₦airaland Forum

Sunrisepebble:
I’m hoping to catch it between 40-44 if it gets there

robobo:
What the CBN is trying to achieve with the 100% provision for insider related credit (whether performing or not)is to force bank directors with interest in other businesses not to borrow from the bank they own/ are directors in. This will ensure that those other businesses they own does not enjoy interest rate subsidy from their directors bank and also ensure they dont tie down the bank they own with bad credit. In short it will force those other businesses to compete for funding with thier competitors at a fair rate

KarlTom:
I'm in front of the queue.

I'll be back though but I'm definitely selling on Monday...

BabsO2:
If so there is a high likelihood of reversal for UBA’s insider related impairment provisions in coming quarters or years. Not like those other impairments that never reverse.

Sunrisepebble:
I will add small speculation to mine

BabsO2:
You’re a momentum investor

debeey87:
Going forward, the CBN needs to put a cap on how much these guys can get from the bank even if they have the highest shareholdings. The CBN shouldn't allow them to borrow from the bank in perpetuity because they have the largest shareholding or are a director and end up writing it off using profit from the business in the guise of bad debts etc.

Raider76:
Looking at what happened to STANBIC it is very possible you could get UBA at 44.

nosa2:
Its just a poorly run bank/business

BabsO2:
UBA still grew TOTAL customer deposits by 10.4% which is just about the same rate Zenith grew customer deposits. UBA total customer deposits is double that of GTB.

If you look purely at only day to day customers UBA even grew deposits better than Zenith.

These are vote of confidence signs by customers to UBA’s banking services.

Sunrisepebble:
I sell when I think they have peaked but I don’t buy because they’re rising

megawealth01:
Na Tony handwork na all the companies him get is using UBA shu

megawealth01:
Na Tony handwork na all the companies him get is using UBA shu

Zagee:
It could also be dumping, because this chart I'm seeing here.

Whatever way it might go, just ensure your average is good. Access(long play)

BabsO2:
If so there is a high likelihood of reversal for UBA’s insider related impairment provisions in coming quarters or years. Not like those other impairments that never reverse.

BabsO2:
UBA is a hold for me. I like their Q1 deployment of cash.

BabsO2:
UBA still grew TOTAL customer deposits by 10.4% which is just about the same rate Zenith grew customer deposits. UBA total customer deposits is double that of GTB.

If you look purely at only day to day customers UBA even grew deposits better than Zenith.

These are vote of confidence signs by customers to UBA’s banking services.

ogawisdom:
Tony invested your dividend in seplat, make una calm down. I sold off all my UBA and GT bank shares around October last year and put everything in Zenith at average cost of 64 , today that decision is legendary as Zenith has proved its worth. Zenith is my only banking stock. I am not even happy it's flying too fast as I am hoping to buy more sub 100 in May, June or July.

Itzlinda:
Exactly why I feel there's foul play in their result.

UBA have more customer appeal (both high income and middle class) than zenith bank.

People trust uba more than zenith bank here in the north.

There's no reason why they should not be making more money than zenith bank.

I suspect foul play by their *perspire to aspire*chairman

BabsO2:
UBA still grew TOTAL customer deposits by 10.4% which is just about the same rate Zenith grew customer deposits. UBA total customer deposits is double that of GTB.

If you look purely at only day to day customers UBA even grew deposits better than Zenith.

These are vote of confidence signs by customers to UBA’s banking services.

Mankind2024:
It is a fundamental principle of financial integrity that one must not mischaracterize a transaction to suit a specific narrative—or, as the proverb suggests, "give a dog a bad name just to hang it."
​Regarding the acquisition of the 20.07% stake in Seplat Energy by Heirs Energies, there is no documented evidence or regulatory filing to support the claim that the transaction was financed using UBA Plc funds. Such a move would be contrary to the strict corporate governance and "Related Party Transaction" frameworks that govern Tier-1 financial institutions.
​The acquisition was anchored by major multilateral financial institutions, specifically:
​Afreximbank (African Export-Import Bank): Provided the primary credit facilities and long-term financing necessary for Heirs Energies to expand its portfolio.
​Africa Finance Corporation (AFC): Acted as a key institutional partner, providing the structured capital required for large-scale energy equity acquisitions.

https://businessday.ng/energy/article/heirs-energies-acquires-20-stake-in-seplat-energy-in-500-million-deal/

Mankind2024:
It is a fundamental principle of financial integrity that one must not mischaracterize a transaction to suit a specific narrative—or, as the proverb suggests, "give a dog a bad name just to hang it."
​Regarding the acquisition of the 20.07% stake in Seplat Energy by Heirs Energies, there is no documented evidence or regulatory filing to support the claim that the transaction was financed using UBA Plc funds. Such a move would be contrary to the strict corporate governance and "Related Party Transaction" frameworks that govern Tier-1 financial institutions.
​The acquisition was anchored by major multilateral financial institutions, specifically:
​Afreximbank (African Export-Import Bank): Provided the primary credit facilities and long-term financing necessary for Heirs Energies to expand its portfolio.
​Africa Finance Corporation (AFC): Acted as a key institutional partner, providing the structured capital required for large-scale energy equity acquisitions.

https://businessday.ng/energy/article/heirs-energies-acquires-20-stake-in-seplat-energy-in-500-million-deal/

BabsO2:
I suspect he’s also not happy with shareholders as he was left to shoulder a huge chunk of the rights.

BabsO2:
I suspect he’s also not happy with shareholders as he was left to shoulder a huge chunk of the rights.

robobo:
You are right. The acquisition was not financed by UBA but be rest assured UBA would have been part of banks financing working capital (loan / overdraft with a max of yearly tenor). That said, the CBN rule is actually a double edged sword. In that in most frontier/ developing market, banks mogul/ owners are always also players in other sphere of the economy unlike in very developed markets. So there might be a need to find a delicate balance instead of policies that engendered total prohibition

KarlTom:
If we ride with this narrative, who loses at the end of the day?

6.7bn units held

robobo:
You are right. The acquisition was not financed by UBA but be rest assured UBA would have been part of banks financing working capital (loan / overdraft with a max of yearly tenor). That said, the CBN rule is actually a double edged sword. In that in most frontier/ developing market, banks mogul/ owners are always also players in other sphere of the economy unlike in very developed markets. So there might be a need to find a delicate balance instead of policies that engendered total prohibition

BabsO2:
Indeed. It’s a good thing if UBA can loan money to TOE’s connected businesses. Restricting such corporate loans will be wrong. Especially the listed companies. For non listed companies restrictions should be in place. Perhaps the restrictions is related to personal loans and not corporate loans. Will be good to know which one. And provisions for personal loans look one kind as that money can vanish.