In a recent transaction involving a West African fintech company, the initial valuation using standard EV/EBITDA multiples from comparable listed peers produced a figure that bore no relationship to the actual deal dynamics on the ground. The listed peers were in the United States and Europe. The target operated in a market with double-digit inflation, limited exit liquidity, and no meaningful comparable transaction history. This is not an unusual situation. It is the norm for practitioners advising deals across African markets. The practitioner who proceeds without adjustment is not being rigorous. They are being reckless.
Why standard valuation methods break down in African markets
The failure is not theoretical. It is structural, and it shows up in four specific places.
Comparable company selection – Public market comparables are drawn from liquid, well-governed markets with transparent reporting standards and institutional analyst coverage. African targets operate in markets defined by thin trading volumes, inconsistent financial disclosure, and business models that differ fundamentally in cost structure, regulatory exposure, and growth stage from their listed counterparts.
Using a US-listed fintech multiple to anchor a Nigerian fintech valuation conflates names with economics. The Nigerian company faces a materially different regulatory environment, a less certain competitive moat, and a growth trajectory shaped by infrastructure constraints that no amount of regression analysis can reconcile with the S&P 500 comparables set.
More Read
Discount rate construction – The WACC calculation depends on a reliable risk-free rate, a defensible equity risk premium, and a beta derived from observed market data. In markets with limited capital market depth, none of these inputs are clean. Beta estimation from thinly traded local exchanges produces numbers that reflect illiquidity more than systematic risk. Country risk premiums are applied inconsistently or sourced from databases without verifying when they were last updated.
Most critically, the inflation differential between the valuation currency and the operating currency is either ignored or handled with a casual assumption of eventual convergence. Damodaran’s country risk premium database, updated in January 2026, shows Nigeria carrying a total equity risk premium of approximately 14 to 15 percent, a differential of nearly 10 percentage points above the mature market baseline that standard comparable company analysis typically fails to incorporate into any part of the valuation.
Currency and terminal value assumptions – Terminal value typically represents 60 to 80 percent of a DCF valuation. This is not a footnote. It is the valuation. In a market where the local currency has depreciated sharply against the US dollar over the prior five years, as both the Nigerian naira and the Ghanaian cedi have, with the cedi losing over 60 percent of its value against the dollar between 2019 and 2024 and the naira depreciating 40 to 50 percent over the same period, terminal value assumptions built on stable or mean-reverting currency projections systematically overstate value. The error is not small. Practitioners who do not build explicit multi-year currency depreciation scenarios into their models are making an implicit assumption of stability that the market’s own history refutes.
Liquidity and exit assumptions – Standard valuation methodology assumes an exit is achievable within a defined hold period at a multiple consistent with entry. African markets impose real friction on this assumption. IPO windows are narrow. Secondary markets are shallow. Strategic acquirer pools are concentrated, often limited to a handful of regional corporates and international players with explicit Africa mandates. According to AVCA’s 2024 African Private Capital Activity Report, exit activity across the entire continent totalled 63 transactions in 2024, an encouraging 47 percent year-on-year increase, but still a market where exit optionality is constrained and liquidity premiums are real. An investor who ignores this is not pricing risk. They are ignoring it.
A practitioner framework: the contextual valuation framework
The problems above are individually fixable. The challenge is fixing them simultaneously, consistently, and in a form that can survive deal negotiation. The Contextual Valuation Framework (CVF) addresses this through four integrated components.
Local comparable prioritization – Where local transaction data exists, it should take precedence over public market multiples from developed markets. This requires building a proprietary comparable transaction database from disclosed deals, development finance institution portfolios, and regional M&A publications such as AVCA’s data trackers and Africa-focused financial press.
Even five to eight local transactions provide more relevant valuation anchoring than twenty listed peers trading in different regulatory environments under different accounting conventions. The 2024 AVCA data shows 485 private capital transactions across the continent, with private equity alone surging 51 percent year-on-year. The transaction record is sparse by developed-market standards, but it is not empty, and practitioners who fail to mine it are leaving the most relevant data on the table.
Scenario-based discount rate construction – Rather than a single WACC, the CVF requires three discount rate scenarios, optimistic, base, and stressed, each with explicit, documented country risk premium assumptions. The baseline should be drawn from a recognised external source; Damodaran is the most widely used and updated, making it the defensible starting point. From there, upward adjustments are applied for specific, named risk factors: regulatory uncertainty, governance risk at the target level, and liquidity constraints in the exit market.
The critical discipline is documentation. Every adjustment should be logged in a way that allows the valuation to be stress-tested during due diligence and renegotiated during the deal process without reopening the entire model. A WACC that cannot be explained on a term sheet is a WACC that will not survive closing.
Currency-explicit DCF modeling – Build the model in the local currency first. This is not optional. Starting in US dollars and converting at a spot rate embeds an assumption of currency stability from day one. The local-currency model forces explicit exchange rate assumptions in each projection year, making the depreciation trajectory visible rather than hidden. A purchasing power parity adjustment should be used as a cross-check on terminal year assumptions rather than as a substitute for an explicit depreciation path. Apply a terminal value haircut of 10 to 20 percent to reflect structural exit uncertainty, specifically the difference between the theoretical exit multiple and what the actual clearing market will support given the buyer pool depth at the time of exit.
