The Oligarchic Bailout Everyone Missed: How the Energy Fragility Now Threatens the Philippine Peso and the Economy

  

Uncertainty should not bother you. We may not be able to forecast when a bridge will break, but we can identify which ones are faulty and poorly built. We can assess vulnerability. And today the financial bridges across the world are very vulnerable. Politicians prescribe ever larger doses of pain killer in the form of financial bailouts, which consists in curing debt with debt, like curing an addiction with an addiction, that is to say it is not a cure. This cycle will end, like it always does, spectacularly—Nassim Nicholas Taleb 

In this issue 

The Oligarchic Bailout Everyone Missed: How the Energy Fragility Now Threatens the Philippine Peso and the Economy 

I. Drowning in Debt: Philippine Government Bails Out the Energy Industry!

II. What the RPT Relief Confirms; The Four Phase Bailout Template

III. Phase 1 — Transactional relief: Chromite–San Miguel deal

IV. Phase 2 — RPT Cut: The Regulatory Relief

V. Phase 3 — Financial System Backstopping

VI. Phase 3a — The Policy Trap or the Escalating Systemic Risk Phase

VII. Phase 4 — Political Resolution: Socialization

VIII. Phase 4a – Socialization vs. Forced Liberalization

IX. Why This is s Late-Cycle Phenomenon

X. Conclusion: This Episode Was Never About Electricity Prices 

The Oligarchic Bailout Everyone Missed: How the Energy Fragility Now Threatens the Philippine Peso and the Economy 

The four phases of the SMC–AEV–Meralco rescue reinforce the logic of late‑cycle fragility

I. Drowning in Debt: Philippine Government Bails Out the Energy Industry! 

In the third week of November, we noted: 

The triad of San Miguel, Aboitiz, and Meralco illustrates deepening centralization, pillared on a political–economic feedback loop.  

Major industry transactions, carried out with either administration blessing or tacit nudging, function as implicit bailouts channeled through oligarchic control. (bold original) 

That thesis was quietly confirmed weeks later. 

Buried beneath the torrent of daily headlines was a development of first-order importance.

Figure 1

GMANews, December 3, 2025: President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has ordered the reduction and pardon of all interest and penalties on real property taxes (RPTs) levied on independent power producers (IPPs) for 2025. In a statement, Malacañang said the cut in RPT liabilities of IPPs is "to prevent defaults and economic losses that could affect electricity supply and the government’s fiscal stability." (bold added) (Figure 1, upper news clip) 

Bullseye! 

This was not a routine tax adjustment. It was an explicit admission that private-sector leverage—specifically within the power industry—had crossed into systemic risk territory. 

It bears noting that the five largest power firms by market position are San Miguel, Aboitiz Power, First Gen, PSALM, and ACEN (Mordor Intelligence, 2024). 

The sector is tightly concentrated, politically franchised, and structurally shielded from competition. 

Aggregate 9M debt for the proponents of the Batangas LNG–Ilijan–EERI triangle—the SMC–AEV–MER troika—soared 16.4% YoY, reaching a record Php 2.254 trillion. Financing charges likewise jumped 8.3% YoY, hitting Php 101.17 billion, an all-time high. (Figure 1, lower chart) 

In that same November post, we asked what this meant for 2025–2026. The answer was already embedded in the corporate balance sheets: 

• cash liquidity is tightening
• banks are approaching risk limits
• debt has become the default funding model
• headline GDP growth is increasingly sustained by inter-corporate transactions rather than productive capex
• large conglomerates are supporting one another through balance-sheet swaps 

According to the Inquirer.net, this marks the third time (2023, February 2025 and December 2025) the incumbent administration has forgiven or reduced RPT-related financial charges. That pattern matters. 

Because this bailout arc pushes leverage toward the public balance sheet, the Philippine peso becomes the pressure valve of last resort 

II. What the RPT Relief Confirms; The Four Phase Bailout Template 

This latest RPT condonation has four critical implications: 

1. Political brokerage: Confirms the deal was arranged and brokered politically—a backstop to buy time, not reform.

2. Elite rescue: The energy sector operates through de facto monopolistic political franchises; relief accrues to incumbents, not consumers.

3. Late-cycle marker: Preemptive default prevention reflects an economy drifting into business-cycle exhaustion, where failures are no longer politically tolerable.

4. Counterparty contagion: Because creditors to IPPs are also elite-controlled, counterparties will need support—expanding the bailout perimeter. 

