TB Times quotes Mike Pegram as saying he is down to three unraced prospects.
Many times that number would be 15 or 20.
He says the business model is so bad, especially in California, but elsewhere too, that he isn't interested in putting much money into racing.
Sad day when someone like Mike is turned off to racing, having won the Kentucky Derby, Preakness, and many other big races over a twenty year span.
Mike Pegram down to 3 horses
Moderators: Roguelet, hpkingjr, WaveMaster
I'd hate to see this sport lose the enthusiasm of an owner/participant like Mike Pegram - he makes it clear that he's into horse racing because he's having FUN with it!
Some years back I stumbled upon a listing of all the thoroughbred racehorses Mike Pegram had publicly purchased, raced w/ Bob Baffert up to/through Real Quiet and then a few years after that....with their purchase prices at auction.
Out of sheer personal curiosity I put them in an excel spreadsheet and then researched how many ever raced, how many races each raced, how many wins/placings/showings and LTE, how many years raced, etc. Using very conservative numbers for estimating his costs for each horse for monthly expenses throughout it's racing life from the moment it was purchased I calculated that really only 2, possibally 3 out of the 15 - 20 + horses he purchased at auction up to that point ever came close to paying for themselves while raced and only one of those had any liklihood of doing well as a stallion. It was kind of shocking to me that he'd stayed in the game so long and after what clearly were so many financially disappointing equine investments even though that horse may have made the front cover of The Bloodhorse once or twice in its racing life. I concluded that a) perhaps he was reaping some advantage on his taxes from his investments in horses, and/or b) he siimply did it for the love of the sport and had the discretionary income necessary to indulge this interest. He's gone on to buy/train/race many, many more TBs since then including additional MGSWs and Triple Crown threats/candidates so I'd say if the business model is a negative for Mike Pegram's participation personally I dout that it's just recent changes in purses/etc. that is discouraging to his future participation levels - it might have more to do with changes in how thoroughbred investments are taxed, written off against income or a change in his lust for the sport and/or how he's structured his business interests/assets as he gets older for the purposes of avoiding as much estate tax as he can....
Some years back I stumbled upon a listing of all the thoroughbred racehorses Mike Pegram had publicly purchased, raced w/ Bob Baffert up to/through Real Quiet and then a few years after that....with their purchase prices at auction.
Out of sheer personal curiosity I put them in an excel spreadsheet and then researched how many ever raced, how many races each raced, how many wins/placings/showings and LTE, how many years raced, etc. Using very conservative numbers for estimating his costs for each horse for monthly expenses throughout it's racing life from the moment it was purchased I calculated that really only 2, possibally 3 out of the 15 - 20 + horses he purchased at auction up to that point ever came close to paying for themselves while raced and only one of those had any liklihood of doing well as a stallion. It was kind of shocking to me that he'd stayed in the game so long and after what clearly were so many financially disappointing equine investments even though that horse may have made the front cover of The Bloodhorse once or twice in its racing life. I concluded that a) perhaps he was reaping some advantage on his taxes from his investments in horses, and/or b) he siimply did it for the love of the sport and had the discretionary income necessary to indulge this interest. He's gone on to buy/train/race many, many more TBs since then including additional MGSWs and Triple Crown threats/candidates so I'd say if the business model is a negative for Mike Pegram's participation personally I dout that it's just recent changes in purses/etc. that is discouraging to his future participation levels - it might have more to do with changes in how thoroughbred investments are taxed, written off against income or a change in his lust for the sport and/or how he's structured his business interests/assets as he gets older for the purposes of avoiding as much estate tax as he can....
-
louis finochio
- Darley line
- Posts: 9181
- Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 5:21 am
- Location: Alhambra-Calif.
- Contact:
-
fastappy
- Starters Handicap
- Posts: 587
- Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: Northern California
MP
So Louis, I guess your saying that Baffert doesn't really need MP. Guys like Baffert will always get other big dollar customers as long as they're winning a few of the big races.
"He's by Damon Runyon out of a Don Rickles mare," Actor Jack Klugman
-
louis finochio
- Darley line
- Posts: 9181
- Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 5:21 am
- Location: Alhambra-Calif.
