Home
Home
Home

Tag: stocks

  • Meralco as a “Natural Hedge”: How JG Summit Buffered a Cyclical Petrochemical Bet

    Meralco as a “Natural Hedge”: How JG Summit Buffered a Cyclical Petrochemical Bet

    We’ve been blogging for free. If you enjoy our content, consider supporting us!

    In conglomerate finance, the most effective hedges are not always derivatives. Often, they are portfolio choices—owning a defensive, cash-generative asset that can steady the ship when a cyclical business turns against you. JG Summit Holdings (JGS) offers a timely example. While its petrochemical unit has endured a punishing global downcycle, JGS’s long-held stake in Manila Electric Co. (Meralco, MER) has acted as a stabilizer through recurring dividends, a large mark-to-market value, and a demonstrated ability to raise cash via block sales when needed.

    The contrast is stark. Petrochemicals are exposed to global supply additions, feedstock spreads, and demand swings—variables that can remain unfavorable for years. JGS itself acknowledged that “unfavorable polymer margins” continued to weigh on JG Summit Olefins Corp. (JGSOC) even as the group posted stronger consolidated revenues in 2024. Market reports describing JGSOC’s performance underscore the severity of the trough: 2024 revenue rose on higher volumes, yet margins remained under pressure, translating into sizable EBITDA and net losses and culminating in an indefinite commercial shutdown early 2025 to stem further losses.

    Against that backdrop, Meralco sits on the other end of the risk spectrum. As a regulated distribution utility, it is structurally positioned to generate steadier cash flows than commodity-linked petrochemicals. JGS highlights Meralco among its core investments, disclosing an equity stake of 26.4% and placing the market value of that stake at ₱145.0 billion as of December 27, 2024—a clear signal of the holding’s financial weight at the parent level. That “core investment” framing matters: it suggests Meralco is not merely a passive financial bet, but a strategic anchor that contributes to dividends, balance-sheet flexibility, and investor confidence—especially when other units face headwinds.

    Built early: the hedge predates the petrochem stress

    The Meralco position was not assembled as an after-the-fact rescue line. JGS built it early and deliberately. In 2013, the group made its initial Meralco investment by purchasing San Miguel’s stake—reported at ₱72 billion—marking JGS’s entry into power distribution and diversifying its earnings base. This foundation was later reinforced: by mid-2017, JGS disclosed it acquired an additional 27.5 million Meralco shares at ₱250 per share, raising its stake to 29.56%—a move that increased its exposure to Meralco’s dividend stream and long-term value.

    Then came a critical feature of good hedges: optional liquidity. In July 2022, JGS executed a block sale of 36 million Meralco shares at ₱344 per share, raising ₱12.384 billion and reducing its stake from roughly 29.56% to “over 26%.” The transaction demonstrated that the Meralco holding was not only valuable on paper—it could also be mobilized to strengthen the parent balance sheet when market windows open, without fully exiting the investment.

    The cash engine: dividends that keep arriving

    Dividends are where the hedge becomes tangible. Meralco’s dividend history shows a consistent pattern of cash distributions, including semi-annual payouts in recent years (for example, declared cash dividends in 2024 and 2025). For a holding company, these recurring inflows serve multiple purposes: they can support debt service, fund capex elsewhere, or provide a buffer during periods when a cyclical subsidiary requires support.

    In JGS’s case, this dynamic is particularly relevant given management’s disclosures about macro and segment headwinds. JGS’s 2024 CEO report explicitly cited prolonged petrochemical weakness as one of the group’s major crosswinds, even as other units benefited from improving demand. When a cyclical business is under stress, stable dividends from core investments become more than a yield story—they become time and optionality for the parent.

    Mark-to-market ballast: the stake is big enough to matter

    A hedge is only as good as its scale. Here, Meralco’s contribution is not marginal. JGS itself disclosed a ₱145.0 billion market value for its Meralco stake as of late December 2024, making it one of the parent’s most financially consequential portfolio assets. Moreover, publicly available market quotes around early October 2025 place Meralco shares in the mid-₱500s range, reinforcing that the stake remains a substantial mark-to-market component of JGS’s overall valuation picture.

    This matters in a very practical way. If investors are assessing worst-case scenarios for petrochemicals—such as heavy impairments or debt absorption—Meralco’s stake provides an immediately observable asset base that can temper those fears. It does not erase risk, but it changes the conversation from “existential threat” to “balance-sheet management,” especially when the parent reports consolidated equity and maintains access to capital markets.

    A portfolio lesson: manage correlation, not just exposure

    The broader lesson for Philippine holding companies is about correlation. Cyclical businesses can be profitable over time, but they can also compress cash flows simultaneously—especially in downturns that hit multiple sectors. A portfolio that includes a large, dividend-paying, comparatively defensive investment can soften the blow and preserve strategic flexibility.

    JG Summit’s experience illustrates how this can work in practice: a volatile industrial business faces a prolonged trough, while a regulated utility stake continues to provide cash returns and balance-sheet ballast. The Meralco position—built in 2013, expanded in 2017, partially monetized in 2022, and still meaningful today—has effectively served as a natural hedge against the risks inherent in heavy-asset cyclicals.

    In the end, the most useful hedge is the one you can hold through the storm. For JGS, Meralco has been that asset—cash-generative, sizable, and credibly monetizable—while petrochemicals navigates an unforgiving global cycle. 

    We’ve been blogging for free. If you enjoy our content, consider supporting us!

  • PNB’s Bond Move Meets a BSP Rate Cut—The New Squeeze — When Rate Cuts Meet Fixed-Rate Bank Bonds

    PNB’s Bond Move Meets a BSP Rate Cut—The New Squeeze — When Rate Cuts Meet Fixed-Rate Bank Bonds

    We’ve been blogging for free. If you enjoy our content, consider supporting us!

    Philippine National Bank’s return to the peso bond market would normally be filed under “good news”: strong demand, a sizeable PHP 15.7 billion raise, and a clear promise to funnel proceeds into eligible projects under its Sustainable Financing Framework. But markets don’t grade banks on deal headlines—they grade them on spread, the narrow space between what a bank earns on assets and what it pays for money. And that spread is now facing a two-sided pincer: a fresh BSP rate cut that can pull loan yields down, and new fixed-rate bond funding that doesn’t reprice lower. 