What we are now observing is a four-phase bailout arc in the Philippine energy sector:

Transactional Relief → Regulatory Relief → Financial System Backstopping → Resolution by Socialization/Forced Liberalization. 

III. Phase 1 — Transactional relief: Chromite–San Miguel deal 

The opening move comes disguised as a "strategic partnership." 

In reality, AEV/Meralco—through Chromite Gas Holdings—absorbed San Miguel’s stressed LNG and Ilijan assets (SPPC, EERI, related industrial estate and terminal exposure). Balance-sheet pressure is eased without declaring stress; earnings volatility was suppressed, and leverage was redistributed rather than reduced—in the interim. 

This phase is intentionally ambiguous. No one calls it a rescue. There is no emergency language, no fiscal line item. The objective is clear: prevent immediate balance-sheet failure without triggering market discipline, buying time before the state is forced to intervene. 

It sets a crucial precedent—private leverage can be quietly transferred and restructured under the guise of efficiency. 

This is a classic late-cycle hallmark: defaults become politically unacceptable, but overt bailouts are still premature. 

IV. Phase 2 — RPT Cut: The Regulatory Relief 

The next phase shifts from private camouflage to public condonation. The RPT cut is decisive. 

Malacañang’s own justification—"to prevent defaults and economic losses that could affect electricity supply and fiscal stability"—reframes private leverage as a public-interest problem. That line is the SMOKING GUN! 

At this stage, the bailout is no longer implicit; it is simply reframed as stability policy. 

Fixed costs are reduced, cash flows are protected, local governments (including Special Education Fund allocations) lose revenue, and political risk is shifted from firms to the sovereign. 

Concentrated gains, distributed costs—the political rent-seeking model, public choice theory in action. 

Bluntly, profits remain privatized while costs are socialized—a political free lunch and textbook oligarchic capture.

This phase entrenches moral hazard: elites learn leverage will be accommodated, not disciplined. Smaller players and consumers are sidelined; political-economic imbalances mount, fragility escalates.

Crucially, previous rounds of subsidies have failed to repair balance sheets or deliver durable consumer relief. The evidence is clear: these measures stabilize optics, not fundamentals.

These two phases are ex-post. We now turn to the potential ex-ante stages. 

V. Phase 3 — Financial System Backstopping 

This phase is partly in process and could intensify. 

Why issue such a justification unless there is a clear and present danger? 

The fact that this is the SECOND time in 2025 that authorities have subsidized IPPs through RPTs speaks volumes about the underlying problems 

Despite the BSP’s aggressive easing cycle—rate cuts, reserve‑requirement reductions, doubled deposit insurance, and record public spending that has pushed deficits back toward pandemic levels—liquidity stress persists. This signals a supply-side balance-sheet problem, not a demand shortfall. 

The stress point is becoming unmistakable: elite-owned leverage, particularly in capital-intensive sectors like power—amid slowing growth. 

Figure 2

According to the BSP’s Depository Corporations Survey, as of October the private sector’s share of domestic claims rose to 64.7%, while the combined financial and private sector share of M3 climbed to 80.63%. In Q3, domestic claims reached 77.6% of GDP, nearly matching the pandemic highs of 77.7% in Q1 and Q4 2021. By contrast, M2 and M3 shares of GDP—though still elevated since the pandemic recession—have been slowing, a clear departure from their previous synchronous trajectory during 2006–2020. (Figure 2) 

This divergence underscores the core problem: systemic leverage has risen through domestic claims, concentrated among elite firms, yet its transmission to real economic activity has weakened. 

This is the reason for the rescue mission.

VI. Phase 3a — The Policy Trap or the Escalating Systemic Risk Phase 

As unproductive leverage persists and economic growth slows, bank balance sheets deteriorate. Liquidity tightens, lending slows, and stress migrates from corporates to the financial system. 

The BSP will likely respond with escalating use of its pandemic playbook:

• Deepening easing: policy-rate and RRR cuts
• Implicit injections through BSP facilities.
• Explicit support: direct infusions (e.g., the Php 2.3 trillion precedent).
• Regulatory forbearance: capital relief and provisioning leniency.
• Soft-peg defense: attempts to stabilize USD/PHP. 

Yet contradictions mount.

Figure 3

Monetary easing is constrained by inflation and FX risk; tightening risks amplifying bank stress.  Domestic liquidity and external liabilities have been key drivers of the USDPHP’s rise. (Figure 3) 

As domestic claims rise without generating real-sector activity, liquidity hoarding intensifies, weakening the monetary transmission mechanism and amplifying FX vulnerability. 

