dissaving. (see reference) 

Worse, the inclusion of non-cash items such as depreciation and retained earnings inflates measured savings, masking the erosion of actual household liquidity.

IIB. Misclassified Investment, ICOR and the Productivity mirage 

Even the “investment” side is overstated. Much of it is public consumption misclassified as capital formation. Because politics—not markets—dictate pricing and returns, the viability of monopolistic political projects cannot be credibly established. 

Consider infrastructure. Despite record outlays, the Incremental Capital-Output Ratio (ICOR) has worsened—proof that spending does not equal productivity.

Figure 4

According to BSP estimates, the Philippines’ ICOR has fallen from around 8.3 in the 1989-92 period to approximately 4.1 in 2017-19, contracted by 12.7% and recovered to around 3.0 by 2022 (see reference) (Figure 4, topmost visual) 

While the ICOR trend suggests some efficiency gains since the 1990s, it remains a blunt and often misleading proxy—distorted by GDP rebasing, project misclassification, and delayed returns. What it does reveal, however, is the widening gap between spending and sustainable productivity 

Listed PPP firms, meanwhile, sustain appearances through leverage, regulatory capture and forbearance, and mark-to-model accounting. The result is concealed fragility, reinforced by the hidden costs of various acts of malfeasance, conveniently euphemized as by the public as “corruption.” 

In the end, the SIG tells a simple truth: domestic savings are too scarce to fund both public and private investment. The gap is bridged by FX borrowing. 

But this is not a sign of strength—it’s a symptom of deepening structural dependence, masked by monetary theater and fiscal illusion, thus amplifying peso vulnerability. Every fiscal impulse now imports external leverage, entrenching the illusion of growth at the expense of stability. 

Part III: Soft Peg Unravels: Systemic Fragility Surfaces, Confidence Breakdown 

IIIA. The Keynesian Hangover: How "Spending Drives Growth" Became National Pathology 

Spending-as-growth isn’t just policy—it’s pathology.

While the BSP’s mandate is "to promote price stability conducive to balanced and sustainable growth," its inflation-targeting framework—tilted toward persistent monetary easing—has effectively become a GDP-boosting machine to finance free-lunch political projects. 

Banks have realigned their balance sheets accordingly. Consumer loans by universal and commercial banks rose from 8.2% of total lending in December 2018 to 13.5% in August 2025—a 64% surge—while the share of industry loans declined from 91.7% to 86.5% over the same period. (Figure 4, middle pane) 

Fueled by interest rate subsidies and real income erosion, households are leveraging aggressively to sustain consumption. Yet as GDP growth slows, the marginal productivity of credit collapses—meaning every new peso of debt generates less output and more fragility for both banks and borrowers. 

Production credit’s stagnation also forces greater import dependence to meet domestic demand.

IIIB. Credit-Fueled Consumption and Fiscal Excess: Twin Deficits 

Meanwhile, deficit spending—now nearing 2021 pandemic levels—artificially props up consumption at the expense of productivity gains. (See reference for last week’s Substack.) 

Together, credit-fueled consumption and fiscal excess have produced record "twin deficits." (Figure 4, lowest chart) 

The fiscal deficit widened from Php 319.5 billion in Q2 to Php 351.8 billion in Q3, while the trade deficit expanded from USD 12.0 billion to USD 12.76 billion—levels last seen in 2020. 

Historically, fiscal deficits lead trade gaps—it raises import demand. If the budget shortfall hits fresh records by year-end, the external imbalance will likely push the trade deficit back to its 2022 peak.

Figure 5

These deficits are not funded by real savings but by credit—domestic and external. The apparent slowdown in approved public foreign borrowings in Q3 likely masks rescheduling (with Q4 FX borrowings set to spike?), delayed recognition, shift to BSP-led financing (to reduce scrutiny) or accounting prestidigitation (Figure 5, topmost diagram) 

Public external debt accounted for roughly 60% of the record USD 148.87 billion in Q2. Even if Q3 slows, the trajectory remains upward. (Figure 5, middle graph) 

In short, widening twin deficits mean more—not less—debt. 

Slowing consumer sales growth, coupled with rising real estate vacancies, signals that private consumption is already being crowded out—a deepening symptom of structural strain in the economy.

IIIC. CMEPA and the Deepening of Financial Repression: How the State Institutionalized Capital Flight

Yet the newly enacted CMEPA (Capital Market Efficiency Promotion Act, R.A. 12214) deepens the financial repression: it taxes savings, institutionalizes these by redirecting or diverting household savings into state-controlled channels or equity speculation, and discriminates against private-sector financing. By weakening the deposit base, it also amplifies systemic fragility. The doubling of deposit insurance last March, following RRR cuts, appears preemptive—an implicit admission of the risk CMEPA introduces. 

Authorities embraced a false choice. Savers are not confined to pesos—they can shift to dollars or move capital abroad entirely. Capital flight is not theoretical; for the monied class, it can be a reflexive response. 

IIID. Corruption as Symptom, Not Cause: The Flood Control Scandal and Malinvestment Crisis 

The recent “flood control” corruption scandal has merely exposed the deeper rot. 

Consensus recently blames the peso’s fall and stock market weakness on “exposed corruption.” But this is post hoc reasoning: both the peso and PSEi 30 peaked in May 2025—months before the scandal broke. (Figure 5, lowest image)

Corruption, as argued last week, is not an aberration—it’s embedded or a natural expression of free-lunch social democracy 

It begins at the ballot box and metastasizes through centralization, cheap money, financial repression, the gaming of the system and rent-seeking. It explains the entrenchment of political dynasties and the extraction economy they operate on. 

What media and the pundits call “corruption” is merely the visible tip. The deeper pathology is malinvestment—surfacing across: 

• Bank liquidity strains
• Wile E. Coyote NPLs
• Record real estate vacancies
• Slowing consumer spending despite record debt
• Cracks in employment data
• Persistently elevated self-rated poverty ratings (50% + 12% borderline as of September).
• Stubborn price pressures and more… 

The BSP’s populist response to visible corruption? 

