Any reactions to this from Pedigree Query Land?
http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ray-s ... r-no-deal/
John Sikura of Hill N Dale commentary
Moderators: Roguelet, WaveMaster, madelyn
-
oliverstoned
- Restricted Stakes Winner
- Posts: 929
- Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 2:17 pm
- Location: Florida
-
Barcaldine
- Starters Handicap
- Posts: 634
- Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 6:55 pm
- Location: KY
-
Mood Swings
- Grade II Winner
- Posts: 1473
- Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 6:23 am
- Location: Ontario, Canada
As a Share The Upside participant I do think that Breed Secure is devaluing my investment. I also think that Breed Secure is going to hurt the yearling prices for the stallions involved, time will only tell.
From a breeders standpoint, you absolutely cannot go wrong with "Breed Secure". Unfortunately everyone feels this way, even people who will candidly admit that the mare they were considering "euthanizing" mere months ago is now a mare worth breeding.
As far as the article, I give him props for having the guts to speak his mind. Surely he must have known that he wouldn't get much sympathy from breeders.
From a breeders standpoint, you absolutely cannot go wrong with "Breed Secure". Unfortunately everyone feels this way, even people who will candidly admit that the mare they were considering "euthanizing" mere months ago is now a mare worth breeding.
As far as the article, I give him props for having the guts to speak his mind. Surely he must have known that he wouldn't get much sympathy from breeders.
"People come and go but horses leave hoofprints on your heart"
The market is always there for the right horse regardless of the stud fee but I'd much rather have the pay with proceeds if I were a commercial breeder than be one of 200 other foals in the same crop. I'd have zero chance of competing against those at the sales mostly because I'll never have that "A" mare that the farm standing that stallion or its clients have.
I wonder why it is that the trash mare who can only have one offspring a year is far more of a problem than the bottom tier 4K claiming stallion who is marketed and sold to stand at stud solely because he's "blue blood". They are far more detrimental to the industry than that "culled" mare.
IMHO it's a temper tantrum...
I wonder why it is that the trash mare who can only have one offspring a year is far more of a problem than the bottom tier 4K claiming stallion who is marketed and sold to stand at stud solely because he's "blue blood". They are far more detrimental to the industry than that "culled" mare.
IMHO it's a temper tantrum...
I think he has a point. He stands for a lot of things (big business, bully, winning through size and sheer dominance of capital, ect...) that puts him across the table from most of us. But I don't think his point is illogical and he surely knows what's coming in posts like ours after he's spoke his mind. I also think, for the record, that they adjusted their fees pretty close to a breeder's definition of "fair" this year. There were better deals and they wouldn't go the last ten yards to match the value at some other farms, but they at least got on the list for final consideration.
Anyway, I think there are a few reasons all of this just isn't that big of a deal.
1. The issue isn't about junk mares, it's about junk stallions and trying to seperate the good from the bad. The stallions enrolled in these programs are not the highly likely to succeed. They're fringe that could be, but that others wouldn't pony up big money for. So the farm simply needs to know what they have -- they need mares to prove they have an Into Mischief, who once proven will then not be part of this program. At the mid-top end where the money that runs farms is made, these programs aren't going to change much. But it can potentially be a path to id a few stallions who can get to the top end without having to buy them for top end money up front. I also don't buy the junk mare argument. The mares going into these programs are going to be bred somewhere. Lower end, yes sometimes, but most of the bottom end mares that made up excess capacity five or eight years ago have left the game. If you don't have a decent mare that deserves to be bred today, you're not going to stay in the game today with these programs either.
2. The biggest way to lose money on a yearling is to not breed one who can attract several motivated buyers. I look at the program a bit differently. The benefit of the program is also the inherent biggest negative. It might limit the loss, but it can also lower the ceiling. If I don't pay the stud fee, I'm still not making money. And I find the odds with most of the program opportunities riskier than going with a well chosen S&N season, or insured NG. It's a great option for some that believe in the chances or like the risk reward scenario with a specific stallion. But it's not the model for all. In fact, the one thing that could really wreak havoc on it would be somebody doing it with better stallions. But I think the reason we haven't seen that yet is #3:
3. I think the jury is still out on whether the program can succeed long term. It is a disruptive model and they should be applauded for developing and applying it, and their initiative in a rough economy. They were proactive. And they're causing some people with stallions they're struggling to "make" -- like an Indigo Shiner, Misremember and maybe even a Roman Ruler and up to about four months ago Midnight Lute -- some heartburn and restlessness. But I'm not convinced the program can live on perpetually and keep a stallion farm in business without a new Malibu Moon or two every five years -- which will be priced and handled in the traditional model. If they systematically devalue the physical assets and lose cash flow without really hitting home runs to recapitalize it's going to be tough. But it was a way out of another really tight spot years back, and every stallion farm needs home runs, so... Just harder to hit them this way I think. Perhaps they're not out of creativity just yet and they can turn things on the side again to find another solution?
