For most of the past two years, Maya’s IPO has been treated as a “when,” not an “if” — a dual listing in the US and on the Philippine Stock Exchange that PLDT, its majority-adjacent backer, had floated for as early as the second half of 2026. That timeline has now slipped to 2027, according to multiple Philippine business outlets, and PLDT chairman and CEO Manuel V. Pangilinan has been unusually blunt in public about why.
“We are endorsing [and] supporting the IPO, but there are certain issues that we have to work out with them. It’s not us, it’s them,” Pangilinan said, referring to ongoing discussions with private equity firm KKR & Co. over structural terms of the listing. PLDT and its parent group First Pacific hold roughly 39.6% of Maya; KKR holds close to 30%, alongside Tencent Holdings and the International Finance Corporation as other major backers. Pangilinan added that PLDT would support either outcome — “trade sale or IPO” — partly because either path “gives us a chance to increase our stake.”
A Profitable Business Whose Owners Can’t Agree on an Exit
The delay isn’t about Maya’s numbers. The fintech, which holds both a Virtual Asset Service Provider license and its own BSP digital banking license, turned profitable in 2025 and contributed ₱285 million to PLDT’s core earnings in the first quarter of 2026 alone — a meaningful slice of PLDT’s ₱716 million in total 2025 equity earnings. The disagreement instead centers on how KKR’s stake gets valued and structured going into a listing, an issue Pangilinan has said only KKR can resolve on its end. That’s a reminder that even a genuinely profitable, well-capitalized fintech doesn’t control its own IPO timeline once private equity and strategic shareholders have competing preferences — KKR, Tencent, and IFC reportedly favor a US-first listing, while PLDT has publicly insisted on a simultaneous Philippine debut.
GCash Is Now the One Expected to List First
The more consequential shift is competitive: Pangilinan himself now expects GCash’s parent, Mynt, to reach the Philippine Stock Exchange before Maya does. That flips the assumed order of the country’s two biggest fintech IPOs. PSE President Ramon Monzon has publicly described both companies as “catalyst stocks” the exchange is counting on to pull more technology listings into a market that has historically been light on tech names — which makes the sequencing more than just bragging rights. Whichever wallet lists first effectively sets the valuation benchmark and investor-sentiment baseline the second one has to be measured against, for two companies competing head-to-head for the same 90-million-plus user base.
Scale Doesn’t Automatically Translate to a Clean Exit
GCash’s scale advantage is real — more registered users than Maya, and a brand that functions almost as a generic term for e-wallet in the Philippines. But Maya has structural assets GCash doesn’t: a standalone crypto license, an already-profitable banking arm, and — per Pangilinan’s own account — the harder problem of an IPO being blocked less by regulators or market conditions than by unresolved terms among its own investor syndicate. That’s a useful corrective to the assumption that being the bigger, more profitable, better-known platform is what determines who lists first. In this case, it may be governance and cap-table alignment, not product or market position, that decides the order.
It’s also worth noting what hasn’t changed through all of this: nobody involved — not Pangilinan, not the reporting tracking this story across the past several months — is describing Maya’s underlying business as the problem. A fintech that turned genuinely profitable in 2025 and is contributing hundreds of millions of pesos a quarter to its parent’s earnings is not a company investors are trying to exit out of caution. If anything, the dispute reads as two sophisticated shareholders — a Philippine telco conglomerate and a global private equity firm — each trying to extract a better price and better terms from a business both sides already believe is worth fighting over. That’s a very different story than a delayed IPO caused by weak fundamentals, and it’s worth distinguishing the two when reading IPO-timeline news generally: a slipped date caused by investor-syndicate friction over a profitable asset is not the same signal as a slipped date caused by a company not being ready.
What This Means for Philippine Founders
The lesson here isn’t really about payments — it’s about what happens years after a startup takes on strategic and private-equity capital. Every founder who takes a large check from an investor with its own return timeline and exit preferences is implicitly signing up for exactly the kind of multi-party negotiation now playing out between PLDT and KKR: a company can be profitable, well-run, and genuinely ready for the public markets, and still have its IPO timeline held hostage by a disagreement among its own backers. Founders raising from institutional or private-equity investors today should treat exit-rights and valuation-mechanism terms in the term sheet as seriously as the valuation itself — because by the time a listing is actually on the table, those terms are what determine whether “ready” and “able” are the same thing. It’s also a reminder that being second to list isn’t necessarily a loss: Maya gets to price itself against whatever multiple GCash’s debut sets, for better or worse, which is either a real disadvantage or a genuine hedge depending entirely on how that first listing performs.
Share this article