I have to admit I did not look at him head-on.....once a stallion has yearlings that I have had a chance to see a number of, I tend to disregard the stallion's conformation and pay more attention to the conformation trends/patterns of his offspring.
Having said that, I have not seen enough Successful Appeal offspring to really have an opinion. He is a very good horse, but one that I am not sure of (commercially), and most of the people I work with are commercial breeders.
He is much bigger than I expected a Valid Appeal horse to be!
Songandaprayer gets Boost
Moderators: Roguelet, WaveMaster, madelyn
-
roving boy
- Allowance Winner
- Posts: 294
- Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 2:18 pm
- Location: Kentucky
hi roving boy
You wrote and ask "I am not sure that I understand your post. Why would "an attempt to attract foal shares" drive the fee up? Usually foal shares are offered when one is trying to increase book size and one is willing to "deal" (i.e. Point Given for the last 2 years)."
I'm not intending to suggest that in general an attempt to attract foal shares would drive the stud fee up. I'm suggesting that the $35,000 stud fee on Songandaprayer (for 2006) is very optimistic, and that shareholders are aware of that and furthermore understand that such a high stud fee (on him) might put a damper on the ability to sell seasons at the advertised fee (until and unless SAP is the beneficiary of some BIG news). I suggest that foal share opportunities might appeal to some breeders while many (if not most) savvy breeders might stay clear, at least until they can justify the stud fee. I submit that the risk/reward considerations that a mare owner should evaluate re: a foal share agreement based on an arguably inflated stud fee, are different than a scenario related to a breeder committing to paying an arguably inflated stud fee. I suggest that the majority ownership in SAP took that into account at the time the $35,000 stud fee was being considered, and ultimately decided upon.
Yes SAP's stud fee might prove to be good value down the road...but I suggest that signing a contract to breed to a stallion that is arguably overpriced at the time one commits, can be dangerous territory. Doing a foal share is not as dangerous...at least to the extent that the risk of overpaying for a stud fee is removed from the scenario.
For what it's worth...I expect that majority ownership (in SAP) might have wielded power to set the stud fee higher than Walmac would have preferred. I also get the impression that SAP's connections realized (when the fee was set) that there might be some resistance from breeders, and a possible wait-and-see attitude from many (if not most) might result...and that foal share offerings might help fill the void for some shareholders that are currently unable to sell their seasons for the advertised stud fee.
With that in mind I expect that majority ownerhip (which I understand doesn't have enough mares, whether they are worthy of a $35k stud fee or not, to support their interest in the horse) is open to foal shares, now. I sense that if it was Walmac's call to set the 2006 stud fee, they would not have been so aggressive in setting it so high (right now). Reality is they own a minority interest in SAP (and of course they have their farm seasons)...and they probably didn't have the power to supercede the vote that setting the stud fee required.
Historically, Walmac seemed to set stud fees at a level which they believed would probably attract a Full book...knowing full-well that many (if not most) stallions experience stretches (sometimes quite extended) during which their offspring seem to be off the boil.
Regardless of speculation...the decision has been made and a $35k stud fee has been set...everyone associated with SAP will probably smile and appear to be on the same page...but if you look closely you might see that everyone's fingers are crossed.
Of course if SAP comes up with a G1 winner and/or a super star front page horse in the not too distant future, the $35,000 stud fee will no longer be an obstacle. There are no guarantees that will happen...and for the short term I expect few will sign a $35k contract to Songandaprayer, but foal share offerings (which I am confident are available...although probably not on Walmac seasons) will assure that SAP's book will at least be partially filled (as a result) in the short term.
Had SAP's stud fee for 2006 been set at $20,000 or even $25,000 I expect he would have been assured of a Full (probably subscribed to the max) book of worthy outside mares. At $30,000 it might have been considered a bit of a stretch, but at $35k I expect his majority connections are banking on something BIG happening to diminish or remove the obstacle this stud fee creates (in my opinion) right now. Something BIG might just occur...but right now I again suggest his stud fee for 2006 is VERY optimistic.
