Here is everyones opportunity to make your remarks on the current "state" of the sales market.....
Seeing as I am newly burnt, I am going to naturally say bluntly - it sucks!
However, stallions have been seeing ever increasing books of mares which as led to this "surplus" of horses. Buyers are now able to pick and choose without feeling any pressure to buy this one or that one simply because the stallion has so many out there being offered for sale. We have had only one foal and have only one mare currently in foal which is our small contribution to pool of surplus horses.
Breeders can be blamed partially for the surplus, however, don't you feel some of the responsibility should lie on the shoulders of the stallion farms for allowing this surplus as they are ultimately in control of how many mares and which ones get in to their stallions?
KEEJAN Opinions
Moderators: Roguelet, WaveMaster, madelyn
-
Hold Your Peace
- Allowance Winner
- Posts: 495
- Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2006 7:12 am
The best way to reduce the size of stallion books is to raise stud fees. If Chapel Royal were priced at $35,000 he isn't going to get near the number or mares he does at $10,000 and common sense dictates that the quality of the mares would be better as those prepared to pay a $35,000 fee versus those prepared to pay a $10,000 fee generally have better mares or at the very least wouldn't want to spend $35,000 on one of their lesser mares.
Sound like something smaller breeders want to see?
Not me.
Don't get discouraged, everybody has more than their share of bad fortune before they have any good fortune.
I've bred to some unproven studs which have proven to be monumentally bad decsions (I've got two hayburners in cheap claimers at the track right now which were the result of those decisions) but I've also had homeruns breeding to unproven studs (sold the highest priced filly from the first crop of nice stallion last year) and I have a nice (just turned 3yo) by a sire who was already a proven decent sire (I had somebody who was going to pay me $250k for this one after she broke her maiden but we discovered a chip which would have killed the deal so now I have to wait for her return after having the chip removed and hope she comes back as good as she was and does more on the track).
Sound like something smaller breeders want to see?
Not me.
Don't get discouraged, everybody has more than their share of bad fortune before they have any good fortune.
I've bred to some unproven studs which have proven to be monumentally bad decsions (I've got two hayburners in cheap claimers at the track right now which were the result of those decisions) but I've also had homeruns breeding to unproven studs (sold the highest priced filly from the first crop of nice stallion last year) and I have a nice (just turned 3yo) by a sire who was already a proven decent sire (I had somebody who was going to pay me $250k for this one after she broke her maiden but we discovered a chip which would have killed the deal so now I have to wait for her return after having the chip removed and hope she comes back as good as she was and does more on the track).
Bottom line: buyers are under no obligation to rescue breeders from their bad decisions.
These low prices aren't due to over-supply, they're due to lack of quality on the part of the offerings. The TB maket is very specific about what it wants--and breeders/sellers who don't understand that are really taking a gamble.
Look through the results. The money is there--for those horses that fit buyers' parameters. Junk is junk. Even if there was less of it available, buyers still wouldn't want to pay money for it.
These low prices aren't due to over-supply, they're due to lack of quality on the part of the offerings. The TB maket is very specific about what it wants--and breeders/sellers who don't understand that are really taking a gamble.
Look through the results. The money is there--for those horses that fit buyers' parameters. Junk is junk. Even if there was less of it available, buyers still wouldn't want to pay money for it.
-
Hold Your Peace
- Allowance Winner
- Posts: 495
- Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2006 7:12 am
LB wrote:Bottom line: buyers are under no obligation to rescue breeders from their bad decisions.
These low prices aren't due to over-supply, they're due to lack of quality on the part of the offerings. The TB maket is very specific about what it wants--and breeders/sellers who don't understand that are really taking a gamble.
Look through the results. The money is there--for those horses that fit buyers' parameters. Junk is junk. Even if there was less of it available, buyers still wouldn't want to pay money for it.
Well stated.
A lot of what is in this sale is culls.
The sellers want to dump them and they can't really expect buyers to want them much more than the sellers do.
Yes, there were and still are many horses that should not be in that sale. I agree with that. There are many foals being sold out of mares I would not consider buying, let alone breeding. Many of these foals by these "new" sires I can not see doing much better than bottom level claimers due to the mares. Sadly, just because these mares were bred to "newer" stallions it seems to make the mares pedigree less important and these foals a higher valued horse than many of the middle market horses that went for pennies by consistent sires, better overall pedigree's, racing class and mare lines...
I see these new stallions being "used" to make mares that normally would not sell commerically.
