Fair Value Intriguingly Set at $11.54 for SUL Investors

Executive Summary

Super Retail Group Ltd (SUL) operates across the automotive aftermarket, sporting goods, and outdoor leisure sectors, forecast to expand by 5.5%, 6.0%, and 1.6% p.a., respectively, over the next 5-8 years. Its governance structure remains compliant and effective in curbing agency costs, though the 2025 ethics breach exposed weaknesses in behavioural oversight. A Dividend Discount Model (DDM) valuation estimates intrinsic value at $9.40 ($13.43 including franking credits) versus a market price of $13.24, implying a fair evaluation, while relative multiples imply fair value. Overall, SUL represents a mature, low-growth hold opportunity.

Company Description

Super Retail Group Ltd (ASX:SUL) is a diversified retailer spanning the automotive, sports, and outdoor leisure industries. Founded in 1972, SUL was listed on the ASX in 2004 and operates four major brands: Supercheap Auto, BCF, Rebel, and Macpac. SUL’s business model combines multi-brand retailing with omni-channel operations, with 782 physical stores across Australia and New Zealand, supported by e-commerce (SGB Executive, 2025). Supercheap Auto, established in 1972, is an automotive-aftermarket retailer providing car parts, accessories, and maintenance tools for DIY and professional users (IBISWorld, 2025). BCF, launched in 2005, specialises in outdoor products, retailing boating, camping, and fishing gear. Rebel, acquired in 2011, is Australia’s leading sporting-goods retailer, offering fitness and sports apparel, equipment, accessories, and footwear. Macpac, acquired in 2018, focuses on outdoor apparel and equipment for hikers, mountain climbers, and campers (IBISWorld, 2025). 

SUL’s revenues ($4.07bn, FY25) are primarily driven by consumer discretionary spending, split between brick-and-mortar (87%) and e-commerce (12.9%) (Heraghty, 2025). Major expense drivers include inventory ($887mn, FY25), supply chain logistics, store operations, and marketing expenditure (Heraghty, 2025). SUL’s key competitors span multiple retail segments. In the automotive aftermarket, Repco and Auto One compete directly with Supercheap Auto on product range, pricing, and trade partnerships. In the outdoor goods industry, Anaconda and Kathmandu (16% and 20% market share, respectively) rival BCF and Macpac (26%, collectively) through overlapping product lines, with Kathmandu positioned more premium and sustainability-focussed (Bhat, 2023). Within sporting goods, JD Sports (13.9% market share) and Decathlon (10%) challenge Rebel (20.9%) by targeting younger, brand-conscious consumers (Kelly, 2025). Bunnings indirectly overlaps through its growing hardware and leisure categories. Ultimately, SUL’s diversified portfolio and omni-channel model underpin its competitive resilience across cyclical retail markets. 

Industry Analysis

Automotive Aftermarket Industry (Supercheap Auto):

The industry has witnessed steady growth over five years, with revenue rising at a modest annualised rate of 0.8% (Campbell, 2025). Looking ahead, the sector is projected to accelerate at a CAGR of 5.5% between 2025 and 2032 (GMI Research, 2025), underpinned by structural shifts that directly enhance Supercheap Auto’s medium-term growth potential. Firstly, greater vehicle ownership and usage increase demand for maintenance and repairs (Mahajan, 2025). Secondly, Australians are retaining vehicles for longer, extending replacement cycles and stimulating recurring demand for batteries and filters (GMI Research, 2025). Lastly, rising disposable incomes have fuelled demand for higher-margin accessories, addressed by Supercheap Auto’s 2025 ‘Spend & Get’ loyalty program, supporting repeat purchases and revenue stability (Campbell, 2025 & Heraghty, 2025). Nonetheless, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) are increasingly integrating advanced vehicle technologies, which may reduce the frequency of unplanned repairs eroding aftermarket demand, all of which constrain potential performance (Surana, 2025). Another challenge is the 25% increase in repair costs over the past five years (AAAA, 2024), leading many consumers to delay repairs or opt for cheaper alternatives (Mahajan, 2025). This may compress Supercheap Auto’s gross margins unless it continues to differentiate through strategic brand partnerships and loyalty-based discounting (SRG, 2025). 

Australia’s adoption of Euro 6d vehicle emission standards from December 2025 poses both a challenge and an opportunity. It may compel Supercheap Auto to diversify into EV-compatible accessories and maintenance kits (IBISWorld, 2025). Another major opportunity lies in the rapid expansion of e-commerce channels (Mahajan, 2025). Online retailing accounts for 15-18% of Australian auto part sales, compared with 40% in the US (Haslehurst et al., 2023), indicating domestic growth potential. However, Supercheap Auto derives only 8.2% of sales online, making future digital investments critical (Heraghty, 2025). 