Capital controls, withdrawal caps, probes, and virtue signaling. These have worsened the erosion of confidence, potentially accelerating the flight to foreign currency—and escalating malinvestments in the process. (see reference) 

What emerges is not just structural decay, but a slow-motion confidence collapse. 

IIIE. The Soft Peg's Hidden Costs: FX Regime as Subsidy Machine and Flight Accelerant 

And there is more. The BSP also operates a de facto FX soft-peg regime. 

By keeping a lid on its tacit thrust to devalue, its implicit goal is not merely to project macro stability, but to subsidize the USD and manage the CPI within its target band. Unfortunately, this policy overvalues the peso, encouraging USD-denominated borrowing and external savings while providing the behavioral incentive for capital flight.

Figure 6

Including public borrowing, the weak peso has prompted intensified growth in the banking system’s FX deposits. In August 2025, FX deposits rose 11.96%—the second straight month above 10%—reaching 15.07% of total bank liabilities, the highest since November 2017. (Figure 6, topmost window) 

The BSP’s FX regime also includes its reserves management—Gross International Reserves (GIR).

IIIF. Gold Sales Redux: The 2020–2021 Playbook Returns 

As noted above, similar to 2020–2021, the BSP embarked on massive gold sales to defend the USDPHP soft peg. Yet the peso still soared 22.97% from 47.90 in May 2021 to 58.9 in September 2022. That pandemic-era devaluation coincided with a CPI spike—peaking at 8.7% in January 2023. The 2024 gold sales echo this pattern, offering a blueprint for where USDPHP could be heading. 

The BSP insists that benchmarks like the GIR assure the public of sufficient reserves. Yet it has never disclosed the composition in detail. Gold—which the BSP remains averse to—accounts for only ~15% of the GIR (September). A former BSP governor even advocates selling gold "to profit” from it." (2020 gold sales and devaluation occurred in his tenure) 

But since the BSP doesn’t operate for profit-and-loss, but for political objectives such as "price stability," this logic misrepresents intent.

IIIG. GIR Theater: Borrowed Reserves and Accounting Opacity, Slowing NFA and Widening BOP Gap 

A significant portion of GIR—around 5%—consists of repos, derivatives, and other short-term instruments classified as Other Reserve Assets (ORA), introduced during the 2018 peso appreciation. Not only that: national government borrowings deposited with the BSP are also counted as GIR. Hence, “borrowed reserves” make up a substantial share. (Figure 6, middle graph) 

If reserves are truly as strong as officially claimed, why the peso breakout—and the need for a press release? 

All this is reflected in the stagnating growth of BSP net foreign assets (NFA) since 2025, reinforcing a downtrend that began in 2013. While nominally at Php 6.355 trillion, NFA is down 2.1% from the record Php 6.398 trillion in November 2024. (Figure 6, lowest diagram)

Figure 7

This fragility is also evident in the balance of payments (BOP) gap. Though narrowing in recent months, it reached USD 5.315 billion year-to-date—its highest since the post-pandemic recession of 2022. That’s 67% of the November 2022 peak. (Figure 7, topmost graph) 

The apparent improvement merely reflects deferred pressure—delayed borrowings and import compression. 

Despite BSP claims, net outflows reflect more than trade gaps. They signal external debt servicing amid rising leverage, capital flight, and systemic strain.

IIIH. Soft Peg Lessons: Where From Here? Historical Patterns and the Road to 62—or 67? 

Last March, we wrote: 

The USDPHP exchange rate operates under a ‘soft peg’ regime, meaning the BSP will likely determine the next upper band or ceiling. In the previous adjustment, the ceiling rose from 56.48 in 2004 to 59 in 2022, representing a 4.5% increase. If history rhymes, the next likely cap could be in the 61–62 range. (see reference) 

At the time, our lens was historical—measuring breakout levels from 2004 to 2022 and projecting forward to 2025. 

But as noted above, USDPHP spikes rarely occur in a vacuum. They tend to coincide with economic stress. Using BSP’s end-of-quarter data, we find: (Figure 7, middle table) 

• 1983 debt restructuring: +121% over 12 quarters (Q1 1982–Q1 1985)
• 1997 Asian Financial Crisis: +66.15% over 6 quarters (Q1 1997–Q3 1998)
• 1999–2004 dotcom bust: +30.6% over 20 quarters (Q2 1999–Q1 2004)
• 2007–2009 Global Financial Crisis: +16.95% over 5 quarters (Q4 2007–Q1 2009)
• 2020–2022 pandemic recession: +22.64% over 7 quarters (Q4 2020–Q3 2022) 

While the USDPHP also rose from 2013–2018, this episode was largely driven by the Fed’s Taper Tantrum, China’s 2015 devaluation, and Trump-era fiscal stimulus—with no comparable economic event.

IV. Conclusion: Why This Time May Be Worse, the BSP is Whistling Past the Graveyard 

The current moment is different. 

Using the post-2022 low—Q2 2025 at 56.581—as a base, a 10% devaluation implies a target of 62.24. But with the late-cycle unraveling, a weakening domestic economy, and rising debt burdens, the odds tilt towards a deepening of stagflation—or worse. If the peso mirrors its pandemic-era response, a 20% devaluation to 67.90 is not far-fetched. 

Even the BSP now concedes "potential moderation in economic growth." 

Yet it continues to cite “resilient inflows” like tourism. The Department of Tourism data tells another story: as of September 2025, foreign arrivals were down 3.5% year-on-year—hardly a sign of strength. (Figure 7, lowest chart) 

Otto von Bismarck’s maxim applies: 

Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. 

Hounded by diminishing returns and Goodhart’s Law—where every target becomes a distortion—the BSP clings to benchmarks that no longer signal strength. From the USDPHP to GIR composition, Net Foreign Assets, and FX deposit ratios, the metrics have become theater. The more they’re defended, the less they reflect reality.