    A bond deal priced for yesterday’s rate environment

    PNB’s issuance came in two tranches: Series A (3-year) at 5.4877% and Series B (5-year) at 5.7764%, for a combined PHP 15.7 billion. Those are clean, tradable coupons investors like because they are predictable. For the bank, however, predictability cuts both ways: these rates are locked in, creating a relatively firm “floor” for a portion of PNB’s funding costs over the next three to five years.

    That matters because PNB’s earnings machine is still overwhelmingly powered by net interest income. In its latest quarterly filing covering the period ended September 30, 2025, PNB reported net interest income of PHP 39.3 billion and a net interest margin (NIM) of 4.7% for the first nine months of the year. When a bank introduces more wholesale, fixed-rate funding into the mix, it increases the chance that overall funding costs drift upward—unless the proceeds are deployed into assets that earn meaningfully more than that fixed coupon. 

    Then came the BSP’s easing move—lower policy rates, lower pricing gravity

    On December 11, 2025, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas cut the target reverse repurchase (RRP) rate by 25 bps to 4.50%, citing benign inflation and weaker growth, while signaling the easing cycle may be nearing its end. A policy rate cut is not just a macro headline; it’s a pricing signal that seeps into the banking system. Over time, it can soften interest rates across the curve—deposit pricing, wholesale funding benchmarks, and critically, loan pricing. 

    And that’s where the profitability tension sharpens. In easing cycles, banks often hope for a benign sequence: funding costs fall faster than asset yields, supporting NIM. But when a bank adds fresh fixed-rate bond funding, it risks changing that sequence. Bond coupons don’t follow the BSP downward. Meanwhile, loan yields—especially for new production or repriced credits—can trend lower as the overall cost of money declines and competition intensifies. 

    The core risk: loan yields may fall, but bond funding stays expensive

    Here is the cleanest way to see the risk: the BSP’s rate cut pulls down the “gravity” of borrowing costs. When benchmark rates move lower, banks typically face pressure to reprice or originate loans at lower rates—particularly in competitive segments and for high-quality borrowers. That means asset yields can fall over time. 

    But PNB’s new bond funding is priced in the mid‑5% range and is fixed. If loan yields soften due to easing—while bond coupons remain unchanged—then the spread between what PNB earns and what it pays can narrow. That is textbook margin compression: assets reprice down, liabilities don’t fully follow, and NIM drifts lower even when volumes are growing. 

    The risk is not theoretical. PNB’s 17‑Q already shows how meaningful interest expense is to the model: for the first nine months of 2025, total interest expense was PHP 13.07 billion, including PHP 630.3 million for “bonds payable.” Add more bond funding and—unless deployment is swift and high-yielding—interest expense becomes stickier at precisely the moment the BSP is trying to make money cheaper. 

    Why the first few quarters after issuance matter most

    A second layer of risk is timing. Bond proceeds arrive quickly; loan deployment—especially into projects that meet sustainability criteria—can take longer. PNB itself states the net proceeds will be used to finance or refinance eligible projects under its framework. If deployment lags, banks often park funds temporarily in liquid assets. In a falling-rate environment, those liquid assets may earn less, while bond coupons keep running—turning the early months into a “negative carry” window that can pull on NIM. 

    This is why investors shouldn’t judge the bond deal by oversubscription alone. The real scoreboard is whether the bank can keep its margin stable while adding fixed-rate funding. PNB’s reported 4.7% NIM provides a useful baseline heading into the post-issuance period. 

    The counterpoint: rate cuts can boost loan demand—volume can cushion the squeeze

    To be fair, BSP easing can also be helpful for banks. Lower policy rates are designed to support activity; they can lift credit demand, encourage refinancing, and reduce debt service burdens. If loan volumes accelerate enough, banks can sometimes offset thinner spreads with higher earning-asset balances. PNB’s own 17‑Q shows that loans and receivables rose 6.5% versus year-end 2024, indicating momentum in asset growth even before the December cut. 

    But volume is not a free pass. When rates fall, banks must avoid the temptation to buy growth at the expense of pricing discipline—especially if they are carrying fixed-rate liabilities that won’t reprice lower. If PNB uses the bond proceeds to fund assets that are either low-yielding or aggressively priced, the “growth story” can still translate into weaker NIM.

    What to watch: three tells that reveal whether NIM holds or slips

    Because the bond was listed on December 11, 2025, the post-issuance effect will show up more clearly in subsequent periods rather than the September 30, 2025 filing. When PNB reports new numbers, three items will tell the story quickly: 

    1. Loan yield trend — do new bookings and repricings show softening rates consistent with BSP easing? 
    2. Funding cost mix — does the new bond carry make interest expense less responsive to falling rates? 
    3. NIM direction vs 4.7% baseline — does it hold, or does the combination of lower loan yields and fixed bond coupons compress the spread? 

    Bottom line

    PNB’s bond issuance strengthens funding diversification and signals confidence, but the macro backdrop has shifted: the BSP has lowered the policy rate to 4.50%, reinforcing a downtrend in borrowing costs that can pull loan yields lower. With PNB’s new bond financing locked at 5.49%–5.78%, a portion of the bank’s funding costs becomes fixed and comparatively expensive just as the system is easing. If loan rates fall faster than the bank’s blended funding costs, the natural result is net interest margin compression—a risk that will only be confirmed (or disproved) in the coming quarters’ NIM and net interest income prints.

    We’ve been blogging for free. If you enjoy our content, consider supporting us!

  • Cebu Air’s Underlying Momentum Is Real — and It Shows

    Cebu Air’s Underlying Momentum Is Real — and It Shows

    Start with the basics. For the nine months to September 30, 2025, CEB logged ₱87.6 billion in revenue, up 18% year‑on‑year. Passenger sales rose 17% to ₱59.7 billion on broad‑based demand recovery; cargo accelerated 30% to ₱5.2 billion; and ancillary revenues—those high‑margin add‑ons like baggage, seat selection, and bundles—climbed 17% to ₱22.8 billion. The top‑line story isn’t just about reopening—it’s about retention and monetization.

    More telling than growth is quality. Operating costs did rise (+16% to ₱79.8 billion), as you’d expect with more flights and a bigger fleet. But the key heavy lines behaved: flying operations were essentially flat (+1%), thanks to lower fuel prices offsetting higher consumption and crew counts; depreciation (+21%) and aircraft/traffic servicing (+41%) reflect capacity normalization rather than inefficiency; and short‑term lease costs fell sharply (−80%), signposting better asset planning. Net result: operating income of ₱7.8 billion, up 37%. 