With regard to Successful Appeal...from my perspective he is a star...and EXCEPTIONAL value at $25,000 Live (for 2006)...All Things Considered.
As I noted previously...he has reportedly had issues in the breeding shed, and it's probably fair to say he's often been an undependable (for lack of a better word) breeding horse.
Apparently he had (and might still have) a back problem (which apparently is a root cause for his breeding issues). The farm indicates it has successfully dealt with the problem (using acupuncture etc)...I hope so. It will be interesting to see how his ability to cover and settle mares evolves (both short term and long term).
Regarding Songandaprayer's stud fee for 2006...six months from now $35,000 might seem like a bargain...but right now...today...from my perspective he's overpriced by maybe $10,000.
Respectfully
You wrote and ask "I am not sure that I understand your post. Why would "an attempt to attract foal shares" drive the fee up? Usually foal shares are offered when one is trying to increase book size and one is willing to "deal" (i.e. Point Given for the last 2 years)."
I'm not intending to suggest that in general an attempt to attract foal shares would drive the stud fee up. I'm suggesting that the $35,000 stud fee on Songandaprayer (for 2006) is very optimistic, and that shareholders are aware of that and furthermore understand that such a high stud fee (on him) might put a damper on the ability to sell seasons at the advertised fee (until and unless SAP is the beneficiary of some BIG news). I suggest that foal share opportunities might appeal to some breeders while many (if not most) savvy breeders might stay clear, at least until they can justify the stud fee. I submit that the risk/reward considerations that a mare owner should evaluate re: a foal share agreement based on an arguably inflated stud fee, are different than a scenario related to a breeder committing to paying an arguably inflated stud fee. I suggest that the majority ownership in SAP took that into account at the time the $35,000 stud fee was being considered, and ultimately decided upon.
Yes SAP's stud fee might prove to be good value down the road...but I suggest that signing a contract to breed to a stallion that is arguably overpriced at the time one commits, can be dangerous territory. Doing a foal share is not as dangerous...at least to the extent that the risk of overpaying for a stud fee is removed from the scenario.
For what it's worth...I expect that majority ownership (in SAP) might have wielded power to set the stud fee higher than Walmac would have preferred. I also get the impression that SAP's connections realized (when the fee was set) that there might be some resistance from breeders, and a possible wait-and-see attitude from many (if not most) might result...and that foal share offerings might help fill the void for some shareholders that are currently unable to sell their seasons for the advertised stud fee.
With that in mind I expect that majority ownerhip (which I understand doesn't have enough mares, whether they are worthy of a $35k stud fee or not, to support their interest in the horse) is open to foal shares, now. I sense that if it was Walmac's call to set the 2006 stud fee, they would not have been so aggressive in setting it so high (right now). Reality is they own a minority interest in SAP (and of course they have their farm seasons)...and they probably didn't have the power to supercede the vote that setting the stud fee required.
Historically, Walmac seemed to set stud fees at a level which they believed would probably attract a Full book...knowing full-well that many (if not most) stallions experience stretches (sometimes quite extended) during which their offspring seem to be off the boil.
Regardless of speculation...the decision has been made and a $35k stud fee has been set...everyone associated with SAP will probably smile and appear to be on the same page...but if you look closely you might see that everyone's fingers are crossed.
Of course if SAP comes up with a G1 winner and/or a super star front page horse in the not too distant future, the $35,000 stud fee will no longer be an obstacle. There are no guarantees that will happen...and for the short term I expect few will sign a $35k contract to Songandaprayer, but foal share offerings (which I am confident are available...although probably not on Walmac seasons) will assure that SAP's book will at least be partially filled (as a result) in the short term.
Had SAP's stud fee for 2006 been set at $20,000 or even $25,000 I expect he would have been assured of a Full (probably subscribed to the max) book of worthy outside mares. At $30,000 it might have been considered a bit of a stretch, but at $35k I expect his majority connections are banking on something BIG happening to diminish or remove the obstacle this stud fee creates (in my opinion) right now. Something BIG might just occur...but right now I again suggest his stud fee for 2006 is VERY optimistic.