In the face of unraveling malinvestments, deepening institutional opacity, and accelerating behavioral flight, the BSP is whistling past the graveyard. 

Caveat emptor. The illusion is priced in.  

____ 

References 

Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, Discussion Paper Series No. 2024-10: Estimating the Incremental Capital Output Ratio (ICOR) for the Philippines, Towards Greater Efficiency: Estimating the Philippines’ Total Factor Productivity Growth and its Determinants BSP Research Academy, June 2024. 

Prudent Investor Newsletters: 

When Free Lunch Politics Meets Fiscal Reality: Lessons from the DPWH Flood Control Scandal, Substack, September 07, 2025 

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

The Seen, the Unseen, and the Taxed: CMEPA as Financial Repression by Design, Substack, July 27, 2025 

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

The Political Economy of Corruption: How Social Democracy Became the Engine of Decay, Substack, October 26, 2025 

BSP’s Gold Reserves Policy: A Precursor to a Higher USD-PHP Exchange Rate? Substack, March 03, 2025 

How the BSP's Soft Peg will Contribute to the Weakening of the US Dollar-Philippine Peso Exchange Rate, Substack, January 02, 2025 

June 2025 Deficit: A Countdown to Fiscal Shock, Substack, August 03, 2025

The Philippine Flood Control Scandal: Systemic Failure and Central Bank Complicity

 

Today the fashionable philosophy of Statolatry has obfuscated the issue. The political conflicts are no longer seen as struggles between groups of men. They are considered a war between two principles, the good and the bad. The good is embodied in the great god State, the materialization of the eternal idea of morality, and the bad in the "rugged individualism" of selfish men. In this antagonism the State is always right and the individual always wrong. The State is the representative of the commonweal, of justice, civilization, and superior wisdom. The individual is a poor wretch, a vicious fool—Ludwig von Mises 

In this issue

The Philippine Flood Control Scandal: Systemic Failure and Central Bank Complicity

I. ‘Shocked’ or Complicit? The Nexus of Policy and Corruption

II. A Financial System in Cartel’s Grip

III. Structural Failure, Not Just Regulatory Lapse; Virtue-Signaling Over Solution

IV. BSP Withdrawal Caps as Capital Controls: Six Dangers

V. Liquidity Theater and the Politics of Survival

VI. Systemic Risks on the Horizon

VII. Political Survival via Institutional Sacrifice; The Kabuki Commission

VIII. The Political Playbook: Delay, Distract, Dissolve

IX. Historical Parallels: When Economics Ignite Revolutions

X. The Strawman of Fiscal Stability and Revenue Realities

XI. Expenditure Retrenchment and the Infrastructure Dependency Trap

XII. The Keynesian Paradox, Liquidity Trap and Deposit Flight

XIII. PSE’s Sleight of Hand on CMEPA

X. The Horizon Has Arrived

XI. Statolatry and the Endgame 

The Philippine Flood Control Scandal: Systemic Failure and Central Bank Complicity 

What looks like an infrastructure scam is really a mirror of the Philippines’ deeper malaise: politicized finance, central bank accommodation, and a brittle economy propped by debt. 

I. ‘Shocked’ or Complicit? The Nexus of Policy and Corruption 

Media reported that BSP was “shocked” by the scale of corruption. The Philstar quoted the BSP Chief, who also chairs the AMLC: “It was worse than we thought… We knew there was corruption all along, but not on this scale… as much of a shock to the central bank as to the public.” 

“Shocked” at the scale of corruption? Or at their own complicity?

Figure 1

Easy-money ‘trickle-down’ policies didn’t just enable anomalies—they fostered and accommodated them. Banks, under BSP’s watch, have financed the government’s ever-expanding debt-financed deficit spending binge—including flood control projects—through net claims on central government (NCoCG), which hit Php 5.547 trillion last July, the third highest on record. Public debt slipped from July’s record high to Php 17.468 trillion in August. (Figure 1, upper window) 

II. A Financial System in Cartel’s Grip 

Meanwhile, operating like a cartel, bank control of the financial system has surged to a staggering 82.7% of total financial resources/assets, with universal commercial banks alone commanding 77.1% (as of July 2025). (Figure 1, lower chart) 

This mounting concentration is no mere market feature—the scandal exposes the financial system’s structural vulnerability. The scale of transactions, personalities, and institutional fingerprints involved in the scandal was never invisible. It was ignored. 

III. Structural Failure, Not Just Regulatory Lapse; Virtue-Signaling Over Solution 

This isn’t just a regulatory lapse. 

It is structural, systemic, and political—failure implicating not only the heads of finance and monetary agencies, but extends up to political leadership past and present. The iceberg runs deep. 

Worse, the economy’s deepening dependence on deficit spending to prop up the GDP kabuki only enshrines the “gaming” of the system—a choreography sustained by a network of national and local politicians, bureaucrats, financiers, media, and their cronies. 

Corruption scandals of this kind are therefore not confined to infrastructure—it permeates every domain tethered to policy-driven redistribution 

Yet instead of accountability, the BSP hides behind virtue-signaling optics. It flaunts probes and caps withdrawals, likely oblivious to the systemic damage it may inflict on beleaguered banks, stained liquidity, and an already fragile economy. 

The predictable ramifications: lingering uncertainties lead to a potential tightening of credit, and erodes confidence in Philippine assets and the peso. 

Ironically, this impulse response risks amplifying the very imbalances the BSP aims to contain—Wile E. Coyote dynamics in motion. 

Banks attempt to camouflage record NPLs via ‘denominator effects’ from a growth sprint on credit expansion while simultaneously scrambling to mask asset losses via intensifying exposure to Available for Sale Securities (AFS)—a desperate sprint toward the cliff’s edge—as previously discussed. (see reference section for previous discussion) 

IV. BSP Withdrawal Caps as Capital Controls: Six Dangers 

As part of its histrionics to contain the flood-control scandal, the BSP imposed a daily withdrawal cap of Php 500,000. 

