Posts Tagged ‘stud fees’
Friday, January 16th, 2009
By Ray Paulick
When in-foal mares sell for less than the stud fees their breeders have invested in them, as is happening with unfortunate frequency during recent Thoroughbred auctions including the current Keeneland January Sale of Horses of All Ages, there can be trouble – trouble for the breeder who is trying to make ends meet, for the bank that may have loaned him money to buy the mare or operate his business and for the stallion farm that sold him the breeding right.
Those three interests have been butting heads increasingly as the market has weakened over the last year. Stallion farms and banks for years have put security liens on horses being sold, but now they have company from other businesses: veterinarians, boarding farms, feed companies, even tack shops. More people are fighting over fewer dollars, and some fear market conditions have not reached their low point.
It’s impossible to say how many horses are sold with liens attached to them, either from banks or stallion farms. One auction house executive is certain it’s less than 50% of the horses that enter the ring. However, one stallion farm representative told the Paulick Report the farm has filed more liens in the past 12 months than ever before.
One of the perplexing questions about liens is, “Who gets paid first?” If a breeder owes $75,000 to a bank and $25,000 on a stud fee and only gets $20,000 when a horse sells, no one is going to get whole. How that money is divided up is the issue. Auction companies take an arm’s-length position, holding the money while telling the affected parties to negotiate a settlement and tell them who gets what.
A group of chief financial officers for Kentucky farms and many equine lenders met last year at Keeneland to discuss how to resolve credit issues when multiple liens are attached to a horse. “It’s getting very messy,” one farm representative said. “Everybody is filing liens now.”
The meeting was described as a good first step, with open dialogue and identification of the various issues. Nothing, however, was resolved.
Traditionally, banks and stallion farms have worked closely together to resolve these issues, but banks are no longer as flexible as they once were. “Historically, banks have recognized those (stud fee) liens, but the Uniform Commercial Code changed a few years ago and the basic rule in priority has to do with the first to file,” one banker said. “Lienholders like banks have filed some time ago, so it becomes problematic. It’s the bank’s money, or the bank shareholders’ money.”
Complicating the issue are new “pay from proceeds” agreements on stud fees whereby a breeder is not obligated to pay for the fee until after he sells the resulting foal, either as a weanling or yearling. More and more farms are making deals for breeders to pay stud fees from sale proceeds, even if those terms are not the farm’s advertised policy. When fees were due by Sept. 1 or Nov. 1 of year bred, or even when a foal stands and nurses, the stallion farms could withhold the stallion service certificate as its trump card if the stud fee wasn’t paid. That kept a foal from being registered with the Jockey Club or sold at auction.
Now, however, with pay from proceeds agreements, the stallion service certificate is released to the breeder so the foal can be registered and sold. By so doing, the stallion farms have lost their leverage to collect stud fees from some breeders, especially if the resulting sale is lower than the stud fee.
Those farms often have no idea whether or not other liens have been attached to a horse being sold. They can perfect a lien by filing the paperwork in the state where the horse’s primary owner resides, in part to determine if other formal liens have been filed and to determine priority. That can be difficult, too, since it isn’t always easy to identify who the majority or minority owners of a horse are.
“The horse business is tough to be a creditor in, because there is no title registry concerning who owns the horse,” one banker said. “The forensics of trying to find who owns a horse can be staggering. Pieces of them change hands all the time without any paperwork. Stallion farms allow someone to sign a contract even though that person may own no part of only a small part in a mare. The farms are conducting business without the kind of underwriting a bank would do.”
Some breeders would like to see an ownership registry, but that could stifle commerce if paperwork had to be filed with the registry every time a portion of a horse changed hands. Others have suggested the creation of a central clearinghouse for liens, so creditors have some idea whether liens have been filed against individuals, but that would have to be tied in with an ownership registry. “The Jockey Club is the natural party to do that,” one stallion farm representative said, “but they don’t want to get in the middle of this, and neither do the sale companies.”
