Sundaram Multi Pap — Peer Comparison

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

Base peer fair value

₹2.07

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
MCLEODRUSS	-7.41	2.31	—	—
GRMOVER	11.47	3.10	4.44	0.27
GOODRICKE	7.38	1.49	—	—
PAJSON	43.02	—	—	—
MAWANASUG	16.68	1.11	—	—
FRATELLI	-50.61	1.48	—	—
EMROCK	355.13	61.15	—	—
SARVESHWAR	38.44	1.86	—	—

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 · 66.67% effective method weight

Company multiple: 12.4000×. Eligible peers (5): GRMOVER 11.4700×; GOODRICKE 7.3800×; PAJSON 43.0200×; MAWANASUG 16.6800×; SARVESHWAR 38.4400×.

Scenario	Peer multiple	Implied fair value
Bear (P25)	11.4700×	₹0.95
Base (median)	16.6800×	₹1.39
Bull (P75)	38.4400×	₹3.19

P/B · 33.33% effective method weight

Company multiple: 0.5000×. Eligible peers (6): MCLEODRUSS 2.3100×; GRMOVER 3.1000×; GOODRICKE 1.4900×; MAWANASUG 1.1100×; FRATELLI 1.4800×; SARVESHWAR 1.8600×.

Scenario	Peer multiple	Implied fair value
Bear (P25)	1.4825×	₹3.05
Base (median)	1.6750×	₹3.45
Bull (P75)	2.1975×	₹4.53

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
₹1.65	₹2.07	₹3.64

Peer selection

Peers are selected from the same Fast Moving Consumer Goods 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

Fast Moving Consumer Goods · 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
Sundaram Multi Pap SUNDARAM · you	₹47 Cr	12.4×	0.5×	—	4.3%	0.0%	—
Sector median	—	16.7×	1.7×	4.4×	6.6%	0.2%	8.6%
McLeod Russel India Limited MCLEODRUSS	₹485 Cr	-7.4×	2.3×	—	-31.1%	-0.1%	—
GRM Overseas Limited GRMOVER	₹478 Cr	11.5×	3.1×	4.4×	12.4%	4.2%	8.6%
Goodricke Group Ltd. GOODRICKE	₹466 Cr	7.4×	1.5×	—	20.1%	0.2%	—
Pajson Agro India Limited PAJSON	₹455 Cr	43.0×	—	—	—	—	—
Mawana Sugars Ltd MAWANASUG	₹454 Cr	16.7×	1.1×	—	6.6%	-0.1%	—
Fratelli Vineyards Limited FRATELLI	₹451 Cr	-50.6×	1.5×	—	-2.9%	1.8%	—
EMROCK CORPORATION LIMITED EMROCK	₹438 Cr	355.1×	61.1×	—	17.1%	0.4%	—
Sarveshwar Foods Limited SARVESHWAR	₹426 Cr	38.4×	1.9×	—	4.7%	0.0%	—

Peer comparison verdict

Sundaram trades at a discount to sector peers on P/E (12.4× vs median 16.7×). 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.