First-Year Sires: Lower Fees Prove More Realistic

re: First-Year Sires: Lower Fees Prove More Realistic

Ranagulzion — Mon, 23 Dec 2013 20:07:19 GMT

Lower fees are both realistic and smarter for the intelligent breeder. A rising star is always a brighter prospect than a tumbling giant. Although economic factors play a major role in the lower fees, given its undoubted negative impact on the yearling market, the statistics reflect poorly on the "experts" that set stud fees as only Bernardini's performance has appeared to have held up.

re: First-Year Sires: Lower Fees Prove More Realistic

Coldfacts — Mon, 23 Dec 2013 14:01:20 GMT

There is a prevailing belief throughout the world that American are crazy. Is there any merit to this belief? Well, Pet Rock s were once sold on the shores of the US.

How does this perceived American craziness relates to the thoroughbred breeding industry?

Ghostzapper's initial stud fee of $200,000 is one example. This colt is grandson of Deputy Minister. I know of no grandson of Deputy Minister that has been a superstar star at stud.

The Kentucky Derby is the most coveted leg of the Triple Crown. From a Triple Crown perspective, the Northern Dancer sire line has been beaten like a rented mule by the Mr. Prospector sire line. The record is conservative 4 to 1 over the last 20 years.

Why would anyone spend $200K to breed to grandson of Deputy Minister when the grandsons of Mr. Prospector at significantly lower prices are the most success in TC history?

Ghostzapper had an enviable race record that was not matched by the historic category of his sire line.

Point Given from the most successful sire line in TC history entered at $125,000. Based on his achievements this fee might have been considered reasonable. However, he was built like a battle ship and was extremely straight on his front legs, suggesting that if he passed on this conformation flaw to his progenies they would not stand up to racing. Well, he has and none of them are spending a lot of time on the track.

I would not breed to him for free.

re: First-Year Sires: Lower Fees Prove More Realistic

sceptre — Sat, 21 Dec 2013 20:07:13 GMT

Hi Ian,

In the past, I've nearly always found your comments to be right on mark, so when you disagree (with me) it does give me pause, and stimulation to reflect. Yes, I doubt that an incoming Bernardini would today stand for $100,000. Another interesting comparative might be the then, Hard Spun, at $50,000 vs the now, Declaration Of War, at 40,000 euros. So, what do you think; do you see the then Hard Spun any less attractive than the now Declaration Of War? I can tell you this, I've done some matings for European clients this year, and many are complaining about the high stud fees for some of their newly retired prospects. Anyway, re- the issue with first yr. US fees, I don't think the US economy factors here at all. But the breeders here may have become a bit more "sophisticated"/"educated", i.e. privy to more data, or from articles such as this one. And let's face it, these stud fees are mostly the consequence of the yearling marketplace. Here, there has been a shift, ever more apparent in recent years. Pedigree, once king, is today somewhat losing its "power" to looks/conformation and veterinary scrutiny. The result; much greater risk for those who pay high stud fees. This reality, combined with greater breed homogeneity, larger book size, and less pedigree disparity would tend to lower all high end stud fees.

re: First-Year Sires: Lower Fees Prove More Realistic

Ian Tapp — Sat, 21 Dec 2013 17:40:18 GMT

Sceptre,

I like your line of thinking; there probably is some "status" disparity in the sires. But Nicole and I discussed the same thing last week: what would Bernardini stand for if he was a 3yo of 2013 and retired for 2014? I don't think he'd be $100,000... Maybe $60,000 or $75,000.

re: First-Year Sires: Lower Fees Prove More Realistic

sceptre — Fri, 20 Dec 2013 15:37:01 GMT

The raw data you offer is a good and true history lesson for all to read. I don't, however, agree with your basic premise/conclusion-that the present "economy" (or a better realization of the facts offered here) is the cause of these relatively lower first year fees for the higher profile prospects. I've heard and read the opinion expressed here before, and have been waiting for the opportunity to dispute it in "print". Part of the cause for these more recent lower first year high profile fees may be due to the greater book sizes of all high profile sires, but I feel the main reason is that these more recent year high profile prospects do not have the same perceived "status" (going in) as many from years before. Most of the former just don't stand out as some did from past years. I am rather certain that if they did you'd see stud fees quite similar (but for the increased book size factor) to those noted in this article. The higher end prospects of the present simply haven't separated them themselves performance-wise/pedigree-wise from the rest as some did earlier. This may, in part, be a reflection of the path of the breed-more homogeneity-, but it may also be due to the dilution of our (US) higher end female lines (to other parts of the planet). Take a closer look at the race records and pedigrees of the higher profile prospects from years past, and compare them to the higher profile retirees of the more recent few years.