Without any change in procedures, stallion farms are likely to be standing in line behind banks when foals produced through pay from proceeds agreements are sold. “It will be a headache, and it’s going to be tougher if more people can’t pay all their debt,” said a banker. “We are looking at a market that is particularly weak, and you’d have to say the chances of people defaulting on loans is increasing. It will get worse."
“It would be less of a problem if you didn’t have pay out of proceeds,” he added, “but it’s a competitive market among the stallion farms, and it’s tough to put the toothpaste back in the tube.”
Copyright © 2009, The Paulick Report
Visit the Paulick Report for all the latest news throughout the racing world.
Sign up for our Email Flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary.
Tags: equine lending, Jockey Club, Keeneland, keeneland january horses of all ages, kentucky thoroughbred farms, liens, live foal fees, Paulick Report, pay from proceeds, Ray Paulick, security liens, stud fees, Thoroughbred breeding, thoroughbred stallions, uniform commercial code Posted in Breeding, Thoroughbred Auctions, Thoroughbred Business, stud fees | 7 Comments »
Monday, January 5th, 2009
By Ray Paulick
“It’s hard to get half the people in this industry to agree on what day it is,” a Central Kentucky breeder said to me a couple of weeks ago, shortly after the Breeders’ Cup announced suspension of the stakes supplement program for 2009. “I can’t believe 83% of the people voting in your poll agreed that the Breeders’ Cup board made the wrong decision.”
The day after the results of the Daily Paulick Poll were reported (83% opposed the decision by the board of directors not to use cash reserves to fund the program, 10% supported it and 7% were unsure), the Breeders’ Cup reversed field, reinstating the stakes supplements – at least for 2009. Breeders’ Cup president Greg Avioli said he did not “anticipate the fervor of the response” to the original decision to suspend the program. Apparently, the poll results reflected the response Avioli and board members received in the way of telephone calls and emails from nominators to the Breeders’ Cup from around the country.
This wasn’t the first time judgments ran strong on an issue on which readers of the Paulick Report were asked to vote. The polls are not scientific, but the results are quite interesting and we are flattered by the daily response. This much we’ve learned: You’ve got opinions.
The most recent results, in fact, represent the strongest sentiment of any of the 40 polls we have conducted since just before the Breeders’ Cup World Championships in late October. (Click here to see archives of all the Daily Paulick Poll results.) We asked, “Does the National Thoroughbred Racing Association provide a strong central organization to move racing forward in the future?” The results have been stunning, with 94% saying “no” and only 6% answering “yes.”
In some ways, the question about the NTRA mirrored the results of earlier polls regarding the state of the industry and thoughts about some of the organizations that lead it. In mid-November, we asked, “In general, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way things are going in the Thoroughbred industry in the United States at this time.” The question was parallel to the right track/wrong track question the Gallup organization periodically asks of American citizens about the state of the nation.
According to our poll, 91% answered “dissatisfied,” suggesting the industry is currently on the wrong track. Of the remainder, 4% said they were satisfied and 5% were unsure. One e-mailer suggested that the 4% who said they were satisfied must not have understood the question.
Along those same lines, in early December we asked, “Are you confident the individuals in charge of the most prominent racing and breeding organizations in the United States are adequately addressing the problems the industry is currently facing?” That resulted in an 85% no confidence vote, with 10% saying they are confident in our industry leaders and 5% unsure.
A specific question about one of the year’s biggest stories, the creation of the NTRA Safety and Integrity Alliance, indicated skepticism among voters. While 8% agreed that it was a “major step forward in the areas of medication and safety issues and will result in significant improvements” and 27% called it a “good idea, but it’s too early to say whether or not it will be effective,” fully 44% voted that the alliance was “designed to keep the federal government from stepping in and taking action” on safety and medication. Another 22% said it will be “ineffective because the NTRA lacks authority to enforce its recommendations.”