Sporting Goods and Activewear Industry (Rebel):

The sporting goods and activewear retail industry operates under monopolistic competition, characterised by a dynamic market dominated by Rebel, Decathlon, and JD Sports. The industry sustained 8% annualised growth (2021-24), with a 6% CAGR projected for 2024-29 (Becker et al., 2025), reflecting a taper from 14% between 2017 and 2019. This taper partly reflects rising physical inactivity, from 26% in 2010 to 35% projected by 2030 (World Health Organization, 2024). While McKinsey (2025) views this trend as an opportunity, SUL’s revenue growth will likely be constrained unless Rebel reduces barriers among sedentary consumers through innovation or awareness campaigns. Another challenging trend is industry consolidation and cross-category encroachment. Acquisitions such as Kathmandu’s purchase of Rip Curl (2019) have expanded competitors’ market share, while declining entry barriers have enabled specialised brands to capture niche segments, constraining Rebel’s growth trajectory (Becker et al., 2025). 

Nonetheless, the retail industry, particularly discretionary sporting goods, has faced macroeconomic challenges from subdued wage growth, high interest rates, and cost-of-living pressures, weakening consumer sentiment (Melbourne Institute, 2025). Inflation peaking at 7.8% in December 2022 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2025) prompted monetary tightening and a sharp rise in mortgage repayments. Consequently, real disposable income declined 8% from 2022-24, constraining purchasing power (Read, 2024). Even with stabilising inflation and wage growth, consumer sentiment remains below neutral, recording 92.1 in October 2025 (Melbourne Institute, 2025), dampening SUL’s discretionary revenue and necessitating inventory shifts towards value-oriented product lines. However, the 6% CAGR projected for 2024-29 presents a clear opportunity, underpinned by growing demand for activewear as streetwear, driven by the shift towards remote work and Gen Z’s heightened exposure to fashion trends on social media (CBRE, 2025). 

Outdoor Goods Industry (BCF & Macpac):

The outdoor goods segment is characterised by monopolistic competition, with BCF and Macpac holding significant market share alongside competitors such as Kathmandu. The industry experienced 3.6% annual growth from 2018 to 2023, with a CAGR of 1.6% projected until 2028 (Bhat, 2023). Growth has been driven primarily by camping equipment (36%), which surged post-Covid due to temporary international travel restrictions (Bhat, 2023). While clothing (30%) has been supported by the shift towards athleisure, growth has been tempered by rising physical inactivity and macroeconomic headwinds. As such, BCF and Macpac can leverage the growing consumer preferences for sustainable products (Bhat, 2023). While sustainable materials raise short-term costs, improving SUL’s circular economy practices (65.9% waste diversion; Heraghty, 2025) can propel revenue by capturing eco-conscious consumers (Jang & Choi, 2025). Overall, while SUL’s diversified portfolio helps buffer industry-specific volatility, it will likely perform favourably, largely hinging on trends such as EV adoption, athleisure demand, and ESG preferences. 

Corporate Governance

SUL demonstrates strong adherence to ASX Corporate Governance Council (CGC) best practice and the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), employing mechanisms to align managerial behaviour with shareholder wealth interests. While structurally sound, SUL’s governance in practice is tempered by ownership concentration, incentive asymmetry, and cultural shortcomings, perpetuating the agency problem. 

Board Composition:

SUL’s eight-member board maintains a clear majority of six independent non-executive directors and separates the CEO and Chair roles, prompting objective oversight and limiting managerial entrenchment to align agent-principal interests (Berk & Demarzo, 2024). Its four specialised committees are led by directors with experience across Virgin, Medibank, and Amazon (SRG, 2025), reinforcing independent monitoring and insulating decisions from executive influence. However, the board’s smaller size relative to diversified peers like Wesfarmers (11) compresses committee workloads, requiring directors to serve across multiple committees which may dilute scrutiny and accountability. This structural vulnerability surfaced during the 2025 termination of CEO Heraghty for misleading the board regarding an undisclosed relationship (Yun & Kruger, 2025). These deficiencies in culture and information transparency are exemplified by whistleblower allegations of poor oversight, causing agency costs with a decline in SUL’s stock price and shareholder value. 

Ownership Structure:

SUL exhibits substantial ownership concentration, with the Rowe family holding 27% and major institutional investors (HSBC, State Street, and Vanguard) collectively controlling over 70% of shares (Morningstar, 2025). High ownership stakes can strengthen governance, as these shareholders have the resources and incentives to monitor management closely and prioritise long-term value creation, mitigating the principal-agent problem. However, concentrated blockholding risks disproportionate influence, as controlling shareholders may pursue strategic or temporal preferences that diverge from minority interests, potentially undermining shareholder value. Furthermore, the co-existence of legacy-driven family ownership and short-term performance-driven institutional investors generates a dual-agency tension, complicating accountability and challenging governance objectivity.  

