Machino Plastics Ltd — Peer Comparison

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

Base peer fair value

₹156.02

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
FRONTSP	25.71	8.45	17.68	4.74
IGARASHI	87.93	3.14	—	—
BHARATSE	36.47	6.71	14.38	0.73
KROSS	23.72	2.67	15.96	2.05
PRECAM	-259.62	1.40	—	—
MUNJALAU	29.69	2.67	7.74	0.49
ACGL	19.13	4.72	—	—
SEKURITIND	24.38	5.52	—	—

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 · 58.33% effective method weight

Company multiple: 25,700.0000×. Eligible peers (7): FRONTSP 25.7100×; IGARASHI 87.9300×; BHARATSE 36.4700×; KROSS 23.7200×; MUNJALAU 29.6900×; ACGL 19.1300×; SEKURITIND 24.3800×.

Scenario	Peer multiple	Implied fair value
Bear (P25)	24.0500×	₹0.24
Base (median)	25.7100×	₹0.26
Bull (P75)	33.0800×	₹0.33

P/B · 41.67% effective method weight

Company multiple: 2.7000×. Eligible peers (8): FRONTSP 8.4500×; IGARASHI 3.1400×; BHARATSE 6.7100×; KROSS 2.6700×; PRECAM 1.4000×; MUNJALAU 2.6700×; ACGL 4.7200×; SEKURITIND 5.5200×.

Scenario	Peer multiple	Implied fair value
Bear (P25)	2.6700×	₹254.14
Base (median)	3.9300×	₹374.08
Bull (P75)	5.8175×	₹553.74

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.

EV/EBITDA does not contribute: the subject multiple/fair value is unavailable. Its production peer median is 15.17×.

Final peer scenario values
Bear	Base	Bull
₹106.03	₹156.02	₹230.92

Peer selection

Peers are selected from the same Auto components 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

Auto components · 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
Machino Plastics Ltd MACPLASQ · you	₹158 Cr	25700.0×	2.7×	—	0.0%	0.0%	—
Sector median	—	25.7×	3.9×	15.2×	14.8%	1.0%	17.1%
Frontier Springs Limited FRONTSP	₹1,528 Cr	25.7×	8.4×	17.7×	33.4%	19.0%	44.2%
Igarashi Motors India Limited IGARASHI	₹1,442 Cr	87.9×	3.1×	—	3.6%	0.0%	—
Bharat Seats Limited BHARATSE	₹1,422 Cr	36.5×	6.7×	14.4×	18.4%	2.2%	22.9%
Kross Limited KROSS	₹1,380 Cr	23.7×	2.7×	16.0×	11.3%	8.2%	11.3%
Precision Camshafts Limited PRECAM	₹1,282 Cr	-259.6×	1.4×	—	-0.5%	0.1%	—
Munjal Auto Industries Limited MUNJALAU	₹1,124 Cr	29.7×	2.7×	7.7×	9.0%	1.8%	5.0%
Automobile Corpn. of Goa Ltd. ACGL	₹1,110 Cr	19.1×	4.7×	—	24.7%	0.0%	—
Saint-Gobain Sekurit India Ltd. SEKURITIND	₹1,084 Cr	24.4×	5.5×	—	22.6%	0.2%	—

Peer comparison verdict

Machino trades at a premium to sector peers on P/E (25700.0× vs median 25.7×). The market is pricing in higher growth — worth verifying whether recent revenue trends support that expectation.

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.