Anyway, it's an interesting topic to debate, and there is some intelligence on many sides of it. There are several right answers, depending on which side you want to argue. It would all be simpler if they'd just flip flop where the take out goes and recapitalize the racing industry, but that's another topic.
Anyway, I think there are a few reasons all of this just isn't that big of a deal.
1. The issue isn't about junk mares, it's about junk stallions and trying to seperate the good from the bad. The stallions enrolled in these programs are not the highly likely to succeed. They're fringe that could be, but that others wouldn't pony up big money for. So the farm simply needs to know what they have -- they need mares to prove they have an Into Mischief, who once proven will then not be part of this program. At the mid-top end where the money that runs farms is made, these programs aren't going to change much. But it can potentially be a path to id a few stallions who can get to the top end without having to buy them for top end money up front. I also don't buy the junk mare argument. The mares going into these programs are going to be bred somewhere. Lower end, yes sometimes, but most of the bottom end mares that made up excess capacity five or eight years ago have left the game. If you don't have a decent mare that deserves to be bred today, you're not going to stay in the game today with these programs either.
2. The biggest way to lose money on a yearling is to not breed one who can attract several motivated buyers. I look at the program a bit differently. The benefit of the program is also the inherent biggest negative. It might limit the loss, but it can also lower the ceiling. If I don't pay the stud fee, I'm still not making money. And I find the odds with most of the program opportunities riskier than going with a well chosen S&N season, or insured NG. It's a great option for some that believe in the chances or like the risk reward scenario with a specific stallion. But it's not the model for all. In fact, the one thing that could really wreak havoc on it would be somebody doing it with better stallions. But I think the reason we haven't seen that yet is #3:
3. I think the jury is still out on whether the program can succeed long term. It is a disruptive model and they should be applauded for developing and applying it, and their initiative in a rough economy. They were proactive. And they're causing some people with stallions they're struggling to "make" -- like an Indigo Shiner, Misremember and maybe even a Roman Ruler and up to about four months ago Midnight Lute -- some heartburn and restlessness. But I'm not convinced the program can live on perpetually and keep a stallion farm in business without a new Malibu Moon or two every five years -- which will be priced and handled in the traditional model. If they systematically devalue the physical assets and lose cash flow without really hitting home runs to recapitalize it's going to be tough. But it was a way out of another really tight spot years back, and every stallion farm needs home runs, so... Just harder to hit them this way I think. Perhaps they're not out of creativity just yet and they can turn things on the side again to find another solution?
Anyway, it's an interesting topic to debate, and there is some intelligence on many sides of it. There are several right answers, depending on which side you want to argue. It would all be simpler if they'd just flip flop where the take out goes and recapitalize the racing industry, but that's another topic.
jeff9061 wrote:I think he has a point. He stands for a lot of things (big business, bully, winning through size and sheer dominance of capital, ect...) that puts him across the table from most of us.
That's called capitalism, that's what America has been ramming down the worlds throat for the last 50 years, suck it up.
Edited by Moderator
-
oliverstoned
- Restricted Stakes Winner
- Posts: 929
- Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 2:17 pm
- Location: Florida
Jeff,
Let me take issue with your point#1 regarding "junk stallions". I don't think these stallions have any less chance of passing on ability than say Misremmembered or McCleans Music. The difference will be how the market reacts to your yearling when it is offered for sale. The Spendthrift sired yearling with the very large books will have a lot of like competition at the sale and perhaps a stigma the it's sired by a program horse.
The other thing to consider is what kind of deal could you work on these stallions in the more traditional way, such as discount for a nice mare or purchasing a no guarantee season.
I agree with an earlier poster that it devalues the share the upside plan, but I guess if you really really think the stud will make it maybe you would want to go that route.
I am glad they have the programs to give breeders more options to consider and would like to see it show up in a regional market.......like say Florida.
Let me take issue with your point#1 regarding "junk stallions". I don't think these stallions have any less chance of passing on ability than say Misremmembered or McCleans Music. The difference will be how the market reacts to your yearling when it is offered for sale. The Spendthrift sired yearling with the very large books will have a lot of like competition at the sale and perhaps a stigma the it's sired by a program horse.
The other thing to consider is what kind of deal could you work on these stallions in the more traditional way, such as discount for a nice mare or purchasing a no guarantee season.