As a side note, my mares pedigree is not total junk nor was this foals breeding by accident. His breeding was based on a previous Tiger Ridge cross that had produced 1 blacktype of the 2 of racing age (all of which sold at Keeneland ranging from 110,000-240,000)...additionally, the female family crossed with Tiger Ridge had produced 2 blacktype out of the 4 of racing age...pretty good odds in that cross if you ask me in both the sire & mare line with Tiger Ridge. These types of productive crosses are done with success continually, look at Storm Cat with Rahy mares.
I see these new stallions being "used" to make mares that normally would not sell commerically.
As a side note, my mares pedigree is not total junk nor was this foals breeding by accident. His breeding was based on a previous Tiger Ridge cross that had produced 1 blacktype of the 2 of racing age (all of which sold at Keeneland ranging from 110,000-240,000)...additionally, the female family crossed with Tiger Ridge had produced 2 blacktype out of the 4 of racing age...pretty good odds in that cross if you ask me in both the sire & mare line with Tiger Ridge. These types of productive crosses are done with success continually, look at Storm Cat with Rahy mares.
shanova, I wasn't calling your mare junk, I was responding to your assertion that large stallion books have led to "the current state of the sales market".
I didn't see your yearling and know nothing about him other than his sales price and his page, which I've now looked up. Based on what you've said, the breeding was clearly one that was planned with care however it was not designed to appeal to what the current market wants in a yearling prospect.
Idealists can argue that buyers don't know what's good for them, but it's a moot point as buyers are the ones who control the money and they're pretty clear about what they want. Not every horse is meant to go to the sales; and those that fall outside the tight parameters "set" by the industry would most likely have better luck if retained and raced by their breeders whose vision they represent.
(And yes, I've heard of the Storm Cat/Rahy cross.)
I didn't see your yearling and know nothing about him other than his sales price and his page, which I've now looked up. Based on what you've said, the breeding was clearly one that was planned with care however it was not designed to appeal to what the current market wants in a yearling prospect.
Idealists can argue that buyers don't know what's good for them, but it's a moot point as buyers are the ones who control the money and they're pretty clear about what they want. Not every horse is meant to go to the sales; and those that fall outside the tight parameters "set" by the industry would most likely have better luck if retained and raced by their breeders whose vision they represent.
(And yes, I've heard of the Storm Cat/Rahy cross.)
A tough market, for sure. I think selling is part pedigree, part progeny, and part perception. I know there are farms you can board your mare/foal that are cheaper, but one good thing about the larger breeding farms: they offer a better shot at eyeballs. Might be the difference between profit and pain. Also, stallion choice is obviously critical. Hot, new, untested stallions seem to be the commercial rage... to young or new mares. That is what the market is asking for. Anything else translates to a smart buyers opportunity.
LB wrote:shanova, I wasn't calling your mare junk, I was responding to your assertion that large stallion books have led to "the current state of the sales market".
You are correct and accept my apology as the statement I made was not in anyway intended to imply you called my mare junk...I was simply stating, she was not "total junk". I am quite aware she does not have the best female family in the world, actually rather bled out up close.
I think even you would have to admit there were foals in this sale out of mares with much lower quality pedigrees than my mare that were bred to the new/hot sire whom brought a much high $$$ than if they had been bred to a vast number of the other stallions standing in Kentucky. Looking at that, tends to lead me to believe that just about any mare bred to a new/hot sire has a much better chance of making $$$ in the sales ring than most other mares, not all mares just a much larger % of what I would call the lower weak pedigreed mares, young mares, 1st foal mares....mares that wouldn't even get accepted to stallions such as Giants Causeway, AP Indy, Mr Greeley, Grand Slam, etc...
My reference to the larger books has to do with the quality of the mares accepted for breeding to these newer/hot sires. If you let your stallion breed to just about anything, are you not lowering the value of his offspring by breeding to quantity and not overall quality? Doesn't the quality in a mares pedigree stand for anything or are we simply making as much $$$ as we can as quickly as we can before this newer/hot sire becomes yesterdays news...that is unless he gets lucky and sires a few good early winners which more than likely are out of the higher quality mares that were in his book that year
My colts breeding itself, was actually one of the few Tiger Ridge crosses that was what I would refer to as a success in the sales ring for him...see the auction stats for Tiger Ridge, very few sold over the 100K mark and this one cross did "successfully" 3 out of 4 times and we all know which one did not.
It had a lot to do with plain and simple timing, having the sire sold and now overseas did nothing more than decrease the value if anything.
