Evaluating Mergers and Acquisition as Strategic Interventions in the Nigerian Banking Sector: The Good, Bad and the Ugly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated Merger/Acquisition as an intervention strategy in the Nigerian banking sector. The objective was to identify whether this strategy has actually achieved the desired result for which it was purposed, especially, in the popular Nigerian merger of 2005. To this end, the study was carried out using both primary (questionnaire) and secondary (banks financial statements) data. 100 copies of questionnaire were administered on the management members of the sampled banks. From the three hypotheses that were tested; hypothesis 1 result revealed the calculated t-statistics (t = 6.591 P < 0.05) signifying that, Merger/Acquisition had helped to curb the distress that would have occurred in the Nigeria banks during the period it was executed. Hypothesis 2 which measured performances in pre and post-merger showed that, the average capital of banks sampled in pre Merger period was N1433.20 million while post Merger period was N6358.76 million and the difference was statistically significant at 0.05 level (t = 6.755, P < 0.05). Profit recorded for pre Merger period was N 2192.48 million while post Merger profit was N16839.12 million thereby creating significant differences between pre and post Merger profit which was statistically significant at 0.05 level (t = 5.276, P < 0.05), implying that, banks performance in post Merger was significantly different from the performance before Merger. Hypothesis 3 evaluated whether bad corporate governance was responsible for this merger; the calculated t-statistics was (t = 3.197, P < 0.05) and it was decided that there would not have been need for merger if good corporate governance had been in place. Based on these findings, it was recommended that merger/acquisition should not be hastily implemented; rather, it should be carefully applied when the objective for the intending firms is to achieve synergy; and that, corporate governance should be given priority attention by both the regulatory agencies and shareholders so that erring bank directors can be sanctioned appropriately.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".