With regard to Successful Appeal...from my perspective he is a star...and EXCEPTIONAL value at $25,000 Live (for 2006)...All Things Considered.
As I noted previously...he has reportedly had issues in the breeding shed, and it's probably fair to say he's often been an undependable (for lack of a better word) breeding horse.
Apparently he had (and might still have) a back problem (which apparently is a root cause for his breeding issues). The farm indicates it has successfully dealt with the problem (using acupuncture etc)...I hope so. It will be interesting to see how his ability to cover and settle mares evolves (both short term and long term).
Regarding Songandaprayer's stud fee for 2006...six months from now $35,000 might seem like a bargain...but right now...today...from my perspective he's overpriced by maybe $10,000.
Respectfully
Does anyone know why He's Got Grit is not pre-entered in the Breeders Cup Juvenile?
Back to the topic at hand, I think the boost while not as on as large a scale risks heading to an Elusive Quality situation where you've got a stallion who does something very impressively for a year (i.e. gets a Derby horse, gets some top 2yo's, etc) and then drops out of major contention in the sire list. While Elusive Quality is still doing a pretty passable job in the sales ring and is getting his share of famous ladies, I'm sure breeders who have patronized him this year are a little disappointed to see him at 60 on the sires list behind several working class sires standing for considerably less.
I think the current trend of wringing every dollar from a stallion's short term accomplishment is going to hamstring some sires deserving of better. As FOS stated earlier, its very hard to reduce a stud fee without the stallion's reputation taking a major hit.
Songandaprayer has done well at the sales and at the track. He's improving his mares. He deserved an increase, but one has to account for the fickle minds of buyers today who might pass him over quickly for the next big thing should his progeny stall and then where will he be left?
I am also quite interested to see how the three Florida imports do when introduced to the ladies of Kentucky. Will the different gene pool suit them as well as what they were getting in Florida?
Back to the topic at hand, I think the boost while not as on as large a scale risks heading to an Elusive Quality situation where you've got a stallion who does something very impressively for a year (i.e. gets a Derby horse, gets some top 2yo's, etc) and then drops out of major contention in the sire list. While Elusive Quality is still doing a pretty passable job in the sales ring and is getting his share of famous ladies, I'm sure breeders who have patronized him this year are a little disappointed to see him at 60 on the sires list behind several working class sires standing for considerably less.
I think the current trend of wringing every dollar from a stallion's short term accomplishment is going to hamstring some sires deserving of better. As FOS stated earlier, its very hard to reduce a stud fee without the stallion's reputation taking a major hit.
Songandaprayer has done well at the sales and at the track. He's improving his mares. He deserved an increase, but one has to account for the fickle minds of buyers today who might pass him over quickly for the next big thing should his progeny stall and then where will he be left?
I am also quite interested to see how the three Florida imports do when introduced to the ladies of Kentucky. Will the different gene pool suit them as well as what they were getting in Florida?
I don't have low self-esteem. I have low esteem for everyone else. ~ Daria
-
roving boy
- Allowance Winner
- Posts: 294
- Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 2:18 pm
- Location: Kentucky
FOS, one of your previous posts said "there has already been an attempt to attract foal shares" - your most recent post gives your reasoning for why Walmac may offer foal shares, but does not directly address your prior statement. Do you know of any foal share offers made, or is that merely speculation?
Roving Boy
Hi Folks,
The arbiter of a stallions' value isn't determined by logic and is only loosely based on numbers. Perception and Hope are the two most important words in the thoroughbred business and they determine stallion value.
Precocious, quality colts are the surest way to increase a stallion's value and Songandaprayer has started his career with 2 nice ones (one who sadly died). Soundness isn't really an issue. Most of the youngsters that break down could have lasted longer had they been handled differently.
Unbridled's Song is thought by many to get unsound foals and yet his sales average continues to move up ($420k) along with his stud fee (now $150,000). In fact, many of his foals have raced more sound if not pressed too hard too early.