The USD/PHP soft-peg becomes fragile—defense drains reserves, while abandonment risks inflation and capital flight. 

Policy enters a trap: support the system and weaken the currency, or guard the currency and fracture the system. 

Diminishing returns begin to cannibalize monetary and economic stability. 

VII. Phase 4 — Political Resolution: Socialization 

When liquidity support and regulatory masking can no longer hold, losses are formally absorbed by the state:

• Nationalization: partial or full state control of critical assets.
• Recapitalization: government injections into systemically important institutions.
• Bad-bank vehicle: a ‘Freddie Mac’–style structure to warehouse distressed assets while preserving legacy ownership. 

Losses are socialized; control is recentralized. 

The public balance sheet expands sharply while elite actors exit with preserved equity, retained assets, or negotiated upside. What began as a "strategic deal" ends as systemic capture, with nationalization the final stop in a late-cycle rescue arc. 

VIII. Phase 4a – Socialization vs. Forced Liberalization 

Late-cycle bailout arcs bifurcate. 

If the state retains fiscal and monetary capacity, losses are socialized through nationalization or resolution vehicles. If capacity is lost—via reserve depletion, inflation, or debt saturation—the system drifts toward forced liberalization. Market discipline is not restored deliberately; it re-emerges violently. 

In this scenario, incumbent protections collapse, policy support evaporates, and asset values are repriced downward. It may resemble "liberalization," but it is not reform—it is involuntary liquidation triggered by exhausted savings and unsustainable balance sheets or by unsustainable economics—resulting in disorderly transitions, and heightened political instability. 

Ideology shapes the preferred response. 

The populist embrace of social democracy, with its preference for top-down conflict resolution, skews the political response toward socialization. 

But ideology is not sovereign and cannot override economics: real savings and fiscal capacity, not preference, ultimately determines which path the cycle takes. When the state can no longer absorb fragility, liberalization is not chosen—it is imposed. 

IX. Why This is s Late-Cycle Phenomenon 

These phases occur when:

• Leverage is high.
• Political tolerance for defaults has collapsed.
• Asset extraction has run its course.
• The state becomes the residual risk holder. 

In early or mid-cycle, failure disciplines excess. 

In late cycles, failure is deferred, masked, and ultimately absorbed by the public—after market discipline has already broken down. 

X. Conclusion: This Episode Was Never About Electricity Prices 

This episode was never about electricity prices. 

The Philippine energy-sector rescue is not a single policy choice but a phased continuum: transactional camouflage, regulatory condonation, financial backstopping, and ultimately either socialization or forced liberalization. Each phase follows the same late-cycle logic—fragility is too politically costly to reveal, so it is deferred, disguised, and transferred away from the firms that created it.

What began as a "strategic partnership" now stands exposed as a systemic bailout, with the state increasingly positioned as the residual risk holder. 

This is the defining feature of a late-cycle economy: leverage is high, defaults are politically intolerable, and oligarchic control ensure that private losses migrate toward the public balance sheet. Consumers and taxpayers ultimately bear the burden. 

The real question is not whether the cycle ends in public absorption of losses, but how much fragility will be socialized before a reckoning becomes unavoidable. 

Crucially, not all late-stage bailouts climax in outright socialization. When fiscal capacity collapses—through reserve depletion, inflation pressure, or debt saturation—the path can shift toward forced liberalization or selective deregulation and privatization. 

This is not genuine reform but an involuntary unwind: protection collapses, policy support recedes, and assets are repriced downward. It looks liberal but functions as disorderly liquidation, with distributional costs shifted onto households while elites regroup. 

Ideology shapes the state’s instincts. Populist social democracy, market‑averse and reliant on top‑down resolution, leans toward socialization. Liberalization, by contrast, rests on cooperation, division of labor, property rights, and rule of law — mechanisms that can resolve conflict without central command. 

Yet ideology alone does not decide the path: fiscal capacity and real savings ultimately determine whether fragility is absorbed by the state or forced back into the market. 

Thus, the endgame bifurcates: 

1. Resolution by Socialization – nationalization, recapitalization, or bad-asset vehicles that warehouse losses while preserving incumbent control. 

2. Resolution by Forced Liberalization – selective deregulation, privatization, and asset sales driven not by ideology but by incapacity, where the state abandons protection because it can no longer sustain it. 

