GPC is relatively cheap versus peers, with hidden value in its industrial Motion unit; separating the units could bring about 50% upside, but only if the break-up happens and ERP improvements materialize. From an absolute view, the break-up and revaluation must come first; long-term return is about 8%.

I have conducted in- depth research into Genuine Parts and the entire automotive parts and manufacturing sector, which is an interesting sector at the moment. I'm going to take stocks one by one to look at a major interest of mine, which is "Genuine Parts."

It's a relatively good buy , very good compared to others, and a really interesting stock .

Great value because there is a hidden gem within the company. The stock has followed virtually all the spare parts companies , and its price has simply risen. However, we now have a profitability ratio that is not entirely accurate. There was an exceptional, one-time event.

The dividend yield is 3.32%, and it has been steadily increasing over the past seventy years. This is an amazing graph to look at . The company's market value is 17 billion. Keep this number in mind for subsequent comparisons.

The most important thing is to separate the automotive and industrial sectors because, from a market valuation perspective, this separation should create a lot of value.

Looking at the business, it includes the wholesale distribution of automotive and industrial spare parts through the "Motion One" brand and the " Nappa" automotive brand. Over the past ten years, revenues have grown, the company has grown, dividends have increased , everything has been fine.

Now management has decided to separate the two activities to unleash value and give more focus to each activity, etc. Now, when it comes to separating management from business to increase focus, to be more aligned with business needs, in simple and straightforward business terms, that's nonsense.

Because if you are a $17 billion company, I think you can achieve alignment, allocate capital well, and optimize everything to maximize profits.

In addition, there will be a “ mismatch” (synergistic breakdown), because you will now be paying for accounting and everything for two companies instead of one. Therefore, there are additional costs ranging from 100 to 150 million annually in fees resulting from the separation.

This is something worth seriously considering when it comes to creating a lot of value just by being a single company to justify those costs.

But the board of directors supports this because having two boards of directors and two supervisory boards is of course better than one. Having two CEOs is also better than having one. However, here is the nature of these works.

The global automotive sector, with good sales of 15 billion and earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization of 1.2 billion, is similar to the industrial sector, but with better profit margins and higher growth.

These industrial businesses are now also installing sensors at customers’ premises so that they can replace parts in conveyor belts and things like that before those parts actually cause the process, the production process, to stop.

Therefore, once those sensors are installed , you are likely to have a very stable business. You may be able to impose higher profit margins , but the customer gets more value and you get more value.

The industrial sector is growing faster. Therefore, as we will see later through comparative peer reviews, it is much more expensive. As for the engine and spare parts , that is not the case.

Automotive work fulfills the non-optional demand for vehicle maintenance. So, it exists. It's a good job. There is nothing wrong with it. The spare parts business is expected to grow slightly faster than the economy in the future.

By the way, why am I looking at these works? Why am I analyzing it? Because this is my job. I have a research platform. We look at various businesses and try to follow those that may offer or provide valuable investment opportunities for our free portfolio on the search platform.

Check them out in the links in the description below if you are interested.

The industrial parts industry is still fragmented, so mergers and acquisitions may be successful. If you are a single company, well, mergers and acquisitions might work a little better .

You can move around more easily. Okay, I can accept that.

Secondly, the market is expected to grow, and it is growing faster. Also, there is good growth in the future. Of course, all these projections are always linear. Therefore, they are equal and straightforward, but you have to incorporate the economic recession into them.

Therefore, if there is an interesting company, I cover it. Then when it's in a slump, you go back to it and say, "Well, now is a really great buying opportunity." Thus, we must always accept fluctuations in any forecasts we look at.

However, having such a strong driving force is always a positive thing.

You can take a simple look; there are many cases on the " Motion" website. Look how they do it. A very interesting and beautiful work that may be revalued when traded on its own. Well, I can give them that too.

Overall, the work is going well, nothing amazing, but nothing disappointing either. There is good growth. There are significant capital expenditures to keep the business running, and what remains for development is paid out as dividends.

Forecasts indicate slightly faster growth for the industrial sector compared to the automotive sector.

If we look more deeply into the financial data, we will find that the largest part of the value lies in the inventories. That makes sense. There is some fame resulting from acquisitions.

Well, there's nothing bad about that. Four billion as long-term commitments, and that is acceptable. Accounts payable cover the value of the inventories. We will see this in other companies as well, since they are funded by suppliers. This is also not wrong.

Equity is in its current state, but the focus is on cash flows and dividend distributions. Now, there is a discrepancy I found here; this data is for six months, but the net income for the year is one billion.