Pressed hard early is PRECISELY what owners intend to do with their high priced stock. They will and do sacrifice their horses in the attempt to prove them on the track as early as possible.
Stallion fees are usually set as high as the stud farm believes that they will sell for and still give the stallion a full book. There are two mathematical components that can be tied (often loosely) to the fee; yearling sales average and share price.
STUD_FEE = (YearlingSalesAvg - $10000) / 2
or
STUD_FEE = (YearlingSalesAvg / 2 ) - $10,000
This calculation is also commonly used to determine profitable sales horses, if your horse sold for 2X stud fee plus $10,000 (used to be $5,000), then you’re profitable. You and I can make a better calculation of profitability for ourselves.
With a yearling sales average of $102K, (from only 8 foals), Songandaprayer’s fee could have been justified at $40,000. Compare the Keeneland averages to the 2006 stud fees and you’ll find that this equation isn’t far off for many stallions. Lemon Drop Kid averaged $82,000, supporting his new fee of $30,000 but take away his startling sale of a $1,400,000 yearling and his average would have been $53,000 or the basis of a $20,000 fee - you can draw your own conclusions.
Some farms, notably Adena, set fees as they like since they (largely) don’t count on outside mares. Alphabet Soup averaged $24k on 11 sales so Adena upped his fee to $25,000. Nice to be independent. Whatever isn’t booked by outside mares will be booked by their own.
Adena Springs doesn’t support their stallions much at sales and they’ve told me that they don’t play games at the sales and I believe them. The result is that their stallion’s sales averages are usually below the ‘calculation’ of profitability, including Awesome Again. Only Wild Rush has shown commercial viability according to the equation. Other farms like Vinery, Darby Dan and Millennium (to name a few and I can’t say on all their stallions), have sales profiles that seem to make sense. A single whopping sale – that really isn’t a sale, can add many thousands of dollars to the perceived ‘validity’ of a stud fee. Several Stephen Got Even foals were sold from his first crop as 2yos in the millions. He averaged only $38k for this years yearlings and his fee was raised to $15,000. Go figure.
Syndicates need to protect share prices that are usually based on a multiple of the stud fee (when the stallion first stands). While at first the share price maintains the stud fee, the fee often ends ups supporting the share price. In the case of a Point Given, his stud fee was set aggressively at $125,000 and his shares at $1,000,000 (an 8x multiple) when he entered stud. Now his fee is down to $50,000 and I’d imagine that shares are available for a much lower multiple than his original 8x (having no interest – I haven’t inquired).
Songandaprayer entered stud at $10,000 and I believe $50,000 a share (5x). Now his fee, at $35,000, with a heavier multiple of about 7x sets his share price in the $250,000 range.
It’s not a matter of whether Successful Appeal has superior numbers to Songandaprayer, it’s really about whether one or the other will provide buyers with the belief that they can get special horses. Successful Appeal’s appeal (sorry
) appears to be waning and I doubt he’ll service a full book at farm price (assuming that his breeding problems don’t reappear). I believe Songandaprayer will. In a syndicate, most foal sharing opportunities come from share holders. If the stallion is hot then most shareholders will sell their shares and not do foal shares. I haven’t heard of any foal shares with Songandaprayer and I’ve been asking. I actually anticipate that we’ll see shareholders selling no-guarantee seasons for close to his farm price for live foal seasons as we progress into 2006. Is it correct? Is it sensible? Come on, you folks all know that sensible isn’t part of the equine vocabulary and correct is just a summary of conformation. 
Regards,
Pete
The arbiter of a stallions' value isn't determined by logic and is only loosely based on numbers. Perception and Hope are the two most important words in the thoroughbred business and they determine stallion value.
Precocious, quality colts are the surest way to increase a stallion's value and Songandaprayer has started his career with 2 nice ones (one who sadly died). Soundness isn't really an issue. Most of the youngsters that break down could have lasted longer had they been handled differently.
