Valspar SVR Final- Cody Leslie

Creighton University, FIN325
The Valspar Corporation:
Stock Valuation Report
By: Cody Leslie
4/30/2015

1 Stock Valuation Report: The Valspar Corporation| Creighton University, FIN325
Table of Contents … Page(s)
1. Executive Summary… 2
2. Economic Analysis … 3-9
a. Economic Business Cycle … 3
b. GDP … 3-4
c. Employment … 4-5
d. Government Budget … 5
e. Consumer Sentiment … 6
f. General Business Inventories … 6-7
g. Interest Rate Environment … 7
h. Yield Spreads … 7-8
i. Inflation … 8-9
3. Industry Analysis … 9-15
a. Long-Term Secular Trends … 9-10
b. Life-Cycle Stage … 10-11
c. Herfindahl Index … 11
d. Market Structure & Capitalization … 12
e. Porter’s Five Forces … 13
f. Long-Term Competitive Strategy … 14
g. SWOT Analysis … 14-15
4. Company Analysis … 15-31
a. Quality of Management … 15
b. Dupont Analysis … 16-17
c. Financial Ratios & Competitive Position Among Industry Peer Group … 18-22
d. Common Size Financial Statements … 22-23
e. Historical Growth … 23-25
f. Financial Statement Forecasting … 25-31
5. Valuations … 31-43
a. Discount Rate … 31-33
b. Sustainable Growth Rate … 33-35
c. Primary Value Business Driver … 35-36
d. Industry Payout Ratio … 36
e. Present Value of Growth Opportunities … 36-37
f. PVGO of Industry Competitors … 37
g. Constant PerpetualGrowth Dividend Discount Model … 37-38
h. Free Cash Flow from Equity … 38-39
i. FCFE Constant PerpetualGrowth Model … 39
j. Two-Stage Dividend Growth Model … 40-41
k. H-Model … 41
l. FCFE Two-Stage Growth Model … 42
m. Clean Surplus Relationship … 42
n. Single-Stage Residual Income Model … 43
6. Price Ratio Analysis … 44-48
a. Price/Earnings Ratio, Expected Price … 44-45
b. Price/Book Ratio … 45-46
c. Price/Sales Ratio … 46-47
d. Price/Cash Flow Ratio … 47-48
7. Expected Return Versus Required Return … 48-50
a. Final Recommendation … 49-50
8. Works Cited & Appendices … 51-53

Executive Summary: NYSE: VAL Current Market Price: 83.82
The Valspar Corporation (NYSE: VAL) is publicly traded on the New York Stock
Exchange and is currently valued at a price of $83.82 (as of March 27th market close). It is
headquartered in Minneapolis, MN, operated by CEO and President Gary Hendrickson, and
currently has 10,513 full-time employees. Valspar Corporation operates under the general
building materials industry and develops, distributes, and manufactures a range of paintings,
coatings, and related products to over 25 countries worldwide (1).
With a market capitalization of $6.82 billion, it is labeled as a mid-cap stock with 22%
market share within its industry peer group that consists of MDU resources, Amcol International,
Fastenal, and RPM International. Due to the cyclical nature of the general buildings materials
industry, Valspar’s growth is loosely based upon the growth of the economy as a whole.
Seeming that the US economy has been experiencing bullish trends over the past 7 years since
the 2008 financial crisis, it is safe to determine that the overall outlook for Valspar is generally
positive, even though they are transitioning from an expansionary to maturity stage in their life-
cycle. Consumer buying power and sentiment are currently at high rates inferring that consumers
have more disposable income to spend on Valspar’s non-essential products they offer (paints and
coatings), inevitably reinforcing the continued growth of the firm.
Based upon multiple valuation models used to forecast the expected stock price of the
security, I concluded that The Valspar Corporation is currently undervalued at its $83.82 market
price. All price and financial ratios have historically consistent positive growth which is expected
to continue into the future. Because of this, the preferred valuation model used was the single-
stage residual income model that estimated a price of $103.03. Given these conditions, the
security is labeled a “buy” and is expected to bring positive returns for shareholders.

Economic Analysis
Economic Business Cycle
The economic business cycle is a period lasting 3-5 years through which the economy
goes through. There are four main points to a business cycle: the peak, the recession phase, the
trough, and the expansion phase. Both companies and the economy experience these
cycles. The peak is the highest point of economic activity. Next, the company or the economy
goes through a recession phase, or a period of economic slowdown; it is a time of
contraction. Soon, the company will bottom out, and this point is called the trough. Then, the
company rebounds from economic turmoil, into a phase called expansion; it is a time of
growth. This is the full cycle that most companies and the economy experience. Based on the
GDP of the United States, the US was in an expansion phase from 2005 to late-2007. By 2008,
the US’ economy had peaked, and the recession hit. From 2008 to 2009, the US economy was
experiencing a great recession. In late-2009, the GDP began to bottom-out, and by 2010 the US
GDP slowly began to increase. Since hitting the trough, the GDP has grown by an average of
3.86%, barely surpassing inflation. Cycles can be used when managing ones portfolio, for one
can capitalize on these up-and-down movements. Minerals Technologies (MTX) got hit the
same way the US economy got hit. Net Income was negative in 2007 and in 2009. During
periods of economic slowdown, MTX’s customers often reduce their capital expenditures and
defer or cancel pending projects. After 2009, MTX made a goal of diversifying its portfolio in
order to counteract these economic cycles. Since 2009, MTX has seen an average growth of
3.72% (similar to the US economy).
GDP
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the aggregate measure of production equal to the sum
of the gross values added of all units engaged in production. The nation’s economy is on the rise

after the recession and with that the GDP is growing. I believe it will help the companies in our
group locally. The industry as a whole is on the rise due to the rebound of the US economy.
Some of our companies have international ties as well and their growth could either slow or rise
based on that country’s economic status. Below shows a the rise in GDP since 2004 (2):
In the case of Valspar and many other companies in the industry, the security’s stock
price has been positively correlated to the GDP rate over the past 20 years. This is mainly due to
Valspar primarily being in the business of selling products being most accessible when the
economy is strong and buying power is high for consumers. Due to the cyclical nature of
Valspar’s operations, I anticipate this trend to continue and for their stock price to positively
correlate with the GDP growth rate for years to come.
Employment
The national unemployment rate has declined 16.67% over the past year from 6.6% at the
end of March 2014 to 5.5% in March 2015 (3). This a good sign for the general building
materials industry because it provides a sign of more overall spending throughout the economy.

A low unemployment rate translates to more consumer capital, which translates to higher
spending power among consumers, which translates to an overall stronger economy. The total
number of employees working for companies that manufacture durable goods in 2014 was 9.2
million with 290,000 (3.15%) working only part-time due to economic reasons (4). This is a
good indication for the general building materials industry because it shows that most employees
are able to secure full-time jobs which allows for a better overall workforce for the company.
The employee turnover for the manufacturing industry in 2014 was 13.3%, just below the
national average. Having a low employee turnover is important because it reinforces
collaboration and comfort within a position. The longer an employee stays with a company, the
more efficient they become with their duties, which translates to better overall productivity for
the firm. Valspar currently employs 10,513 individuals full-time and their employment is
expected to increase as the economy strengthens and consumer sentiment increases.
Government Budget
In 2015 the net U.S. government savings was -$646.4 billion which is up $89.6 billion
from 2014 which was -$736.0 billion. The budget deficit for 2015 is -$563.6 billion which is
down $85.2 billion from 2014 which was -$648.8 billion. According to the National Income and
Product Accounts (NIPA), the budget projects that federal receipts will increase from $226.6
billion in 2014 to $335.7 billion in 2015 which is mainly due to supplementary medical
insurance premium and interest receipts. Outlays are expected to increase from $195.9 billion in
2014 to $250.5 billion in 2015, which is mainly due to netting and grossing differences and
“other” financial transactions (5). The government budget does not strongly affect Valspar’s
growth expectancy in terms of forecasted revenue and costs. Any increase or decrease in

government spending doesn’t necessarily correlate to a rising demand for paints and coating
supplies among consumers.
Consumer Sentiment
According to quicken loans, Consumer sentiment was recorded to be 93.6 in the mid-
month February reading (6). This is the second highest reading in the last eight years, so this
shows that consumer sentiment is at historically high levels. When consumer sentiment is high is
has historically meant that the stock market will follow bull market trends, and vice versa when
the consumer sentiment reading is less positive. This reading shows that consumer’s opinion is
generally positive regarding the state of the economy. This may affect the value of general
building materials in a positive way. For one, the economy will be in a bull market, which will
result in overall higher stock prices for the industry. Along with that, with consumer sentiment
being so high, this may result in higher consumer spending on building projects. This may cause
an increase in the sales revenues of the general building industry, which could positively impact
the company’s net income. Since the products that Valspar offers are not necessities in the eyes
of the average consumer, a positive outlook for personal financial well-being is required for
consumers to be more willing to spend income on paint and coatings products. With a high
consumer sentiment and a generally positive outlook for the economy, I expect it to positively
impact Valspar’s earnings due to more buying power among consumers
General Business Inventories
General business inventories are an important calculation for any company since it
usually takes up a sizeable portion of their respective balance sheets. It is an important asset to
consider but it can also be a sound prediction about the stability and health of a company’s
industry. If the company has a small inventory then they could be efficiently converting their