Poll responses to questions about how to improve the economics of racing were less conclusive. For example, we asked which of three areas of growth were most important to the future success of racing: reinvigorating on-track business, expanding account wagering through TV or on-line video streaming, or getting subsidies from slot machines or other forms of gaming. Reinvigorating on-track business got the most votes, 45% of respondents, barely ahead of the 41% who believe account wagering is the industry’s best hope. Only 14% believe growth from slots/alternative gaming is the answer. A more specific question about slot machines ended with a four-way dead heat, with each of the following answers getting 25% of the votes: 1) slots are a short-term fix to boost revenue; 2) they are a long-term necessity for racing to be competitive; 3) they are a necessary evil; and 4) I oppose slot machines at tracks.
On the issue of simulcast revenue, the poll run in conjunction with an article by Fred Pope on what he calls “ Priority 1: Racing’s Business Model” found 63% agreeing with Pope that host tracks and owners where the live race is run should get the lion’s share of takeout revenue. Another 29% believe it should be divided equally between the host site and where the bet is taken, and only 7% support the current model that leaves most of the revenue from simulcast wagers with the bet takers.
The level of takeout has been hotly debated in the comment sections of Pope’s article and several other related pieces. Our only poll question on the subject came after the Kentucky Horse Racing Task Force recommended an increase in takeout to help fund additional staff for the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission. Only 17% agreed with that recommendation, with 83% opposed to an increase in takeout to fund the commission.
We’ve touched on many other areas in our polls. For example, 55% of voters opposed Breeders’ Cup putting all of the filly and mare races on the Friday program of the two-day championships, with 18% in support and 27% taking a “wait and see” approach; 49% opposed having the Breeders’ Cup dirt races run on a synthetic track, while 39% supported it and 12% unsure. In the breeding world, in mid-December, 65% of voters said stud fees had not been reduced enough, 31% said the reductions were “about right,” and 4% felt they had been lowered too much. A comparison of the three highest-priced new stallions of 2009 found that Henrythenavigator offered greater value and opportunity for success to breeders than Curlin and Big Brown. The votes were 52% for Henrythenavigator, 44% for Curlin and 4% for Big Brown.
Finally, in light of the depressed bloodstock markets and a downward trend in pari-mutuel handle in 2008, a year-end poll asked readers if they believe 2009 will be a better year. Only 24% said they feel 2009 will be improved from 2008, with 52% saying it will be worse and 24% believing it will be the same.
Naturally, we hope our readers will be proven wrong and that 2009 will be a year that the industry addresses some of its biggest issues: organizational structure, leadership and a new business model that reflects the reality that roughly 10% of wagers are taken on-track where a race is being run. It’s clear there is a high level of discontent currently running throughout the industry, but it’s just as obvious that the passion to have racing stage a comeback is equally strong.
Copyright © 2009, The Paulick Report
Visit the Paulick Report for all the latest news throughout the racing world.
Sign up for our Email Flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary.
Tags: Account Wagering, advance deposit wagering, ADW, Big Brown, Breeders' Cup, Breeders' Cup World Championships, Curlin, daily paulick poll, filly friday, fred pope, gallup poll, Greg Avioli, henrythenavigator, Horse Racing, kentucky horse racing task force, National Thoroughbred Racing Association, NTRA, ntra safety and integrity alliance, Paulick Report, priority 1: racing's business model, racing's business model, Ray Paulick, right track/wrong track, Simulcasting, stud fees, synthetic racetracks, takeout, Thoroughbred breeding, thoroughbreds Posted in Account Wagering, Breeders' Cup, Breeding, Horse Racing, Horse Welfare, Industry, Industry Organizations, Industry Reform, National Thoroughbred Racing Association, Simulcasting, Slot machines, Synthetic surfaces, Thoroughbred Business | 15 Comments »
Friday, December 12th, 2008
By Ray Paulick
Thursday’s announcement by Walmac Farm of a “breeders stimulus plan” that allows breeders to pay 2009 stud fees from the proceeds of the sale of weanlings or yearlings is further proof that an increasing number of Kentucky’s stallion farms are recognizing mare owners as partners in their business. The steep declines in bloodstock prices in 2008 and the very real threat that many breeders could go out of business if the economics do not change has led virtually every major stallion station to reduce 2009 stud fees and relax deadlines for when the payments are due.
