F-T Saratoga topper, and the horse shortage

[elhelmete]

Disclaimer: I have only modest knowledge about the breeding industry, and this isn't meant to oversimplify a complex industry with a complex problem, but...

I was listening to the auction last night just in time to hear the $1.2m winning bid for the Optimizer half sib. Obviously, there's $$ out there for these sorts of high-risk, high-reward investments except this is for one single animal. The money is churning, but we're only getting one more horse to the track (maybe, at that).

Would the $ spent on this one horse imply that the same $ would be available and willing to buy, say ten horses at the (nothing to sneeze at) average price of $120,000 each?

If so wouldn't that be preferable? Is there any reasonable way to get there? Are people more willing to swing for a $1.2m home run (on track and/or in the shed) rather than Wade Boggs'ing it and looking for singles and doubles?

Or is the horse population just fine and we just have too many racetracks?

[Grits]

Those willing to pay for the sales topper are looking only for perfection. They don't compromise. They'll go higher and higher. They see absolutely nothing in the Real Quiets--and you know and I know what the price of Real Quiet was and how close he came.

Too, so often, the perfection, the speed getting the 1/8th (for 2 yos in training) covered in the breeze show does not always transfer to the track--long term. Burning early speed, yes, but we all are aware of this as it moves towards the Classic distances.

Charlotte Weber paid HUGE for one of last night's yearlings. $1,000,000+, I think. This woman has bred and raced horses for many years--her Live Oak Plantation. When you're listed in Forbes, you own the Campbell Soup fortune, you own Godiva Chocolates, sold worldwide, and so many other investments and properties, money is no object. The price was "walk around money" to Ms.Weber. Just as it is to Sheik Mo, Coolmore, etc, etc.

They all seek perfection only. The lower prices are not in their realm of thought. But, this is not the case for many who have proven that a median price colt or filly can achieve greatness on the track. ..Hope these few thoughts help. ;)

[DeltaLover]

But, this is not the case for many who have proven that a median price colt or filly can achieve greatness on the track.


Sure.

Frederico Tessio proved this statement beyond any doubt.

The problem I see though, is that none of our contemporary breeders seems to be even remotely close to FT's genius.

[Stillriledup]

Disclaimer: I have only modest knowledge about the breeding industry, and this isn't meant to oversimplify a complex industry with a complex problem, but...

I was listening to the auction last night just in time to hear the $1.2m winning bid for the Optimizer half sib. Obviously, there's $$ out there for these sorts of high-risk, high-reward investments except this is for one single animal. The money is churning, but we're only getting one more horse to the track (maybe, at that).

Would the $ spent on this one horse imply that the same $ would be available and willing to buy, say ten horses at the (nothing to sneeze at) average price of $120,000 each?

If so wouldn't that be preferable? Is there any reasonable way to get there? Are people more willing to swing for a $1.2m home run (on track and/or in the shed) rather than Wade Boggs'ing it and looking for singles and doubles?

Or is the horse population just fine and we just have too many racetracks?

Buying yearlings for 120k would require them to actually know something about the sport. Most of them don't know the sport well enough to be able to sniff out the 120k horse who could kick the tail of their 1.2 million dollar horse.

[johnhannibalsmith]

That $1.2M yearling buy is probably going to cost, oh let's say (to use a round number), $25,000 to get to a race (if it makes it). Ten of them will cost $250,000. And it goes on like that from there throughout the career. We're talking people spending big money that probably aren't worried about monthly training bills, but I think it gets overlooked a bit when evaluating which scenario "makes more sense" that the ongoing expenses are often the lion's share of the investment in most of these transactions and having more of what can be an eternal liability isn't necessarily a better proposition.

[elhelmete]

That $1.2M yearling buy is probably going to cost, oh let's say (to use a round number), $25,000 to get to a race (if it makes it). Ten of them will cost $250,000. And it goes on like that from there throughout the career. We're talking people spending big money that probably aren't worried about monthly training bills, but I think it gets overlooked a bit when evaluating which scenario "makes more sense" that the ongoing expenses are often the lion's share of the investment in most of these transactions and having more of what can be an eternal liability isn't necessarily a better proposition.

I definitely get all that, and I know what I'm throwing out there is just hypothetical. I just have to believe that the $$ thrown around at auctions seems to have bounced back from recession lows and that somehow there's part of a solution to the horse population problem therein.

[Cannon shell]

I definitely get all that, and I know what I'm throwing out there is just hypothetical. I just have to believe that the $$ thrown around at auctions seems to have bounced back from recession lows and that somehow there's part of a solution to the horse population problem therein.
When the stock market is riding high horse sales are strong. When the market isnt doing well, the sales suffer.

The horse population problem is vastly overblown as a large % of mares taken out of production (hence fewer foals/horses) were the weakest producers whose foals rarely had an impact or even made the races anyway. The supply at the top end of the sport has been steady

[Fager Fan]

Disclaimer: I have only modest knowledge about the breeding industry, and this isn't meant to oversimplify a complex industry with a complex problem, but...

I was listening to the auction last night just in time to hear the $1.2m winning bid for the Optimizer half sib. Obviously, there's $$ out there for these sorts of high-risk, high-reward investments except this is for one single animal. The money is churning, but we're only getting one more horse to the track (maybe, at that).

Would the $ spent on this one horse imply that the same $ would be available and willing to buy, say ten horses at the (nothing to sneeze at) average price of $120,000 each?

If so wouldn't that be preferable? Is there any reasonable way to get there? Are people more willing to swing for a $1.2m home run (on track and/or in the shed) rather than Wade Boggs'ing it and looking for singles and doubles?

Or is the horse population just fine and we just have too many racetracks?

If $1.2 million is your entire bankroll for horse purchases, then you're exactly right - the owner would be much better off selecting 10 for that price instead of 1. It's all a matter of odds, really, and the odds are increased that there will be a nice runner out of a group of several (or 10) nice horses than out of the group of 1 nice horse. But our buyer here no doubt will have that $1.2 million purchase as just one of his group.

Of course, we could talk of the added costs of training 10 versus 1 ($500k a year versus $50k a year), but if someone's buying million dollar yearlings (or even $120k yearlings) then they don't - or shouldn't - have the financial concerns over the cost of their training and bills.