    The best lens for “underlying momentum” is CEB’s pre‑tax core net income, which filters out outsized, non‑recurring items. On that basis, CEB delivered ₱2.9 billion, double last year’s ₱1.45 billion. Pair that with an EBITDA of ₱22.2 billion and a 25.3% EBITDA margin (up from 23.6%), and you see a business extracting more cash profit per peso of revenue even as it rebuilds capacity. Efficiency metrics corroborate the trend: Cost per ASK ticked down to ₱3.05 from ₱3.10, with the seat load factor steady at 84.8%—proof that routes and pricing are holding. 

    Of course, the reported net income of ₱9.47 billion (+181%) needs context. Two items gave the year a big glow: ₱5.99 billion booked as other income for five free‑of‑charge Pratt & Whitney GTF engines—a fair‑value recognition tied to industry‑wide AOG mitigation—and ₱226 million from remeasurement on the step‑acquisition of 1Aviation (ground handling), which moved from joint venture to subsidiary. These don’t recur, and the market should normalize them. But they also matter: the engines improve near‑term fleet availability, while consolidating 1Aviation strengthens service control and integration. (Source: CEB Form 17‑Q, 9M 2025)

    If there’s a headwind, it’s below the line. Financing costs rose 17% to ₱5.6 billion as deliveries and lease liabilities scaled, and foreign‑exchange losses hit ₱1.25 billion on peso depreciation versus USD and JPY—the currency mix in aviation is stubborn. Yet even here, the interest coverage ratio improved to 1.57x (from 1.32x), reflecting stronger earnings capacity to carry debt and leases. 

    Balance‑sheet optics have turned decisively better. Equity grew to ₱16.1 billion (from ₱10.0 billion), and book value per common share jumped to ₱21.00 (from ₱7.18), driven by profits despite an active buyback and a ₱2.82 billion dividend to preferred shareholders. On liquidity, the current ratio is a low 0.53x, and current liabilities still exceed current assets by ~₱30 billion—that’s the nature of airline working capital. But cash generation is the counterweight: ₱15.41 billion net cash from operations year‑to‑date, ₱4.78 billion net inflows on investing (proceeds and PDP/security‑deposit refunds, net of capex), and deliberate ₱24.46 billion outflows in financing (debt/lease repayments, treasury purchases, dividends). The company is using cash to de‑risk.

    Operationally, the platform is deeper and more resilient. CEB now flies 98 aircraft with an average age of ~6.1 years, across 82 domestic and 42 international routes with roughly 2,700 weekly flights. The AirSWIFT acquisition broadens leisure connectivity (El Nido and other tourist nodes), while 1Aviation consolidation tightens ground operations across thirty‑plus airports. Those moves aren’t mere trophies; they reinforce the commercial engine—better schedule reliability, more ancillary throughput, and improved customer experience that sustains yield. 

    There are risks worth watching. Fuel and FX remain volatile, and hedging is prudently modest; heavy maintenance accruals (₱5.68 billion HMV YTD) and return condition provisions (₱0.83 billion) underline a busy engineering calendar as utilization rises; lease liabilities are substantial (₱116.84 billion), keeping discipline front‑and‑center. Still, the levers are visible: route profitability, ancillary monetization, tighter ground operations, normalized lease mix, and efficiency at scale. 

    Bottom line: If you’re trying to decide whether CEB’s 2025 bounce is cosmetic or structural, the core tells the story. Pre‑tax core earnings doubled, margins expanded, CASK declined, and cash flows are funding de‑risking, not just growth. The headline numbers benefited from exceptional items, yes—but the business beneath them is sturdier than it was a year ago. For investors, valuation should key off normalized earnings and EV/EBITDA, but the direction of travel is favorable: an airline that’s earning more per flight and per customer, with a wider network, better integration, and improving balance‑sheet optics.

    In a sector where momentum can be fleeting, Cebu Air’s looks real—and increasingly repeatable.

    We’ve been blogging for free. If you enjoy our content, consider supporting us!

  • SPC’s outsized 2025 dividend: signal, not trap—yet

    SPC’s outsized 2025 dividend: signal, not trap—yet

    SPC Power Corporation surprised the market with a year‑end ₱0.80/share cash dividend—lifting full‑year distributions to ₱1.20/share—after its Board approval on December 9, 2025 (record Dec 26, payable on/before Jan 9, 2026). That move caps a year of margin recovery and leaves investors wondering whether it is sustainable or a one‑off flourish. 

    At ₱9.00, the combined ₱1.20/share payout implies a ~13.3% full‑year yield—eye‑catching for a net‑cash utility. On trailing measures, independent trackers had SPC’s yield in the 4.4–5.0% range before the latest announcement, reflecting the earlier ₱0.40 mid‑year dividend; the step‑up reframes the yield conversation decisively.

    Crucially, 2025’s earnings quality improved. SPC’s 9M‑2025 total comprehensive income rose to ₱1.744B, and EPS reached ₱1.17, even as reported revenues dipped (–10.3%) due to lower pass‑through fuel costs. The gross margin surged to ₱1.494B (from ₱228.5M in 9M‑2024) on cost optimization and better plant utilization; management notes the generation segment contributed ~72% of net income this year, tilting results back toward core operations rather than associates.

    On coverage, the numbers are reassuring—but nuanced. Operating cash flow (OCF) for 9M‑2025 stood at ₱1.279B, while cash & cash equivalents were a hefty ₱6.181B—with a current ratio of 11.47 and debt ratio ~0.06, underscoring a net‑cash profile. That means the ₱0.80 year‑end dividend (~₱1.197B) is cash‑covered with room to spare; total FY dividends (~₱1.796B) are covered ~3.4× by cash on hand, though only ~0.71× by 9M OCF—so Q4 cash generation matters for purists who want dividends funded from operations alone.

    Associates still play a material role. SPC’s equity share in the earnings of KSPC/MECO was ₱491.0M in 9M‑2025 (down year‑on‑year), yet cash dividends received from associates reached about ₱852.4M over the same period—significant support for parent‑level liquidity. The strategic overlay: Korean media report KEPCO plans to divest its 60% stake in KSPC (SPC owns 40%), potentially reshaping governance and dividend policy at the associate level. That is not inherently negative, but it warrants monitoring because associate cash flows have historically augmented SPC’s payout capacity.