Both paths are late-cycle responses to the same underlying condition: systemic fragility accumulated over years of leverage, political accommodation, and institutional rent-seeking capture. 

They differ not in purpose, but in the mechanism through which risk is transferred—and in both cases, the public ultimately shoulders the cost. 

In late cycles, the currency becomes the final referendum on the system’s accumulated fragility 

Caveat emptor.

____ 

References

Prudent Investor Newsletters, Inside the SMC–Meralco–AEV Energy Deal: Asset Transfers That Mask a Systemic Fragility Loop, Substack, November 23, 2025 

Prudent Investor Newsletters, PSEi 30 Q3 and 9M 2025 Performance: Late-Stage Fragility Beneath the Headline Growth, Substack, November 30, 2025

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

Yuan Weakness Spurs Rally In Asian Currencies

East Asian and Pacific rim currencies, with the exception of the yen, rallied strongly on the back of a colossal2.5% two day rebound by the China’s offshore yuan (left).

The offshore yuan has dropped more than the onshore yuan (right)

Oh, the oversold Philippine peso finally took a breather. The USD closed down .4% to Php 49.52.  

Just a reminder, the Malaysian ringgit hit the 1998 Asian crisis level low on the third week of December and has remained only marginally away from the said low. Yes, another milestone!

Riled by the continuous decline of the yuan which has been exacerbated by reports that the onshore yuan experienced a flash crash at the close of December, the Chinese government opened 2017 with a string of fresh capital controls and financial interventions.

The Chinese government vehemently denied that a flash crash ever took place.

The Chinese government declared that it would work “to close loopholes” on the allowed conversion of yuan to other foreign currencies for citizens. It prescribed several conditions or extra requirements for such conversion including increased prohibitions, additional documentations, pledges and higher penalties.

Additionally, Chinese authorities reportedly ordered state owned banks to withhold funding in the interbank market in Hong Kong which caused a RECORD spike in the overnight offshore deposit rates to 105%!!! Yep, another landmark!

Moreover, many Chinese have used digital or cryptocurrency as a way to elude regulations and move money offshore. This caused bitcoin to hit a 3 year high early last week. See another record! In response, Chinese authorities have reportedly considered imposing restrictions on bitcoin transactions and this sent bitcoin prices tumbling 31% at the close of the week. Awesome volatility

All these measures have apparently been engineered to contain capital flight and “burn yuan bears”.

Meanwhile, the Chinese government reported that its foreign currency holdings remained a tad above $3 trillion ($3.01) based on government support. Some have questioned the integrity of such numbers.

Amidst the chaos, the PBoC reportedly injected money last week which helped mildly eased on some domestic money market rates.

I have repeatedly noted here that the China seems to have been caught in a deep conundrum. Signs of liquidity crunch on both SHIBOR and HIBOR rates have been in place for quite some time. Moreover, I’ve pointed out that the Chinese government has been time and again attempting to supposedly burn or quash yuan shorts only to see the yuan weaken.

On the other hand, little has been given thought to the idea of the other potential factors that may have influenced the USD yuan’s actions. Or what may have been plaguing China’s yuan, which actually signifies a symptom, has been balance sheet constrains particularly on US dollar debt exposures.

Furthermore, China policymakers appear to be lost.

In an effort to stave off a downturn in 2016, the Chinese authorities opened the floodgates of credit (more than US $2 trillion), as well as, used fiscal stimulus to pump prime their GDP.

The response from these has been a transitional shift in bubbles to bonds, real estate and commodities. Chinese citizens reportedly traded commodity futures in a record US $25.5 trillion volume. Yes record again!

The fact that the Chinese has issued enormous of credit implies of a weak yuan. However, almost everything is being blamed on capital flight. Yet soaring price instability, as consequence to massive credit expansion, has only prompted the Chinese authorities to put curb on real estate prices. In the meantime, regulators are pondering on tighter regulations on the shadow banking system.

Along with yuan support, which effectively means tightening, curbs on the real estate and regulations on the shadow banking system points to even MORE tightening.

In short, Chinese authorities could be reversing the policies which they put in place in 2016.

Therefore strains from previous economic slowdown will now likely be aggravated by a coming downturn—if the Chinese government lives up to its word to tighten.

Yet until those financial skeletons come out of the closet, the yuan is likely to further attenuate.

Well, the vulnerability of China’s highly leveraged economy seems to be surfacing.

China should be a big risk factor for 2017. Those record upon record has served as writing on the wall.