- Contact:
-
tinners way
- Allowance Winner
- Posts: 415
- Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 1:48 pm
Louis, you missed the point. Mike Pegram represents, to many that do him or Bob Baffert personally, a guide post to measure what is really happening in the market. Most, including me, see Pegram as a successful businessman, who has invested heavily in this business, and is now showing through his actions that he doesn't think the game holds much hope of return. He also seems to understand the business, where many of the new deep pockets are simply that, a flash in the pan. Pegram has shown a logical approach to the business.
The other telltale is the Claiborne article in The Bloodhorse. "owners need to look at it as sport", not necessarily resounding endorsements for a sound business model.
The other telltale is the Claiborne article in The Bloodhorse. "owners need to look at it as sport", not necessarily resounding endorsements for a sound business model.
hi jellac
I'll second that and submit that I hope we don't see a whole lot more of what appears to be varying degrees of diminishing enthusiam among oh so many owners/participants.
Seems to me that most are likely in it for the fun (with the hope of success, however they may define it) but the potential for fun is often directly related to one's financial pain-threshhold.
Inject a uniquely challenging economy (as the country is experiencing), and there is a potential for enthusiam to suffer the consequences/be tested/diminish.
Bottom line...if/when a journey that is intended to be fun becomes less pleasurable (for whatever reason[s]), is it unreasonable to expect that those on the journey are likely to respond/react in some fashion.
Maybe Mike Pegram's journey isn't (for whatever reason[s]) as satisfying to him as it once was.
Respectfully
jellac wrote:I'd hate to see this sport lose the enthusiasm of an owner/participant like Mike Pegram ...
I'll second that and submit that I hope we don't see a whole lot more of what appears to be varying degrees of diminishing enthusiam among oh so many owners/participants.
jellac wrote: - he makes it clear that he's into horse racing because he's having FUN with it!
Seems to me that most are likely in it for the fun (with the hope of success, however they may define it) but the potential for fun is often directly related to one's financial pain-threshhold.
Inject a uniquely challenging economy (as the country is experiencing), and there is a potential for enthusiam to suffer the consequences/be tested/diminish.
Bottom line...if/when a journey that is intended to be fun becomes less pleasurable (for whatever reason[s]), is it unreasonable to expect that those on the journey are likely to respond/react in some fashion.
Maybe Mike Pegram's journey isn't (for whatever reason[s]) as satisfying to him as it once was.
Respectfully
hi Fireslam
It's easy to speculate how much cash Mike Pegram may have extracted from the game, but there's no telling how much he threw into it.
Expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses.
Let's start with training expenses, veterinary charges/expenses, and premiums re equine insurance. How many millions might that be?
And if earnings were nearly $12mil (as you reference above), where's the adjustment for 10% to the winning trainer, 10% to the winning rider(s), and whatever other percentages for 2nd, 3rd, etc. All of a sudden nearly $12,000,000 (your words) is reduced significantly.
As for ownership of Lookin at Lucky, Pegram owns a portion of the colt (is it a third?), and who knows what percentage interests he owned in other horses that raced in his colors.
And don't forget the expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses.................................
Respectfully
Fireslam wrote:I find it hard to believe that he raced Real Quiet, Silverbulletday, Captain Steve, Pussycat Doll, Hookedonthefeelin, Midnight Lute, and now Lookin at Lucky, with earnings of nearly $12,000,000 between them (not including Lucky's earnings), not to mention stallion deals, and he didnt make money.
It's easy to speculate how much cash Mike Pegram may have extracted from the game, but there's no telling how much he threw into it.
Expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses.
Let's start with training expenses, veterinary charges/expenses, and premiums re equine insurance. How many millions might that be?
And if earnings were nearly $12mil (as you reference above), where's the adjustment for 10% to the winning trainer, 10% to the winning rider(s), and whatever other percentages for 2nd, 3rd, etc. All of a sudden nearly $12,000,000 (your words) is reduced significantly.
As for ownership of Lookin at Lucky, Pegram owns a portion of the colt (is it a third?), and who knows what percentage interests he owned in other horses that raced in his colors.
