When Big Isn't Necessarily a Good Thing

re: When Big Isn't Necessarily a Good Thing

bernie — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:20:31 GMT

Just because a horse has a high stud fee does not guarantee progeny success . The books for the stallions are too large, stud fees to high, reserves too high, purses too low...breed to race.

re: When Big Isn't Necessarily a Good Thing

da3hoss — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:03:11 GMT

Welcome back to the real world...poor horses that don't sell on the lower end...

re: When Big Isn't Necessarily a Good Thing

LanceS — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 15:54:52 GMT

It will be interesting to see how much stud fees plummet. After yesterday it seems hard to see how ANYONE can justify a fee over $100,000. Which means the $40-$50K horse could be a $10-$15K horse next year.

re: When Big Isn't Necessarily a Good Thing

Phar Lap — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 01:39:16 GMT

Horses should be bred to race not to sell. If a Breeder doesn't think it is worth paying Training bills why should a buyer give him a profit. With purses going down and expenses soaring it does make sense to pay a lot for a yearling. We have been selling FALSE HOPE for too long. With purses increasing for CHEAP horses, thanks to Casino subsidies, the economics favor having Cheap claimers. Just look at the$5000n/w2 purses at Racinos compared to Maiden Allowance purses at non-casino tracks.

re: When Big Isn't Necessarily a Good Thing

Steve Zorn — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:32:41 GMT

Don't know if you noticed, Deirdre, but there's a real bad early-warning indicator out at the barns this morning: the consignors are offering a lot less in the way of giveaway items, even for the Book 1 horses. I'm still looking for those neat pens and baseball capps that I usually accumulate at the sale. Haven't yet checked to see if the bar is open at Pat Costello's Paramount consignment, but all signs are that it could be grim.

More seriously, as the previous commenter pointed out, the industry desperately needs to contract. The projected 2010 foal crop of 30,000 is a start, but my own guess is that we could have a healthy industry somewhere around 20,000. Everyone else is downsizing, so why not the thoroughbred industry? Sure, there will be casualties; a lot of small breeders who are great people and who love horses are going to be forced out of business, as are some not-so-nice race tracks.The process can either be done in a planned way, with some assistance to those forced out, or we can leave it to the not-so-tender mercies of the capitalist market. Either way, folks are going to get hurt; it's just a question of how much.

My own prediction: after Book 1, it'll be a 30% decline in the average price.

re: When Big Isn't Necessarily a Good Thing

Bellwether — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 07:17:08 GMT

big IS GREEDY...USUALLY...

re: When Big Isn't Necessarily a Good Thing

FourCats — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 21:31:17 GMT

There is definitely a bias in this article in favor of the consignors. Supply being greater than demand is not bad, it just favors the buyer. Conversely, in those years where the opposite is true (demand greater than supply), the sellers have the upper hand. Neither is bad in and of itself.

What should be the real issue is how to invigorate the industry. Horse racing is in crisis with purses stagnant or declining, declining handle and declining public interest. If the industry can address those issues, the sales and a proper level of supply and demand will take care of itself.