.
-
serenarider
- Allowance Winner
- Posts: 359
- Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 9:30 am
- Location: Ocala
- Contact:
Sales are a funny game forsure. You never know what is going to happend. But in regards to consignors.. I always thought putting your baby with one of the big guys would always bring more talk more eyes ect.. But this year I have changed my mine. When I had my weanling at the Oct sale everyone would come up and ask let me see your babies. One by one we would bring them out. Then off they would go and ask the next consignors the same question.
point to my story. One of my good friends had 1 yes 1 colt in the sale she did all the prep, and consigned herself. Well that said colt sold for 97k. Now that colt was a MAcho Uno who of course had I think 2 stakes place that weekend so everyone was looking at those babies. I guess the point im trying to make is they buy and pay for what they want. No matter if you have your babies with big peeps or just one person with one baby at the sale;) I look at it that was her hit it big moment!
point to my story. One of my good friends had 1 yes 1 colt in the sale she did all the prep, and consigned herself. Well that said colt sold for 97k. Now that colt was a MAcho Uno who of course had I think 2 stakes place that weekend so everyone was looking at those babies. I guess the point im trying to make is they buy and pay for what they want. No matter if you have your babies with big peeps or just one person with one baby at the sale;) I look at it that was her hit it big moment!
-
Hold Your Peace
- Allowance Winner
- Posts: 495
- Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2006 7:12 am
serenarider wrote:Sales are a funny game forsure. You never know what is going to happend. But in regards to consignors.. I always thought putting your baby with one of the big guys would always bring more talk more eyes ect.. But this year I have changed my mine. When I had my weanling at the Oct sale everyone would come up and ask let me see your babies. One by one we would bring them out. Then off they would go and ask the next consignors the same question.
point to my story. One of my good friends had 1 yes 1 colt in the sale she did all the prep, and consigned herself. Well that said colt sold for 97k. Now that colt was a MAcho Uno who of course had I think 2 stakes place that weekend so everyone was looking at those babies. I guess the point im trying to make is they buy and pay for what they want. No matter if you have your babies with big peeps or just one person with one baby at the sale;) I look at it that was her hit it big moment!
With a small consignor they do have to have at least one horse in their consignment (even if it's not yours) that will attract people to their barn. In your example every Macho Uno was going to get looks from the key players so the small consignor having one got traffic to their barn which probably would have helped the others in their consignment (if they'd had more than a consignment of one). Sometimes you see a small consignor who has nothing that jumps out at you on paper and people don't even bother going by their barn even though they might have a super athletic looking weanling or yearling in their barn. If That same super athletic weanling / yearling were with a big consignor (even though it didn't jump out at you on paper) it would get looks from key people coming by to looke at others and it would sell much better. (At least if the big consignor is a good one who knows the key people and alerts those key people to the super athletic weanling / yearling they didn't really plan on looking at)
I know we talk a lot on here about nicks and chefs and reines but the dirty secret is that none of that has much relevance to the commercial market.
A good friend of mine is a pretty major buyer--he spends several million dollars a year at the select sales and spent almost a million at this one on three mares. We've spoken extensively on what he is looking for and what he will buy at different price points. I've been to sales with him and watched him in action. He's the buyer I imagine everyone (including myself!) would want looking at their horses and based on my observation I think this is his list for yearlings in order of importance:
1) An athlete--no matter what their pedigree, the horse has to look like he can run a little and can't be so horrifically conformed that he can't stand training. And although this is the most important thing to major buyers, it is the toughest thing for breeders to gauge because you have to be pretty ruthless in your assessment of your own stock. You also have to have a good eye and real knowledge of what the racing market is looking for. This is where a good consignor earns his commission and he needs to tell you the truth and not sell you fairytales and you as a breeder need to be able to take it gracefully.
2) Pedigree--but not the way we talk about it but as an assessment of the whole package. Stallions sire certain traits and get known for certain things. Some stallions sire pretty horses that never develop. That's why Forest Camp is in Korea. Some stallions sire unattractive horses that can run like the wind. My friend told me that he gives every glitch on a Distorted Humor the benefit of the doubt which he would not allow another stallion because they can just plain run. He also looks critically at the mare and what she has produced. What he never wants to see is 10 foals, 5 to race, 1 winner and no SWs. He doesn't care what the baby looks like or who the sire is--he thinks the yearling probably can't run and it goes off his list. This is particularly true if she had all of those nonwinners by Dynaformer and A P Indy and her current yearling is by a $10,000 stallion. Incidentally he never looks past the second dam.