Executive Compensation:

SUL’s executive compensation framework aligns managerial incentives with shareholder interests, though the weighting of short- and long-term incentives carries agency risks. The interim CEO receives a $1 million fixed salary, $800,000 in short-term incentives (STIs), and $800,000 in equity-based long-term incentives (LTIs) (Listcorp, 2025). Long-term executive wealth is therefore linked to shareholder outcomes, incentivising decisions which maximise long-term shareholder value (Berk & DeMarzo, 2024). Non-financial KPIs such as ESG and strategic improvement further reinforce long-term sustainable growth alignment. However, the 50-50 STI-LTI balance may overemphasise short-term performance, risking earnings manipulation, excessive risk-taking, or deferred strategic investment. Nevertheless, SUL sought shareholder approval under ASX Listing Rule 10.14 for the FY24 grant of 126,825 Performance Rights to CEO Heraghty, ensuring long-term incentive alignment with shareholder interests. 

Shareholder Rights: 

SUL provides shareholders with voting, information, and dividend rights, though these are partially constrained by ownership concentration and equity structure, sustaining residual agency tensions. Ordinary shareholders have one vote per fully paid share, exercisable in person or by proxy, in compliance with ASX Listing Rule 6.1 (SRG, 2023). Shareholders also receive fully franked dividends and regular disclosures via ASX announcements and periodic reports as required by sections 254W(4) and s317 of the Corporations Act, supporting transparency. However, the absence of pre-emptive rights for certain issuances can dilute minority ownership. Similarly, Performance Rights lack voting privileges, weakening alignment between equity-based incentives and shareholder influence. While formally compliant with ASX CGC, minority shareholder impact remains limited, highlighting ongoing governance challenges.  

Overall, SUL’s governance mechanisms are structurally compliant, mitigating agency costs, as reflected in its top quintile S&P Global Corporate Sustainability Assessment score (56/100) (Heraghty, 2025). Nonetheless, the 2025 scandal illustrates that formal mechanisms alone cannot ensure ethical behaviour, allowing unchecked managerial discretion resulting in reputational damage, hampering shareholder value. 

DDM Valuation

The report will carry out a Dividend Discount Model (DDM) valuation on the company’s equity, which estimates the intrinsic value of the company’s shares based on predicted dividend payments (Chen, 2025). 

Finding the Cost of Equity

The equity cost of capital for SUL was estimated using the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) and will be used as the discount rate in the DDM: E(ri) = rf+βi(E(rm)-rf), where E(ri) = expected return on security, rf = risk-free rate, i = systematic risk of the security relative to market, and E(rm) = expected return on market portfolio. Data was sourced through Yahoo Finance (ASX XNT & SUL) and Bloomberg (Bond Yields). 

The market return proxy, rm, is based on the ASX200 Net Total Return Index (XNT). XNT captures both price appreciation and dividends across Australia’s 200 largest listed firms, weighted by float adjusted market capitalisation (Brock, 2023), making it an appropriate benchmark for a diversified domestic portfolio such as SUL’s investor base. The post-COVID average (2021-2025) yielded an annualised return of 8.91%, excluding abnormal volatility from 2020. 

The risk-free rate, rf, is proxied by the Australian 10-year government bond yield of 4.22% (Bloomberg, 2025), consistent with standard CAPM practice as it reflects a virtually default-free, long-term benchmark matching the equity’s horizon. For regression alignment, this was converted to a monthly yield by dividing by 12, assuming a linear approximation.

β was estimated via a five-year monthly regression of SUL’s excess returns against those of the ASX200, using SUL’s adjusted closing prices to incorporate dividends: Y = a +βi X,  Y=ri-rf and X=rm-rf. A monthly collection rate was used to smooth short-term volatility and ensure data sufficiency (60 observations). The regression produced β = 1.16, implying SUL’s equity is moderately more volatile than the market and therefore, more sensitive to the aforementioned macroeconomic fluctuations. This aligns closely with Bloomberg’s 1.14β, though higher than Yahoo Finance’s 0.72β due to differing estimation windows and index bases, demonstrating limitations. 

Substituting into CAPM: E(ri)=4.22+1.16(8.73-4.22) =9.45%.  This cost of equity will serve as the discount rate in the DDM to estimate intrinsic value.

Historical performance analysis

The five-year period (FY2021–FY2025) was selected to capture a full medium-term dividend and earnings cycle, encompassing pandemic operating conditions. This horizon is recent enough to inform forecasts while including multiple reporting periods for observing policy consistency. 