First, these sweeping limits target an errant minority while penalizing the wider economy. Payroll financing for firms with dozens of employees, capital expenditures, and cash-intensive investments and many more aspects of commerce all depend on such flows. The economy bears the cost of institutional failure. 

Second, withdrawal caps are a form of capital control—another step in the state’s creeping centralization of the economy. Price controls (MSRP and "20 rice" rollouts), wage controls (minimum wages), and exchange-rate controls (the USDPHP soft peg) are already in place. Capital controls, by nature, bleed into trade restrictions and signal deeper interventionist intent. 

Third, with strains in the banking system worsening, the caps effectively lock in liquidity—an indirect rescue effort for banks at the expense of depositors. This is moral hazard in action: prudence is punished while recklessness is protected. But locking liquidity in stressed institutions risks triggering a velocity collapse, where money exists but refuses to circulate—amplifying systemic fragility. 

Fourth, once the public realizes that siloed money can be unilaterally withheld at will, the credibility of financial inclusion erodes, risking a collapse in confidence. Combined with CMEPA’s assault on savings, these measures push households and firms toward informal channels, further eroding trust in the banking system itself. The behavioral signal is chilling: your money is conditional; your trust is optional. 

Fifth, such public assurance measures expose the banking system’s inherent weakness. Rather than calming markets, they sow doubt over BSP’s capacity to safeguard stability—risking a surge in cash hoarding outside the formal system and spur credit tightening. 

Sixth, international investors may interpret this as mission creep in financial repression—adding pressure on Philippine risk premiums and the peso. Capital flight doesn’t need a headline—it just needs a signal. 

Finally, history warns us: Argentina’s 2001 corralito, Greece in 2015, and Lebanon in 2019 all saw withdrawal limits destroy trust in banks for a generation. The Philippines now flirts with the same danger. 

What begins as optics may end as rupture. 

V. Liquidity Theater 

Efforts to win public approval by “doing something” haven’t stopped at withdrawal caps or capital controls. The BSP has widened its response to include probes into the industry’s legal, administrative, and compliance frameworks—an escalation designed more for optics than systemic repair. 

While the BSP chief admitted that freezing bank funds tied to the flood control scandal could affect liquidity, he downplayed broader risks, claiming: “Our banks are very, very liquid at this point... No bank runs.” (italics added) 

Figure 2

But BSP’s own metrics tell a different story (as of July 2025): (Figure 2, topmost graph) 

-Cash-to-deposit ratio is at all-time lows

-Liquidity-to-deposit ratio has fallen to 2020 levels 

This isn’t stability—it’s strain. 

VI. Systemic Risks on the Horizon 

Beyond tighter liquidity and credit conditions, several systemic risks loom: 

1) Funding Stigma: Banks under investigation face counterparty distrust. Interbank markets may shrink access or charge higher spreads, amplifying liquidity stress. 

2) Reputational Contagion: Even unaffected banks risk depositor anxiety, particularly if they share infrastructure or counterparties with implicated institutions. Concentration risk thus becomes contagion risk. 

3) Depositor Anxiety: The public often interprets targeted probes as systemic signals. Precautionary withdrawals may accelerate, caps notwithstanding. Was BSP anticipating this when it chopped RRR rates last March and doubled deposit insurance? 

4) Regulatory Overreach: To signal credibility, BSP may impose stricter KYC/AML protocols—slowing onboarding, increasing balance sheet friction, and chilling transaction flows. 

5) Market Pricing of Risk: Equity prices, bond spreads, interbank rates, and FX volatility may rise—exposing incumbent fragilities and financial skeletons in the closet. Philippine assets have been the worst performers per BBG. (Figure 2, middle image) 

6) Earnings Pressure and Capital Hit: Sanctions, fines, and reputational damage translate to earnings erosion and capital buffer depletion—weakening the very liquidity BSP claims is “ample.” 

7) AML Fallout: The probe exposes systemic AML blind spots, risking FATF graylisting. Compliance costs may rise, deterring foreign capital. This episode reveals how the statistical criteria behind AMLA and credit ratings are fundamentally flawed. 

8) Political Pressure: The scandal’s reach into lawmakers and officials may trigger clampdowns on regulators, budget delays, and a slowdown in infrastructure spending. 

VII. Political Survival via Institutional Sacrifice; The Kabuki Commission 

One thing is clear: Diversionary policies—from the war on drugs to POGO crackdowns to nationalism via territorial disputes—have boomeranged. Now, the political war is being waged on governing institutions themselves. 

The BSP’s trifecta—capital controls, signaling channels, and probes—is part of a tactical framework to defend the administration’s survival. It sanitizes executive involvement while letting the hammer fall on a few “fall guys.” This is textbook social democratic conflict resolution: high-profile investigations and figurehead resignations to appease public clamor. 

Case in point: the Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI), reportedly funded by the Office of the President. How “independent” can it be if the OP bankrolls and decides on its output? 

As I noted on X: (Figure 2, lowest picture)

“That’s like asking the bartender to audit his own till. This ‘commission’ smells more like kabuki.” 

After a week, an ICI member linked to the scandal’s villain resigned. 

VIII. The Political Playbook: Delay, Distract, Dissolve 

Authorities hope for three things:

-That time will dull public anger

-That the probe’s outcome satisfies public appetite

-That new controversies bury the scandal 

But history warns us: corruption follows a Whac-a-Mole dynamic—until it hits a tipping point. 

IX. Historical Parallels: When Economics Ignite Revolutions 

Two EDSA uprisings were preceded by financial-economic upheavals:

1983 Philippine debt crisis → 1986 EDSA I

1997 Asian crisis → 2000 EDSA II 

The lesson is stark: Economic distress breeds political crisis. Or vice versa. 

X. The Strawman of Fiscal Stability and Revenue Realities 

The fiscal health of the Philippine government has been splattered with piecemeal evidence of the flood control scandal’s impact on the political economy. 

