Simmonds-Marshall Ltd — Peer Comparison

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

Base peer fair value

₹353.91

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
LANDMARK	138.18	3.77	7.12	0.41
RICOAUTO	77.71	2.73	—	—
GOODYEAR	29.29	2.98	12.47	0.70
SAPL	1,864.87	98.50	—	—
NDRAUTO	31.06	5.38	18.35	2.07
STUDDS	21.91	—	—	—
ZELIO	59.18	—	—	—
RACLGEAR	34.83	7.63	—	—

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 · 58.33% effective method weight

Company multiple: 13.5000×. Eligible peers (7): LANDMARK 138.1800×; RICOAUTO 77.7100×; GOODYEAR 29.2900×; NDRAUTO 31.0600×; STUDDS 21.9100×; ZELIO 59.1800×; RACLGEAR 34.8300×.

Scenario	Peer multiple	Implied fair value
Bear (P25)	30.1750×	₹441.78
Base (median)	34.8300×	₹509.94
Bull (P75)	68.4450×	₹1,002.09

P/B · 41.67% effective method weight

Company multiple: 5.5000×. Eligible peers (5): LANDMARK 3.7700×; RICOAUTO 2.7300×; GOODYEAR 2.9800×; NDRAUTO 5.3800×; RACLGEAR 7.6300×.

Scenario	Peer multiple	Implied fair value
Bear (P25)	2.9800×	₹107.09
Base (median)	3.7700×	₹135.48
Bull (P75)	5.3800×	₹193.34

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 12.47×.

Final peer scenario values
Bear	Base	Bull
₹302.33	₹353.91	₹665.11

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
Simmonds-Marshall Ltd SIMMOND · you	₹221 Cr	13.5×	5.5×	—	40.7%	0.1%	—
Sector median	—	34.8×	3.8×	12.5×	8.3%	0.1%	13.1%
Landmark Cars Limited LANDMARK	₹1,993 Cr	138.2×	3.8×	7.1×	6.4%	0.8%	13.1%
Rico Auto Industries Limited RICOAUTO	₹1,787 Cr	77.7×	2.7×	—	3.5%	0.0%	—
Goodyear India Limited GOODYEAR	₹1,732 Cr	29.3×	3.0×	12.5×	10.2%	2.5%	-5.4%
Sar Auto Products Limited SAPL	₹1,724 Cr	1864.9×	98.5×	—	5.3%	0.1%	—
Ndr Auto Components Limited NDRAUTO	₹1,701 Cr	31.1×	5.4×	18.4×	17.3%	7.5%	27.9%
Studds Accessories Limited STUDDS	₹1,677 Cr	21.9×	—	—	—	0.1%	—
Zelio E Mobility Limited ZELIO	₹1,659 Cr	59.2×	—	—	—	—	—
RACL Geartech Limited RACLGEAR	₹1,638 Cr	34.8×	7.6×	—	21.9%	0.1%	—

Peer comparison verdict

Simmonds-Marshall looks attractively valued — trading at a discount to sector peers on P/E (13.5× vs sector median 34.8×) while delivering above-average returns on equity (40.7% vs 8.3%).

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.