A Sherwin-Williams-Like Business, Without the Sherwin-Williams Multiple (Quick Pitch)
What If You Could Buy Sherwin-Williams at Half the Price?
Most investors say they want quality. What they often mean is simplicity. Clean org charts. Obvious moats. Easy comps. Businesses that fit neatly into a spreadsheet and a one-line narrative.
This post is about a company that offers none of that comfort – or at least not at first glance – and that’s exactly why it’s interesting.
Because at first glance, it looks like a messy, somewhat cyclical industrial with opaque governance, a complex ownership structure, and heavy exposure to a region investors currently love to hate: China.
Dig a little deeper, though, and a very different picture emerges: a brand-led, cash-generative business operating in an industry with quietly excellent economics, compounding through pricing, mix, disciplined reinvestment and a fantastic M&A track record, rather than flashy growth.
The gap between how this business actually behaves and how it is perceived by the market is wide at its current price (low teens multiple vs. peers trading at twice that multiple).
This is not a “story stock.” No, it’s a boring business and the thesis doesn’t rely on heroic assumptions, technological disruption, or a single macro call going right. The case rests on something far less exciting but far more powerful: durable demand, local dominance, rational competition, and a capital allocation framework that “gets it.”
The interesting question, then, is not whether the business works – it clearly does (approaching 150 years of doing business) – but why the stock currently trades as if it doesn’t.
Below, I break the company down from first principles, stress-test the thesis from multiple angles, and try to separate optical complexity from economic reality. Along the way, I’ll also be explicit about where the case can go wrong, and why this opportunity may never fully “resolve” in the way investors hope.
Disclaimer: The analysis presented in this blog may be flawed and/or critical information may have been overlooked. The content provided should be considered an educational resource and should not be construed as individualized investment advice, nor as a recommendation to buy or sell specific securities. I may own some of the securities discussed. The stocks, funds, and assets discussed are examples only and may not be appropriate for your individual circumstances. It is the responsibility of the reader to do their own due diligence before investing in any index fund, ETF, asset, or stock mentioned or before making any sell decisions. Also, double-check if the comments made are accurate. You should always consult with a financial advisor before purchasing a specific stock and making decisions regarding your portfolio.
This is where it gets interesting!
Become a paying subscriber to read the rest of this post and get access to all of my other research, including valuation spreadsheets, deep dives (e.g. well-known mid- and large caps such as LVMH, Duolingo, Meta, Edenred as well as more hidden gems such as Tiger Brokers, Digital Ocean, Ashtead Technologies, InPost, Timee, and MANY more), and powerful investing frameworks.
Annual members also get access to my private WhatsApp groups – daily discussions with like-minded investors, analysis feedback, and direct access to me.
PS: Using the app on iOS? Apple doesn’t allow in-app subscriptions without a big fee. To keep things fair and pay a lower subscription price, I recommend just heading to the site in your browser (desktop or mobile) to subscribe.