Authorities may headline that “Tax Revenues Sustain Growth; Budget Deficit Well-Managed and On Track with Full-Year Target”—but this is a strawman, built on selective perception masking structural deterioration. 

In reality, August 2025 revenues fell -8.8%. The Bureau of Internal Revenue’s (BIR) growth slowed to 5.04%, barely above July’s 4.8%, and far below 11.5% in August 2024. Bureau of Customs (BoC) collections slipped from +6% in July to -1.4% in August, versus +4.7% a year ago. Non-tax revenues collapsed -67.8%, deepening from July’s -9.7%, in stark contrast to the +281.6% surge a year earlier.

Figure 3

For January–August, revenue growth has decelerated sharply from 15.9% in 2024 to just 3.1% in 2025. BIR collections slowed to 11.44% (from 12.6%) and BoC to 1.14% (from 5.67%). Non-tax revenues plunged -31.41%, against +58.9% a year earlier. (Figure 3, topmost diagram)

XI. Expenditure Retrenchment and the Infrastructure Dependency Trap 

Meanwhile, August expenditures fell -0.74% YoY, with National Government disbursement contracting 11.8% for the second straight month. It shrank by 11.4% in July. 

Eight-month expenditures slowed from 11.32% in 2024 to 7.15% in 2025, driven by a sharp decline in NG spending from 10.6% to 3.98%. (Figure 3, middle and lowest graphs) 

Infrastructure spending dropped 25% in July, per BusinessWorld. The deeper August slump reflects political pressure restraining disbursements—pulling down the eight-month deficit. 

Though nominal revenues and expenditures hit record highs, the 2025 eight-month deficit of Php 784 billion is the second widest since the pandemic-era Php 837.25 billion in 2021 Ironically, today’s deficit remains at pandemic-recession levels even without a recession—yet. 

As we noted back in early September: 

"The unfolding DPWH scandal threatens more than reputational damage—it risks triggering a contractionary spiral that could expose the fragility of the Philippine top-down heavy economic development model.  

"With Php 1.033 trillion allotted to DPWH alone (16.3% of the 2025 budget)—which was lowered to Php 900 billion (14.2% of total budget)—and Php 1.507 trillion for infrastructure overall (23.8% and estimated 5.2% of the GDP), any slowdown in disbursements could reverberate across sectors.  

"Many large firms are structurally tied to public projects, and the economy’s current momentum leans heavily on credit-fueled activity rather than organic productivity.  

"Curtailing infrastructure outlays, even temporarily, risks puncturing GDP optics and exposing the private sector’s underlying weakness. " 

And it’s not just infrastructure. Political pressure has spread to cash aid distribution. ABS-CBN reported that DSWD is preparing rules “to insulate social protection programs from political influence.” Good luck with that. 

For now, rising political pressure points to a drastic slowdown in spending. 

XII. The Keynesian Paradox, Liquidity Trap and Deposit Flight

Figure 4

Remember: the government’s share of national GDP hit an all-time high of 16.7% in 1H 2025. (Figure 4, upper chart) 

This excludes government construction GDP and private sector participation in political projects (PPPs, suppliers, contractors etc.). Yet instead of a Keynesian multiplier, higher government spending has yielded slower GDP—thanks to malinvestments from the crowding out dynamic. 

The BSP is already floating further policy easing this October. BusinessWorld quotes the BSP Chief: “If we see [economic] output slowing down because of the lack of demand, then we would step in, easing policy rates [to] strengthen demand.”

The irony is stark. What can rate cuts achieve in “spurring demand” when the BSP is simultaneously probing banks and imposing withdrawal caps?

And more: what can they do when authorities themselves admit that CMEPA triggered a “dramatic” 95-percent drop in long-term deposits, or when households are hoarding liquidity in response to new tax rules—feeding banks’ liquidity trap?

XIII. PSE’s Sleight of Hand on CMEPA

Meanwhile, the PSE pulled a rabbit from the hat, claiming CMEPA attracted foreign investors from July to September 23. As I posted on X.com: The PSE cherry-picks its data. PSEi is significantly down, volume is sliding. The foreign flows came from a one-day, huge cross (negotiated) sale from Metrobank (PSE:MBT) and/or RL Commercial (PSE: RCR)—untruth does not a bull market make.” (Figure 4, lower picture)

What this really signals is that banks will scale up borrowing from the public to patch widening balance sheet imbalances—our Wile E. Coyote moment (see reference to our previous discussion). Banks, not the public, stand to benefit.

IX. The Debt Spiral Tightens

The bigger issue behind policy easing is government financing. 

As we’ve repeatedly said, the recent slowdown in debt servicing may stem from: “Scheduling choices or prepayments in 2024—or political aversion to public backlash—may explain the recent lull in debt servicing. But the record and growing deficit ensures borrowing and servicing will keep rising.” (see reference)

Figure 5

August 2025 proved the point: Php 601.6 billion in amortization pushed eight-month debt service to Php 1.54 trillion—just shy of last year’s Php 1.55 trillion, and already near the full-year 2023 total (Php 1.572 trillion). (Figure 5, topmost and middle graphs)

Foreign debt servicing’s share rose from 19.86% to 22.3%. 

Eight-month interest payments hit a record Php 584 billion, raising their share of expenditures from 13.8% to 14.8%—the highest since 2009.  (Figure 5, lowest chart) 

All this confirms: BSP’s rate cuts serve the government, banks, and politically connected elite—not the public. (see reference) 

X. The Horizon Has Arrived 

As we noted last August: (See reference) 

-More debt → more servicing → less for everything else

-Crowding out hits both public and private spending

-Revenue gains won’t keep up with servicing

-Inflation and peso depreciation risks climb

-Higher taxes are on the horizon 

That horizon is here. Higher debt, more servicing, more crowding out, faltering revenue gains, and higher taxes in motion (new digital taxes, DOH’s push for sin tax expansion…). 

Inflation and peso depreciation are coming. 