    Market conditions are a swing factor, too. The Independent Electricity Market Operator (IEMOP) has expressed optimism for stable/lower WESM prices in 2025 amid ample supply—good for consumers, more challenging for merchant margins if generators cannot offset via efficiency or contracted sales. SPC’s 2025 margin expansion shows it can win on costs; sustaining this in a soft price environment will demand continued operational discipline.

    One structural lever is battery energy storage. On October 17, 2025, a wholly owned subsidiary signed supply and EPC contracts for BESS projects in Panay (100 MWh) and Bohol (60 MWh)—positioning SPC to capture ancillary and flexibility revenues as rules mature. The policy groundwork for BESS in the WESM has been laid over recent years; execution will dictate how quickly these assets translate into earnings that can buttress future dividends.

    So is SPC’s dividend sustainable—or a value trap? On the evidence, not a value trap. SPC in 2025 showed improved core margins, sits on net cash with minimal leverage, and holds ample liquidity to fund distributions, even at the enhanced year‑end rate. The magnitude of the ₱1.20/share payout, however, is above a normal run rate and depends on Q4 earnings and, to a degree, associate cash flows. In other words, ongoing dividends look supportable; repeating 2025’s size every year would require continued operational strength and no adverse surprises from KSPC or WESM pricing.

    For investors, the watch‑list is straightforward: (1) FY‑2025/Q4 results to confirm post‑payout cash and operating cover; (2) KSPC ownership changes and any shift in dividend policy; (3) WESM price trajectory and SPC’s contracted versus merchant mix; and (4) BESS milestones and monetization in the ancillary/Reserve Market. If these line up, baseline dividends (₱0.40–₱0.60) look comfortably repeatable, with top‑ups plausible in stronger years. 

    We’ve been blogging for free. If you enjoy our content, consider supporting us!

  • Rent Is the Engine, Refinancing Is the Weather: Reading SM Prime’s 9M 2025

    Rent Is the Engine, Refinancing Is the Weather: Reading SM Prime’s 9M 2025

    In a year when higher funding costs and mixed consumer signals have turned developers cautious, SM Prime Holdings (SMPH) just delivered a set of numbers that feel both familiar and instructive: steady rent‑led growth, softness in residential, and a heavier–but manageable—refinancing calendar.

    On the headline figures, consolidated revenues rose 4% to ₱103.40B for the first nine months of 2025, carried by rent (up 7% to ₱60.99B), while real estate sales eased 2% to ₱31.20B. Costs and expenses fell 1%, pushing operating income up 9% to ₱51.90B and net income (attributable) up 10% to ₱37.24B. EPS clocked in at ₱1.291, with a cash dividend of ₱0.480 already paid in May.

    The Core Story: Malls Still Do the Heavy Lifting

    SMPH’s malls continue to anchor earnings strength. In the nine months, Malls posted ₱60.92B in revenue and ₱31.51B in pre‑tax profit; Residential contributed ₱32.58B and ₱10.41B, respectively; Hotels & Conventions added ₱6.01B and ₱1.01B; Commercial & Integrated Developments generated ₱3.89B and ₱3.01B. Operating leverage is visible: the company squeezed more profit out of largely flat third‑quarter revenues thanks to disciplined costs.

    This operating resilience rests on footprint and execution. SMPH opened SM City Laoag in May and SM City La Union in October, bringing the Philippine mall count to 89 (plus 8 in China). The pipeline of redevelopments also supports rent and occupancy, while hotels, offices, and conventions continue to offer steady—if smaller—contributions.

    Where the Fuel Mix Shows Some Octane Lag

    The Residential engine sputtered a bit: real estate sales slipped 2% year‑on‑year and segment profit ticked lower. Receivables and contract assets rose (₱107.25B), with unbilled revenue tied to construction milestones also higher—fine if build schedules and collections remain tight, more delicate if they don’t. Meanwhile, non‑cash OCI headwinds—FVOCI losses in the equity book and a weaker cash‑flow hedge reserve—trimmed total comprehensive income to ₱35.67B (from ₱37.21B), even as net income advanced.

    These are not structural breaks; they are friction points that investors should watch: project take‑up and construction cadence, pricing power, and the sensitivity of SMPH’s OCI to market marks.

    Balance Sheet: Bigger Tank, Higher Octane Price

    On the funding side, interest‑bearing debt climbed to ₱419.82B (+8% YTD), while current maturities rose to ₱112.08B. SMPH notes these are “due for refinancing,” a normal course for a developer of this scale. Coverage remains sound: interest coverage at 7.06×, debt/EBITDA at 4.84×, and net debt‑to‑equity at 46:54. Liquidity is adequate, with a current ratio of 2.28× and acid‑test 1.29× (excluding items flagged for refinancing).

    Hedging helps: after swaps, roughly 57% of long‑term borrowings are effectively fixed‑rate. Still, derivative assets came down with maturities and fair‑value changes—less cushion than last year, but consistent with a company rolling hedges as the book evolves.

    The Bottomline

    SMPH’s playbook still works: rent growth and operating discipline carry the income statement; capex and landbanking expand the footprint; hedges and market access keep the funding bridge sturdy. The residential wobble and OCI marks are the ballast on comprehensive profits, not the anchor. The refinancing calendar is heavier, but coverage and liquidity suggest it’s navigable—especially for a name that just placed ₱25B in retail bonds and continues to roll projects and tenants into an already dominant network.

    As with any property stock in a higher‑for‑longer world, the cost of money is the weather: if it worsens abruptly, sentiment and valuation can swing faster than the EPS math. But in the base case, SMPH’s rent engine remains powerful enough to keep the vehicle moving—just perhaps with a touch more fuel discipline and a keener eye on the road ahead.

    We’ve been blogging for free. If you enjoy our content, consider supporting us!

  • Why ABS is likely to move under FPH—funded by First Gen

    Why ABS is likely to move under FPH—funded by First Gen

    From the Trading Desk. 

    The Lopez Group faces a moment that calls for clear, steady action. TV5’s notice to end its content deal with ABS‑CBN—which ABS says it’s working to resolve—puts pressure on ABS’s cash flows and its relationships with partners. Letting that pressure linger risks bigger problems. 