inventory into revenue. With larger inventory comes a high storage cost which impacts net
income. It is difficult to determine the impact on inventories for a few companies because some
have to deal with chemicals and their inventories are in proportion to the increase in total assets.
With respect to Valspar, general business inventories will positively impact earnings because
they have one of the highest inventory turnover ratios in the industry. This allows for less storage
costs and more cash flow within the firm.
Interest Rate Environment
The interest rate environment affects the industry greatly. This causes loans to be cheap
and money to be easily accessed. Because of this, these companies can gain assets to get more
profit fairly cheaply. The impact on the industry due to the interest rate environment causes the
ability to gain this profit that can be locked in for a long time. Since the industry has to do with
construction resources, this allows for the companies to buy more Property, Plant, and
Equipment to create higher production of the product at cheap enough rates to make more
money. This has a great impact that can cause these companies to increase production greatly
and therefore make the products more cheaply. This would decrease the prices and hopefully
increase construction throughout the targeted markets. Since the overall consensus among
consumers is that interest rates will increase in the coming months, this will correct the market
and bring prices down. This will negatively affect Valspar and their capital structure along with
most other firms within the general building materials industry.
Yield Spreads
The difference between yields on differing debt instruments, calculated by deducting the
yield of one instrument from another is the definition of a yield spread. The higher the yield
spread, the greater the difference between the yields offered by each instrument. This will also

result in a greater willing of investors to purchase riskier bonds. If more people decide to buy
corporate bonds, they will usually be willing to take more risk, and this will also push the yield
of corporate bonds down. This will narrow the spread between the yields of corporate bonds, and
treasury bonds. When the yield curves are smaller, this shows that people are comfortable taking
risk and will usually push stock prices up. The current yield curve has stayed relatively similar to
prior years, but has decreased miniscule amounts. This is a good indication that investors have a
positive outlook and this may increase stock prices. In regards to Valspar, a low yield spread
translates to overall complacency among investors suggesting they are willing to take on more
risk to drive down the yield spread. This is a good sign indicating that Valspar can expect to see
an increase in the number of investors in the coming years.
Inflation
The industry is highly impacted by inflation. This is due to the high amount of assets that
are required for an industry like this. While some of the assets keep up with inflation, many
decrease with depreciation and then more so with inflation. Land, for instance, usually keeps up
with inflation and does not lose its value easily because of inflation. A factory on that land that
produces natural gas however would depreciate with time and then more so with inflation. Since
inflation is the buying power of the dollar, it is indicative of the change over time of the value of
the factory. This will change because of its use, but also it will change because the dollar value
of the factory will change. A dollar yesterday is usually worth more than a dollar today. This
means that a million dollar factory built ten years ago will be worth less on the books due to
inflation regardless of depreciation.
Inflation has many implications on the capital structure of Valspar, along with all
of the other firms within the general building materials industry. Overall rising prices within the

economy increases the value of the assets within the balance sheet as time goes by. This is a
positive indicator for Valspar but does not give any kind of competitive advantage among
competitors since they all operate under the same inflationary environment.
Industry Analysis
Long-Term Secular Trend
The Valspar Corporation was founded in 1806 in Boston, Massachusetts by Samuel Tuck
and Lawson and Henry Valentine (7). They operate in the general building materials industry
with concentration in the paintings, coatings and specialty chemical products segment. They are
currently headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota with Gary Hendrickson as their current
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer. Valspar main revenue stream comes from its
coatings and paintings products which accounts for 2.5 billion and 1.8 billion dollars per year,
respectively. The other 402.4 million in revenue is derived from all other product lines (8).
The industry peer group to which Valspar was assigned consisted of MDU Resources
Group, Amcol International, Fastenal, and RPM International. With respect to market
capitalization within the peer group, Valspar holds the second highest at $6.64 billion; well
behind Fastenal whose market capitalization of 11.94 billion is 38.59% of the group’s total. A
breakdown of Valspar’s peer group market cap figures are presented below.
Market Cap
(billions) % of Industry Total
Fastenal 11.94 38.59%
Valspar 6.82 22.04%
RPM
International 6.45 20.85%
MDU
Resources 4.33 13.99%
Amcol 1.40 4.52%
Total 30.94 100.00%

With regards to sales growth, Valspar holds the second highest average sales growth in
the industry at 9.53%. This is behind Fastenal whose average sales growth of 12.29% is the
highest while MDU Resources retains the lowest average sales growth in the industry at only
4.11%. Sales growth is positively correlated to the total market capitalization of the firm relative
to its industry peers. The higher the market cap of the firm, the higher percentage of sales growth
the company seems to have.
With regards to profitability, Valspar’s ten-year average gross profit margin of 34.03% is
just 1.35% above the peer group average of 32.68%. Fastenal and RPM International hold the
highest gross profit margins with 50.82% and 42.86%, respectfully. While Amcol and MDU
Resources hold the lowest margins at 25.24% and 10.45%. This trend positively correlates
directly with the market capitalization rankings of the peer group industry which suggests that
the group is in a market with some barriers to entry.
Life Cycle Stage
Throughout the progression of its existence a company usually endures four basic stages
within its life cycle. First is the startup stage of rapid and increasing growth, second is the
expansion stage of consolidation and stable growth. Third––– is the maturity stage of growth
starting to slow down, and fourth is the relative decline stage where the organization starts to
show minimal or negative rates of growth. Knowing which stage of the life cycle a particular
company is in can be useful to an analyst when forecasting which companies are likely to start
declining and which are poised for higher future growth.
In the case of Valspar, my analysis suggests that they are experiencing the end part of the
expansion stage and transitioning into the maturity stage. Over the decade, growth was
increasing at a faster rate in the early years than it is today. Return on equity was on the higher

side of 10% from 2005-2008 and then dipped in the 9% during the economic recession for a few
years and has consistently increased since then to 14% in 2014.
The industry of general building materials that Valspar operates under is overall a
monopolistic competition market. Since the general building materials industry is so broad, firms
tend to specialize in offering a smaller variety of products within the larger general building
materials spectrum. For example, Valspar specializes in selling painting and coatings products
while Fastenal sells products more along the construction and large scale project side. All of the
firms within Valspar’s industry peer group are known for production of different products and
services, making comparability difficult and labeling the industry as monopolistic competition.
Herfindahl Index

Market Structure & Capitalization
The market structure in which Valspar operates under is cyclical in nature due to its
performance being correlated to economic fluctuations. This can be seen most noticeable during
the mortgage crisis of 2008, Valspar’s earnings took a massive hit and its stock price plummeted.
In other words, Valspar thrives the most when the economy is healthy and in good standing,
meaning consumers have more disposable income to spend on the products that they offer. The
main difference between cyclical and noncyclical companies at the most basic level is the
difference between luxury and necessity. The products that Valspar offers, being paintings and
coatings supplies, are not necessities and so therefore will slump in growth if the economy does
that same.
With 83,366,000 shares outstanding and a market price on March 27th of $83.82,
Valspar’s market capitalization comes out to be about $6.9 billion. This classifies Valspar as a
Mid-cap stock with its market capitalization not even breaking into the top 20 companies in the
general building materials industry, but ranking high enough within its peer group that it is not
considered a “small cap” firm. A “large-cap” firm usually has a market capitalization of over 10
billion while small cap stocks have a market cap of less than 2 billion. Based upon the S&P 500
average P/E ratio of 20.34, Valspar’s P/E ratio of 25.76 would classify it as a growth stock since
it outperforms the market average (9). Although it is important to note that Valspar didn’t have a
P/E ratio greater than 20 until 2012, it seems that Valspar has recovered from the effects of the
financial crisis in 2008 where P/E ratios dropped as low as -25% due to a year with negative net
income due to a large goodwill impairment charge.

Porter’s Five Competitive Forces
Michael Porter’s Five Forces model helps analysts estimate how competitive a particular
industry is and to identify which firms may be best positioned for success. The five forces that
the model analyzes are the threat of new entrants, the bargaining power of buyers, the bargaining
power of suppliers, the threat of substitute products, and the intensity of rivalry among
competitors. Below shows a breakdown of Valspar’s five competitive forces:
Porter's Five Forces Concentration
Threat of new entrants Low
Bargaining power of buyers High
Bargaining power of suppliers Low
Threat of substitute products High
Intensity of rivalry High
The threat of new entrants examines the ease with which new firms are able to enter the
market. In the case of the Valspar, this force is low because new competition is rare due to the
large initial investment needed to compete with companies on a larger scale within the industry.
The bargaining power of buyers analyzes how difficult it is for a buyer to switch to another
potential seller. Valspar has a high bargaining power because buyers have many options within
the industry that they could purchase from if given a better offer from a competing firm. The
bargaining power of suppliers estimates whether suppliers have the power to raise prices without
the threat of losing business. Valspar has relatively high bargaining power of its suppliers
because of the complexity of their products. This puts a constraint on Valspar because options
for other suppliers for the raw materials they need to produce their products are limited. The
threat of substitutes takes the threat of new entrant a step further; it examines the potential threat
of substitute products rather than companies in general. Valspar has a high threat of substitutes
because of the stiff competition within the general building materials industry, and more
specifically the painting and coatings segment. Lastly, the intensity of rivalry helps analysts