XI. Statolatry and the Endgame 

The paradox is sobering: Reduced public spending may slow diversion from wealth consumption and unproductive activities to a gradual build-up in savings—offering a brief window for capital formation. 

The bad news? Most still believe political angels exist, and that governance can only be solved through statism—a cult which the great economist Ludwig von Mises called statolatry. 

For the historic imbalances this ideology has built, the endgame can only be crisis. 

____

References 

Banks and Fiscal Issues 

Prudent Investor Newsletters, Minsky's Fragility Cycle Meets Wile E. Coyote: The Philippine Banking System’s Velocity Trap, Substack, September 14, 2025 

Prudent Investor Newsletters, When Free Lunch Politics Meets Fiscal Reality: Lessons from the DPWH Flood Control Scandal, Substack, September 7, 2025 

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

Prudent Investor Newsletters, The Philippines’ May and 5-Month 2025 Budget Deficit: Can Political Signaling Mask a Looming Fiscal Shock?, Substack, July 7, 2025 

Prudent Investor Newsletters, Goldilocks Meets the Three Bad Bears: BSP’s Sixth Rate Cut and the Late-Cycle Reckoning, Substack, August 31, 2025 

CMEPA 

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

Prudent Investor Newsletters, The Seen, the Unseen, and the Taxed: CMEPA as Financial Repression by Design July 20,2025 (substack)  

Ludwig von Mises, Bureaucracy, NEW HAVEN YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS 1944. p.74  Mises.org

 

 

June 2025 Deficit: A Countdown to Fiscal Shock

In the final analysis, it’s just central banks printing money, reducing its value and causing inflation as they support dishonest governments that refuse to be fiscally responsible and continually run massive deficits. Such policies flow from the “elite’s” greed and their insatiable thirst for power, benefiting themselves at the expense of the middle class and working poor… When a society loses its moral foundation, it’s only a matter of time before the economy and currency deteriorate and the wealth gaps between the rich and poor increase dramatically—Jonathan Wellum  

In this issue

June 2025 Deficit: A Countdown to Fiscal Shock 

I. A Delayed Reckoning: Anatomy of a Fiscal Shock

1. Easy Money–Financed Free Lunch Politics

2. The Political Cult of Spending-Led Ideology: Trickle-Down by Government Fiat

3. Chronic Policy Diagnostic Blindness

4. Econometric Myopia: Forecasting the Past

5. Behavioral Fragility: The Psychology of Denial

II. Countdown to Fiscal Shock: The Hidden Story of June’s Blowout

III. Q2 Slowdown, Q1 Surge: Anatomy of the Half-Year Blowout—From Past Binge to Present Reckoning

IV. Technocratic Overreach, Authorized Expenditures, Congressional Irrelevance

V. Deficit Forecasting: Averaging Toward a Crisis

VI. Financing Strain and the Debt-Debt Servicing Spiral

VII. Tax Dragnet, CMEPA’s Forced Financial Rotation: The Economic Asphyxiation Tightens

VIII. Bank’s Fiscal Complicity, Liquidity Strains, Treasury Market’s Mutiny

IX. Mounting USDPHP Exchange Rate Tension

X. Conclusion: The Structural Fragility of Deficit Philosophy 

June 2025 Deficit: A Countdown to Fiscal Shock 

When deficits become destiny: the fiscal countdown accelerates—a convergence of easy money and political overreach

I. A Delayed Reckoning: Anatomy of a Fiscal Shock 

A fiscal shock rarely emerges from a single misstep. It crystallizes from compound misalignments across policy, ideology, and behavior. It’s the law of unintended consequences—unfolding in real time. Where economic orthodoxy meets political convenience, stability is hollowed out. And just as critically, it’s a delayed consequence of systemic denial. 

Here are the five pillars of this reckoning: 

1. Easy Money–Financed Free Lunch Politics 

A regime of entitlement—fueled by populist spending and post-pandemic ultra-low rates—fostered a seductive illusion: 

Deficits don’t matter. Debt is painless. 

Years of stimulus, subsidies, and politically popular transfers hardened into fiscal habit— habits that now resist restraint, and are rooted in beliefs that are difficult to dismantle. 

2. The Political Cult of Spending-Led Ideology: Trickle-Down by Government Fiat 

At the heart of the Philippine development model lies a flawed political-economic ideology: that elite consumption and state expenditure will "trickle down" to the broader economy. 

Massive infrastructure programs, defense outlays, and subsidy-heavy welfare budgets may deliver short-term optics—but they also crowd out private investment, misallocate capital, and accelerate savings erosion. 

The result: an economy that becomes top-heavy, brittle, and structurally vulnerable. 

This heavy-handed, statist-interventionist, anti-market bias is what Ludwig von Mises called "statolatry"—the worship of the state. 

3. Chronic Policy Diagnostic Blindness 

In the social democratic playbook, populist tools dominate. And with them comes a dangerous neglect of structural realities:

• Crowding out is ignored
• Balance sheet mismatches are waved off
• Price distortions go unexamined
• Resource misallocations are dismissed
• Economic trade-offs are neglected 

Intervention becomes the default—not the diagnosis. The result? Mispriced assets, distorted capital structures, and risk narratives untethered from fundamentals. 

The same statolatry—elevating state action above market signals—undergirds this blindness. It promotes interventionist reflexes at the expense of incentive clarity and institutional coherence. 

Fragility escalates—masked by the optics of populist-driven fiscal theatrics. 

4. Econometric Myopia: Forecasting the Past 

The establishment clings to econometric models built on frangible assumptions—historical baselines, linear extrapolation, and trend mimicry. These tools overlook what matters most: 

• Nonlinear disruption
• Inflection points
• Complex feedback loops
• Tail risks and structural breaks 

With ZERO margin for error, fragility festers beneath the surface. 

