Racehorse TALK

Though it could only run 2nd in C-5 Bowen Cup . . connexions have recouped purchase price . . it will win more and better races . . Still a bull and will make a good sire??? . . Very astute purchase  :noteworthy:

I was trying to make sense of this and how you managed to have the same horse sold at one sale for two different prices

Bawaadi AUS 2006 b.c. by Redoute's Choice ex Stella Artois (AUS) - Geiger Counter
Sold for $1.3m at Inglis Easter Lot 395, later Great Southern for $24,000

Platinum Passion AUS 2006 g.f. by Redoute's Choice ex Stella Artois (NZ) - Star Way
Sold for $300,000 at Inglis Easter Lot 396 to Paul Moroney - is the middle one you have mentioned
She has earned $194,638, being trained by Mike Moroney

I see Bawaardi won again yesterday at Emerald, another $10,000 in the coffers

Bit confusing when both by the same sire and the dams have the same name

All the best 

I got my figures from 'Racing & "Sports'  . . . Dates didn't really register . . Just rechecked . .  Now I'm confused 

Any way a great buy for $24K . . 

Just saw a $1.2 million dollar bargain !!   occasionally they do pay off - well done Tinkler

I'd love to see a copy of this report. I couldn't find it on the Aushorse website but it was produced 5 years ago so fair enough.

They say there are 839 colts in the report, so....

839 x ($160k (avg) + $50k training costs)) = $176.2m + $81.9m in profits = $258m in revenue going on their figures.

That's a lot of money to recoup. If they colts averaged a return of $80k on the track ($67m) in total, then that leaves another $190m to make up through stud fees. If you attribute $10m each to Elvis, Reset and Lucky Owners, plus say another $10m to unnamed sires. That leaves you with at least $150m to make up from Exceed and Excel and Fastnet Rock. And that is not taking into account any other costs.

Me thinks that those figures might be a little rubbery.

On top of that, I'm not sure if Fastnet Rock was a buyback or a genuine sale? Coolmore raced him but isn't listed as the breeder but I assume he was raised on their farm? Anyone know this for sure?

They are a rubbery as a squash ball, designed to suit the people that paid for the study.

I tend to think spending a million on a single colt is a hiding to nothing.

I always think back to the Sangster - Vincent O'Brien era when they bough numerous million dollar colts. It only took one of them to be outstanding on the track and they would pay for the whole lot.

If you buy just one you are putting all your eggs in one basket.

Buying an expensive colt one out is very risky. Blue Sky Thoroughbreds have put together a stallion syndicate each year for the past few years. They are affiliated with Arrowfield and have an amazing strike rate (66.6% stakes performers to purchasers). They generally buy Arrowfield raised horses in partnership with Arrowfield, then race them with the hope of turning them into stallion prospects. Best so far are Beneteau, Common Interest, Rekindled Alliance, Red Hot Choice and Shrapnel from only nine horses.

As Arrowfield has a long term interest in the success of the horses through the stallion fund agreement, their results makes one think they might be getting the good oil on the best horses on the farm 

Or Julian Blaxland has the best eye in the business by a country mile 

b]

Around this time last year I presented an article to the forum about trying to use statistics as a guide to successfully breeding a thoroughbred, and/or buying and subsequently racing a thoroughbred.

For those interested, the article should still be available in this thread, but if you would like it in pdf, just drop me a PM.

For a statistical junkie like me, the exercise was much longer than I expected, but tremendously rewarding in that it gave me a whole new perspective about the breeding and owning process.

Most of the information I used in the assessments came from commercial websites, and was available by subscription. The costs varied from good value to very expensive.

My research was confined to the two main aspects of the thoroughbred industry – breeding and owning.


From the breeding aspect, I formed the view that a genuine commercial breeder looking to choose a stud for their broodmare would look for:

1 An established, good quality sire at
2 A service fee that reflects
3 A good chance of a healthy, winning foal, and therefore
4 A successful (ie profitable) sale

To measure those factors quantitatively was the most interesting part of the exercise, and I finally decided on the following factors:

• The ratio of yearlings sold to live foals produced (indicating healthy produce)
• The ratio of sale price to service fee (commerciality of sire)
• The clearance rate at sales (commerciality of sire)
• The ratio of subsequent runners to live foals (indicating healthy produce)
• The ratio of winners to live foals (indicating quality of sire)
• The ratio of earnings to sale price (indicating potential financial return)
• Success in Group races (quality of sire)

I then weighted each of these factors (out of 100) to give me a “final” rating for each sire.

The factors to which I gave a higher weighting were sale price to service fee, and earnings to sale price. This was done to reflect the main reason for breeding in the first place, which is to make a profit.

The original article provides a lot more information on how I went about this process, what restrictions I faced, and how I then applied the various weightings.

Examples of some individual sires and their above statistics were shown.

Over the next few weeks as we come to the end of another racing year, I will update all of the information to formulate some sire ratings for the coming breeding year. Service fees for the 2012 season are being released now, and I will be very interested to see how they compare.

The top ratings for the 2011 breeding year (ie last year) were:

Danzero (service fee $11,000)
Hussonet ($25,000)
Blevic ($5,500)
Not A Single Doubt ($24,750)
Tale of the Cat ($33,000)
Charge Forward ($33,000)

My supposition therefore is that the best chance for a breeder to make a profit from his/her broodmare would have been to put the mare to any of those sires last year.

For reasons explained in the original article, quite a few of the “name” sires did not rate all that highly, and I will be interested to see this year’s figures.

Please remember that my intention in formulating the ratings was not to breed the best racehorse known to man – simply to breed a horse that would have a reasonable chance of being sold at a profit!


From the ownership aspect, the important factors were slightly different. If you simply want to race your purchase, you would mainly be interested in prizemoney returns as your main aim.

So I decided on only five main drivers:

• Ratio of named progeny to live foals (indicating healthy, robust foals)
• Ratio of runners to live foals (indicating healthy foals)
• Ratio of winners to live foals adjusted for public sales (future financial success)
• Ratio of earnings to sale price (future financial success)
• Success in Group races (quality of sire)

Once again, examples were given in the original article, and threw up some surprises. I am eagerly awaiting the completion of this racing year to see how the sires in my chosen database have performed over the year, but a preliminary look at returns to date show that the best prizemoney return against median sale price is currently with Easy Rocking (not in my original ratings top 5).


One of the reasons I was prompted to give this update at this stage was the announced increase in service fee for Fastnet Rock, from $137,500 to $220,000 (incl GST) for the 2012 season.

On my breeding factors, could it be justified, even with his progeny’s racing success over this current racing year?

The short answer is NO.

Historically, of all Fastnet Rock yearlings sold at the major sales since he retired to stud, only 32% have sold for more than his 2012 service fee. (Stats obtained from the stallions.com.au website.)

I will provide a further update towards the end of this racing year (31st July).

El Dufus