And don't forget the expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses, expenses.................................
Respectfully
-
fastappy
- Starters Handicap
- Posts: 587
- Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: Northern California
tinners way wrote:Louis, you missed the point. Mike Pegram represents, to many that do him or Bob Baffert personally, a guide post to measure what is really happening in the market. Most, including me, see Pegram as a successful businessman, who has invested heavily in this business, and is now showing through his actions that he doesn't think the game holds much hope of return. He also seems to understand the business, where many of the new deep pockets are simply that, a flash in the pan. Pegram has shown a logical approach to the business.
The other telltale is the Claiborne article in The Bloodhorse. "owners need to look at it as sport", not necessarily resounding endorsements for a sound business model.
Au contraire! Actually it is Claiborne's tenacity to stick with their traditional horsemanship that has kept them as the only family owned farm to stick around for a century.
"The folks that get in, if they stay the course, a good horse will come along and over the long haul they can break even," said Seth Hancock. "Back in my dad's day, I'm not sure they really cared whether they made money becuase they were true sportsmen who love the game. Now, you don't see that many people who just love the game. If you tell them they won't make money, but hopefull they'll break even and have fun, they're out the door as soon as you finish the first part of that sentence." Nonetheless Claiborne sticks to limiting breeding books, which has lessened their ability to pay for more stallions but, has loyal clients backing them. For the first time they have had layoff's but plan to continue the farm into the next generation.
"We could start breeding stallions to 160 mares, which would make us more competitive in the marketplace," said Hancock, "and maybe we could do more screws and wires, and PE's and this and that. We'd rather do things like black-smith work and restrict turnout before we start doing surgeries as a last restort. If we bred to that many mares, we'd have more money to throw at stallion prospects, and we'd have 15 here instead of 10, but tht hasn't been us, and I really feel like we've weathered the storm. People today are unhappy about having a yearlinjg in the September sale and there's 50 or 60 others by the same sire, and they can't get the stud fee for theirs." (Seth Hancock in a Bloodhorse interview, June 5th issue)
I think the comment about expectations really explains why Claiborne is in the business. There are a lot of business people who know little about the Thoroughbred business other than wanting their picture being taken in the winners circle. That group will inevitably weed themselves out when the going gets tough as it is now. If all they're looking at is the bottom line that is the not proper inspiration or purpose for breeding & racing these grand animals. Yes profit has to be part of it to sustain the business & pay the employees, but you have to be comitted first and foremost imo.
"He's by Damon Runyon out of a Don Rickles mare," Actor Jack Klugman
-
bdw0617
- Darley line
- Posts: 9206
- Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 10:19 pm
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
- Contact:
A few thoughts.
1. I don't think you need to look at how much money he did make versus how much he COULD HAVE MADE
froma financial standpoint, waht does mike pelgram really have to show for everyhing besides purse money? a mare that can't offspring cant win 5k races at sunland park (tice out of silverbulletday), real quiet is just tearing it up in the barn\
Captain Steve lol?
I don't think it's a stretch to say that his team has the best residual value
2. not every horse he's bought has worked out. htey have some might epensive duds as well
3. if you roll wtih baffert, and operate like he wants you to operate, the "end game" (porofitiblity) can only be that huge stud deal.
the money you make at the track, you will spend at keeneland. baffert's clients goal are that 60 million dollar fup peg deal or that 50 millino dollar street sense deal.
4. He trained for bob lewis as well. I do not think it's any consience his clients have a shelf life of about 5-7 years from what it seems.
5. with all that said, baffert is a very underrated trsainer. man can fraekin train a horse.
but rolling with baffert, makes it very hard to make money. as he said himselfd, he wants to race in the big races.
1. I don't think you need to look at how much money he did make versus how much he COULD HAVE MADE
froma financial standpoint, waht does mike pelgram really have to show for everyhing besides purse money? a mare that can't offspring cant win 5k races at sunland park (tice out of silverbulletday), real quiet is just tearing it up in the barn\
Captain Steve lol?