Liquidity and exit pathway assessment. Model three distinct exit scenarios: strategic sale to a local acquirer; strategic sale to an international strategic buyer; and a financial sale to another private equity or development finance institution. Assign probability weights to each based on current market conditions, not generic assumptions. In West Africa in 2024, trade buyers remained the primary exit route at 41 percent of total exit volume, with secondaries representing 32 percent. These are not universal constants. They shift with market conditions and should be reassessed at each valuation update. The blended exit value produced by this approach almost always differs from a single-scenario estimate, and the difference is where value risk is concentrated.
Applying the framework: A case example
Consider a private equity investor evaluating a mid-sized logistics company in West Africa. Initial valuation using standard EV/EBITDA multiples from listed African logistics peers, the available set being small and dominated by South African companies with materially different market exposures, produced an indicative valuation range of $45 million to $60 million.
The transaction context complicated the picture considerably. The target operated in a single market with high regulatory concentration risk: its operating licence was subject to renewal within the investment horizon. A single anchor client represented 60 percent of revenue, with no long-term contract in place. Audited financial history covered only two years, with the prior period audited by a firm without Big Four or top-tier affiliation.
Applying the CVF produced a different picture at every step. Local comparable prioritization identified three closed transactions involving logistics and distribution businesses in the same sub-region, all of which had cleared at multiples meaningfully below the initial range, reflecting the regulatory and client concentration risks that the listed peer set could not capture. Scenario-based WACC construction increased the discount rate by approximately 300 basis points under the base scenario, once regulatory uncertainty, the client concentration factor, and the limited audited history were each treated as distinct, documented adjustments rather than folded into a vague country risk catch-all.
Currency-explicit modeling reduced terminal value by approximately 15 percent after applying a depreciation trajectory consistent with the prior five-year exchange rate history, a conservative but empirically grounded assumption. Exit pathway assessment assigned a 40 percent probability to a local strategic sale, 35 percent to an international strategic buyer, and 25 percent to a financial sale, producing a blended exit multiple that was lower than the comparable-based estimate and more conservative on timing.
The outcome: the CVF-adjusted valuation ranged from $32 million to $44 million, approximately 25 to 30 percent below the initial comparable-based range. This was not a pessimistic view of the business. It was a contextually accurate one. It gave the investor the basis to negotiate a more defensible entry price, structure appropriate downside protections around client concentration and licence renewal, and set realistic return expectations with their LPs.
Conclusion
Standard valuation methodology was designed for liquid, data-rich markets with transparent reporting, accessible comparables, and reliable exit optionality. Applying it without adjustment to African transactions does not produce conservative estimates. It produces misleading ones, often in the direction of overvaluation, which is the most dangerous kind. The Contextual Valuation Framework presented here offers practitioners a structured starting point for more contextually grounded work across African and other emerging markets. It is not a substitute for judgment. It provides a structured basis for exercising it.
The framework would benefit from further development in two areas: the expansion of regional transaction databases with standardised disclosure, and more frequent calibration of country risk premiums to reflect real-time currency and sovereign rating developments rather than annual snapshots. Both are tractable problems. The more intractable one is the cultural habit of reaching for the familiar methodology when the unfamiliar market demands something better.
References
- Damodaran, A. Country Default Spreads and Risk Premiums, January 2026 edition. Available at: pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/ctryprem.html
- Damodaran, A. Country Risk: Determinants, Measures and Implications — The 2025 Edition (July 2025). Available at SSRN: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5354459
- African Private Equity and Venture Capital Association (AVCA). 2024 African Private Capital Activity Report, April 2025. Available at: avca.africa
- International Finance Corporation. Private Equity in Emerging Markets, 2024 Annual Report. Washington, D.C.: IFC/World Bank Group.
- World Bank Group. Doing Business: Sub-Saharan Africa, 2024 edition. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
- McKinsey Global Institute. Lions on the Move: The Progress and Potential of African Economies. McKinsey & Company.
- MFS Africa / Onafriq — Visa partnership and GTP acquisition, 2022. Reported by TechCrunch, Financial Times, and BusinessDay Nigeria. A publicly documented transaction illustrating the valuation complexity of African fintech at scale: MFS Africa acquired US-based Global Technology Partners for $34 million while simultaneously navigating a Visa strategic partnership, demonstrating how exit and strategic optionality can be created even in markets with limited comparable precedent.
>>>Benedict Ashiedu is a management consultant specialising in private equity and strategic advisory. He has advised transactions across Nigeria, Ghana, and multiple African markets at PricewaterhouseCoopers and Bain and Company. He holds an MBA from Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business and is a Fellow of the Institute of Management Consultants. He can be reached at benedict.ashiedu@duke.edu.
