Lords Chloro Alkali — Peer Comparison

How the peer fair value is calculated and which companies were used as benchmarks.

Base peer fair value

₹238.54

Bear uses each eligible multiple’s 25th percentile; Base retains the current production median; Bull uses the 75th percentile. Quartiles interpolate between sorted observations at (n − 1) × percentile. Each peer has equal weight within a method. These are distribution scenarios, not confidence intervals or scenario probabilities.

Selected peers and raw cached multiples
Peer	P/E	P/B	EV/EBITDA	P/S
PREMEXPLN	104.48	14.88	—	—
NFL	16.77	1.25	3.99	0.16
GRAUWEIL	18.46	2.80	14.26	2.72
JUBLCPL	27.88	7.65	16.87	1.71
BEPL	16.89	2.81	12.35	2.41
GSPCROP	23.73	3.57	15.30	1.92
DDEVPLSTIK	14.63	2.91	9.85	0.98
CHEMPLASTS	—	1.63	—	—

The current peer engine’s selected industry/sector peers and cached multiples are preserved. Subject multiples use the engine’s existing EOD-price scaling. Peer observations may have different refresh dates; these scenarios do not claim synchronized market data.

P/E · 35.00% effective method weight

Company multiple: 13.6000×. Eligible peers (7): PREMEXPLN 104.4800×; NFL 16.7700×; GRAUWEIL 18.4600×; JUBLCPL 27.8800×; BEPL 16.8900×; GSPCROP 23.7300×; DDEVPLSTIK 14.6300×.

Scenario	Peer multiple	Implied fair value
Bear (P25)	16.8300×	₹169.57
Base (median)	18.4600×	₹186.00
Bull (P75)	25.8050×	₹260.00

P/B · 25.00% effective method weight

Company multiple: 1.6000×. Eligible peers (8): PREMEXPLN 14.8800×; NFL 1.2500×; GRAUWEIL 2.8000×; JUBLCPL 7.6500×; BEPL 2.8100×; GSPCROP 3.5700×; DDEVPLSTIK 2.9100×; CHEMPLASTS 1.6300×.

Scenario	Peer multiple	Implied fair value
Bear (P25)	2.5075×	₹214.75
Base (median)	2.8600×	₹244.94
Bull (P75)	4.5900×	₹393.10

EV/EBITDA · 40.00% effective method weight

Company multiple: 6.5000×. Eligible peers (6): NFL 3.9911×; GRAUWEIL 14.2642×; JUBLCPL 16.8721×; BEPL 12.3469×; GSPCROP 15.2951×; DDEVPLSTIK 9.8482×.

Scenario	Peer multiple	Implied fair value
Bear (P25)	10.4729×	₹220.78
Base (median)	13.3056×	₹280.50
Bull (P75)	15.0374×	₹317.01

Fair value = the production method’s median fair value × scenario multiple ÷ median multiple, equivalent to the current engine’s price × peer multiple ÷ subject multiple. Effective method weights are normalized across methods with a fair value; the final peer result is rounded to two decimals.

Only methods eligible under the current sector/company rules contribute. Subject multiples must be positive. Peer observations must pass the existing method-specific bounds and sector caps. Four eligible peers per contributing method are required for quartiles; the production median's existing minimum is unchanged. A missing method's Bear/Bull is not replaced with another method or a Base estimate.

Final peer scenario values
Bear	Base	Bull
₹201.35	₹238.54	₹316.08

Peer selection

Peers are selected from the same Chemicals industry. 8 companies were matched as valid comparables.

Same-industry peers share similar business models, cost structures, and growth prospects — making them the most appropriate benchmarks for valuation multiples.

Peer comparison table

Chemicals · 8 peers · sector medians shown

Better than medianWorse than median

Company	Mkt Cap	P/E	P/B	EV/EBITDA	ROE	Net Margin	Rev CAGR 3y
Lords Chloro Alkali LORDSCHLO · you	₹345 Cr	13.6×	1.6×	6.5×	11.8%	7.3%	9.8%
Sector median	—	18.5×	2.9×	13.3×	14.7%	6.7%	5.6%
Premier Explosives Limited PREMEXPLN	₹3,505 Cr	104.5×	14.9×	—	14.2%	0.0%	—
National Fertilizers Limited NFL	₹3,488 Cr	16.8×	1.3×	4.0×	7.4%	1.0%	-10.1%
Grauer & Weil India Limited GRAUWEIL	₹3,234 Cr	18.5×	2.8×	14.3×	15.2%	13.8%	6.6%
Jubilant Agri and Consumer Products Limited JUBLCPL	₹3,232 Cr	27.9×	7.7×	16.9×	27.8%	6.8%	9.6%
Bhansali Engineering Polymers Limited BEPL	₹3,074 Cr	16.9×	2.8×	12.3×	16.6%	14.1%	-2.2%
GSP Crop Science Limited GSPCROP	₹2,914 Cr	23.7×	3.6×	15.3×	12.7%	6.5%	8.0%
Ddev Plastiks Industries Limited DDEVPLSTIK	₹2,888 Cr	14.6×	2.9×	9.8×	19.9%	6.8%	5.6%
Chemplast Sanmar Limited CHEMPLASTS	₹2,880 Cr	—	1.6×	—	-16.0%	-6.6%	-5.1%

Peer comparison verdict

Lords trades at a discount to sector peers on P/E (13.6× vs median 18.5×). This may signal undervaluation — or reflect lower expected growth or higher perceived risk versus the peer group.

Why median? Why these weights?

Median over mean: The sector median is used instead of the average because valuation multiples have extreme outliers — one high-growth company at 200× P/E would dramatically skew a mean. The median gives the middle value in the peer set, which better represents typical pricing.

Sector-specific weights: The weight given to each method reflects what matters most in this sector. For banks, P/B dominates because their value is tied to book assets. For IT companies, P/E carries the most weight because earnings quality matters more than asset base. For capital-intensive businesses, EV/EBITDA accounts for varying debt levels across peers and removes financing structure bias.

Limitations of peer comparison

Peer comparison assumes comparable companies are truly comparable — which is never perfectly true. Sector classifications can be imperfect: a conglomerate classified as "IT" may also have significant manufacturing revenue. Small peer counts (below 5) reduce confidence, as a single outlier can skew the sector median. When the entire sector is broadly expensive, peer comparison will show even an expensive stock as "fairly valued" relative to its peers.

The peer fair value shown is an algorithmic estimate based on publicly available financial data. It is not investment advice or a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security. Please consult a SEBI-registered investment adviser before making any investment decision.