U.S. Markets open in 2 hrs 44 mins

# Does Accell Group NV’s (AMS:ACCEL) PE Ratio Warrant A Sell?

This analysis is intended to introduce important early concepts to people who are starting to invest and want to begin learning the link between Accell Group NV (AMS:ACCEL)’s fundamentals and stock market performance.

Accell Group NV (AMS:ACCEL) is currently trading at a trailing P/E of 46.2x, which is higher than the industry average of 25.6x. Although some investors may jump to the conclusion that you should avoid the stock or sell if you own it, understanding the assumptions behind the P/E ratio might change your mind. Today, I will break down what the P/E ratio is, how to interpret it and what to watch out for.

### Demystifying the P/E ratio

The P/E ratio is a popular ratio used in relative valuation since earnings power is a key driver of investment value. By comparing a stock’s price per share to its earnings per share, we are able to see how much investors are paying for each dollar of the company’s earnings.

P/E Calculation for ACCEL

Price-Earnings Ratio = Price per share ÷ Earnings per share

ACCEL Price-Earnings Ratio = €18.6 ÷ €0.402 = 46.2x

The P/E ratio isn’t a metric you view in isolation and only becomes useful when you compare it against other similar companies. We preferably want to compare the stock’s P/E ratio to the average of companies that have similar features to ACCEL, such as capital structure and profitability. A quick method of creating a peer group is to use companies in the same industry, which is what I will do. Since ACCEL’s P/E of 46.2x is higher than its industry peers (25.6x), it means that investors are paying more than they should for each dollar of ACCEL’s earnings. Therefore, according to this analysis, ACCEL is an over-priced stock.

### A few caveats

Before you jump to the conclusion that ACCEL should be banished from your portfolio, it is important to realise that our conclusion rests on two assertions. The first is that our “similar companies” are actually similar to ACCEL, or else the difference in P/E might be a result of other factors. For example, if you are comparing lower risk firms with ACCEL, then its P/E would naturally be lower than its peers, as investors would value those with lower risk at a higher price. The second assumption that must hold true is that the stocks we are comparing ACCEL to are fairly valued by the market. If this does not hold, there is a possibility that ACCEL’s P/E is lower because our peer group is overvalued by the market.

### What this means for you:

You may have already conducted fundamental analysis on the stock as a shareholder, so its current overvaluation could signal a potential selling opportunity to reduce your exposure to ACCEL. Now that you understand the ins and outs of the PE metric, you should know to bear in mind its limitations before you make an investment decision. Remember that basing your investment decision off one metric alone is certainly not sufficient. There are many things I have not taken into account in this article and the PE ratio is very one-dimensional. If you have not done so already, I highly recommend you to complete your research by taking a look at the following:

1. Future Outlook: What are well-informed industry analysts predicting for ACCEL’s future growth? Take a look at our free research report of analyst consensus for ACCEL’s outlook.
2. Past Track Record: Has ACCEL been consistently performing well irrespective of the ups and downs in the market? Go into more detail in the past performance analysis and take a look at the free visual representations of ACCEL’s historicals for more clarity.
3. Other High-Performing Stocks: Are there other stocks that provide better prospects with proven track records? Explore our free list of these great stocks here.

To help readers see pass the short term volatility of the financial market, we aim to bring you a long-term focused research analysis purely driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis does not factor in the latest price sensitive company announcements.

The author is an independent contributor and at the time of publication had no position in the stocks mentioned.