That fragility was laid bare by a maelstrom of paradigm shifts: 

• The pandemic rupture
• Deglobalization and trade fragmentation
• Raging asset bubbles
• Debt overload
• Mountains of malinvestments
• Hot wars and geopolitical shockwaves
• Inflation surges
• Financial weaponization 

This isn’t noise—it’s a new architecture of global and domestic uncertainties. And econometric orthodoxy isn’t equipped to model it. 

5. Behavioral Fragility: The Psychology of Denial 

Heuristics shape policy—and not in ways that reward foresight. Beyond populist signaling and econometric hindsight, cognitive distortions rule: 

• Recency bias
• Rear-view heuristics
• Political denialism masked as institutional confidence 

Years of perceived “resilience” dulled vigilance: 

• Every deficit was shrugged off
• Every peso slide deemed temporary
• Every fiscal blowout “absorbed” by the system 

This cultivated an expectation: past stability ensures future resilience. It doesn’t. That assumption—embedded deep within policy reflexes—has left institutions blind to volatility and ill-equipped for disruptions and rupture. 

II. Countdown to Fiscal Shock: The Hidden Story of June’s Blowout

Figure 1

In May, we warned that if June 2025's deficit merely hits its four-year average of Php 200 billion, the six-month budget gap would surge to Php 723.9 billion—surpassing the pandemic-era record of Php 716.07 billion. (Figure 1, upper window) 

Inquirer.net, July 25, 2025: The Marcos administration exceeded its budget deficit limit in the first half of 2025 after narrowly missing both its spending and revenue targets. This happened amid a gradual fiscal consolidation program. Latest data from the Bureau of the Treasury (BTr) showed the government logged a budget gap of P765.5 billion in the first six months, which it needed to plug with borrowings. This was 24.69 percent bigger compared with a year ago. (italics added) 

Then came the payload: Php 241.6 billion in fresh red ink last June!   

The government’s first-half deficit reached Php 765.5 billion—24.69% higher than last year and larger than even our most aggressive baseline x.com forecast (Php 745.18–Php 756.53 billion). (Figure 1, table)

Figure 2 

Bullseye! Our projections weren't just close—they were surgical. And the final blowout went further still. (Figure 2, topmost chart) 

Curiously underreported, June’s deficit marked an all-time high, driven by expenditure growth of 8.5% outstripping revenue growth of 3.5%. (Figure 2, middle graph) 

• BIR Collections: Up 16.24% YoY—a strong bounce from 10.71% in May and 4.71% in June 2024.
• BoC Collections: Recovered 3.23% YoY, compared to –6.94% in May and 0.67% in June 2024.
• Non-Tax Revenues: Plunged 43.25% YoY—from 40.93% in May and 81.7% in June 2024. 

Behind the aggregate improvement lies deeper fragility: June’s revenue outperformance was narrow, uneven, and ultimately insufficient to contain the programmed spending expansion—a predictable artifact of the conventional socio-democratic ochlocratic political model. 

Populist instincts override structural diagnostics. And the fiscal narrative remains hostage to crowd-pleasing interventionism rather than incentive discipline or institutional coherence.

III. Q2 Slowdown, Q1 Surge: Anatomy of the Half-Year Blowout—From Past Binge to Present Reckoning 

Despite June's record deficit, Q2 posted just Php 319.5 billion, the second slowest since 2020. That means the bulk of the six-month deficit—Php 446.03 billion—was frontloaded in Q1. 

Even then, authorities revised March spending down by Php 32.784 billion, artificially narrowing the Q1 deficit. Adjustments may mask the underlying magnitude but not the fiscal trajectory. 

This six-month outcome validates what we’ve long emphasized: programmed spending vs. variable revenues is no longer an assumption—it’s a structural vulnerability, a primary source of instability 

Importantly, this wasn’t an emergency stimulus. Unlike 2021, there’s been no recession nor one in the immediate horizon—per consensus. 

Yet the deficit beat that year’s record—despite BSP’s historic easing:

• Policy rate cuts
• Reserve requirement reduction
• USDPHP cap
• Liquidity injections
• Deposit insurance expansion 

Behind the optics: a quiet financial bailout, not of households or industries, but of the banking system. 

IV. Technocratic Overreach, Authorized Expenditures, Congressional Irrelevance 

As we earlier noted: the government continues to use linear extrapolation in a complex environment. Even with declared economic slowdown, the BIR posted 14.11% growth, buoyed by May–June outperformance. (Figure 2, lowest image) 

But has "benchmark-ism" inflated performance claims? Have authorities padded the numerator (tax data) to rationalize a fragile denominator (spending data)?

Figure 3

Non-tax revenue was the Achilles’ heel—its 2024 spike became the baseline for 2025’s enacted spending binge. The result: forecast miscalibration leading directly to fiscal shock. Beyond mere overconfidence, it was technocratic hubris that helped trigger today’s blowout. (Figure 3, topmost visual) 

Again, an underperforming economy—whether a below-target GDP, sharp slowdown, or even recession—would only reinforce this SPEND-and-RESCUE dynamic, repackaged and sold as stimulus. 

Meanwhile, authorized expenditures: Php 3.026 trillion. Remaining balance: Php 3.3 trillion, implying a floor monthly average of Php 550.05 billion. 

Budgets have been breached 6 years in a row—highlighting a redistribution of budgetary power from Congress to the Executive. 

Whether through creative reinterpretation or technical loopholes, these breaches signal a quiet transfer of fiscal power from Congress to the Executive. 

V. Deficit Forecasting: Averaging Toward a Crisis 

Looking at pandemic-era averages:

• Q3 deficits averaged Php 374 billion
• Q3 2024 hit Php 356.32 billion (–5.7% below average)
• Q4 averaged Php 537.9 billion Q4 is typically the largest—as government drops all remaining balance and more
• Q4 2024 deficit: Php 536.13 billion (–0.4% deviation)
• 2H Average: Php 911.6 billion
• 2H 2024: Php 892.45 billion (–2.6% vs trend) 

If 2025 follows this pattern, the full-year deficit could hit Php 1.677 trillion—Php 7 billion above prior records. 