I don't think it's a stretch to say that his team has the best residual value
2. not every horse he's bought has worked out. htey have some might epensive duds as well
3. if you roll wtih baffert, and operate like he wants you to operate, the "end game" (porofitiblity) can only be that huge stud deal.
the money you make at the track, you will spend at keeneland. baffert's clients goal are that 60 million dollar fup peg deal or that 50 millino dollar street sense deal.
4. He trained for bob lewis as well. I do not think it's any consience his clients have a shelf life of about 5-7 years from what it seems.
5. with all that said, baffert is a very underrated trsainer. man can fraekin train a horse.
but rolling with baffert, makes it very hard to make money. as he said himselfd, he wants to race in the big races.
"When the solution is simple, God is answering.”
- Einstein
- Einstein
-
bdw0617
- Darley line
- Posts: 9206
- Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 10:19 pm
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
- Contact:
fastappy wrote:tinners way wrote:Louis, you missed the point. Mike Pegram represents, to many that do him or Bob Baffert personally, a guide post to measure what is really happening in the market. Most, including me, see Pegram as a successful businessman, who has invested heavily in this business, and is now showing through his actions that he doesn't think the game holds much hope of return. He also seems to understand the business, where many of the new deep pockets are simply that, a flash in the pan. Pegram has shown a logical approach to the business.
The other telltale is the Claiborne article in The Bloodhorse. "owners need to look at it as sport", not necessarily resounding endorsements for a sound business model.
Au contraire! Actually it is Claiborne's tenacity to stick with their traditional horsemanship that has kept them as the only family owned farm to stick around for a century.
"The folks that get in, if they stay the course, a good horse will come along and over the long haul they can break even," said Seth Hancock. "Back in my dad's day, I'm not sure they really cared whether they made money becuase they were true sportsmen who love the game. Now, you don't see that many people who just love the game. If you tell them they won't make money, but hopefull they'll break even and have fun, they're out the door as soon as you finish the first part of that sentence." Nonetheless Claiborne sticks to limiting breeding books, which has lessened their ability to pay for more stallions but, has loyal clients backing them. For the first time they have had layoff's but plan to continue the farm into the next generation.
"We could start breeding stallions to 160 mares, which would make us more competitive in the marketplace," said Hancock, "and maybe we could do more screws and wires, and PE's and this and that. We'd rather do things like black-smith work and restrict turnout before we start doing surgeries as a last restort. If we bred to that many mares, we'd have more money to throw at stallion prospects, and we'd have 15 here instead of 10, but tht hasn't been us, and I really feel like we've weathered the storm. People today are unhappy about having a yearlinjg in the September sale and there's 50 or 60 others by the same sire, and they can't get the stud fee for theirs." (Seth Hancock in a Bloodhorse interview, June 5th issue)
I think the comment about expectations really explains why Claiborne is in the business. There are a lot of business people who know little about the Thoroughbred business other than wanting their picture being taken in the winners circle. That group will inevitably weed themselves out when the going gets tough as it is now. If all they're looking at is the bottom line that is the not proper inspiration or purpose for breeding & racing these grand animals. Yes profit has to be part of it to sustain the business & pay the employees, but you have to be comitted first and foremost imo.
If all they're looking at is the bottom line that is the not proper inspiration or purpose for breeding & racing these grand animals.
lol, says who? lol
just because Claiborne said something, doesn't mean it's right. And while yes, the horse racing is a very tough business, it is a business. a fun business, but a business. And any business operation should always strive to maintain in the black.
If I am not mistaken, I read somewhere where the Whitney stable only had 1 year where they did not turn a profit from their operations.
I"m sorry, I could never work with someone that pestmatic even though he's right. what he is basically sayins is hey, toss a milion or so at breeding to all these overprices sires in my back yard and let's home something comes from that. if not, tough break, it's a great game!
um no. while you should be very lucky to break even you don't' tell a client "hey i'm gonna basically rob you, and i'm going to tell you that you aren't going to get anyhow back from it" that has nothing to do with "horsemanship" that's just not very tactful. I'd have walked out too. 'let me guess, oh yes mr Greeley you say, 50k thousand dollars, oh perfect fit you say, just so happens that he's the most expensive stallion on your roster too huh, considences huh?
"When the solution is simple, God is answering.”
- Einstein
- Einstein