    The most straightforward fix is to bring ABS under First Philippine Holdings (FPH) through a share swap—and then use First Gen (FGEN) cash to help ABS regain its footing. Here’s why this path makes sense, quickly and simply:

    1) Put ABS under the strongest umbrella

    Inside the Lopez Group, ABS sits under Lopez Holdings, while FPH is the parent for major businesses like First Gen (power) and Rockwell Land (property). Moving ABS under FPH aligns responsibility and resources in one place and avoids messy intercompany band‑aids. It’s a clean, familiar step for listed companies in the Philippines.

    2) Use the cash that already exists

    In November 2025, First Gen closed a ₱50 billion deal with Prime Infrastructure, selling 60% of its Batangas gas plants and the LNG terminal while keeping 40% (Tokyo Gas holds 20% in the LNG hub). That transaction brought in real cash. A special dividend from FGEN to FPH immediately equips FPH with funds to settle partner obligations, stabilize operations, and give ABS breathing room after the share swap. 

    There’s a bonus: in the Philippines, cash dividends between local companies aren’t taxed at the recipient company, making FGEN → FPH a fast, efficient way to move support where it’s needed. 

    3) This doesn’t weaken Lopez control of FPH—if anything, it can increase it

    Some might worry that issuing new FPH shares for a 100% ABS swap would dilute Lopez control. In practice, it won’t:

    • Before the swap, Lopez Holdings (LPZ) owns about 55.6% of FPH (per FPH’s Public Ownership Report). 
    • After a full ABS‑for‑FPH share swap (priced on recent trading averages), LPZ’s stake in FPH would likely tick up—roughly into the low‑to‑mid 60% range—because LPZ would receive the new FPH shares issued as consideration. In other words: more FPH shares end up with Lopez Holdings, so control does not fall; it can rise. (This is based on recent market data for ABS and FPH and simple share‑count math; inputs such as ABS’s outstanding shares and recent prices come from PSE EDGE.) 

    And since FPH already has a healthy public float, that small increase in Lopez ownership does not threaten the exchange’s minimum public‑ownership rules. 

    4) Doing nothing costs more

    Waiting invites headlines, frays trust with partners, and makes a later fix more expensive. A share swap + FGEN special dividend is decisive, transparent, and fast. It shows banks, advertisers, and viewers that ABS’s finances are under firm stewardship—with the scale and discipline of FPH behind it.

    Bottom line:
    The likely move is ABS under FPH via share swap, funded by an FGEN special dividend—and Lopez control of FPH won’t be diluted by doing this. It’s the simplest way to restore confidence and give ABS the time it needs to get fully back on its feet.

    Because the FGEN cash is already real, many investors will naturally front‑run the possibility of a special dividend flowing to FPH—and, by extension, to all FGEN shareholders. In that sense, the market may treat FGEN like a buy‑for‑dividend‑optionality story right now, pending board moves. (Again, this is sentiment—not a recommendation.) 

    SUBSCRIBE TO SUPPORT FREE INDEPENDENT RESEARCH

  • FLI’s Two‑Track Story: Gains on the Ground, Rates in the Rear‑View

    FLI’s Two‑Track Story: Gains on the Ground, Rates in the Rear‑View

    Filinvest Land, Inc. (FLI) has quietly stitched together a steady nine‑month performance that looks better beneath the surface than its modest headline growth might suggest. Yet the same report, which shows improving revenue, cash generation, and liquidity, also flags the familiar headwinds of higher financing costs and execution risk that could trip up momentum if conditions turn. Here’s the balanced read investors should care about—what’s getting better, and what could potentially derail the story. 

    What’s getting better

    1) Dual‑engine revenue: development + leasing both up.
    FLI’s consolidated revenue rose 7.9% to ₱18.99 billion for the nine months ended September 30, 2025, with real estate sales up 8.2% to ₱12.86 billion and rental & related services up 7.3% to ₱6.13 billion. The sales mix remains anchored in medium‑income housing (71%), while affordable/low segments (17%) widened their share—useful ballast when the market tilts toward value. Leasing gains came from higher occupancy and contractual escalations; even the co‑living pilot (The Crib Clark) added incremental pesos.

    2) Earnings drift higher with resilient margins.
    Net income improved 5.0% to ₱3.64 billion; EPS ticked up to ₱0.14 (from ₱0.13). Under the hood, computed gross margins held sturdy—about 52% in real estate and 51% in leasing—despite cost inflation and a heavier depreciation footprint from asset additions. That margin resilience is the critical “quality” signal in a build‑and‑lease model.

    3) Operating cash flow and cash reserves strengthened.
    Operating cash flow climbed 5.1% to ₱7.09 billion, while cash & equivalents nearly doubled (+89.6%) to ₱7.55 billion. A lighter investing outflow—thanks to tempered net capex and larger dividends received from associates—helped the cash balance. In a rate‑heavy world, more cash on hand means more options.

    4) Liquidity ratios improve—more near‑term cushion.
    The current ratio rose to 3.07× (from 2.78× at year‑end 2024) and the quick ratio to 0.81× (from 0.71×). When maturities cluster, and contractors queue up for payments, these buffers matter—a lot.

    5) Collections and working capital discipline show up in the numbers.
    Other receivables fell by 7.3%, reflecting better tenant collections and liquidation of advances; expected credit losses remain modest. Contract assets declined 9.7%, which management ties to a higher percentage completion across projects—an indicator that work‑in‑progress is converting toward billable/saleable stages.

    6) Associates contribute more—and in cash.
    Equity in net earnings of associates jumped 48% to ₱371.7 million, and dividends received rose to ₱289.4 million (from ₱106.0 million)—a welcome auxiliary stream that diversifies cash sources beyond unit transfers and rental billings.

    7) Recurring platform scaled via the REIT.
    The Festival Mall – Main Mall property‑for‑share swap lifted FLI’s stake in Filinvest REIT Corp. (FILRT) to roughly 63%. The transaction (SEC valuation approved on May 27, 2025) underscores FLI’s capital‑recycling playbook: seed the REIT with stabilized assets, free up growth capital, and lean into recurring income through the platform.

    8) Pipeline depth: investment properties up; new retail underway.
    Investment properties (NBV) rose to ₱87.02 billion; fair value indications stand near ₱215.34 billion (Level‑3 appraisal). Retail projects in Cubao and Mimosa are under construction—future anchors that can compound footfall and lease yields if delivered on time and on budget.