But averages conceal real-world volatility, political discretion, and data manipulation—can skew results. 

Once again, it bears emphasizing: all this unfolded as the BSP eased aggressively—through rate and RRR cuts, doubled deposit insurance, capped USDPHP volatility, and expanded credit (mostly consumer-focused). 

Despite the stimulus, vulnerabilities not only persist—they’re escalating. 

If so, the DBCC's revised deficit-to-GDP target of 5.5% would be breached, necessitating another substantial upward adjustment. (Figure 3, middle table) 

Authorities would be mistaken to treat this as mere statistical noise; its implications extend far beyond the ledger into the real economy

VI. Financing Strain and the Debt-Debt Servicing Spiral 

Treasury financing soared 86.2%, from Php 665 billion to Php 1.238 trillion in H1 2025. (Figure 3, lowest diagram) 

Even with record high cumulative cash reserves of Php 1.09 trillion, June alone posted a residual cash deficit of Php 90.09 billion—evidence that surplus buffers are already depleted.

Figure 4 

As such, in June, public debt spiked Php 1.783 trillion YoY (+11.52%) or Php 348 billion (+2.06%) MoM to reach a historic Php 17.27 trillion! (Figure 4, topmost pane) 

Critically, this growth has outpaced the spending curve, suggesting potential deficit understatement or an acceleration of off-book liabilities. (Figure 4, middle image) 

Despite this, external debt share rebounded in June—a pivot back to foreign financing amid domestic constraints. (Figure 4, lowest graph)

Figure 5

Meanwhile, total debt servicing fell 40.12% YoY due to a 61% plunge in amortizations, even though interest payments hit a record. (Figure 5, topmost diagram) 

Why?

Likely causes:

• Scheduling choices
• Prepayments in 2024
• Political aversion to public backlash 

But the record and growing deficit ensures that borrowing—and debt servicing—will keep RISING. This won’t be deferred—it will amplify. 

As we warned last May

• More debt → more servicing → less for everything else.
• Crowding out hits both public and private spending.
• Revenue gains won’t keep up with servicing.
• Inflation and peso depreciation risks climb.
• Higher taxes are on the horizon 

VII. Tax Dragnet, CMEPA’s Forced Financial Rotation: The Economic Asphyxiation Tightens 

Debt-to-GDP hit 62%, triggering a quiet revision: Malacañang raised the ceiling to 70%. 

To accommodate this, authorities imposed a hefty tax on interest income via the Capital Markets Efficiency Promotion Act (CMEPA), engineering a forced rotation out of long-dated fixed income into leverage-fueled speculation and spending— (see previous discussions) 

This fiscal extraction dragnet is poised to widen—ensnaring more of the economy and constricting what little fiscal breathing room remains. 

VIII. Bank’s Fiscal Complicity, Liquidity Strains, Treasury Market’s Mutiny 

Banks continue to stockpile government securities through net claims on the central government (NCoCG). (Figure 5, middle image) 

Yet despite BSP’s easing, treasury yields barely moved—fueling further Held-to-Maturity (HTM) hoarding and deepening the industry's liquidity drain. 

At end of July, despite dovish guidance: (Figure 5, lowest graph) 

• Yields across the curve stayed above ONRRP, muting or blunting transmission
• Curve flattened unevenly: front and long ends softened, belly firmed—signaling hedging against medium-term risk
• T-bill rates remained elevated —signaling inflation fears and short-term funding stress 

Despite rate cuts, the treasury market refused to follow. Monetary policy faces bond mutineers. 

IX. Mounting USDPHP Exchange Rate Tension

Figure 6 

Following the June fiscal report, the USDPHP surged 1.29% on July 31, wiping out prior losses to post a modest 0.52% year-to-date return. 

With wider deficits on deck, foreign borrowing becomes more attractive—and a weaker dollar, further incentivized by the BSP’s soft peg, adds fuel to that pivot. But beneath the surface, this dynamic strain long-term currency stability. 

While global dollar softness might offset domestic fragilities, the USDPHP’s recent breakout hints at further testing—possibly probing the BSP’s 59-Maginot line, a psychological and tactical policy threshold. (Figure 6 upper chart) 

Should that line give, external financing costs and FX volatility could surge, exposing cracks in the peg architecture. (Figure 6, lower graph) 

X. Conclusion: The Structural Fragility of Deficit Philosophy

The Php 17.27 trillion debt—and growing—isn’t the cost of failure. It’s the price of consensus under a soft-focus ochlocratic social democracy. 

These systems don’t just elect leaders—they ratify an ethos: that deficit-fueled expansion is not only moral but inevitable. Redistribution becomes ritual. The annual SONA pipelines new spending schemes, boosting short-term political capital—but the structural anchors are threadbare. 

Compassion without discipline sedates policy. Voters misread rhetoric as reform, empathy as capability, largesse as virtue, and control as stewardship. Time preferences spiral, gravitating toward the instant dopamine hit of political dispensation. 

Alas—the tragedy is not merely fiscal. It’s intergenerational erosion. Each electoral cycle mortgages future agency, compounding fragility over time. 

What’s swelling isn’t just debt. It’s a philosophical incoherence—subsidizing dysfunction and labeling it 'development.’ 

When such convictions are deeply embedded, a disorderly reckoning is inevitable. 

____

References 

Prudent Investor Newsletter, The Philippines’ May and 5-Month 2025 Budget Deficit: Can Political Signaling Mask a Looming Fiscal Shock? Substack July 7, 2025 

Prudent Investor Newsletter, Is the Philippines on the Brink of a 2025 Fiscal Shock? Substack June 8, 2025 

Prudent Investor Newsletter, Philippine Fiscal Performance in Q1 2025: Record Deficit Amid Centralizing Power, Substack May 4, 2025 

Prudent Investor Newsletter, The Seen, the Unseen, and the Taxed: CMEPA as Financial Repression by Design, Substack, July 20, 2025 

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