When compared to market value, you get a price-to-earnings ratio (P/ E) of 17.

But when you look at what they are doing , and the size of the capital expenditures, you find that the owner's real profits, since not all of these expenditures are for growth, should be growing faster.

Therefore, the owner's real profits are practically equal to half of the net income, and only cover dividend distributions. This is a negative for this company, because when you look at the owner's real profits, you say: " Well, real value creation isn't as good as it might seem."

The money goes towards acquiring other companies, capital expenditures, and similar things necessary for the company's growth. You can see huge cash acquisitions over time, in the billions, that haven't delivered the growth that was expected.

Future total sales growth is expected to be between 3 and 5%. This is in line with the inflation rate. Free cash flow represents the owner's real profits of about, let's say, 600 or as they say here, 550 to 700 million annually.

And then I can assume 300 million in value creation for each company in the future, one growing at 4% and the other at 7%.

If you then move on to analysis, you look at the calculations, estimate the intrinsic value, and look at the inputs. Well, if we get to 1 billion in earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, which is a very conservative figure and assumes a lot of separation costs, but we multiply it by 10 for the automotive sector, and by 15 for the growing industrial part, then we subtract 4 billion in debt.

We reach 21 billion, a figure not far from the current market value. But you will see later, there may be a much better rating if we compare it to similar companies.

If we move on to calculating intrinsic value, I have listed the original parts here, and you can download this for free via my free investment course which is linked in the description below .

Therefore, I took the free cash flow per share from their respective ranges , accounting for growth for both companies. Let's say there is a future growth rate of 5% , and a final cash flow multiplier of approximately 25, which assumes dividend payouts of only 4%.

Thus, the intrinsic value is 105, which is not far from the current share price . If you change the expected return rate or discount rate to eight, we will get there . We can expect a long-term return of 8% from this company. There is nothing wrong with that.

If their performance grew faster by 8%, and the market was satisfied with a dividend payout of only 3% due to the growth, then the present value of an expected return of 10% would be much higher, i.e., 150.

The margin of safety, and here Klarman doubled his position. With a growth rate of only 4% , and expected dividends of 5%, the result is 84. Therefore, it is likely that Clarman doubled his position at a price of approximately 90.

You can see here in the second quarter that Seth Klarman doubled his position, buying a much larger stake in the second quarter of 2026.

In conclusion, GPC looks relatively cheap when detached from industrial activity compared to its peers, as we will now discuss. The price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio is approximately 30 , which is the level at which the stock will trade.

Perhaps 15 billion for the industrial sector. We allocate 9 billion for car parts. This amounts to 24 billion. This is 50% higher, and it is also a tax-free separation for American investors.

I will be watching for this split to happen in 2027. There may be some forced sales because I want to avoid the tax that I don't think I'll be exempt from.

is 5%. They haven't grown in a few years, which also creates a problem . This could also become a problem if the current free cash flow situation is not resolved.

It's a cheap makeover process. If you want to check the workflow of the ERP system, if they can improve these numbers, the stock will be repriced. However, it remains just a possibility, and I have no insight into whether that will happen.

Now, let's move on to the industrial situation. This is Motion's target valuation at a price-to-earnings ratio of 30. The business is doing well thanks to good demand , contributing factors, a 10% increase in sales, a 14% increase in profits, higher EBITDA, everything looks good, strong cash flow, low leverage ratios, capital allocation for mergers and acquisitions, capital expenditures, dividends, share buybacks, and more.

Everyone is happy, and everything looks good. But again, earnings per share are 12 compared to a share price of 300. So, it seems that all the positive things have been taken into account in the price.

And if that also happens to Motion, similar to Grainger, with a market capitalization of $60 billion, it's not amazing from that perspective. So, if Motion is priced this way, it means doubling the valuation, i.e., a 50% upside for Genuine Parts, which is the hidden value.

I have prepared a small table here. So, you can see that the valuations of the big companies are not 15 like Genuine Parts, but 20, or 30, or even 40. If they can separate , and if they can keep one at 15 or 20, and the other at 30, that means a 50% upside from an investment perspective.

If the ERP system is successful, it means there is potential for growth. As for the rest, I consider them to be fairly or overpriced for outstanding companies. This is also the incentive for GPC.

If you are interested in this, it is an interesting topic to follow from a relative perspective. From an absolute perspective, I would first like to see a break-up and then a revaluation, because that's just hoping that such companies will be repriced.

Perhaps these companies will be repriced to become like those . This is also a possibility . So, we will follow up on the matter.