understand which industries and companies are most likely to retain market share. Valspar has a
high intensity when it comes to the general building materials industry due to their market share
being below most of the major players within their segment.
Long-term Competitive Strategy
Valspar’s long-term competitive strategy is more geared toward cost leadership rather
than product differentiation. Being in the painting and coatings segment of the general building
materials industry, Valspar does not produce their revenue stream from a wide variety of
products, rather they remain specialized within paintings and coatings. This means that they will
be most competitive by offering prices that can compete with other firms rather than having a
larger variety of products to offer.
SWOT Analysis
A “SWOT” analysis is a method used by companies to evaluate the strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of its business environment. Strengths are characteristics
of the business that provides it with an advantage over its competitors. Valspar’s strengths come
from it being a recognizable brand and its geographic diversification. Valspar’s brand logo and
name can be seen and heard across all construction and remodeling project sites across the world.
This gives Valspar a competitive advantage amongst its competitors because brand exposure is
one of the driving factors of company growth. Weaknesses are the characteristics that give the
company a disadvantage to its competitors. Valspar’s main weakness is the risks associated with
its acquisition business outside of the United States. Although growth and expansion are
considered strengths, when taken outside of domestic borders can potentially present risks that
domestic acquisitions do not. Examples of this would be delays in realizing benefits from the
acquired companies, unforeseen adjustments and write-offs, or difficulty due to limited prior

exposure to the new markets of the acquisitions. Opportunities are parts of a project or business
that can exploit it to being an advantage in competition. The main opportunity for Valspar is
their ability to capitalize on potentially lucrative marketing campaigns. With such a recognizable
brand that has been built, the opportunity to create an effective marketing campaign is inevitable.
Threats are defined as the elements of a business environment that can cause negative conditions
for the company. The largest threat that Valspar faces is its position within its industry group.
There are a lot of companies that have more capital than Valspar does, therefore the
opportunities for growth of its competitors is higher, making it a threat in the eyes of Valspar’s
business strategy.
Company Analysis
Quality of Management
Valspar Corporation’s Board of Directors consists of 9 diverse experienced professionals.
Members of the board range in age from 53 to 66 and have experience in many industries
including Private Equity, Pharmaceuticals, Marketing, Astronomy, Manufacturing, and others.
The only woman on the board is 57 year old Mae Jemison, M.D. who is known for being the first
African-American woman astronaut to go to space and holds 9 honorary doctorates in science,
engineering, and the humanities (10). Valspar’s board of directors is fairly consistent in their
diversity to ensure that the company will have the proper guidance when making decisions that
affect the firm as a whole. The only concern that arises is the lack of female representation,
which is important in any group setting to obtain a different perspective on many issues that
require more nurturing-based opinions.

Dupont Analysis
When estimating a firm’s sustainable growth rate, two factors are needed, the dividend
payout ratio and return on equity. Since the dividend payout ratio for a firm is usually stable
without any major changes, most changes in the sustainable growth rate derive from changes in
the return on equity. Therefore, a good understanding of ROE is crucial in the analysis of a
company. The decomposition of the return on equity can be broken down into 3 parts: the net
profit margin, asset turnover, and financial leverage or equity multiplier. It can be broken down
even further to include the tax burden, interest burden, and profitability measurement. With this
decomposition we can evaluate the value driver of the business and the main factor in the change
of ROE year to year. Below shows the decomposition of ROE for Valspar, otherwise known as a
Dupont analysis.
Dupont ROE 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010
NI / EBT 70.22% 68.25% 70.11% 134.36% 69.57%
x EBT / EBIT 88.28% 86.74% 86.06% 247.71% 84.56%
x EBIT / Sales 12.32% 11.90% 12.06% -1.05% 11.70%
x Sales / Total Assets 112.11% 101.94% 110.86% 112.94% 83.42%
x Total Assets /
Stockholder's Equity 398.97% 358.60% 296.43% 288.66% 237.24%
ROE 34.16% 25.77% 23.91% -11.43% 13.62%
Disregarding the negative ROE in 2011 due to impairment charges resulting in negative
net income, there has been a steady growth in return on equity over the past 5 years for Valspar.
The return on assets and net profit margin for Valspar increased slightly since 2010 while
leverage of the company grew immensely from 237.24% in 2010 to 398.97% in 2014.
The first component of the Dupont analysis is the tax burden, which is calculated by
taking the net income over the earnings before interest and taxes. This value remained steady

between 68.25% and 70.22% over the past five years and is not an indicator as a value driver for
the business.
Next is the interest burden of the company calculated by taking the earnings before taxes
over the earnings before interest and taxes. Again, Valspar showed a steady growth in interest
burden over the past 5 years between 84.56% and 88.28% indicating it is not a value driver for
the business.
Next is the profitability measurement of the company calculated by taking the earnings
before interest and taxes over the total sales. Once again, Valspar shows a steady growth of
profitability 11.70% to 12.20% over the past five years indicating it is not a main value driver of
the firm.
Next is the total asset turnover of the firm calculated by taking the total revenue divided
by total assets. Again, this variable remained fairly consistent between 2010 and 2014 with the
only significant increase being between 2010 and 2011, indicating it is not the main value driver
of the firm.
Finally, we analyze the financial lever, or equity multiplier, of the firm by taking the total
assets over the stockholders equity. Valspar showed immense increases in their financial
leverage over the past 5 years increasing from 234.34% in 2010 to 398.97% in 2014. This is due
to the declining rate of stockholders equity in relation to the total assets year after year. We can
safely make the assumption that the declining value of stockholders equity along with the
increase in assets year after year is the main value driver of Valspar. Since total assets are
increasing at a faster rate than stockholders equity is decreasing, we still see a steady increase of
return on equity year after year. Although decreasing stockholder’s equity is normally viewed as

problematic, the increase in total assets makes up for that loss indicating that Valspar is
reinvesting in the future growth of their firm.
Financial Ratios & Competitive Position Among Industry Peer Group
In order to garner a better understanding of Valspar’s financial position over the past
eight years I evaluated five different financial ratios that I believe are good indicators of
Valspar’s company financial strengths and weaknesses. The ratios I chose analyze the
profitability, activity, liquidity, and solvency of Valspar and include the gross margin, inventory
turnover, receivables turnover, quick ratio, and the debt-to-equity ratio. A detailed table of
Valspar’s financial ratios over the past eight years is shown below:
Financial Ratios
Year: 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007
8-Year
Average
Profitability
Gross Margin 34.03% 33.09% 33.67% 31.16% 33.21% 34.00% 28.07% 29.91% 32.14%
% growth 2.84% -1.71% 8.04% -6.18% -2.32% 21.14% -6.15% 2.24%
Activity
Days in Inventory
Outstanding 39.25 39.04 32.72 31.09 39.50 30.23 28.45 32.77 34.13
(Inventory Turnover) 9.30 9.35 11.16 11.74 9.24 12.07 12.83 11.14 10.85
growth 0.52% 19.33% 5.22% -21.27% 30.65% 6.26% -13.18% 3.93%
Receivable Turnover 7.36 6.68 6.54 6.43 5.25 4.68 5.67 5.29 5.99
growth 10.20% 2.06% 1.72% 22.51% 12.08% -17.33% 7.17% 5.49%
Liquidity
Quick Ratio 0.64 0.77 1.06 0.78 1.06 1.16 0.88 0.72 0.88
growth -16.96% -27.30% 35.17% -25.82% -8.69% 31.46% 22.87% 1.53%
Solvency
Debt-Equity Ratio 2.99 2.59 1.96 1.89 1.37 1.21 1.29 1.39 1.84
growth 15.61% 31.65% 4.12% 37.46% 13.42% -5.90% -7.40% 12.71%
Profitability ratios evaluate the company’s ability to generate profit on the capital it has
invested and is a key determinant into the value of the company and the stocks it issues. I chose

to use the gross profit margin because it is the percentage of revenue available to cover operating
costs in order to generate profit, in which Valspar has a substantial amount. It is also a key
determinant of the competitive advantage a firm has over its industry competitors. This is due to
being able to charge a higher price with lower costs, yielding a higher gross profit margin figure.
Gross profit margin is calculated by taking the gross profit divided by total revenue, in Valspar’s
case yielding a margin of 34.03% in 2014 and a 32.14% average margin over the past 8 years.
This is just below the peer group average of 32.68%, with Fastenal having the highest margin at
50.82% and MDU Resources having the lowest margin at 10.45%. The gross profit margin in our
general building materials industry is directly related to the competitive advantage and market
capitalization of each company. The higher the market capitalization, the better competitive
advantage the firm has within the industry, which in turn yields a higher gross profit margin.
Having a larger customer base and more capital to invest into growth allows the companies in
this industry to charge a higher price and create lower costs for themselves.
Activity ratios, otherwise known as operating efficiency ratios, measure how well a
company manages its assets, how effectively they are being used by the company, and usually
reflect the management efficiency of working capital and long-term assets. I decided to analyze
two particular activity ratios because a large percent of Valspar’s capital structure comes from
inventory and receivables from customers. First is the inventory turnover and days in inventory
outstanding. Inventory turnover is a way for companies to evaluate the amount of resources they
have tied up in inventory in order to indicate the effectiveness of their inventory management. It
is calculated by taking the total revenues divided by the total inventories for the year. Another
important measurement is the days in inventory outstanding which calculates how many days per
year inventory is kept on hand by taking 365 divided the inventory turnover figure. Valspar in