Earnings per Share (EPS) was chosen as the key indicator of short-term (five-year) performance, as it measures net income per share available to ordinary shareholders (Fernando, 2024). Reported EPS Before Abnormal Adjustments was used to isolate underlying profitability by excluding one-off items such as impairments and restructuring costs, enabling a clearer assessment of sustainable earnings momentum. 

SUL’s geometric average EPS growth rate over FY2021-FY2025 was 5.09%, calculated through:

Average EPS Growth Rate= (1+EPSGR1)(1+EPSGR2)......(1+EPSGRn)1n-1 

This indicates decreasing underlying earnings over the 4-year period, despite volatility (standard deviation= 40.5052%). The spike in FY2021 (+81.5%) followed post-pandemic demand surges for outdoor and leisure goods, while subsequent contractions reflected the aforementioned cost-of-living squeeze and negative real wage growth which hampered disposable income, thereby constraining discretionary spending (Mitchell, 2023). This pattern highlights how short-term EPS growth is highly sensitive to exogenous shocks and consumer cycles. It is therefore useful for short-term forecasts but unreliable for extrapolating long-term performance.

By contrast, Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) captures internal reinvestment capacity (ROE) and retention policy, providing a more stable proxy for long-run growth potential. SUL’s SGR over FY2021-2025 averaged 6.59%, calculated via arithmetic mean, because, unlike EPS where historical data is unavailable, SGR varies under the assumption that growth is driven solely by internal reinvestments generating a specific ROE:

SGR=SGR2021+SGR2022+....+SGR20255

This lower yet steadier growth trajectory reflects SUL’s maturing profile: as NPAT before abnormals declined from $308.4mn (FY2021) to $217.6mn (FY2025), the dividend payout ratio expanded from 65.0% to 69.1%, thereby reducing retained earnings available for reinvestment. Consequently, SGR’s standard deviation (7.88%) is markedly lower than EPS’s, confirming its superior predictive power for long-run performance. 

Overall, EPS effectively captures cyclical earnings momentum for short-term forecasting, while SGR provides a structural indicator of the firm’s reinvestment-driven, long-run growth potential. Both measures, however, depend on key assumptions: EPS on short-term market conditions, and SGR on the stability of ROE and payout policy, which must be evaluated contextually rather than extrapolated mechanically. 

Forecast of Future Growth Rates:

(a) Short-term growth using EPS (FY26–FY28):  

To forecast short-term growth, the abnormally volatile Covid rebound year (FY2021-FY2022) was excluded. Using the geometric average EPS growth from FY2023-FY2025 (-5.3227%), this period better reflects SUL’s adjusted post-boom conditions, including the underlying drivers of NPAT, ROE, and persisting impacts of Covid-19. The rate of EPS decline has itself been moderating (-414.5373% FY2023-24; -59.4300% FY2024-25), suggesting gradual stabilisation as inflationary pressures ease. The average deceleration in EPS decline (64.9743% p.a.) was applied to project recovery in growth trajectory:

Table 1: short term growth rate calculation

These projections imply earnings contraction will continue to narrow, approaching stability by FY2028 as macroeconomic conditions normalise, grounded in the logic of mean reversion, whereby extreme deviations in earnings growth tend to converge toward sustainable levels as one-off factors dissipate. 

(b) Long term growth forecast using SGR (FY29-33): 

Long-run growth was projected using SGR trends to capture reinvestment-driven expansion. The nine-year trajectory (FY2017-FY2025) shows SGR contracting at a CAGR of -1.3422%, reflecting declining ROE (25.14% → 16.47%) and stable payout ratios. This broader window was chosen to smooth pandemic distortions and align with multiple business cycles. 

From FY2023-FY2025, SGR declined sharply from 1.31% to -2.18%, indicating constrained reinvestment opportunities and plateauing retention rates (0.7004% FY2023 to 0.6907% FY2025). While the payout ratio marginally decreased (70.0% → 69.1%), NPAT contraction (-14.3%) limited retained earnings. This reinforces the maturity-phase (long-term constant growth) of SUL’s business model, where ROE stabilises at lower levels, reinvestment opportunities narrow, and NPAT growth becomes increasingly dependent on external factors. 

As such, long-term earnings growth will likely stabilise at levels consistent with macroeconomic expansion rather than exceed it. Based on empirical evidence that mature firms’ growth converges with nominal GDP, SUL’s long-term growth rate (g) was estimated as a weighted average of internal and macroeconomic components: g=wiginternal+wmgmacro

Assuming 20% weighting for firm-specific reinvestment performance (ginternal=-1.34) and 80% weighting for macroeconomic drivers (gmacro=4.1%, ABS, 2025):

g=(0.2)(-1.3422%)+(0.8)(4.1) = 3.2773%.