In the most simple terms, without mare owners, stallion farms would have no customers. If stud fees were not reduced and payment schedules relaxed, there would be fewer breeders around for the 2009 breeding season. The changes were fueled by a survival instinct.
There are only a handful of stallion farms continuing what in recent years was the widely accepted policy of stud fees due in September or November of the year of conception. Even some of those holdout farms are showing flexibility on payment schedules. Most stallion operations have changed to a payable when foal stands and nurses program; some in that category offer discounts for breeders who are willing to pay stud fees early. Although the stands and nurses policy has been in place for years at some farms, a number of breeders pointed to the decision by Lane’s End to adopt that policy for 2009 as a bellwether move. Others quickly followed suit.
Two relatively new stallion stations, Darley and Stonewall Farm, have created unique incentive programs for many of their stallions. Some farms that reduced 2009 stud fees in September during the Keeneland yearling sale have come back with a second round of fee reductions because bookings were coming in at an alarmingly slow pace.
“Changing from payable on Sept. 1 to out of proceeds is a huge difference,” one breeder told the Paulick Report. “It gives a breeder two years of the use of his money. It should be the universal policy. It gives breeders the chance to stay in business. And let’s face it, the stallion farms need us. I guess you’ve got to really worry when stallion farms are hit; they’ve been in total control.”
“All the stallion managers announcing reduced fees want to be seen as benefactors,” said breeder Garrett Redmond. “In fact, they are trying to preserve their own business. Mare owners will be short of money next year because their 2008 sales were for less than needed or horses were not sold at all. They need help to pay fees due when foals stand and nurse in 2009. Reduction in fees due in spring 2010 will not help.”
“There’s a tendency to think the stallion guys took it to us for a long, long time and we overpaid, and we get even now,” said breeder Craig Bandoroff of Denali Stud. “That’s not totally fair. It’s a market economy ruled by supply and demand. I love the idea of stands and nurses, but if you want to pay on Nov. 1 you get a discount. That’s the best deal going. Payable Sept. 1 was terrible; you hadn’t sold your yearlings yet.”
“The pendulum is definitely swinging back from stallion farms to the mare owner,” said Olin Gentry of Gaines-Gentry Thoroughbreds. “Popularity and demand has allowed some farms to get away with Sept. 1, but there’s more and more pressure to give stands and nurses. There aren’t many holdouts.”
One farm staying with a Sept. 1 policy on some of its stallions is Airdrie Stud. “We believe that everybody has the right and should have the opportunity to set their stud fees according to the way they are the fairest relative to the product they are selling,” said owner Brereton Jones. “We raised Indian Charlie’s fee 50% and he’s already booked full; his fee is due Sept. 1.”
Jones said some other fees will be due at time of foaling. “We work with each breeder who calls in here, and it depends on the stallion they want to breed to; it’s the free enterprise system at its best. We’ll discuss packages with anybody; if someone wants to breed three mares to a stallion, we will work out an arrangement. I think the general attitude of breeders is that Airdrie’s fees have always been extremely fair, and consequently they’ve been successful.”
The key to Airdrie’s fees and schedule, Jones said, is flexibility. “Our policy is geared to the success of both the owners of the stallion and the owners of the mares.”
Darley set all stallion contracts for stands and nurses when it was established at the former Jonabell Farm Sheikh Mohammed purchased in 2001. In 2007, the farm introduced pay from proceeds fees that stallion nominations manager Charlie Boden said is actually a “pay when you sell with forgiveness” policy. “We try to assess the risk on the front end,” Boden said, “but if we’re wrong and the resulting offspring brings half the stud fee, we don’t bill them for the difference.” The policy was introduced a few years earlier at Darley’s stallion operation in England.
“We’re trying to help breeders make a prudent decision in not overbreeding a mare,” Boden said. “It makes more sense to people these days. I think the days of overbreeding mares should be screeching to a halt unless the stallion is overpriced.”