2014 yielded an inventory turnover of 9.3 and an eight-year average of 10.85. This equates to a
days in inventory outstanding of 39.25 days in 2014 and 34.13 days on average over the past
eight years. Compared to a peer group industry average of 5.69, Valspar holds the highest
inventory turnover ratio among the firms, with the lowest being 1.62 by MDU Resources. A high
inventory turnover ratio may be indicative of highly effective inventory management among the
firm. However, it may also suggest that the firm does not have adequate inventory to keep up
with demand and so shortages may negatively impact revenue. In order to assess which
assumption is more likely, a comparison into the revenue growth of industry peers is necessary.
With the second highest average sales growth in the industry at 9.53%, behind Fastenal with
12.29% growth, we can safely presume that the high inventory turnover is due to Valspar’s
effective inventory management.
The other activity ratio that is important in understanding Valspar’s competitive position
is the receivables turnover. It is computed by taking the net sales over the average accounts
receivables on the balance sheet. A more accurate representation would take the net receivables
sales over the accounts receivables, but credit sales information was not available. It represents
the time elapsed between a sale and the collection of cash from the buyer, which is important in
understanding how fast a company can receive payments from customers to whom they offer
credit. Valspar came out with a receivables turnover in 2014 of 7.36 and an eight year average of
5.99. Compared to an industry average of 6.05, has the second highest receivables turnover next
to Fastenal at 7.62. Having a high receivables turnover within the industry indicates that Valspar
has efficient credit and cash collection. Similar to inventory turnover, though, it may also
indicate that the credit terms offered are too strict, which may result in revenue being lost to
customers going with a different company that offers terms with more leniency. Again, a

comparison to revenue growths within the industry is necessary to determine the usefulness of
the receivables turnover ratio. Using the information used in the inventory turnover analysis, we
can also presume that because Valspar has one of the highest average sales growths in the
industry that their high receivables turnover is derived from efficient cash and credit collection
by the firm.
Liquidity ratios analyze the company’s ability to meet its short-term obligations and
measures how quickly a firm’s assets can be converted into cash. I decided the quick ratio would
be the best determinant for analyzing Valspar’s financial position (rather than the current ratio)
because it represents the fact that inventory may not be easily converted into cash. Being that
Valspar is a building material and chemical company, liquidating their entire inventory at market
value could prove difficult, and so a ratio analyzing the firm’s liquidity minus the inventory
discrepancy is necessary. The quick ratio is calculated by taking the current assets minus the
inventory over the current liabilities. For Valspar, 2014 yielded a quick ratio of .64, slightly
lower than the eight year average of .88. This represents the fact that in 2014, for every dollar of
Valspar’s current liabilities, they have $0.64 of its most liquid assets to cover those immediate
obligations. Compared to the industry average of .82, Valspar lies directly in the middle of its
industry peer group. With Fastenal having the highest quick ratio at 1.9 and Amcol International
generating the lowest at .30, it is safe to say Valspar’s liquidity efficiency is fairly standard
among its industry peers, giving it no competitive advantage in converting short-term obligations
into cash.
Lastly, and unlike liquidity ratios, solvency ratios analyze the firm’s ability to meet its
long-term debt obligations. It does so by analyzing the amount of debt in the company’s capital
structure and the capability of its earnings and cash flow to cover its fixed long-term charges as

they come due in the future. The solvency ratio I decided to analyze was the debt-to-equity ratio
because it measures the amount of debt capital a firm has relative to its equity capital, a pretty
standard calculation that encompasses the general ability of Valspar’s ability to meet its long-
term obligations. It is calculated by taking total debt over the total stockholders’ equity. Valspar
had a 2014 debt-to-equity ratio of 2.99 and an eight year average of 1.84. Compared to its
industry peer group average of 1.66, Valspar’s debt-to-equity is the highest in the among its peer
group, with the lowest being Fastenal at .188. A high debt-to-equity ratio suggests that Valspar
has been too aggressive in the way it finances its growth with debt. However, if the earnings of
Valspar continues to increase at a rate higher than the interest expense incurred on the hefty debt
financing within the firm’s capital structure, then the high debt-to-equity ratio would benefit its
shareholders in the long run. In the case for Valspar, high revenue growth over the past decade
suggests that they are doing a satisfactory job in using its debt to finance their capital structure.
Below presents a breakdown of these five financial ratios within Valspar’s
industry peer group:
Industry Group Average
Financial Ratios
Gross Profit
Margin
Inventory
Turnover
Debt-to-
Equity Ratio
Receivables
Turnover
Quick
Ratio
Valspar Corporation (Cody
Leslie) 34.03% 9.3 2.99 7.36 0.64
MDU Resources Group (Chris
Leek) 10.45% 1.62 0.58 6.74 0.92
Amcol International (Kevin
Muhlenpoh) 25.24% 8.57 2.63 5.59 0.3049
Fastenal (Chris Murphy) 50.82% 4.295 0.188 7.62 1.9
RPM International (Josh
Leonatti) 42.86% 4.67 1.9 2.93 0.36
Average 32.68% 5.69 1.66 6.05 0.82
Common Size Financial Statements

Common-size analysis of the financial statements involves expressing the financial data
in relation to a single financial statement item. Analysts can provide either a vertical analysis,
which represents each line item in relation to that given year’s revenues or total assets, or a
horizontal analysis which represents each line item in relation to other years. For purposes of this
valuation report, I used a vertical analysis where the common-size Income Statement displays
each line item as a percentage of total revenues, while the common-size balance sheet shows
each line item as a percentage of total assets. These statements are calculated for the past 10
years and can be found in the attached appendices.
Historical Growth
When it comes to the analysis of financial statements, historical growth is a good
indicator of future growth, although it is not definitive of it. Taking a look at the average growth
of net income, sales, and free cash flow are good determinants for how growth will continue into
the future. A basic overview of the 3, 5, and 10 year averages of these figures are shown below:
Average Growth 3-Year Avg. 5-Year Avg. 10-Year Avg.
Sales 4.66% 9.71% 6.84%
Net Income -97.58% -83.30% -40.24%
FCFE 12.42% 3.78% 15.13%
Revenue grew at an average rate of 6.84% over the past ten years. The highest growth
was from 2010-2011 at 22.51% and the smallest growth was between 2009-2009 at -17.33%.
The large decline in revenue between 2008 and 2009 is expected taking into the account of the
economy’s instability at the time. The financial crisis consequently forced many firms in the
general building materials industry to take a hit to their yearly sales. Below is a graph of revenue

growth over the past decade for Valspar.
Net income over the past decade had a 10-year average of -40.24% mainly due to a
negative net income in 2011. The reasoning behind this net income was due to a large
impairment charge of 410 million in 2011, resulting in a negative net income of -139 million.
Taking out this outlier within the data we have an adjusted average ten-year net income growth
of -10.15%. Although the average growth of Valspar’s net income is negative, that is not
indicative of negative growth of net income to continue into the future. It signifies a “hiccup” in
the company’s earnings around the time of 2010-2012 due to various charges. I expect the net
income of Valspar to grow positively from now on assuming no detrimental events take place.
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
Sales Growth
Sales Growth
-200,000
-100,000
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
Net Income Growth
Net Income Growth

Free cash flow from equity represents the amount of capital available for distribution to
stockholders after all expenses and debt repayment by the firm. Over the past decade Valspar had
an average growth of 15.13%, but with a large dispersion and volatility over the years that
number should be taken with a degree of judgment. FCFE varied from as much as a 125% yearly
growth from 2007-2008 to a -47% decline from 2006-2007. Having an adequate amount of
capital available to pay dividends to shareholders is extremely important for the well-being of the
firm. Satisfied stockholder’s translates to a larger amount of investors which strengthens the
overall position of the company.
Financial Statement Forecasting
Forecasting of financial statements is essential to guiding business strategy and
operations going into the future. Having estimates of how revenue and costs will change in the
future provides management with the necessary numbers for determining whether the firm has
too much or too little capital to continue with their long-term business strategy. I constructed pro
forma income and balance sheet statements for a one year forecast. The following page includes
the pro forma income statement:
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
FCFE Growth
FCFE Growth

Pro Forma Income
Statement
Year 2014 2015
Net sales 4,522,424 4,811,735
Cost of sales -2,954,907 -3,265,100
Restructuring charges - cost of sales -28,471
Acquisition-related charges - cost of sales 0
Gross profit 1,539,046 1,546,635 ** Net Sales x 10-year Avg. Gross Margin
Research & development expenses 134,134 142,350 ** Net Sales x Average 10-year Growth Rate as % of Net Sales
Selling, general & administrative expenses 832,335 886,926 ** Net Sales x Average 10-year Growth Rate as % of Net Sales
Amortization expense
Restructuring expense 12,668 10,649 ** Net Sales x Average 10-year Growth Rate as % of Net Sales
Acquisition Costs 0 0
Operating expenses 979,137 1,039,925
Impairment of goodw ill & intangible assets
Income (loss) from operations 559,909 506,710 ** Net Sales x Average 10-year Growth Rate as % of Net Sales
Interest expense 65,330 79,702 ** Net Sales x Average 10-year Growth Rate as % of Net Sales
Other income (expense), net 2,697 761 ** Net Sales x Average 10-year Growth Rate as % of Net Sales
Income (loss) before income taxes 491,882 426,247
Income taxes 146,481 126,935 **Using 2014 Tax Rate
Net income (loss) 345,401 299,312
Weighted average shares outstanding-basic 83,366 81,683
Earning (loss) per share-basic 4.13 3.66
Dividends per common share 1.2 0.93 **(Forecasted EPS) x (industry average payout ratio)
Starting from the top of the income statement and working downwards, with a sustainable
growth rate of 8.43%, net sales is expected to grow from 4.5 billion to about 4.8 billion. Next,
gross profit is forecasted by taking the net sales times the 10-year average gross margin of
34.14%, yielding an expected 2015 gross profit of $1,522,961,000. Taking the difference
between expected gross profit and net sales yield costs of goods sold of $3,288,774,000. Next,
research and development costs can be forecasted by taking the forecasted net sales times the
average 10-year average common size proportion as a percent of net sales from the common size
financial statements. This increases development costs from $134 million in 2014 to $142
million in 2015. The same process can be done with selling, general and administrative,
restructuring expense, interest expense and other income expense. A summary of the 10-year
averages as percent of net sales for these charges can be seen below:

Income Statement 10-year Averages
as % of Sales
Research & Development 2.96%
Restructuring Expenses 0.22%
SG&A 18.43%
Income from Operations 9.54%
Interest Expense 1.66%
Other Income 0.02%
Selling, General, & Administrative expenses is one of the most important income
statement items because it is the item that most closely varies with revenues from year to year. In
2014, it is expected to increase about $50 million to about $887 million. Proportionately, SG&A
expenses are also the most heavily weighted among income statement items at an average of
18.43% of net sales each year.
The same tax rate of 29.78% in 2014 was used to forecast the income tax expense
in 2015. With an EBT of 426 million, income taxes comes out expected to be about $129
million. This gives an expected net income of $299,312,000, 13.34% less than the 2014 net
income of $345 million. Dividends per common share were forecasted taking the 2014 earnings
per share and multiplying it by the industry payout ratio yielding a figure of $.93 in dividends per
common share in 2015.
Earnings per share were forecasted by taking the forecasted net income divided by
the weighted number of common shares outstanding. Weighted shares outstanding were
forecasted by taking the 2014 figure times the average 10-year growth for shares outstanding.
Using these two variables yields forecasted earnings of $3.66 per share of common stock.
Income statement items that are variable with sales are income taxes and cost of goods
sold. This is due to the fact that the more inventory Valspar sells, the larger each of those line
items will be. Income statement items that are fixed costs in comparison to sales are the interest
expense and research and development costs. This is due to the fact that interest expense and

developmental costs are not going to change because of the amount of product that Valspar sells.
Rather, these items will vary depending upon the capital structure of the firm. Next, we take a
look at the pro forma balance sheet which can be seen below:
Pro Forma Balance
Sheet
Year 2014 2015
Cash & cash equivalents 128,203 168,851
** Total Assets x Average 10-Year growth as % of Total
Assets
Restricted cash 2,868 6,816
Assets
Accounts & notes receivable, gross
Accounts & notes receivable, net 840,447 841,805
** Net Sales / 10-year Avg. Receivables Turnover
Manufactured products
Raw materials, supplies & w ork-in-
process
Inventories 486,262 301,269
**Forecasted COGS/Avg. inventory turnover
Deferred income taxes 28,898 44,987
Prepaid expenses & other current
assets 90,579 104,902
Assets
Total currentassets 1,577,257 1,468,629
Assets
Goodw ill 1,125,824 1,458,791
Intangibles, net 592,512 644,704
Assets
Other assets 83,072 45,502
Assets
Long-term deferred income taxes 10,184 5,204
Assets
Assets
Power, Plant & Equipment
Land 77,902 66,067
Buildings 517,798 438,112
Assets
Machinery & equipment 1,034,053 932,781
Assets
Property, plant & equipment, gross 1,629,753 1,436,960
Assets
Less accumulated depreciation 984,651 806,016
Property, plant & equipment, net 645,102 630,944
Total assets 4,033,951 4,219,044
Liabilities
Notes to banks
Commercial paper
Short-termdebt 443,854 109,479
Notes payable & commercial paper
Assets
Current portion of long-term debt 162,502 966,730

Trade accounts payable 600,875 155,262
Assets
Income taxes 26,017 468,224
Assets
Other accrued liabilities 471,173 71,566
Assets
Total currentliabilities 1,704,421 1,771,261
Assets
Long-term debt, net 950,035 612,457
Deferred income taxes 219,261 274,535
Assets
Other long-term liabilities 149,143 80,432
Assets
Deferred liabilities 0 111,785
Assets
Total liabilities 3,022,860 2,850,470
Assets
Stockholders'Equity
Common stock 59,220 73,878
Additional paid-in capital 458,409 453,559
Assets
Retained earnings 1,907,001 2,172,591
Assets
Accumulated other comprehensive
income (loss) -19,670 62,423
** (2014 RE) + (2015 NI) - (2015 Expected Dividends
Paid)
Total stockholders' equity w ith treasury 2,404,960 2,762,450
Less cost of common stockin treasury 1,393,869 1,393,869
Total stockholders'equity 1,011,091 1,368,581
Total Liabilities and Stockholders'
Equity 4,033,951 4,219,051
Forecasting a balance sheet is similar to that of the income statement, except instead of
using total revenue as the base statistic we now use total assets to forecast the rest of the balance
sheet items. Forecasting total assets consisted of taking the 2014 total assets multiplied by the
10-year average asset growth rate. This increases total assets from $4,033,951,000 to
$4,219,044,000. Accounts receivable is forecasted by taking the net sales divided by the 10-year
average receivables turnover of 5.99, yielding a decrease of approximately $37 million to $804
million. Inventories is forecasted by taking the forecasted cost of goods sold from the pro forma
income statement divided by the average inventory turnover of 10.85, yielding an inventory
balance of $303 million, $183 million less than the 2014 balance of $486 million. Starting from
the top we can then work our way down and take the total forecasted assets times the average

percentage of total assets for each respective balance sheet line item. A summary of the average
weight of total assets for each balance sheet item can be seen below:
Balance Sheet 10-year Average as % of
Total Assets
Total Assets Growth 4.59%
Cash & Cash Eqivalents 4.00%
Restricted Cash 0.16%
Defferred Income Taxes 1.07%
Prepaid Expenses & Other Current Assets 2.49%
Goodwill 34.58%
Intangibles, net 15.28%
Other Assets 1.08%
Long-term deferred income taxes 0.12%
Land 1.57%
Buildings 10.38%
Machinery and Equipment 22.11%
Accumulated Depreciation 19.10%
Total Liabilities and Shareholders' Equity
Short-Term Debt 2.59%
Current Portion of Long-Term Debt 22.91%
Trade Accounts Payable 3.68%
Income Taxes 11.10%
Other Accrued Liabilities 1.70%
Long-Term Debt 22.91%
Deferred income Taxes 6.51%
Other Long-Term Liabilities 1.91%
Deferred Liabilities 2.65%
Common Stock 1.75%
Additional Paid-In Capital 10.75%
With this data we can forecast the approximate balance of each balance sheet item for
2015. Total liabilities are expected to decrease from 3.023 billion to 2.85 billion while total
stockholders’ equity is expected to increase from 1.011 billion to 1.402 billion.
Within stockholders equity, 2015 retained earnings is calculated by adding 2014 retained
earnings and 2015 forecasted net income, then subtracting 2015 expected dividends. Bringing
these items together gives 2015 expected retained earnings of $2,206,139,000. Items within the
balance sheet either vary with sales or remain as fixed items. Items that vary directly with sales
are cash and inventories because whenever sales varies from year to year then the values for

inventories and cash are going to vary along with it. Items on the balance sheet that remain fixed
are intangible assets because sales do not affect the amount of intangible assets the firm has.
Other items that are fixed on the balance sheet include property, plant, and equipment and
accounts payable. All else remaining equal, if sales were to increase , the accounts payable nor
the property, plant, and equipment would change along with it because sales does not affect
those line item values.
Valuations
Discount Rate
Generating an accurate discount rate for Valspar required many different assumptions in
regards to the three elements that go into the calculation for the Capital Asset Pricing Model
(risk-free rate, Beta, and the market risk premium). First, with the risk-free rate, normally a 90
day Treasury bill rate is used as the risk-free rate variable. In the case of Valspar, a 90 day
Treasury bill rate would not take into account the 10 year interest premium for holding the stock
for a greater amount of time. Based on the assumption that an investor that places a position in
this stock will keep it open for a longer time horizon (say 5-10 years), the 10-year Treasury bill
yield is more appropriate. The current yield on a 10 year treasury is 2.13% (11). This represents
the time value of money component of the required rate of return. Because your chance of
having losses from buying Treasury bills is nearly none, it essentially measures the return we
receive from a riskless investment.
Next, the stocks beta measures the amount of risk that comes along with an investment in
comparison to other investments in the same market, based on a variance of returns. A beta
greater than 1.0 represents an investment that is more risky than the average investment and a
beta lower than 1.0 represents an investment that is less risky than the average investment. In

order to calculate my beta I used five different sources with one being left out due to being an
outlier. The four measures used came from Google, Yahoo, Reuters, Nasdaq, and Zacks, with
betas of 0.93, 1.3, 0.91, 0.89, and 0.93 respectively. The beta of 1.3 from Yahoo was left out in
my average because it seemed too high labeling it as a riskier security than the average. The most
likely reason for the Yahoo beta being so high is because it was using a longer time horizon for
the S&P and Valspar closing prices and monthly returns (14). In order to confirm the accuracy of
my chosen betas, I also did a personal beta calculation. Taking the variance and covariance of the
Valspar and S&P closing prices and monthly returns for the past 10 years, I formulated a beta of
0.88, directly agreeing with and confirming the accuracy of my beta sources. Here is the in depth
calculations of my beta based on monthly data since 2005:
Personal BETA 0.88098222
S&P and Valspar Monthly Covariance since 2005 0.0017
S&P Variance of Monthly Returns since 2005 0.0019
BETA 0.88
The final component of the Capital Asset Pricing Model is the market risk premium
which is derived by taking the risk-free rate discussed earlier and subtracting it from the Large
Cap Market Average Return. The required rate of return for large cap stocks over the past 10
years was 12.3%, giving us a market risk premium of 10.17%.
The discount rate or the required rate of return, for Valspar was 11.37%
calculated using the Capital Asset Pricing Model of multiplying the average beta and market risk
premium and adding the risk free rate. Below is a visual depiction of the discount rate
calculation:

Discount Rate
Rf:
10-Year Treasury Yield 2.13%
Beta:
Google 0.93
Yahoo (outlier) 1.3
Reuters 0.91
NASDAQ 0.89
ZACKS 0.93
Personal BETA Calculation 0.880982
Average BETA 0.908196
Market Risk Premium
Market Average Large Cap Return 12.30%
Risk-free rate 2.13%
MRP 10.17%
Discount Rate (k) 11.37%
Sustainable Growth Rate
The sustainable growth rate is calculated by multiplying the retention ratio by the Return
on Equity. The retention ratio is the proportion of earnings retained for reinvestment by the
company and is calculated by taking one minus the payout ratio (dividends per share divided by
earnings per share). Over a 10 year average, Valspar retained 78.06% of its earnings for
reinvestment, as opposed to the 21.94% of earnings that were paid out as dividends. The return
on equity is calculated by taking the net income divided by the total stockholders’ equity. In
order to adjust the stockholders equity to more accurately reflect the actual total equity we need
to add back the amount of Treasury stock that was deducted from the original equity
computation. Average net income over the 10 year period was $181,651 while the average
adjusted equity over the same period was $1,791,388, giving us an average adjusted return on
equity of 9.92% (as opposed to an unadjusted ROE of 14.76%). Below is a breakdown of the

variables necessary for computing the sustainable growth rate:
Multiplying the yearly retention ratio by the yearly adjusted return on equity gives
Valspar a 10-year average sustainable growth rate of 6.40%, although this rate does not properly
reflect the realistic growth rate of the company because the negative return on equity in 2011
presents an outlier in the data that should be disregarded when computing the average sustainable
growth rate. When we take out the 2011 sustainable growth rate of -11.86%, our 10-year average
sustainable growth rate increases to 8.42%, a much better representation of the true rate of
growth Valspar has experienced over the past 10 years. Below are the calculations for the
average sustainable growth rate:
The following table shows the average sustainable growth rate obtained by our industry group:
10-Year Avg. Sustainable Growth
Rate SGR
Valspar Corporation 8.43%
MDU Resources 4.28%
Amcol 3.68%
Fastenal 13.20%
RPM International 14.93%
Average 8.90%
The 10-year average sustainable growth rate for the general building materials industry
peer group was calculated as 8.9%. Valspar Corporation’s growth rate is 0.47% below the
2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 10 Year Average
Dividends per share 1.2 0.92 0.8 0.72 0.64 0.6 0.56 0.52 0.44 0.4 0.68
Earnings Per share (EPS) 4.13 3.29 3.20 -1.47 2.25 1.60 1.51 1.71 1.73 1.45 1.94
Payout Ratio 29.06% 27.92% 25.00% -48.99% 28.40% 37.48% 37.01% 30.50% 25.40% 27.61% 21.94%
Retention Ratio 70.94% 72.08% 75.00% 148.99% 71.60% 62.52% 62.99% 69.50% 74.60% 72.39% 78.06%
Adjusted Equity 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
Total Equity 1,011,091 1,122,550 1,223,523 1,212,550 1,630,365 1,504,507 1,452,868 1,380,797 1,240,063 1,061,092
(plus) Treasury Stock 1,393,869 1,083,678 748,146 528,992 328,624 245,534 207,482 180,688 177,477 179,987
Adjusted Equity 2,404,960 2,206,228 1,971,669 1,741,542 1,958,989 1,750,041 1,660,350 1,561,485 1,417,540 1,241,079
Adjusted ROE 14.36% 13.11% 14.83% -7.96% 11.34% 9.15% 9.08% 11.02% 12.36% 11.89%
Equity Growth -9.93% -8.25% 0.90% -25.63% 8.37% 3.55% 5.22% 11.35% 16.87% 6.07%
Growth Rate 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) 10.19% 9.45% 11.13% -11.86% 8.12% 5.72% 5.72% 7.66% 9.22% 8.61%
Average SGR w/ outlier 6.40%
Average SGR 8.42%
Highest Growth Rate 10.19%

industry average at 8.43%. Growth rates ranged as low as 3.68% for Amcol all the way to
14.93% for RPM International. The sustainable growth rate for a company is largely based upon
the total market capitalization of the company. The larger the firm is, the more difficult it is to
sustain a high growth rate. This is why we tend to see smaller companies having larger growth
rates because they are able to expand business more easily. In the case of the general building
materials, though, this trend does not seem to hold true. The two largest companies in Fastenal
and RPM International also have the highest growth rate by a fairly large margin. While the two
smallest companies in MDU Resources and Amcol have the smallest. This trend could indicate
the importance of oligopolistic trends seen within the general building materials sector. The
larger market capitalization a firm has, the faster the company seems to grow because the more
capital the firm had to increase inventory in order to execute the many large-scale orders this
industry has. This makes entrance into the industry much tougher for building material start-up
companies.
Primary Value Business Driver
The primary value business driver for Valspar Corporation is leverage (or debt).
Although common logic tells us that larger debt equals less financial stability and growth, this is
not always the case. As a company takes on liabilities, its debt will increase. If the company is
able to borrow assets at a rate lower than the marginal rate it can earn investing the borrowed
assets in its business, the company is said to be making an effective use of its debt and the return
on equity for the firm will increase as debt increases. This is the case for Valspar, as shown in
the Dupont analysis earlier; we see a large growth of total assets to stockholders’ equity, from
233.37% in 2009 to 398.97% in 2014. Since the ROE increases at a similar rate (10.64% in 2009

to 34.16% in 2014), it represents the fact that Valspar is effectively investing their borrowed
assets back into the business for future growth.
Industry Payout Ratio
10-Year Avg. Payout Ratio
Payout
Ratio
Valspar Corporation 28.96%
MDU Resources 46.00%
Amcol 7.47%
Fastenal 41.54%
RPM International 2.87%
Average 25.37%
Above shows a table calculating the average payout ratio for the general building
materials peer industry group. The payout ratio is calculated by taking the dividend per share
divided by the earnings per share. It expresses the percentage of earnings that were paid out to
shareholders via dividends as opposed to what was retained in the company for future growth.
The average payout ratio for the industry came out to be 25.37%, slightly lower than that of
Valspar which pays out 28.96% of its earnings to shareholders. Valspar remained closest to the
average while the other four companies were skewed both ways. MDU Resources and Fastenal
both had payout ratios above 40% while RPM International and Amcol both had payout ratios
below 8%. Based upon the industry average payout ratio and a 2015 forecasted EPS of 3.25,
Valspar’s dividend payment would come out to be $.83 per share.
Present Value of Growth Opportunities
Present Value of Growth
Opportunities
Market Price 83.82
Forecasted 2015 EPS 3.25
Required Rate of Return 11.37%
PVGO 55.20
% of Company’'s Price 65.85%
Value of Assets in Place 34.15%

The present value of growth opportunities for a company comes into play when valuing
the portion of a stock that is not valued by its underlying assets. Therefore, it may only be valued
using the potential future growth of the company. The PVGO model uses the future expected
earnings discounted back to its present value in order to obtain a present value stock price. If the
present value of growth opportunities is too low, that indicates that the underlying stock is not
expected to grow very much and is valued using its current assets. On the other hand, a stock
with a high present value for growth opportunities entails that the company is expecting high
future growth and earnings.
Valspar’s PVGO is valued at $55.20 based on a market price of $83.82 on March 27th
close. The PVGO represents 65.85% of the total stock price while the current underlying assets
of Valspar only represent 34.15% of the stock price.
PVGO of Industry Competitors
With regards to the rest of Valspar’s industry peer group, their PVGO of 65.85% is
slightly above the average of 57%. The highest present value for growth opportunities in
Valspar’s industry peer group is Fastenal at 71.24%, this is expected seeming that Fastenal has
the largest market capitalization and most capital within the industry and so their opportunities
for growth are consequently higher. The lowest PVGO is MDU Resources at only 27%, likewise
with Fastenal; this is directly correlated to the small market capitalization of MDU Resources.
Constant Perpetual Growth Dividend Discount Model
The constant perpetual growth model is one of the fundamental valuation methods used
to forecast future stock prices. In this model, the dividends grow forever at a constant rate. It is
used by taking the current annual dividend per share and forecasting it one period. This is done
by taking the 10-year average payout ratio (21.93%) and taking it times the forecasted 2015 EPS