    9) Shareholder cash is still visible.
    A ₱0.05 common dividend (paid in May 2025) equated to a ~6.1% trailing yield on the ₱0.82 closing price as of September 30, 2025; the company’s reported P/E sat at 4.34×—low enough to make the carry look compelling, provided coverage metrics stay healthy.

    What could derail the story?

    1) Financing costs: the gravity that never sleeps.
    Interest & finance charges rose 18.8% to ₱3.14 billion. Coverage ratios edged down (EBITDA/interest 1.91×; EBIT/interest 2.38×). With ₱6.72 billion in bonds and ₱11.23 billion in loans maturing within 12 months (total ~₱17.95 billion), repricing risk is non‑trivial: tighter liquidity or wider spreads could bite into earnings and dividend headroom. FLI’s debt‑to‑equity ≈ 0.88× is comfortably within covenants (max 2.0–2.5×), but the direction of travel matters as much as the level. 

    2) Sales velocity and inventory turns.
    Real estate inventories rose to ₱73.33 billion (+4.8%). If buyer affordability weakens or cancellations tick up, inventory clears slower, cash conversion stalls, and carrying costs pile on. Receivable ageing shows meaningful “past‑due but not impaired” buckets—collections need to stay tight to keep momentum real, not just reported. 

    3) Leasing margin compression risk.
    Leasing revenue grew, but cost of rental services grew faster (+10.2%), propelled by depreciation on new builds and operating costs. If occupancy dips or escalations soften while opex keeps climbing, today’s ~51% gross margin in leasing can erode quickly. The retail pipeline is promising, but pre‑leasing discipline and tenant mix will determine how accretive those projects really are. 

    4) Execution complexity across a wide map.
    From Filinvest City to Cebu SRP, Clark Mimosa, and New Clark City, FLI manages multi‑site construction and leasing with varied regulatory pathways and counterparties (including BTO and long‑term leases). Delays, cost overruns, or contractor bottlenecks can ripple through the P&L and push out cash timelines. 

    5) Macro & policy overhangs.
    Higher rates, build‑cost inflation, or shifts in housing policy (including socialized housing thresholds) would amplify the pressures above. As a REIT sponsor, FLI also carries ongoing reinvestment and reporting obligations—non‑compliance isn’t the base case, but it’s a governance tripwire worth monitoring. 

    The bottom line

    FLI’s 2025 nine‑month tape shows a business doing the right things: growing both development and leasing, protecting margins, and strengthening liquidity—while smartly using the REIT to recycle capital. But the rate cycle is the villain in this play: financing costs are up, coverage ratios are thinner, and near‑term maturities mean execution and treasury strategy must stay sharp. If sell‑through holds and leasing stays firm, the math still works; if either wobbles while rates stay stubborn, the dividend and expansion pace could be tested. 

    What to watch next quarter

    • Coverage ratios: Aim for EBITDA/interest >2.0×; a sustained slip below that line raises caution.
    • OCF vs. cash commitments: Keep operating cash flow ≥ (capex + dividends) to avoid creeping dependence on debt.
    • Sell‑through & cancellations: Affordable/MRB projects should keep cycle times short; any elongation is a red flag.
    • Pre‑leasing & occupancy: Verify that new retail/office assets land anchor tenants early—and at rents that defend margins.
    • Covenant headroom: D/E, current ratio, DSCR—trend matters as much as absolute levels. 

    Subscribe to Support Free Independent Research

  • What it will take for DITO to break even

    What it will take for DITO to break even

    By any reasonable yardstick, DITO is still far from break‑even. But the path is not unknowable—it’s arithmetic, capital discipline, and execution. The company’s 3Q25 filing lays out the challenge in stark numbers: nine‑month net loss of ₱24.93B, EBIT (operating loss) of ₱9.73B, and EBITDA of ₱1.565B—up 112% year‑on‑year, yet nowhere near enough to absorb heavy depreciation (₱11.47B), interest (₱12.82B) and FX losses (₱2.23B). On that math, DITO would need roughly ₱26–27B of EBITDA over nine months—or ~₱35–36B annualized—to hit net break‑even today. 

    Scale the cash engine—fast, and with margin integrity.
    No telco breaks even on hope; it breaks even on EBITDA. With nine‑month revenues at ₱14.9B and an EBITDA margin of ~10.5%, the cash engine is underpowered. The first lever is scale and margin: push data monetization (already 86% of service revenue) while rebuilding ARPU (mobile blended down to ₱100, FWA up modestly to ₱306). Even at a healthier 25–30% EBITDA margin—more typical for mature operators—the company would still need ₱90–120B in annual revenue to generate ₱22–36B of EBITDA, the minimum needed to neutralize fixed charges. That implies aggressive growth in consumer data, enterprise connectivity, and wholesale (carrier) lines, plus disciplined promo management to prevent volume from cannibalizing yield. 

    Make finance costs smaller—or fewer.
    The second lever is the price of money. Nine‑month interest expense of ₱12.82B—largely tied to US$3.241B and CNY2.561B drawn on project‑finance facilities—remains the single biggest drag after depreciation. Two paths help: (1) Refinance and repricing where possible (SOFR and LPR resets, margin negotiation) and (2) deleverage through primary equity and asset monetization. DITO has a Subscription Framework with Summit Telco to subscribe up to 9B primary shares; execution speed and terms will matter more than headlines. Parallel moves—tower sale‑leasebacks, partial fiber IRU monetization, and selective disposal of non‑core assets—can chip away at principal and lower interest, even if lease expense rises. The net objective is a multi‑billion‑peso annual reduction in interest payments to narrow the break‑even gap.

    Tame the currency roller-coaster

    DITO’s FX sensitivity is enormous: a ~9.7% move in USD/₱ shifts loss before tax by ±₱19.4B; a ~9.2% move in CNY/₱ shifts it by ±₱7.0B. FX losses already ran ₱2.23B in 9M25. That volatility is too significant to leave unmanaged. The company needs a formal, disclosed hedging policy—currency swaps or forwards aligned to semi‑annual interest and principal amortization calendars, plus natural hedges from USD/CNY-denominated costs and (where viable) revenues. Hedging won’t create profit, but it will stop FX from destroying operating gains. 