Darley’s policy lets breeders decide whether to pay from proceeds of a weanling or yearling sale. Not all stallions are eligible for the program; Boden said he tries to limit it to stallions standing for $20,000 or less.
Boden also said Darley has offered what he calls a “Grade 1 club” on certain stallions, giving a free season to mares that were Grade 1 winners or Grade 1 producers.
In light of Sheikh Mohammed’s enormous wealth, Boden was asked if these policies were designed to put the squeeze on competing stallion farms. “Sheikh Mohammed wants breeders to make money,” Boden said. “He wants the business to thrive. He’s a fan of the sport and the industry as a whole. He’s not trying to put anyone else out of business. He’s trying to help a breeder raise a top horse at a competitive price. His goal is to perpetuate an industry that he loves.”
Stonewall Farm’s first breeding season was 2006, and in order to make a splash in the industry it adopted several creative incentive plans for breeders. One offered free seasons (for stallions the farm owns wholly) to graded stakes-winning or graded stakes-producing mares. Another provides a free return season to stallions for mares that produced a stakes winner from that stallion. A third policy permits a breeder to come back for a free mating for a mare if it produced a top three weanling price for that sire.
In an effort to reach out to some of the lucrative state incentive programs, Stonewall is now offering a complimentary no-guarantee season for approved mares that will foal in Louisiana, New York or Pennsylvania, in exchange for being named co-breeder (the mare owner would remain the full owner of the foal). By so doing, Stonewall would be eligible for half of the breeders awards in those states.
The programs evolved from Stonewall’s owner, Audrey Haisfield, and her husband, Richard, according to Clark Shepherd, a Stonewall manager and pedigree analyst. “They looked at how things were done in the business and decided it didn’t have to be that way,” he said. “We’ve since seen a lot of other outfits begin to follow suit.”
Will the innovative policies, fee reductions and relaxed payment schedules be enough to help breeders return to profitability?
There seems to be no consensus on that question.
“In the face of the financial crisis, a lot of syndicate managers might be a little too dramatic in fee reductions,” said Olin Gentry, “particularly some of the ones that announced a second round of cuts. People are going to breed their mares; they’re just coming in slower because they are tentative, waiting to see if there are going to be more reductions.
“It’s all a cycle. If you put pressure on stallion values, what people are willing to pay for yearlings is affected. You need a happy medium where it’s fair. You don’t want the stallion owners to make all the money and you don’t want it too easy for the breeder. “
Garrett Redmond disagreed. “Owners can avoid a problem in 2010 by not breeding in 2009,” he said. “If stallion managers are serious about helping, they should retroactively reduce the fees contracted in 2008. The least they can do is change the fees coming due to the fees they are advertising for 2009. They might also convert contracts to foal shares or pay when you sell.”
“The one thing you are seeing is no matter what the advertised stud fee is, your client wants to know, ‘Can we do better?’” said Bandoroff.
Another breeder boiled it down to a simple good news/bad news scenario.
"The good news is prices are down for stallions," he said. "The bad news is it shows what deep shit we are in."
(Note to readers: Take our poll on how stallion farms have reacted in the face of the economic crisis and falling bloodstock prices. The Daily Paulick Poll can be found on the left-hand column of the Paulick Report home page.)
Copyright © 2008, The Paulick Report
Visit the Paulick Report for all the latest news throughout the racing world.
Sign up for our Email Flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary.
Tags: airdrie stud, audrey haisfield, breeders stimulus plan, brereton jones, charlie boden, clark shepherd, commercial breeders, craig bandoroff, darley, denali stud, gaines-gentry thoroughbreds, garrett redmond, indian charlie, jonabell farm, Keeneland, kentucky thoroughbred industry, Lane's End, olin gentry, Paulick Report, pay from proceeds, Ray Paulick, richard haisfield, sheikh mohammed, stallion farms, stonewall farm, stud fees, Thoroughbred breeding, thoroughbred stallions, walmac farm, yearling sales Posted in Breeding, Kentucky, Stallions, Thoroughbred Business | 1 Comment »
|
|