(3.25). After the forecasted annual dividend is taken divided by the difference between the
discount and sustainable growth rates, the return is a stock value based off future cash flows
being grown at a perpetual, constant rate. The value from the constant perpetual growth model
was calculated as $26.31. Compared to an actual stock price or $83.82, we can conclude that
Valspar is heavily overvalued. This could be due in part to a number of reasons: the growth rate
may be too high, the discount rate could be too low, or the expected dividend is far too small. I
expect that the forecasted dividend payment is too low since an annual dividend less than
$0.77/share hasn’t been paid out since 2011. Due to this misinterpretation, we could conclude
that the constant perpetual dividend discount model is not an ideal method of valuation for
Valspar. Below are the calculations for the Constant Perpetual Growth Model.
Constant Perpetual Growth Model
K 11.37%
G 8.43%
Current Dividend 0.773593387
Price 26.30561637
Free Cash Flow from Equity
FCFE 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010
Operating Cash Flows 347,104 398,504 348,868 291,174 265,881
Net Capital Expenditure -117,399 -110,405 -83,158 -62,820 -39,924
Debt 5,153 63,629 165,877 0 0
FCFE 234,858 351,728 431,587 228,354 225,957
Average 10-Year FCFE 251,183
FCFE/Share 2.82 4.01 4.72 2.42 2.29
The table above represents the free cash flow that is available to Valspar shareholders in
regards to its operating activities. Higher FCFE represents a higher shareholder value and can
either be reinvested into the company through retained earnings for future growth or paid back
directly to shareholders in the form of dividends. Free cash flow to equity is calculated by adding
up the operating cash flows, the net capital expenditures and net total debt of the firm. Seeming

that the FCFE is a more encircling calculation of a company’s earnings, it is usually used in
substitute of dividend payments in dividend discount valuation models.
FCFE Constant Perpetual Growth Model
The above table shows the calculations for the constant perpetual growth model when
using the FCFE. The FCFE constant growth models calculated in the same fashion as the
constant dividend model expect FCFE replaces the dividends per share in the formula. The 2014
FCFE/share of 2.82 must be grown at the sustainable growth rate of 8.43% to get an FCFE of
3.05 to use in the valuation model. The future cash flow payments using the FCFE will
intuitively be much higher than that of future dividend payments seeming that the FCFE
valuation encompasses more of the company’s earnings. The resulting price of the FCFE
constant growth model is $112.62 which is 328% more than the $26.30 value using the dividend
discount model. This large difference comes from the difference between future cash flows since
the FCFE/share is 3.05 while the current dividend/share is only $.77. According to this model, it
indicates that the stock is undervalued compared to its current stock price of $83.82. It is a
34.36% increase from the current market price while the constant dividend discount model is
219% smaller. This is a good indication that the FCFE constant perpetual growth model is a
more accurate model for valuing the company.
FCFE Constant
Perpetual Growth
model
G 8.43%
K 11.37%
FCFE/share 3.05
Price 112.62

Two-Stage Dividend Discount Growth Model
Two-Stage
Dividend
Growth
Model
K 11.37%
Dividend 0.71
G (time 1) 7.39%
G (time 2) 9.72%
G Time Period 5
Price 42.93190627
The main concern when using the constant perpetual growth model is that it assumes that
the firm will grow at the same constant rate forever which is rarely, if ever, the case. In order to
account for the inevitable change in growth a company will face an analyst will use the two-stage
dividend growth model in order to obtain a more realistic value for the company, usually
assuming a higher growth in early years compared to later years. This dividend discount model
assumes that a firm will initially grow at a rate of G1 during a first stage of growth lasting T
years and thereafter grow at a rate G2 during a perpetual second stage of growth.
In Valspar’s two-stage dividend growth model shown above, the two stages of growth are
obtained from the average sustainable growth rates from 2005-2009 in the first stage. Because of
a large impairment of goodwill and intangible assets in 2011 resulting in a negative net income
and return on equity, this year was considered an outlier when calculating the different stages of
growth over the past 10 years. The 10-year average sustainable growth rate is 8.42% with the
most recent year of 2014 having a growth rate of 10.2%. Most companies experience temporary
periods of unusually high or low growth and this case is a perfect example of that given the
economic state during the 2008-2010 era. The 2008 and 2009 sustainable growth rates were
5.72% each year, nearly half that of any other year over the past 10 years. This is assumed and
common across the board for most firms operating at this time. Given these assumptions, the first

stage of growth came out to be 7.39% while the second was 9.72%. Inputting these variables into
the two-stage growth model obtains a value of $42.93, as opposed to the $26.31 value for the
constant growth rate model. This increase in value comes from the assumption of higher growth
in the later years and indicates that the stock may be slightly overvalued.
H-Model
Although the two-stage model is a better representation of the constant perpetual model,
assuming linear growth between the 2 stages is an even better representation of future growth
rates because for most firms growth does not follow the disjointed path of 2 distinct growth rates.
The growth rate is more likely to start at a high level and then fall over time until reaching its
perpetual level. The assumption of linear decline in growth over time is called the H-model and
the table below shows the value of the company using these assumptions.
H-Model
Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Linear Growth Rate 7.39% 7.85% 8.32% 8.79% 9.26% 9.72%
Dividend 1.288645259 1.389860773 1.505521095 1.637841759 1.78944588 1.963445202
Sum of Future Prices Next 5
Years 5.477117396
Price in 5 Years 119.5243803
H-Model Stock Price $125.0015
Taking the difference between the two growths rates in our two-stage model of 2.34% we
can then find a linear growth of .47% over a 5-year span. Increasing the growth rate by .47%
over 5 years increases out growth rate from 7.39% (G1) to 9.72% (G2). Adding the expected
future prices over the next 5 years assuming linear growth and the price of the stock in 5 years
assuming constant growth from then on yields a stock price of $125, much higher than the values
from the two-stage dividend growth model because we are assuming higher growth in years
2016-2019.

Two Stage FCFE Growth Model
Two-Stage FCFE
Growth Model
K 11.37%
FCFE1 3.054556007
G(time 1) 7.39%
G(time 2) 9.72%
G Time Period 5
Price 183.8007228
The two-stage free cash flow from equity growth model is designed to value a firm based
on the assumption that it is expected to grow much faster rate than a stable firm initially and then
a more stable rate after that. It is calculated the same way as the two-stage dividend discount
growth model expect you use expected free cash flow per share values instead of expected
dividend payments. The assumptions of the two different growth rates are also the same as the
two-stage dividend growth model (refer to page 36 for details). Using this valuation method
yields an expected price of $183.80/share. This is nearly $100 over the current price which
projects that Valspar’s stock is currently undervalued at $83.82.
Clean Surplus Relationship
The clean surplus relationship is an accounting relationship in which earnings minus
dividends should equal the change in book value per share. The impact of this relationship is that
an analyst can see approximately how much capital is tied up in foreign exchange rate
fluctuations, changes in working capital value, and how the value of traded securities. If the
relationship holds true then the 2013 Stockholder’s Equity plus net income minus dividends
would equal 2014 stockholder’s equity. Since this is not true a difference of $375,671 represents
the amount of capital that is tied up in foreign exchange rate fluctuations because a large portion
of Valspar’s capital structure is in foreign markets. Below is a breakdown of the clean surplus
relationship calculations:

Clean Surplus Relationship
2013 Stockholder's Equity 1,122,550
2014 Net Income 345,401
2014 Dividend -81,189
2014 Stockholder's Equity 1,386,762
2014 Stockholder's Equity (Actual) 1,011,091
(Difference) 375,671
Residual Income Model
While the previous valuation methods stated above hold the assumption that the firm
pays dividends to its shareholders, not all firms do. In this case, a model that is used in order to
compare the value of firms whether or not they pay dividends is the residual income model,
which takes into account that earnings grow at a constant rate of G while the previous valuation
models had the assumption that dividends grow at a rate of G. The residual income, or Economic
Value Added, is just the difference of actual earnings over that of required earnings.
Residual Income Model
BVPS 12.12833769
EPS 4.14318787
G 8.43%
K 11.37%
Price 103.0267
The table above shows the calculations of the single stage residual income model for
Valspar. This value is considered invalid since the clean surplus relationship for Valspar does not
hold true. This proves the assumption that valuing a stock based on the book value is not an
accurate portrayal of the actual stock price because potential growth is based upon future
earnings and not future asset values.