I agree with an earlier poster that it devalues the share the upside plan, but I guess if you really really think the stud will make it maybe you would want to go that route.
I am glad they have the programs to give breeders more options to consider and would like to see it show up in a regional market.......like say Florida.
-
rudydee
- Maiden Special Weight
- Posts: 220
- Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 6:57 am
- Location: Hollywood California
" I find Mr Sikura's attitude that I should expect to lose money and pay him for the privilege of doing so, really quite offensive."
a post from Paulick Report
This is exactly how I feel about Sikura. I currently have two mares.
They will never see the green grass of Hill N Dale.
I am done with them.
a post from Paulick Report
This is exactly how I feel about Sikura. I currently have two mares.
They will never see the green grass of Hill N Dale.
I am done with them.
-
Barcaldine
- Starters Handicap
- Posts: 634
- Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 6:55 pm
- Location: KY
Having just sent a young daughter of a G1 SW mare to Spendthrift ten minutes ago to be bred to Warriors Reward (via Share the Upside) I can say that I am not in the least worried about a yearling market flooded with his foals.
In fact, I feel more comfortable with Spendthrfit stallions than those at Ashford, where they will breed a cow to Giants Causeway if the owner is willing to pay the stud fee.
Just for fun I dug up the 2012 Report of Mares bred.
http://www.jockeyclub.com/information.a ... equest=RMB
Notice that both Hill n Dale and Ashford bred their stallions to as many, if not more, mares than Spendthrift. This fact further disproves Sikura's claim that Mr. Hughes' ingenious program will kill the yearlingmarket.
Speaking of killing, has Mr. Sikura made any offers to the TB industry it couldn't refuse?
In fact, I feel more comfortable with Spendthrfit stallions than those at Ashford, where they will breed a cow to Giants Causeway if the owner is willing to pay the stud fee.
Just for fun I dug up the 2012 Report of Mares bred.
http://www.jockeyclub.com/information.a ... equest=RMB
Notice that both Hill n Dale and Ashford bred their stallions to as many, if not more, mares than Spendthrift. This fact further disproves Sikura's claim that Mr. Hughes' ingenious program will kill the yearlingmarket.
Speaking of killing, has Mr. Sikura made any offers to the TB industry it couldn't refuse?
-
oliverstoned
- Restricted Stakes Winner
- Posts: 929
- Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 2:17 pm
- Location: Florida
Barcaldine wrote:Having just sent a young daughter of a G1 SW mare to Spendthrift ten minutes ago to be bred to Warriors Reward (via Share the Upside) I can say that I am not in the least worried about a yearling market flooded with his foals.
In fact, I feel more comfortable with Spendthrfit stallions than those at Ashford, where they will breed a cow to Giants Causeway if the owner is willing to pay the stud fee.
Just for fun I dug up the 2012 Report of Mares bred.
http://www.jockeyclub.com/information.a ... equest=RMB
Notice that both Hill n Dale and Ashford bred their stallions to as many, if not more, mares than Spendthrift. This fact further disproves Sikura's claim that Mr. Hughes' ingenious program will kill the yearlingmarket.
Speaking of killing, has Mr. Sikura made any offers to the TB industry it couldn't refuse?
Warrior's Reward stands out as the finest looking horse I've seen over the years at my home track Tampa Bay Downs. Best of luck!
-
da hossman
- Allowance Winner
- Posts: 412
- Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 7:08 am
- Location: KY
I have to agree that Sikura's letter was little more than "sour grapes". He expressed his frustration with a competitor's arrangement that is clearly hurting his business and that he cannot afford to replicate.
Will his letter make any breeder say "hey, maybe I should pay Hill n Dale for a season similar to one I could get at no risk from Spendthrift"...I don't think so!
Will his letter make any breeder say "hey, maybe I should pay Hill n Dale for a season similar to one I could get at no risk from Spendthrift"...I don't think so!
A difference of opinion is what makes horse racing and missionaries.
Will Rogers
Will Rogers
I heard that Mickey Mouse had started to wear a Spendthrift wristwatch.
The deal that they are offering wont attract any decent mares.
Sikura is still smarting from the treachery he had to put up with after making 2 decent stallions.
He has another on his hands now with Midnight Lute.
I think given time 2-3 years people will be saying this Spendthrift deal wasn't all what it was cracked up to be.
The deal that they are offering wont attract any decent mares.
Sikura is still smarting from the treachery he had to put up with after making 2 decent stallions.
He has another on his hands now with Midnight Lute.
I think given time 2-3 years people will be saying this Spendthrift deal wasn't all what it was cracked up to be.
Edited by Moderator