Ethiopia
54
Reform momentum vs. security drag
Methodology
The anatomy of a verdict.
See how Megala moves from observable indicators and independent evidence to scenarios, conditional verdicts and watched triggers.
See country previewsIllustrative — methodology preview
The Megala Signal
A composite reading of each covered market: FX regime credibility, political continuity, repatriation reality, and reform momentum, weighted by the methodology and expressed on a single 0–100 scale. Published per country when live coverage opens.
Kenya
68
Institutional depth carries the score
Nigeria
51
Bold reform, thin liquidity
Morocco
71
Industrial policy compounding
Sample scores demonstrating the scale. Live Signal readings launch with country dashboards and carry the same methodology sign-off as published verdicts. No scoring formula, weights or production readings are published on this preview.
Explore illustrative country dashboards →The Five Steps
Indicators, named in advance
Every assessment begins with a defined indicator set — observable, measurable, named before any conclusion is drawn. Regime stability, policy continuity, succession dynamics, security conditions, FX practice. If it cannot be observed, it is not an input.
Example: convertibility is measured by realized repatriation timelines and parallel-market spreads — never by official statements.
Multiple independent sources per market
No Megala analysis rests on a single account. Each market is covered by several independent in-country consultants, screened for conflicts of interest, whose incentives are aligned with accuracy: their own capital, reputations, and livelihoods sit in the markets they read.
Sources never see each other's raw input. Convergence is evidence; divergence is investigated.
Scenarios, not predictions
The future of a political economy is a distribution, not a date. Megala assessments assign probability-weighted branches — base case, escalation, reform surprise — each with the observable trigger events that would move a market from one branch to another.
Probabilities are reviewed quarterly and revised publicly. A wrong branch, honestly revised, is worth more than a vague forecast that can never be wrong.
Verdicts with conditions
The Megala Verdict — engage, selective, wait, or avoid — always carries its conditions: what would change our view, and how to structure an investment to survive the downside. A verdict without conditions is an opinion. We do not sell opinions.
Every published verdict lists its invalidation triggers. When one fires, the verdict is revisited — and the revision is published too.
Methodology sign-off, never opinion sign-off
Editorial review at Megala checks method, not conclusions: Was the indicator set named in advance? Were the sources independent and screened? Do the scenario weights sum honestly? The analyst's judgment is their own; the firm's guarantee is the process.
This is what 'editorial independence is absolute' means in practice — reviewers can reject a report for weak method, never for an unwelcome conclusion.
What we will not do
We do not editorialize about regimes or advocate political outcomes.
We do not name serving officials in published analysis; our subjects are structures and incentives.
We do not issue predictions beyond probability-weighted scenarios with defined triggers.
We do not publish client names, verdicts, or consultant identities without written consent.