Thus, SUL’s long-term sustainable growth rate = 3.2773%, consistent with nominal GDP expansion (4.1%) and above inflation (2.1%). This interval (2.1%-4.1%) represents the plausible long-run corridor for earnings growth, reflecting a steady-state equilibrium between macroeconomic growth and firm-specific reinvestment capacity. 

However, this formula assumes that as GDP rises, corporate revenues and profits will grow, supporting higher EPS and retained earnings. It also assumes a stable dividend policy, implying consistent payout and retention ratios over time, such that higher profitability directly translates to stronger ROE and thus SGR (since SGR = ROE × Retention Ratio). 

Future Dividend Payments

SUL does not have a publicly stated dividend policy. Historical patterns, however, suggest a stable dividend approach consistent with Lintner’s model: dividends adjust gradually to changes in earnings, smoothing volatility for shareholders (Hayes, 2019). As shown in Table 2, fluctuations in EPS have been offset by adjustments to the DPR, reflecting management’s intent to preserve shareholder confidence and minimise dividend volatility. As a result, dividends will more accurately follow company growth.

Table 2: trends in total DPR and EPS

Over FY2021-FY2025, both EPS and SGR declined as post-pandemic demand normalised and cost-of-living pressures constrained discretionary spending (Deloitte US, 2025). These conditions reduced reinvestment capacity, with the payout ratio rising from 65.0% to around 100%, limiting retained earnings available to finance future growth. Given the projected stabilisation in EPS contraction by FY2028 and SGR’s convergence to a long-run growth rate of 3.28%, dividend payments are expected to mirror this gradual normalisation. 

Accordingly, forecasts assume (i) gradual monetary easing from FY2026, (ii) moderate recovery in consumer spending as real incomes improve, and (iii) continuation of SUL’s implicit minimisation of changes in dividends through DPR. Under these assumptions, dividends are projected to decline modestly over the next three years before resuming low single-digit growth, consistent with SUL’s mature industry profile and limited reinvestment capacity. 

Given the volatility in DPR and an unstated dividend policy, precise DPS estimation through EPS forecasts remains uncertain. Accordingly, DPS projections (Table 3) mirror the forecasted EPS trajectory from Part B, assuming a gradual recovery in consumer sentiment and inventory normalisation post-2025. 

Table 3: forecast total dividends excluding special adjustments.

Special dividends were excluded as these are inherently discretionary and dependent on episodic cash surpluses, consistent with past irregular payouts. Moreover, franking credits were omitted from nominal forecasts as they do not alter the direction of DPS trends, but would proportionately increase the effective yield by approximately 30% (i.e., grossed-up dividend ÷ 0.7). 

Dividend Discount Model Valuation of SUL

The valuation applies the cost of equity and forecast growth rates from prior sections to estimate the present value of expected dividends and derive the intrinsic equity value. As of 14 March 2026, SUL trades at $13.24 (Yahoo Finance, 2025). Given the post-COVID correction in consumer spending, the key challenge in estimating intrinsic value is determining when “abnormal” earnings conditions subside. Accordingly, the model assumes (i) the abnormal earnings period will normalise within three years (FY2026-FY2028), (ii) the long-term SRG stabilises at 3.2%, and (iii) the cost of equity remains constant at 9.45%. 

PV = 0.6372(1+0.0945)+0.6229(1+0.0945)2+0.6138(1+0.0945)3+0.634(0.0945-0.032773)(1+0.0945)3=$9.40

This implies that SUL is overvalued relative to its market price of $18.57, suggesting a hold recommendation. When adjusting for franking credits, which increase the effective dividend yield (Morningstar, 2025), the intrinsic value rises to $13.43, yet remains below market value, reinforcing a hold recommendation. However, this valuation must be interpreted cautiously. The DDM assumes smooth annual dividends, while SUL pays semi-annually with intermittent special dividends (which would increase the price). It also excludes potential capital gains from store expansion or digital growth initiatives, understating the true intrinsic value (McClure, 2022). 

Sensitivity Analysis

In undertaking a DDM valuation of the company’s equity, it is important to consider how this value changes in response to realistic variations in both the cost of equity and the growth rates. 

As discussed above, our own calculated intrinsic value was $9.40. For instance, if the growth rate was to fall from 3.28% to 2.5%, the share price would drop to $8.28 assuming the same cost of equity.

