To all that came to my defense, thank you. I also want to apologize to you, I know how casllc works, he/she baits people into arguments and then claims to be the person hurt. I know that and should have known better. I'll try to ignore the rantings of casllc from now on.
So, maybe we can continue this thread on the intelligent path it was on until rudely interrupted.
winds
Jackson's Full Dislosure would be good.....
Moderators: Roguelet, WaveMaster, madelyn
Last edited by winds on Fri Nov 02, 2007 8:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
Yes ma'm.
Now, does anyone have a reason why full disclosure isn't a good thing? I'll state now, I don't think that having it would have any effect on unwanted horses being put into a plight. Most of the horses that aren't sold for whatever reason are either put into training or sold privately when back on the farm, whether it's to one person or a partnership is formed.
winds
Now, does anyone have a reason why full disclosure isn't a good thing? I'll state now, I don't think that having it would have any effect on unwanted horses being put into a plight. Most of the horses that aren't sold for whatever reason are either put into training or sold privately when back on the farm, whether it's to one person or a partnership is formed.
winds
winds wrote:Yes ma'm.
Now, does anyone have a reason why full disclosure isn't a good thing? I'll state now, I don't think that having it would have any effect on unwanted horses being put into a plight. Most of the horses that aren't sold for whatever reason are either put into training or sold privately when back on the farm, whether it's to one person or a partnership is formed.
winds
Yes. We have laws in place that cover disclosure. It is called fraud. All you have to do is ask the owner or agent. If they misrepresent the horse they are liable in a fraud case. If the agent says he doesn't know, he is not an agent because in a client/agent relationship the owner must make full disclosure. This would make both liable in a fraud case. Any true "agent" must have an error and ommission insurance policy to cover himself or he will soon be sued out of existance. Agency opens a whole new can of worms that a will serve no one well. Prospective buyers have as much obligation to due dilligence on prospective purchases or hire someone to do it for them - the burden should not be entirely on the seller. If you don't ask - caveat emptor.
Only problem casllc is that, and you called it right, fraud has been rampant within the industry. I am in my own small way trying to stop it, at least my clients know that I'm up front with them and I only represent them at the sale. I will not take any other money, I will not make deals unless it is for the betterment of my clients.
That has not been the norm within the industry. It's not regulated and finally some owners have gotten angry enough about it to do something in the way of change. However it looks like the people that have been using these fraudelent practices are in charge of things. It looks like it's going to be the same old, same old.
What a shame.
winds
That has not been the norm within the industry. It's not regulated and finally some owners have gotten angry enough about it to do something in the way of change. However it looks like the people that have been using these fraudelent practices are in charge of things. It looks like it's going to be the same old, same old.
What a shame.
winds
The thing is, those people in the horse business who call themselves agents, are not agents. Anyone who calls himself an agent and takes money on both ends is acting in a dual agency role and that is illegal, unless disclosed and approved by the client. Before making any new laws why not enforce the existing ones, what makes anyone think a new law will be enforced better than an old one. This same scenario was played out years ago in the real estate business. The role of agency was enforced and detailed (due to a similar lawsuit as Jackson's) and the end result was that the "agent" actually represents no one in a transaction (except themselves). A lot of brokerages have quit calling their sales people "agents" and now call them “sales facilitators” to escape the fiduciary responsibility of an agent. Bloodstock agents like the sound of that name better than "horse trader" but usually a bloodstock is not as reputable as a horse trader because usually a horse trader actually owns the horse he is selling. Be careful what you ask for in regulation, when governments or agencies get involved in regulating businesses it always winds up costing the consumer more. As I said before you can't regulate integrity but you can expect it and even demand it - but it won't happen from the top down because the people at the top don't care because they have all the leaches falling all over themselves trying to get their business anyway. It will have to be a grassroots bottom up deal. It would be wonderful if the industry was operated by the “do unto others” Golden Rule but unfortunately the other Golden Rule is the norm in the horse business - Those who have the gold, make the rules.
I have a feeling any positive changes made in this sport as a whole is going to have to be done from the grassroots. Those of us that breed, own, race are going to have to do the right thing even if we don't make as much as the others. It has to be done that way.
We need to make changes to inspire new people to join in this wonderful world of thoroughbred horse racing/breeding. If they know they aren't going to be "taken" by every one they come in contact with, they'll feel more comfortable coming into our fold and bringing friends and realatives with them.
There are enough people on this forum that think the same way, they are honest, hard working,knowledgeable people. If we all do our business honestly maybe it will start to take root.
I remember when an aquaintance went to a sale to buy a yearling for an elderly lady who believed in him. He purchased a yearling, but later at dinner announced that there wasn't anything at the sale he liked. I asked him if he liked the yearling he purchased for his client. No he answered. I then asked him why he didn't wait until he found something he liked. His answer, if I didn't get her something from this sale, then someone else would at the next. I shook my head on that answer. Why couldn't he be honest with her and say I couldn't find anything I liked in your price range, I want to keep looking privately or wait till the next sale. That is what I would do and I think she would have understood and appreciated his honesty and looking out for her. The yearling he bought her never won, I don't think it had more than a couple starts..............
winds
We need to make changes to inspire new people to join in this wonderful world of thoroughbred horse racing/breeding. If they know they aren't going to be "taken" by every one they come in contact with, they'll feel more comfortable coming into our fold and bringing friends and realatives with them.
