Investing in the future

With several Philippine companies still pursuing plans for their respective initial public offerings (IPOs), one can’t help but wonder what they are seeing that many of us do not?

After all, the Philippine economy is facing headwinds on various fronts. The peso closed at P62.73 to the dollar on Sept. 17. Headline or overall inflation reached 6.1 percent last month. Foreign direct investment net inflows into the country plunged to its lowest monthly level in more than 11 years.

These headwinds are also reflected in the Philippine stock market. The PSE index closed at 5,958.64 also last Sept. 17, with higher oil prices and the peso’s weakness expected to weigh further on investor sentiment.

But despite these economic troubles, potential entrants to the Philippine stock exchange remain interested. Two are already underway, that of Mynt Inc. (GCash’s parent company) and VITRO REIT of PLDT, with at least five other companies considering their own IPOs next year.

The presence of several potential IPOs in the PSE pipeline appears counterintuitive. But companies do not decide to pursue an IPO just based on how an economy is performing at a given time. Their decisions also reflect expectations about future business and market conditions.

Likewise, difficult macroeconomic conditions do not necessarily prevent companies with strong fundamentals and long-term growth prospects from entering the public market.

Take the case of Mynt. AB Capital Securities estimates its equity value at P531 billion to P834 billion, citing its structural growth, established profitability and substantial room to further monetize its customer base. It says that this fintech company deserves a premium valuation due to these factors. Morgan Stanley also highlighted Mynt’s profitability, with the company generating P17.2 billion in net income in 2025, a net margin of 21.6 percent and a return on equity of 32.1 percent. Mynt’s net margin during the first half of 2026 strengthened to 25.2 percent and it estimates that the firm could generate P21.2 billion in net income in 2026.

Mynt’s premium valuation is a claim about the future, analysts say. Investors are not being asked to value the company solely on what it makes today but on what its market position, large customer base and expanding financial ecosystem could generate in the years ahead.

These current economic headwinds have buried more optimistic expectations about our economic recovery. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Governor Eli Remolona Jr. has said that the economy could fully recover in 2027. Multilateral institutions and credit rating agencies also expect the economy to rebound.

The current IPO pipeline may reflect a similar expectation. Companies preparing to list today are not making decisions based on the economy’s state now but are making a bet on 2027 and beyond.

While IPO activity should not be treated as the sole proof of economic recovery, it deserves greater attention alongside other forward-looking indicators of business and investor confidence. Large IPOs may attract foreign portfolio investors and generate capital inflows, providing some support to the peso. The public too should also look forward to these offerings since they provide additional investment opportunities in productive domestic assets.

Impartial justice

The Supreme Court recently overturned the 2018 conviction by the Sandiganbayan of former First Lady Imelda Marcos for violations of the anti-graft law, saying the prosecution failed to establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The case filed against Marcos accused her as a member of the Interim Batasang Pambansa (IBP) then of having financial or pecuniary interest in a number of entities that were used to hold and transfer at least $200 million abroad through foreign bank accounts. The Sandiganbayan said that she participated in the management of these foundations which is a financial or pecuniary interest prohibited by the 1973 Constitution and is therefore guilty of violating Section 3h of Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in seven criminal cases.

Marcos was convicted of violating a constitutional prohibition applicable to Cabinet members. No similar prohibition however was imposed on members of the IBP. However, the information in the criminal cases charged her in her capacity as a member of the IBP.

According to the High Tribunal, public interest could not substitute for the evidentiary standards required in criminal proceedings.

The SC noted that there was a fatal disparity between the allegations in the information and the legal basis for her conviction by the Sandiganbayan.

“The accused may only be convicted of the crime charged. Since she was charged in her capacity as a member of the IBP and for violating the constitutional proscriptions applicable to such position, she cannot be convicted of violating the prohibition applicable to Cabinet members. Her right to due process was violated when the Sandiganbayan convicted her of an offense which she had not been legally informed of, warranting acquittal,” it said.

It added that evidence used by the prosecution were inadmissible and lack probative value. “Relevant Swiss documents were not properly authenticated and prosecution failed to present credible witnesses who could have attested to the genuineness and due execution of the documents. Thus, they are inadmissible as evidence. And being hearsay evidence, the documents cannot be given credence, for these do not have probative value,” the Court held.

And since Section 3h prohibits Cabinet members from having financial or pecuniary interest in any business and the prosecution failed to establish that the foundations were engaged in business, the prosecution likewise could not establish another element of the offense, it added.

This most recent decision of the High Court dated June 10 but made public only recently serves as a reminder that even the most controversial public figures remain entitled to the protection of the rules that govern everyone, including those many have already judged. As emphasized by the SC, the rules on the sufficiency of allegations in the information and the admissibility and probative weight of evidence, in so far as they may cause injury to the rights of the accused to due process of law, cannot be casually brushed aside by the invocation of substantial justice and public interest.

“When the Court dons its robe, inclinations and personal beliefs are set aside. It is the constitutionally mandated duty of the Court to dispense justice in an impartial manner,” the SC emphasized.

For comments, email at [email protected]