    Keep capex lean; keep sites lit.
    Post‑audit, capex dropped 76% YoY to ₱2.475B in 9M25. That restraint is welcome, but it cannot come at the cost of performance; the installed base still demands maintenance (₱2.70B) and utilities (₱2.15B) over nine months. The capex rule of thumb now is: spend only where it lifts EBITDA per site—densification that raises throughput in revenue‑rich pockets; enterprise builds with contracted returns; and upgrades that cut energy or maintenance per bit carried. That is how asset intensity turns into margin, not just footprint. 

    Work the P&L: opex trim without starving growth.
    GS&A rose 18% to ₱12.03B. Some lines must keep rising (network ops), but several can be bent: advertising was prudently down 35%; outside services were flat; yet taxes & licenses (+42%) and parts of repairs (+29%) warrant a deeper review—contract re‑cuts, shared services, automation in field ops, and energy optimization programs (smart cooling, solar hybrids) at base stations. Every ₱1B trimmed from opex is ₱1B closer to EBITDA levels that make break‑even plausible. 

    Fix the liquidity optics—then the substance.
    The optics are brutal: current ratio ~0.06x (₱6.08B current assets vs ₱96.12B current liabilities), total liabilities ₱304.65B, and capital deficiency ₱95.31B. Management itself discloses material uncertainty on going‑concern, citing undrawn portions of project finance and shareholder support as mitigants. Break‑even will not arrive without first de‑risking liquidity—locking in the undrawn facilities, terming out near‑dated trade/lease payables, converting portions of accrued project costs to longer‑tenor instruments, and most critically, closing equity infusions to rebuild the cushion. Markets reward certainty; paperwork in progress doesn’t pay interest. 

    Price, product, and partners: grow smarter.
    Two commercial pivots can raise EBITDA productivity per subscriber:

    • Price discipline—dial back deep free‑data promos, steer to tiered bundles with speed/latency guarantees for prosumers and SMEs; protect ARPU creep without choking gross adds.
    • Partnerships—expand MVNOs, campus and enterprise programs (already lifting carrier/enterprise revenue), and bundle OTT/video‑gaming that drives high‑margin nighttime traffic. More enterprise SLAs and wholesale carriage contracts mean stickier, forecastable EBITDA. 

    A reality check on timelines.
    Even with momentum—revenues +25%, EBITDA +112%, capex normalized—DITO is not “near” break‑even on earnings or fully‑loaded cash. Operating cash inflow (₱3.81B) was offset by capex and finance/lease payments, leaving cash down ₱416M for 9M25 and ₱763M on hand at period end (with ~₱558M pledged as collateral). The journey to earnings break‑even will be measured not in quarters but in EBITDA multiples, interest reductions, and FX stability achieved. Investors should benchmark progress against three quarterly scorecards: (1) EBITDA run‑rate (targeting ₱8–10B annual within 12–18 months), (2) interest/FX drag (cut by at least ₱3–5B p.a. via refinancing, hedging, and deleveraging), and (3) liquidity coverage (current ratio >0.5x via executed equity and extended vendor terms). Anything less, and break‑even remains theoretical. 

    The bottom line:
    Break‑even is not a mystery. It is the sum of bigger, higher‑margin EBITDA, smaller, cheaper debt, and less currency noise—backed by hard, executed capital. DITO’s network quality and subscriber growth are real strengths; now the company must turn them into cash at a pace that outstrips depreciation, interest, and FX. In telco finance, gravity always wins; DITO’s task is to lighten the load and power the engine—quickly.

    Subscribe to Support Free Independent Research

  • DoubleDragon’s Balancing Act: Growth on Paper, Pressure in Cash

    DoubleDragon’s Balancing Act: Growth on Paper, Pressure in Cash

    DoubleDragon Corporation’s latest quarterly filing paints a picture of ambition—and exposure. On the surface, the numbers sparkle: revenues surged 63% year-on-year to ₱10.5 billion for the first nine months of 2025, powered by real estate sales and steady rental streams. Net income held at ₱2.55 billion, barely up from last year, but enough to keep the optics positive.

    Scratch deeper, and the sheen dulls. Nearly 42% of that revenue came from unrealized fair value gains and tenant penalties—items that look good in a report but don’t pay the bills. Strip those out, and the core engine—rent and hotel operations—struggles to cover a ballooning interest tab. Financing costs doubled to ₱2.39 billion, and in the third quarter alone, they wiped out profits for common shareholders, leaving the parent with a ₱47.7 million loss.

    The balance sheet tells its own story: net debt hovers near ₱86 billion, cushioned by equity of ₱101 billion. Bonds issued this year lock in rates north of 7%, some as high as 9.5%, ensuring that interest pressure won’t ease soon. Operating cash flow? Deep in the red at negative ₱7.93 billion, offset only by ₱9 billion in fresh financing. Liquidity ratios look healthy on paper, but the reliance on debt markets is a vulnerability in any tightening cycle.

    Receivables ballooned to ₱21.8 billion, with impairment provisions climbing. Penalty income—₱2.5 billion so far—suggests tenants are paying late. Good for accounting, bad for cash. Add to that the execution risk of Hotel101’s global rollout and the long-promised industrial REIT, and you have a company juggling growth narratives with hard realities.

    To be fair, DoubleDragon is asset-rich and opportunistic. Investment properties rose to ₱169.6 billion, and its REIT arm continues to spin off dividends. But the question for investors is simple: can recurring cash flows catch up with the financing load before the next refinancing cycle? If leasing momentum and hotel pre-sales deliver, the story holds. If not, the cracks widen.

    For now, DoubleDragon remains a case study in modern property playbooks—leveraged growth, valuation-driven earnings, and a race against time to turn paper gains into hard cash. Watch the interest coverage ratio, operating cash flow, and receivables aging. In this game, liquidity isn’t just a metric—it’s survival. 

    Subscribe to Support Free & Independent Research

  • Margins Diverge as Philippine Food Majors Face Cost Crosswinds

    Margins Diverge as Philippine Food Majors Face Cost Crosswinds

    SMFB widens profitability; CNPF and MONDE see compression; URC nudged lower; RFM holds firm despite cash flow squeeze

    The Philippines’ leading packaged food and beverage players posted mixed margin outcomes in their nine‑month 2025 results, highlighting how input-cost volatility, pricing discipline, and working‑capital choices are reshaping profitability across the sector. Sales growth was broadly positive, but margin trajectories diverged: San Miguel Food and Beverage (SMFB) expanded margins; Century Pacific Food (CNPF) and Monde Nissin (MONDE) saw compression; Universal Robina Corp. (URC) edged lower; and RFM Corp. preserved healthy margins while absorbing a hit to operating cash flows.