Unbridled's Song is thought by many to get unsound foals and yet his sales average continues to move up ($420k) along with his stud fee (now $150,000). In fact, many of his foals have raced more sound if not pressed too hard too early.
Pressed hard early is PRECISELY what owners intend to do with their high priced stock. They will and do sacrifice their horses in the attempt to prove them on the track as early as possible.
Stallion fees are usually set as high as the stud farm believes that they will sell for and still give the stallion a full book. There are two mathematical components that can be tied (often loosely) to the fee; yearling sales average and share price.
STUD_FEE = (YearlingSalesAvg - $10000) / 2
or
STUD_FEE = (YearlingSalesAvg / 2 ) - $10,000
This calculation is also commonly used to determine profitable sales horses, if your horse sold for 2X stud fee plus $10,000 (used to be $5,000), then you’re profitable. You and I can make a better calculation of profitability for ourselves.
With a yearling sales average of $102K, (from only 8 foals), Songandaprayer’s fee could have been justified at $40,000. Compare the Keeneland averages to the 2006 stud fees and you’ll find that this equation isn’t far off for many stallions. Lemon Drop Kid averaged $82,000, supporting his new fee of $30,000 but take away his startling sale of a $1,400,000 yearling and his average would have been $53,000 or the basis of a $20,000 fee - you can draw your own conclusions.
Some farms, notably Adena, set fees as they like since they (largely) don’t count on outside mares. Alphabet Soup averaged $24k on 11 sales so Adena upped his fee to $25,000. Nice to be independent. Whatever isn’t booked by outside mares will be booked by their own.
Adena Springs doesn’t support their stallions much at sales and they’ve told me that they don’t play games at the sales and I believe them. The result is that their stallion’s sales averages are usually below the ‘calculation’ of profitability, including Awesome Again. Only Wild Rush has shown commercial viability according to the equation. Other farms like Vinery, Darby Dan and Millennium (to name a few and I can’t say on all their stallions), have sales profiles that seem to make sense. A single whopping sale – that really isn’t a sale, can add many thousands of dollars to the perceived ‘validity’ of a stud fee. Several Stephen Got Even foals were sold from his first crop as 2yos in the millions. He averaged only $38k for this years yearlings and his fee was raised to $15,000. Go figure.
Syndicates need to protect share prices that are usually based on a multiple of the stud fee (when the stallion first stands). While at first the share price maintains the stud fee, the fee often ends ups supporting the share price. In the case of a Point Given, his stud fee was set aggressively at $125,000 and his shares at $1,000,000 (an 8x multiple) when he entered stud. Now his fee is down to $50,000 and I’d imagine that shares are available for a much lower multiple than his original 8x (having no interest – I haven’t inquired).
Songandaprayer entered stud at $10,000 and I believe $50,000 a share (5x). Now his fee, at $35,000, with a heavier multiple of about 7x sets his share price in the $250,000 range.
It’s not a matter of whether Successful Appeal has superior numbers to Songandaprayer, it’s really about whether one or the other will provide buyers with the belief that they can get special horses. Successful Appeal’s appeal (sorry
) appears to be waning and I doubt he’ll service a full book at farm price (assuming that his breeding problems don’t reappear). I believe Songandaprayer will. In a syndicate, most foal sharing opportunities come from share holders. If the stallion is hot then most shareholders will sell their shares and not do foal shares. I haven’t heard of any foal shares with Songandaprayer and I’ve been asking. I actually anticipate that we’ll see shareholders selling no-guarantee seasons for close to his farm price for live foal seasons as we progress into 2006. Is it correct? Is it sensible? Come on, you folks all know that sensible isn’t part of the equine vocabulary and correct is just a summary of conformation.
Regards,
Pete
Has a palomino jean that pop up some.
This stallion is DNA ... all foal can be MBNA inrolled.
Horses like their credit cards. - Four Forty Farms
This stallion is DNA ... all foal can be MBNA inrolled.
Horses like their credit cards. - Four Forty Farms
-
roving boy
- Allowance Winner
- Posts: 294
- Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 2:18 pm
- Location: Kentucky