Summary:
If you're wondering how ACI Worldwide’s (NASDAQ: ACIW) price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio has evolved in recent years, and how to practically fetch or interpret this data, this article breaks it down. I’ll walk you through hands-on steps—including pitfalls to avoid—share how analysts and pros compare such numbers internationally, and even simulate a real analyst’s insights. Plus, I’ll contrast "verified trade" standards across countries, offering a unique, comprehensive perspective.
Let’s be honest. You’re probably here because you want more than just the latest P/E number for ACI Worldwide. You want to know how its valuation has shifted—maybe because you’re considering an investment, or you want to compare it globally. The catch: historical P/E ratios aren’t always front-and-center on finance sites, and international standards for “verified” financial data can differ.
Here, you’ll learn:
I remember the first time I tried to compare ACIW’s P/E over multiple years. I opened Yahoo Finance, typed in “ACIW”, and… hit a wall. Sure, I could see the latest P/E, but there was no “history” tab for P/E ratios. That was a rookie mistake.
The big three for this kind of data are:
For this article, let’s use Macrotrends, since it’s friendly and doesn’t require registration. Here’s what I did:
Here’s a quick snapshot (as of June 2024, data from Macrotrends):
Source: Macrotrends ACIW P/E Ratio History
At first glance, you might think higher is better (more investor love?) or lower is better (cheaper stock?). The reality is messier. For instance, ACIW’s P/E spiked in 2019 and 2020, but that was partly due to earnings volatility, not just price movement. If net income takes a hit, even a steady share price can make the P/E soar.
Case in point: In 2020, ACIW’s earnings dipped due to pandemic-related disruptions, so the P/E ratio jumped—even though the stock price was mostly flat.
Many investors get tripped up here. I once built an Excel model comparing ACIW to fintech peers, only to realize I’d used trailing twelve months (TTM) earnings for one year and GAAP net income for another. The result? My “historical trend” was nonsense. Double-check the earnings denominator you’re using: is it TTM? Is it adjusted? Macrotrends uses reported GAAP earnings, which is standard, but always cross-reference major outliers.
Another wrinkle—P/E ratios are culture-bound! In the US, tech and payment companies often sport higher P/E multiples than their European or Asian counterparts. I once chatted with a London-based fintech analyst who shrugged off ACIW’s “lofty” 30x P/E, saying, “Over here, anything above 20x is considered frothy.”
Experts at the OECD and U.S. SEC stress the importance of using “verified” financial statements when calculating ratios. This means audited, publicly filed numbers—not management projections or non-GAAP numbers.
Here’s a fun fact I discovered prepping for a cross-border M&A project: what counts as “verified” can vary. The US is all about SEC filings and GAAP, while the EU leans on IFRS. Some Asian countries still allow local GAAP. That means the same P/E ratio can look different depending on accounting rules.
| Country/Region | Standard Name | Legal Basis | Enforcing Agency |
|---|---|---|---|
| USA | GAAP/SEC Filings | Securities Exchange Act of 1934 | SEC |
| EU | IFRS | EU Regulation No 1606/2002 | ESMA, EBA |
| China | China GAAP | Accounting Law of China | CSRC |
| Japan | J-GAAP/IFRS | Financial Instruments and Exchange Act | FSA |
References:
Imagine Company A in the US wants to acquire Company B in Germany. A’s analyst uses SEC-filed earnings (GAAP), but B reports under IFRS. When A’s team calculates B’s P/E using US methods, it comes out higher (IFRS sometimes allows earlier revenue recognition).
During due diligence, the German CFO pushes back: “That’s not how we present adjusted earnings here. You need to use our statutory filings.” Cue a week of back-and-forth, with lawyers referencing EU Regulation No 1606/2002 and US lawyers waving the Securities Exchange Act. Eventually, both teams agree on a “reconciled” P/E using both standards, but the negotiation is tense.
This is why international investors need to understand not just the ratio itself, but the accounting ground rules.
“A P/E ratio is only as useful as the quality of its earnings denominator. I always check if it’s calculated from audited, regulator-filed numbers. Anything else is just marketing.”
— Cameron Li, CFA, London fintech fund manager
It’s a fair point. As I learned (the hard way), using non-audited numbers or mixing standards leads to unreliable conclusions.
To sum up: ACIW’s historical P/E ratio has bounced around quite a bit over the past decade, reflecting both market sentiment and swings in reported earnings. The best way to get up-to-date, reliable historical numbers is through Macrotrends or official filings. Always check the accounting basis—GAAP, IFRS, etc.—and don’t be afraid to compare with industry and global peers, but know the rules of the game change from country to country.
My suggestion? If you’re making a real investment decision, pull the last five years of ACIW’s 10-K filings from the SEC’s EDGAR database, verify the net income in each, and calculate the P/E yourself. It takes a little more time, but you’ll trust your numbers—and avoid rookie mistakes like I made.
For international comparisons, always clarify which standard (GAAP, IFRS, etc.) is in play, and use only audited, regulator-verified numbers. If you ever get stuck, reach out to a professional accountant or financial analyst familiar with cross-border standards.
If you want to learn more about international financial standards, check out the WTO’s Trade Facilitation resources or the OECD Guidelines on Corporate Governance.
Bottom line: historical P/E ratios are only as good as the source and the standards behind them. Know what you’re looking at, always check the accounting, and never be afraid to double-check the data—even if it means a few extra clicks.