Table 4: Sensitivity Analysis with Return on Equity and Growth Rates

Conversely, if the RBA continues to cut rates, a decrease to 9% cost of equity would be plausible, reflecting the lower bond yields and broader investor confidence, resulting in a higher share price of $10.14. Notably, across all tested combinations of the cost of equity and growth rate, all valuations remain below the current share price of $18.57. While this inherently suggests overvaluation under reasonable assumptions, it also acknowledges the sensitivity of the model to its inputs and the amplification of inaccuracies in the initial assumptions. 

Multiple Valuation

To complement the DDM valuation, SUL’s relative valuation is assessed using Trailing P/E and EV/EBITDA multiples against comparable peers. 

Table 5: table of the value multiples for SUL and comparable firms

Three Comparable firms:

• Lovisa Holdings Limited (LOV): Large store network and online presence, exposed to similar macroeconomic factors affecting discretionary spending, and demonstrate a similar cost structure and scalability.
• Shaver Shop Group Limited (SSG): Stable earnings and dividend payout; comparable consumer segments appeal to income-focussed inventors.
• Premier Investments Limited (PMV): Diversified retail brand ownership, offering analogous operational and investor exposure. 

SUL’s trailing P/E of 19.07 is below the industry average of 22.6 (Simply Wall St, 2025), reflecting conservative market expectations of moderate earnings growth amid discretionary consumer spending constraints. Its 4% dividend yield supports investor appeal, naturally suppressing the P/E relative to high-growth peers like LOV (Yahoo Finance, 2025). However, competitors targeting similar consumer segments to LOV, assuming similar market conditions, yet with high P/E ratios, suggest that consumer sentiment towards SUL may also stem from company-specific factors, such as limited e-commerce reliance. Additionally, SUL’s EV/EBITDA of 7.92, below the industry average of 10.8 (Inter Financial, 2025), reflects a capital-intensive store network (782 locations) which limits scalability (SRG, 2025). 

Ultimately, the relative valuations suggest SUL is fairly valued, supporting a hold recommendation when considered alongside the DDM results.

Risks and Recommendations

A significant risk affecting SUL is the elevated interest rates and cost-of-living pressures which constrain discretionary spending, adversely impacting SUL’s revenue. Although the RBA cash rate falling from 4.35% in November 2023 to 3.6%, mortgage repayments and household financial strain continue to suppress disposable income (RBA, 2025; Onselen, 2025). Given SUL’s revenue reliance on discretionary spending, reduced earnings could necessitate lower dividend payouts, diminishing intrinsic value in the DDM through both the numerator (dividends) and denominator (growth rate, g). Nevertheless, consumer sentiment is recovering, evidenced by a 2.4% increase in real household disposable income in 2024-25 (Read, 2025), suggesting this is largely a cyclical rather than structural risk. 

Moreover, SUL operates in a highly competitive retail environment, facing both domestic players like Wesfarmers (Bunnings, Kmart, Target, Office Works) and international entrants such as Amazon and Temu. Accordingly, Wesfarmers’ NPAT of $2.9 billion far exceeded SUL’s $232 million in FY2025 (Wesfarmers, 2025). From a valuation perspective, this heightened competition will likely restrict the company’s capability to maintain earning and dividend growth. In particular, this will result in a reduced forecasted growth, g, thereby increasing the value of the denominator and lowering the intrinsic value of the company’s equity according to the DDM. Whilst earnings per share is anticipated to decrease, Trailing P/E will only decrease if the share price decreases by a proportionally greater amount. However, there is typically a lag between the drop in earnings and corresponding share price adjustment, attributed to delayed investor reactions and timing of financial results announcements (Rocco, 2023). 

The DDM is inherently hindered by its assumption that historical growth patterns reflect future performance, which may not hold during structural economic or industry shifts. Trailing P/E is backward-looking and may not capture short-term changes in profitability or market sentiment, particularly amid rapid digital disruption. These limitations introduce uncertainty into absolute and relative valuation estimates. 

Conclusion and recommendation

The valuations presented, enable an informed investment recommendation after considering the limitations. The DDM value of $9.40, or $13.43 including franking credits, is below the share price of $13.88 implying overvaluation and a hold signal under conservative assumptions. However, relative valuation metrics, namely SUL’s below-industry Trailing P/E (19.07) and EV/EBITDA (7.92), suggest the market has already priced in its rationally modest growth outlook and limited scalability. Considering both perspectives, SUL appears fairly valued. Accordingly, a hold recommendation is warranted, reflecting a mature firm with stable earnings but constrained short-term growth. 