3) Nicks--again not the way we talk about it but as a function of the information included in the Auction Edge. This is the little tidbit that may get a horse bounced off of his preliminary list. If a certain nick has been tried thirty times and has only 1 SW, he sees that as a negative and off the list it goes. If the broodmare sire has less than 5% SWs, that's a negative as well.
If your horse doesn't meet his criteria, does that mean your horse can't run? He'd be the first to tell you that is not the case. This is an art not a science and an inexact art at that. He wouldn't have bought John Henry. But he also wouldn't have bought the thousands of horses just like John Henry that couldn't outrun me.
If you are going to play the commercial market, you have to think like a commercial buyer and that is that they are looking at thousands of horses to buy every year and somehow yours has to make the cut. I can't stress this enough--you need a professional to help you and you need to look at your stock critically to see if it matches up with what's out there in the market.
A good friend of mine is a pretty major buyer--he spends several million dollars a year at the select sales and spent almost a million at this one on three mares. We've spoken extensively on what he is looking for and what he will buy at different price points. I've been to sales with him and watched him in action. He's the buyer I imagine everyone (including myself!) would want looking at their horses and based on my observation I think this is his list for yearlings in order of importance:
1) An athlete--no matter what their pedigree, the horse has to look like he can run a little and can't be so horrifically conformed that he can't stand training. And although this is the most important thing to major buyers, it is the toughest thing for breeders to gauge because you have to be pretty ruthless in your assessment of your own stock. You also have to have a good eye and real knowledge of what the racing market is looking for. This is where a good consignor earns his commission and he needs to tell you the truth and not sell you fairytales and you as a breeder need to be able to take it gracefully.
2) Pedigree--but not the way we talk about it but as an assessment of the whole package. Stallions sire certain traits and get known for certain things. Some stallions sire pretty horses that never develop. That's why Forest Camp is in Korea. Some stallions sire unattractive horses that can run like the wind. My friend told me that he gives every glitch on a Distorted Humor the benefit of the doubt which he would not allow another stallion because they can just plain run. He also looks critically at the mare and what she has produced. What he never wants to see is 10 foals, 5 to race, 1 winner and no SWs. He doesn't care what the baby looks like or who the sire is--he thinks the yearling probably can't run and it goes off his list. This is particularly true if she had all of those nonwinners by Dynaformer and A P Indy and her current yearling is by a $10,000 stallion. Incidentally he never looks past the second dam.
3) Nicks--again not the way we talk about it but as a function of the information included in the Auction Edge. This is the little tidbit that may get a horse bounced off of his preliminary list. If a certain nick has been tried thirty times and has only 1 SW, he sees that as a negative and off the list it goes. If the broodmare sire has less than 5% SWs, that's a negative as well.
If your horse doesn't meet his criteria, does that mean your horse can't run? He'd be the first to tell you that is not the case. This is an art not a science and an inexact art at that. He wouldn't have bought John Henry. But he also wouldn't have bought the thousands of horses just like John Henry that couldn't outrun me.
If you are going to play the commercial market, you have to think like a commercial buyer and that is that they are looking at thousands of horses to buy every year and somehow yours has to make the cut. I can't stress this enough--you need a professional to help you and you need to look at your stock critically to see if it matches up with what's out there in the market.
-
Hold Your Peace
- Allowance Winner
- Posts: 495
- Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2006 7:12 am
Quality mares in foal to "hot" first year stallions standing at farms where you knew they would be supported sold for very high prices. This is the formula!
Quality mares in foal to proven sires sold well....although not quite at the feeding frenzy level as above.
Quality mares in foal to stallions who clearly were not respected, sold....maybe!
Mares of lesser quality...either faulty in conformation or lacking in "page"....just were not desirable.
I was in the market for a mare in foal so I can't speak to how yearlings or empty mares fared in the arena.....but I felt it was very tough to come in within budget and come away with something good this sale. In large part, I think this market reflects our devalued dollar.
Quality mares in foal to proven sires sold well....although not quite at the feeding frenzy level as above.
Quality mares in foal to stallions who clearly were not respected, sold....maybe!
Mares of lesser quality...either faulty in conformation or lacking in "page"....just were not desirable.
I was in the market for a mare in foal so I can't speak to how yearlings or empty mares fared in the arena.....but I felt it was very tough to come in within budget and come away with something good this sale. In large part, I think this market reflects our devalued dollar.