Proficient🦅

[PHENOM DA THUGGER @PHENOMDATHUGGER]

“Whatever is breaking your heart right now, don’t carry it alone. Keep praying. Keep holding on. The same God who brought you through every hard day before has not forgotten you” ♟️♠️

[Oreoluwa Bukola, CFA. @BukkyOA]

The confusion you are experiencing is because you have the expectation that you have to check in and confirm your vision with people who have no business being alerted about your vision and your journey.

- no matter how highly placed they are.

So you self-complicate a journey that was simple to begin with.

[Bammy @YoushldfwBammy]

My final act of love is leaving you alone

[KLASIK ♠️ @lifeofklasik]

i can't force you to value me but i promise you'll notice the difference when i'm no longer around.

[Screwly G @ScrewlyG]

No matter how solid you is you gotta be prepared for disloyal shit

[سيدة @Ajoke__xx]

soft launching my disappearance

[سيدة @Ajoke__xx]

I wanna change my number so bad but I’m at that age where it’s connected to too much ,

[LILSON @Lilson_1]

Learn to give up on women easily, don’t force them.

[fàgó @Fago9ere]

Sucks when u gotta take a step back from somebody u wanted to build something special with

[Reads with Ravi @readswithravi]

Marcus Aurelius wrote this over 1800 years ago:

“Be satisfied with even the smallest progress.”

[TG OMORI @boy_director]

Never seen a bigger miracle than myself.

[Reads with Ravi @readswithravi]

“I helped a man climb a mountain and found that I too had reached the top.” — Unknown

[Ozedikus Nwanne @Ozedikus]

A man in love is a danger to himself

[Morakinyo Daniel Temitope @PrinceDaniel97]

I love the quote...

A moving man will one day meet his luck.The road favours a traveller.
Congratulations Big Chuks. 👏

[Oreoluwa Bukola, CFA. @BukkyOA]

When you’re sending a revised document to an executive, especially a 2nd or 3rd iteration, don’t just attach it and hope for the best.

By this point, they’ve already seen earlier versions. What they need now isn’t more reading; it’s clarity.

Guide them.

In your email, briefly highlight what’s changed since the last version. Not everything; just the key updates that matter.

Anchor those changes where possible: point them to a specific page, section, or decision point.

Give them a quick mental map before they even open the document.

This does two things.

First, it saves them time and makes it easier to engage with your work.

Second, it positions you as someone who understands both the detail and the bigger picture; someone who can move work forward, not just pass it along.

[Judah MD @ThatJuDaH]

This is Genuinely crazy

Ngx group about to go on a mad run!

[Asalu Adegboyega Yinka @yinkarianstocks]

Let’s Analyze BUA CEMENT Income Statement #NigerianStockMarket #stocks #ETF #dividends #BUACement

[Idris Ayinde, FCA, CFA @hedrees_ayinde]

Thanks for your input. I stand by my point (without any "ifs" or "buts") that this transaction is an acquisition under both IFRS and US GAAP.

To start, as you have rightly noted, IFRS does not define or distinguish a merger from an acquisition, so we can leave that distinctions to the lawyers. Under IFRS 3, if the entities involved meet the definition of a business, the transaction is a business combination, and an acquirer must be identified. Hence, one can say all business combinations under IFRS are acquisitions. Mergers simply do not exist as a separate accounting category.

Moving to US GAAP. As far as I am aware, with my limited knowledge of US GAAP, ASC 805 (or any of the standards applicable to for-profit entities) similarly does not define or distinguish between mergers and acquisition. If it does, I would be keen for you to share the reference for the definition you provided under US GAAP. I would like to learn!

The closest US GAAP gets to defining these terms is in the guidance for "Not-For-Profit Entity" (NFP) (ASC 958-805). That section defines "Acquisition by a Not-for-Profit Entity" as a transaction where an acquirer obtains control, while a "Merger of Not-for-Profit Entities" requires the governing bodies of two or more entities to cede control to create a entirely new entity (I tried to summarize the definition here).

Even if we were to apply that NFP definition by analogy to a commercial for-profit transaction, both Diamond Bank and Access would have needed to cede control to form an entirely new entity for us to call it a merger. Whereas, what has happened which many people on the timeline also seem to confirm was that Access bank had the upper hand in the transaction and by extension it obtained control of Diamond bank.

In my view, whether under IFRS 3, ASC 805 or applying these definitions under ASC 958-805 (US GAAP) by analogy, this transaction is still an acquisition and not a merger as you hinted.

Also, I found your definition contradictory and also does not align with the closest definition of the terms even under US GAAP. Defining an "acquisition" as a scenario where a parent and subsidiary both survive, while a "merger" means absorbing net assets directly, mixes corporate legal form with financial accounting.

In a consolidated financial statement under both GAAPs, the parent presents the combined assets and liabilities of the subsidiary regardless of whether the target's legal entity was dissolved or kept alive as a subsidiary. The legal structure does not change the accounting classification: it remains a business combination/acquisition no matter how we spin it. Happy to discuss further!

[Rufybaba @Rufyb]

I agree with you.

Substance over form: it was an acquisition.

The entire circumstances around that transaction point to an acquisition. Diamond Bank was in trouble. They had bad loans. They wrote off those loans, and equity tanked. They had to downgrade their licence to meet the regulatory capital requirement.

Their Eurobond was priced so low. It was dirt cheap (one of the early transactions in my career that gave me a strong uplift. Made a killing on that bond).

A merger is typically "a partnership of equals". That clearly was not the case in that deal.

Access Bank came to "rescue". They called it a "merger" to make the story "more acceptable" to Diamond Bank stakeholders (i.e., shareholders, depositors, employees, etc.). You can say it was also to "pacify ego". And Herbert was not interested in forming superior. He needed those cheap deposits, and he didn't mind running along with the "merger" story to get what he wanted.

In banking business, you gotta be careful so you don't spook things.

[pikachu @____testimony]

Some don learn!
Some dey learn!
Some go soon learn!