Reference list

AAAA News. (2024, July 15). Strong Growth Ahead for Aftermarket Industry - Australian Automotive Aftermarket Association. https://www.aaaa.com.au/news/aaaa-news/strong-growth-ahead-for-aftermarket-industry/

Astbury, H. (2023, October 3). History of RBA Cash Rate in Australia. InfoChoice. https://www.infochoice.com.au/rba/history-of-interest-rate-movements

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2025, April 30). Consumer Price Index, Australia, March Quarter 2025. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/economy/price-indexes-and-inflation/consumer-price-index-australia/mar-quarter-2025

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2025, July 30). Consumer Price Index, Australia, June Quarter 2025. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/economy/price-indexes-and-inflation/consumer-price-index-australia/latest-release

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2025, September 3). Australian National accounts: National income, Expenditure and Product. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/economy/national-accounts/australian-national-accounts-national-income-expenditure-and-product/latest-release

Becker, S., D’Auria, G., Kohli, S., & Thiel, A. (2025, March 4). Time to move: Sporting goods 2024. McKinsey & Company.  https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/retail/our-insights/sporting-goods-industry-trends

Berk, J. B., & DeMarzo, P. M. (2024). Corporate finance (6th ed., Global ed.). Pearson Education Limited.

BHAT, S. (2023). Outdoor Retail Industry In Australia. New Zealand Trade and Enterprise. https://assets.ctfassets.net/pn8wbiqtnzw9/ng85gON4EZm8EHe9tSEIa/c9fd9696888d35a4bdabf4ef7082e06b/Outdoor_Retail_Industry_in_Australia_-_June_2023.pdf

Brock, R. (2023, April 19). What Is the ASX 200 and How Does It Work? The Motley Fool Australia.    https://www.fool.com.au/investing-education/what-is-the-asx-200-and-how-does-it-work/

Campbell, J. (2025). Motor Vehicle Parts Retailing in Australia - Market Research Report (2015-2030). IBISWorld. https://www.ibisworld.com/australia/industry/motor-vehicle-parts-retailing/2184/ 

Catterson, R. (2025, April 15). Discretionary Spending Slump Hits Aussie Businesses. Power Retail.  https://powerretail.com.au/discretionary-spending-slump-hits-aussie-businesses/

CBRE. (2025). How athleisure brands are reshaping the future of Australia’s retail market. https://www.cbre.com.au/press-releases/how-athleisure-brands-are-reshaping-the-future-of-australia-s-retail-market

Chen, J. (2025, October 12). Dividend Discount Model (DDM) Formula, Variations, Examples, and Shortcomings. Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/ddm.asp

Deloitte US. (2025). COVID-Driven Recession Impact on Retail Industry. https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/Industries/consumer/articles/retail-recession.html

Fernando, J. (2024, March 6). Earnings Per Share (EPS): What It Means and How to Calculate It. Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/eps.asp 

GMI Research. (2025). Australia automotive aftermarket Size, Share, Trends, Forecast 2032. ​​https://www.gmiresearch.com/report/australia-automotive-aftermarket-market/ 

Grand View Horizon. (2023). Australia Automotive After Market Size & Outlook. https://www.grandviewresearch.com/horizon/outlook/automotive-aftermarket-market/australia#:~:text=The%20Australia%20automotive%20aftermarket%20market,USD%2011%2C321.4%20million%20by%202030.

Haslehurst, R., Santos, E., & Tedeschi, D. (2023). Direct-to-Consumer Sales: An Untapped Opportunity in the Automotive Aftermarket. L.E.K. Consulting. https://www.lek.com/sites/default/files/PDFs/dtc-automotive.pdf 

Hayes, A. (2019). Lintner’s Model Definition. Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lintnersmodel.asp

Heraghty, A. (2025). Super Retail Group Full Year Results. Super Retail Group. https://media.supercheapauto.com.au/corp/files/documents/2025%20Full%20c79007f6.pdf

IBISWorld. (2025). Super Retail Group Limited - Company Profile. https://www.ibisworld.com/australia/company/super-retail-group-limited/10574/

Inter Financial. (2025, June 25). Australian Consumer Goods & Retail, Industry Update.  https://interfinancial.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/InterFinancial-Dashboard_CR_June_2025.pdf

Jang, W.-Y., & Choi, E.-Y. (2025). Going green for sustainability in outdoor sport brands: Consumer preferences for eco-friendly practices. Sustainability, 17(10), 4320. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17104320

Kelly, C. (2025). Who will lead in Australia’s athleisure boom? Ragtrader. https://www.ragtrader.com.au/insights/who-will-lead-in-australia-s-athleisure-boom

Listcorp. (2025, September 18). Interim Chief Executive Officer Remuneration update - Super Retail Group Limited (ASX:SUL). https://www.listcorp.com/asx/sul/super-retail-group-limited/news/interim-chief-executive-officer-remuneration-update-3245683.html