Price Ratio Analysis
Practical Price/Earnings Ratio vs. Theoretical Price/Earnings Ratio
The price to earnings ratio is one of the most well-known indicators in discussing the
value of equity securities. It expresses the relationship between the price per share and the
amount of earnings attributable to that single share. Fundamentally, the P/E ratio tells an analyst
how much an investor in common stock pays per dollar of the company’s earnings. Companies
with a high P/E ratio are considered “growth stock” while those with low P/E ratios are
considered “value stocks”. Below is a table detailing the past five year P/E ratio calculations:
Year 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010
5-Year
Average
Historic Market Price 83.82 83.82 70.5 63 36.68 33.51 57.50
EPS 3.25 4.14 3.29 3.20 -1.47 2.25 2.45
Price/Earnings Ratio 25.76 20.23 21.40 19.69 -24.96 14.87 10.25
The most recent 2014 price to earnings ratio of 20.23 fell below the industry average of
33.7 classifying it as a value stock among the general building materials class, meaning that the
stock is considered “cheap” relative to current earnings and may represent a good investment
value. On the other hand, the theoretical P/E ratio is calculated using forecasted figures and a
table showing those calculations is below:
Payout Ratio 28.96%
Discount Rate 11.37%
SGR 8.43%
Theoretical P/E Ratio 9.8488
Taking the payout ratio of 28.96% by the difference in my calculate discount rate
(11.37%) and my sustainable growth rate (8.43%), a theoretical P/E ratio of 9.85 is obtained,
well below the practical P/E ratio of 20.23. This significant difference between the theoretical
and practical P/E ratios most likely derives from the underlying conservative difference between

the discount rate and the sustainable growth rate. With a difference of only 2.94%, if the discount
rate had decreased or the sustainable growth rate had increased we would have seen a larger
theoretical P/E ratio. Since the payout ratio for 2014 fell in line with their 10-year average there
is little belief that a skewed payout ratio is the cause of the low theoretical P/E ratio. Therefore,
the only way for the theoretical P/E ratio to more accurately reflect the practical is for the
difference between the discount rate and sustainable growth rate to increase.
Expected Price
The expected price of Valspar was calculated by taking the five-year average P/E ratio
multiplied by the projected EPS from the forecasted financial statements. Below is the
calculation:
5-Year Average P/E Ratio 10.25
Projected EPS 3.25
Projected Price P/E 33.3346714
Taking a 5-year average P/E ratio of 10.25 times the projected EPS of 3.25 yields a
projected price of $33.33, $50.49 less than the current price of $83.82. In order for this
difference to take effect over the next year, the market would have to become impacted
extremely negatively. This lower projected price is due to the decrease in forecasted net income
and indicates that Valspar is overvalued.
Price/Book Ratio
The price to book ratio is calculated by taking the market price of a stock over the book
value per share. This ratio often indicates judgment about the relationship between a firm’s
actual rate of return and its required rate of return. All else equal, a P/B ratio of one indicates that
the company’s future return are expected to equal to the returns required by the market. A ratio
of less than one indicates the firm is not expected to earn excess return while a ratio greater than

one indicates that future return are expected to surpass the market required rate of return. Below
are the computations for Valspar’s Price/Book ratios:
2014
Shares Outstanding 83,366
Stockholders' Equity 1,011,091
BVPS 12.13
Historical Stock Price 83.82
Price/Book Ratio 6.91
A current P/B ratio of 6.91 indicates that the future profitability of Valspar is highly
expected to exceed the required rate of return and is creating value for its shareholders, a good
sign for potential investors. One strength of the P/B ratio for Valspar is that it is easy to compute
and does not rely on forecasted variables to measure. This could also be seen as a weakness as it
is purely a historical ratio and so it tells investors nothing about the future prospects of the
company. Another weakness the P/B ratio succumbs to is that the historical asset values that are
shown in the balance sheet are not good representations of the current value of those assets. The
fact that Valspar can write-down the value of their assets could mean that the P/B ratio is over-
representing the security of that company when predicting future growth.
Price/Sales Ratio
The price to sales ratio is computed by taking the price per share divided by the sales per
share of the firm. This ratio focuses mainly on the company’s ability to generate consistent sales
growth. A low P/S ratio represents sluggish sales growth while a high P/S ratio represents high
sales growth. Below are the calculations for Valspar’s P/S ratio:
2014
Revenue Per Share 54.25
Price/SalesRatio 1.55

A market price of $83.82 and revenue per share of 54.25 yields a P/S ratio of 1.55 for
Valspar in 2014, just above its five-year average of 1.28. A strength of the P/S ratio is that is
gives a more stable representation of true intrinsic value in comparison to earnings because
companies can find ways to generate an accounting profit by manipulating costs or selling assets,
thus manipulating the earnings of the firm. A downfall to the P/S ratio is that does not take into
consideration the capital structure where, in the case of Valspar, some years of high levels of
debt could modify the potential sales growth of the company.
The return of using the Price/Sales ratio to project expected price is shown below:
5-Year Average P/S Ratio 1.28
Projected Sales per Share 58.9075265
Projected Price P/S 75.2127006
With a five-year average P/S ratio of 1.28 and a projected sales per share of 58.91 yields
a projected price of $75.21, $8.61 less than the current market price of $83.82. If this expected
price holds true it would be the closest valuation method used thus far.
Price/Cash Flow Ratio
The Price to Cash Flow ratio is calculated by taking the price per share over the cash flow
per share. It is an alternative measure that is sometimes viewed as more accurate than the P/E
ratio because cash flows are less susceptible to manipulation, and so an instance where earnings
quality is in question is when the P/CF ratio would be most beneficial. The calculations for
Valspar’s P/CF ratio are as followed:
2014
Operating Cash Flow 347,104
Cash Flow Per Share 4.16
Price/Cash Flow ratio 20.13

With operating cash flows of 347 million and a cash flow per share outstanding of 4.16
yields a price per cash flow ratio of 20.13. One weakness of this ratio is that his initial result
alone does not reveal anything of grand significance to an analyst. Comparable companies must
be taken into consideration in order to evaluate the importance of the Price/Cash Flow Ratio.
Using the five-year average price/cash flow ratio of 15.29 and the projected sales per
share of 58.91 taken from my pro forma income statement, a projected price of price to cash flow
is $68.56. This is fairly lower than the current market price of $83.82, and the chances of the
market performing in a way that accounts for a near $15 decrease over the next year are unlikely.
The calculations for the projected price using the price to cash flow ratio are below:
5-Year Average P/CF
Ratio 15.29
Projected CFPS 4.48326186
Projected Price P/CF 68.5659177
Best UsedRelative Valuation Ratio
Taking a theoretical P/E ratio of $9.85, a practical P/E price of $33.33, P/S of $75.21,
and P/CF of $68.57, we can reasonably conclude that the P/S projected stock price of $75.21 is
the most likely to become reality compared to the other projections. The likelihood that the
current stock price of Valspar decreases 10.3% from $83.82 to $75.21 over the next year is the
greatest compared to the other projected prices which would require the stock price to decrease
88.3%, 60.2%, and 18.2% respectively.
Expected Return vs. Required Rate of Return
To make the best conclusion about the valuation methods used within this report a
comparison between the required and expected returns are necessary. Expected return is

calculated by taking (P1 – P0 + Div1) / P0. A breakdown of the expected return calculation is
shown below:
Expected Total Return
P1 103.0267
P0 83.82
Div1 0.8712476
Expected Return 23.95%
Based upon the residual income model valuation price of $103.03, a current market price
of $83.82, and a dividend payment of $.87/share, the total expected return on a Valspar
investment comes out to be 23.95%, a little more than double that of the required return found
from the discount rate of 11.37%. The residual income model was used as the best valuation
method because it yielded the most realistic expected price in comparison to the dividend
discount and free cash flow models. Due to the fact that the capital structure of Valspar is highly
leveraged by debt and capital intensive, a valuation method taking into account these factors is
going to be most reliable. Below is an overview of the various valuation methods as well as their
percent difference from the current market price of $83.82:
Summary of Valuation Models Price
% Difference From
Current Market Price,
$83.82
Constant Perpetual Growth $29.63 -64.65%
Two-Stage Dividend Growth $48.35 -42.32%
FCFE Constant Perpetual Growth $112.62 34.36%
FCFE Two-Stage Dividend Growth $183.80 119.28%
H-Model $125.00 49.13%
Residual Income Model $103.03 22.91%
Final Recommendation
Based upon the economic environment, competitive position, company analysis, and
various valuation methods used in Valspar’s equity analysis, I conclude that the security is
currently undervalued and should be sought after for long positions. The economic environment

has been growing at a steady pace since the financial crisis in 2008, and the buying power for
consumers and retailers alike is continuing to rise as well. With a healthy economy where
consumers are more willing to spend money on non-essential goods, Valspar is in position for
continued growth going into the future. The only discrepancy within my valuation models is that
both dividend growth models suggested that the security is significantly overvalued while the
free cash flow, residual income, and H models all suggested the security to be undervalued. This
to be due to Valspar not placing a strong enough emphasis on dividend payments to its
stockholders’ since their dividend payout ratio is right around the average for the industry peer
group. The expected return calculated above is greater than the required return derived from the
discount rate; this suggests that Valspar will have a higher growth relative to the amount of risk
associated with the underlying security. Taking all of these factors into consideration, my final
recommendation for The Valspar Corporation is labeling it a “buy” as the security should be
expected to produce positive returns for investors going into the future.

Works Cited
1. http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=VAL
2. http://www.tradingeconomics.com
3. http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
4. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat21.htm
5. https://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2014/04%20April/0414_nipa_translation_of_federal_budge
t.pdf
6. http://www.quickenloans.com/blog/consumer-sentiment-down-jobless-claims-up-market-
update
7. http://www.valsparglobal.com/about/ourhistory.jsp
8. Bloomberg Terminal, VAL Equity Analysis
9. http://www.multpl.com/
10. http://www.biography.com/people/mae-c-jemison-9542378
11. http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-
rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=yield
12. Investment Analysis: FIN325, Creighton University
13. International Financial Statement Analysis, Second Edition, Thomas Robinson, CFA;
Elaine Henry, CFA; Wendy Pirie, CFA; Michael Broihahn, CFA
14. https://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=%5EGSPC+Historical+Prices

Valspar SVR Final- Cody Leslie

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Valspar SVR Final- Cody Leslie

Similar to Valspar SVR Final- Cody Leslie (20)

Valspar SVR Final- Cody Leslie