    Sales: Mid‑single to high‑single digit growth, with branded segments leading

    SMFB’s consolidated revenues rose 4% to ₱302.9 billion on resilient demand and brand execution across food, beer, and spirits—food up 7%, spirits up 7%, beer steady—supporting scale benefits into the third quarter. Management underscored supply chain productivity and capacity expansion as margin enablers alongside revenue momentum. 

    URC delivered ~5% top‑line growth (TTM revenue ₱166.1 billion), propelled by snacks and ready‑to‑drink beverages domestically and stronger performance from Munchy’s in Malaysia and Indonesia. However, elevated coffee input costs—still roughly twice 2023 levels—tempered EBIT expansion, setting the stage for margin pressure despite volume gains.

    CNPF’s sales grew 8% to ₱61.8 billion, with the branded portfolio up 12% and OEM exports recovering after a soft first half. Management flagged “all‑weather” staples demand, easing inflation (notably rice), and brand investments as the primary growth drivers into Q3, where quarterly revenue accelerated 15% year‑on‑year.

    Monde Nissin posted 3.5% growth to ₱63.3 billion, anchored by APAC Branded Food & Beverage (BFB) up 4.4% year‑to‑date, while meat alternatives contracted 3.9% on a constant‑currency basis. The company cited biscuits and “others” categories as domestic volume pillars and guided to sequential BFB margin improvement heading into 4Q25–2Q26.

    RFM recorded 1.8% sales growth to ₱15.23 billion, indicative of flat-to-steady demand in pasta, milk, flour, buns, and ice cream JV products. Despite modest revenue growth, management reiterated its confidence in a stronger fourth quarter driven by category momentum and historical seasonality.

    Margins: SMFB expands; CNPF and MONDE compress; URC softens; RFM resilient

    SMFB: Group profitability improved, with EBITDA up 13% to ₱58.4 billion and overall margins widening to 19%. Margin gains were attributed to cost and operational efficiencies across divisions, most notably in food and spirits, with disciplined pricing underpinning resilience against weather‑related disruptions.

    URC: Gross margin around 26.1% on a trailing basis, below FY2024’s ~27.0% and the company’s five‑year average (~27.7%), reflecting persistent coffee cost inflation and normalization across commodities. Management acknowledged EBIT pressure in the Philippines, partially offset by overseas scale and cost programs, implying modest margin decline versus last year despite top‑line strength. 

    CNPF: Gross margin compressed by 110 bps to 25.5% year‑to‑date, driven by normalizing input costs after a period of favorable commodity tailwinds. Notably, operating expenses fell 90 bps as a share of sales, cushioning the margin squeeze and allowing net income to grow 10% to ₱5.8 billion. 

    Monde Nissin: Consolidated gross margin declined 160 bps to 33.3% for nine months, with edible oil inflation weighing on APAC BFB even as sequential margin recovery emerged on pricing actions and reformulation. Meat alternatives posted gross margin improvement and EBITDA positivity, but the segment’s revenue contraction offset group‑level gains, resulting in overall margin decline year‑to‑date.

    RFM: Margins remained strong despite flat sales—EBITDA of ₱830 million, implying an EBITDA margin of ~15.2%—as lower selling and marketing expenses and lean G&A lifted operating margin to ~11.2%. While the company did not report year‑on‑year basis‑point changes, commentary and segment detail point to a stable-to‑improving margin mix led by consumer products.

    Operating Cash Flow: Strength for MONDE and URC; strain at RFM; SMFB and CNPF steady

    Monde Nissin reported ₱8.7 billion operating cash flow in the period, supported by lower operating costs in meat alternatives, foreign‑exchange tailwinds, and targeted pricing in APAC BFB, even as edible oils remained a drag on gross margins. URC likewise showed solid cash generation (TTM operating cash flow ₱12.86 billion), underpinned by working‑capital normalization across branded and commodities businesses.

    RFM’s operating cash flow fell sharply to ₱141 million from ₱1.3 billion a year ago, largely due to inventory buildup (over ₱1 billion) and reduced payables, which tightened liquidity despite sound income statement margins. Management emphasized inventory normalization and cash discipline as fourth‑quarter priorities. 

    SMFB highlighted a solid financial position—with sustained earnings power and prudent capital management—but did not disclose detailed nine‑month OCF figures. CNPF continued to invest in strategic growth (plant‑based and coconut operations) while maintaining low leverage and healthy liquidity metrics, reinforcing cash resilience despite gross margin compression. 

    Balance Sheets: Liquidity cushions intact; leverage disciplined

    SMFB’s disclosures show total consolidated debt of ₱ 187.2 billion as of September 30, 2025, balanced by robust earnings and margin expansion across key segments, providing flexibility for capacity investments and brand support. 

    URC’s financials reflect a strong asset base and conservative leverage, with ongoing margin headwinds from coffee mitigated by international scale and cost controls; CNPF maintains a current ratio of ~2.0 and a debt‑to‑equity ratio of ~0.24, indicating prudent gearing. 

    Monde Nissin maintains a net cash position (₱11.2 billion), a current ratio of 2.34, and minimal debt, reinforcing flexibility to sustain dividend payouts and fund margin‑restoration initiatives in APAC BFB. RFM also sits on net cash with current ratio ~1.36, though the nine‑month working‑capital swing is a near‑term watch‑item.

    Bottom Line: Five companies, five margin paths

    • SMFB stands out for margin expansion via cost discipline and pricing, despite weather and input‑cost noise. 
    • URC delivers volume‑led growth but faces slightly lower gross margin amid elevated coffee costs. 
    • CNPF sustains double‑digit profit growth even as gross margin compresses on commodity normalization.
    • Monde Nissin shows sequential margin recovery but a year‑to‑date decline, with edible oils the main headwind and meat alternatives improving.
    • RFM maintains strong margins but must rebuild operating cash flow after a working‑capital drawdown. 

    Investor lens: Expect continued focus on pricing, mix, and cost programs to protect margins, with working‑capital discipline (especially inventories and payables) a differentiator into year‑end. Companies with net cash and low leverage (Monde, RFM, CNPF) retain optionality for dividends and capex, while scale players (SMFB, URC) leverage brand strength to buffer input volatility.

    SUBSCRIBE TO SUPPORT FREE & INDEPENDENT RESEARCH