Mahajan, G. (2025). Australia Automotive Aftermarket Market - Share, Size and Industry Analysis. CoherentMI. https://www.coherentmi.com/industry-reports/australia-automotive-aftermarket-market

McClure, B. (2022, March 27). Digging Into the Dividend Discount Model. Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/fundamental/04/041404.asp

Melbourne Institute. S. (2025). Consumer Sentiment. https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/publications/macroeconomic-reports/latest-news/index-of-consumer-sentiment

Mitchell, S. (2023). Retailers face triple-whammy challenge. Australian Financial Review. https://www.afr.com/companies/retail/retailers-face-triple-whammy-challenge-as-sales-fall-costs-rise-20230816-p5dwyi

MorningStar. (2025). How valuable are franking credits? https://www.morningstar.com.au/personal-finance/how-valuable-are-franking-credis

Morningstar. (2025). Super Retail Group Limited SUL. https://datanalysis-morningstar-com-au.ap1.proxy.openathens.net/af/company/corpdetails?ASXCode=SUL&xtm-licensee=datpremium

Onselen, L. (2025, May 15). Aussies suffer world-record income collapse. MacroBusiness. https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2025/05/aussies-suffer-world-record-income-collapse/

Read, M. (2024, August 30). Australia’s household income slump to last another two years. Australian Financial Review. https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/australia-s-fall-in-disposable-income-is-the-worst-in-the-world-20240822-p5k4ji

Read, M. (2025, September 7). Australian living standards “won’t recover until 2037” from COVID-19 pandemic peak, economist warns. Australian Financial Review. https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/productivity-or-bust-living-standards-won-t-recover-until-2037-20250907-p5mt0d

Reserve Bank of Australia. (2025). Inflation Overview. https://www.rba.gov.au/inflation-overview.html

Rocco, A. (2023, January 24). Timing the Market: EPS is a Lagging Indicator. Yahoo Finance. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/timing-market-eps-lagging-indicator-140002326.html

SGB Executive. (2025). EXEC: Australia’s Super Retail Group Says BOPIS Now Half of Sales. https://sgbonline.com/exec-australias-super-retail-group-bopis-now-half-of-sales-fy-2025/

Simply Wall St. (2025). Australian (ASX) Specialty Retail Industry Analysis.  https://simplywall.st/markets/au/consumer-discretionary/specialty-stores

SRG. (2023). Super Retail Group Limited Notice Of Annual General Meeting. https://media.supercheapauto.com.au/corp/files/user/AGM2023/SUL_-_Notice_of_2023_AGM.pdf 

SRG. (2025). Home - Super Retail Group. https://www.superretailgroup.com.au/

Surana, P. (2025, August 28). Driving Continuous Revolution: How the Automotive Aftermarket Industry Is Transforming. Frost & Sullivan. https://www.frost.com/growth-opportunity-news/mobility-automotive-transportation/aftermarket-mobility/driving-continuous-revolution-how-the-automotive-aftermarket-industry-is-transforming-mob04_tg02_aftermarket_aug25_cim-ps/  

Trading Economics. (2025). Australia Inflation Rate. https://tradingeconomics.com/australia/inflation-cpi

UNGCNA. (2020). Super Retail Group - UN Global Compact Network Australia.  https://unglobalcompact.org.au/our-members/super-retail-group/

Westfarmer. (2025) News Release, 2025 Full-year results. https://wesfarmers.gcs-web.com/static-files/9a13afbe-c5c5-4d19-a7a2-34912c2f8f83/?auth_token=f77014b8-a01a-4d5c-a2cb-28689c3d3c5d#:~:text=Wesfarmers%20Limited%20has%20reported%20a,per%20cent%20to%20%242%2C653%20million.

World Health Organization. (2024). Physical activity. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/physical-activity

Yahoo Finance. (2025). Lovisa Holdings Limited (LOV.AX) stock price, news, quote & history. https://au.finance.yahoo.com/quote/LOV.AX/

Yahoo Finance. (2025.). PREM INV. FPO (PMV.AX) stock price, news, quote & history. https://au.finance.yahoo.com/quote/PMV.AX/

Yahoo Finance. (2025.). Shaver Shop Group Limited (SSG.AX) stock price, news, quote and history. history.https://au.finance.yahoo.com/quote/SSG.AX/

Yahoo Finance. (2025, October 17). Super Retail Group Limited (SUL.AX) stock price, news, quote & history. https://au.finance.yahoo.com/quote/SUL.AX/

Yun, J., & Kruger, C. (2025, September 16). Super Retail boss sacked, $9m bonus cut in fallout from alleged relationship. The Sydney Morning Herald. https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/super-retail-boss-anthony-heraghty-sacked-over-misleading-the-board-20250916-p5mvc9.html