There are enough people on this forum that think the same way, they are honest, hard working,knowledgeable people. If we all do our business honestly maybe it will start to take root.
I remember when an aquaintance went to a sale to buy a yearling for an elderly lady who believed in him. He purchased a yearling, but later at dinner announced that there wasn't anything at the sale he liked. I asked him if he liked the yearling he purchased for his client. No he answered. I then asked him why he didn't wait until he found something he liked. His answer, if I didn't get her something from this sale, then someone else would at the next. I shook my head on that answer. Why couldn't he be honest with her and say I couldn't find anything I liked in your price range, I want to keep looking privately or wait till the next sale. That is what I would do and I think she would have understood and appreciated his honesty and looking out for her. The yearling he bought her never won, I don't think it had more than a couple starts..............
winds
Ill-bred wrote:Full ownership disclosure would cut down the # of fake sales/buy-backs that are reported as sales.
The fake sales are used to inflate stallion averages or develop false market value on individual horses. Some farms/consignors use this technique more than others.
I really don't have a problem with either of those things. If someone wants to pay the commission to run the price of a horse up - I call it advertising. The only people it works on are those who don't know the value of a horse anyway. Half of my joy at sales is to watch someone run the price up on some dink that wouldn't bring the upset price on its own. The current market is so inflated and out of whack that some will be hurt just like in the 80's when it falls.
Along those same lines ("market being inflated")- as a new comer to the business, I cannot grasp how the prices at the sales seem so high in regards to the returns on the track?
It is almost the "comercial" side has very little to do with success in rrace results for some stallions?
I cannot understand how there is always demand for hot new stallions that haven't produced - let alone farms or sales agencies that may not produce race results.
The "Commercial" market seems like it should feed more off Track results?
It is almost the "comercial" side has very little to do with success in rrace results for some stallions?
I cannot understand how there is always demand for hot new stallions that haven't produced - let alone farms or sales agencies that may not produce race results.
The "Commercial" market seems like it should feed more off Track results?
We like to talk about fraud, but here's another dirty little secret of the horse business that I think is an even bigger problem but seldom addressed. There are too many so called professionals at all ends of the spectrum who have impressive client lists, business cards and buy and sell animals that don't have a clue as to what a good horse actually looks like or what the horse in front of them might be worth.
Unlike say real estate, there's no comps or blue book on this stuff. You have to rely on the experience of your advisor and sometimes there are huge holes in their background even if they talk a good game. Hustlers are often rewarded because they sound more convincing than the truth which is no one can really go out to a field of yearlings and unerringly pick out the runner. All they can do is try to point you in the most promising direction for your program, budget and location.
I don't think buyers can be passive and rely on "reforms" to help them out. Be critical of your bloodstock agent. Look at his or her resume--what was bought and how the horses performed. This info is out there but it won't be spoonfed to you. You need to look it up and if possible evaluate how they evaluate horses. Ask why a horse is on the list and why a horse is off the list. At the end of the day, it's your money.
Unlike say real estate, there's no comps or blue book on this stuff. You have to rely on the experience of your advisor and sometimes there are huge holes in their background even if they talk a good game. Hustlers are often rewarded because they sound more convincing than the truth which is no one can really go out to a field of yearlings and unerringly pick out the runner. All they can do is try to point you in the most promising direction for your program, budget and location.
I don't think buyers can be passive and rely on "reforms" to help them out. Be critical of your bloodstock agent. Look at his or her resume--what was bought and how the horses performed. This info is out there but it won't be spoonfed to you. You need to look it up and if possible evaluate how they evaluate horses. Ask why a horse is on the list and why a horse is off the list. At the end of the day, it's your money.
Sysonby wrote:We like to talk about fraud, but here's another dirty little secret of the horse business that I think is an even bigger problem but seldom addressed. There are too many so called professionals at all ends of the spectrum who have impressive client lists, business cards and buy and sell animals that don't have a clue as to what a good horse actually looks like or what the horse in front of them might be worth.
Unlike say real estate, there's no comps or blue book on this stuff. You have to rely on the experience of your advisor and sometimes there are huge holes in their background even if they talk a good game. Hustlers are often rewarded because they sound more convincing than the truth which is no one can really go out to a field of yearlings and unerringly pick out the runner. All they can do is try to point you in the most promising direction for your program, budget and location.
I don't think buyers can be passive and rely on "reforms" to help them out. Be critical of your bloodstock agent. Look at his or her resume--what was bought and how the horses performed. This info is out there but it won't be spoonfed to you. You need to look it up and if possible evaluate how they evaluate horses. Ask why a horse is on the list and why a horse is off the list. At the end of the day, it's your money.
I think you and I can see eye to eye on this. I agree with all you've said.
Ultimately it is the buyers obligation to pick a better class of people to deal with. Buying a horse is no different than buying a used car. Everyone knows who and what they are dealing with when the step onto a car lot. If they don't they will soon be educated if the have any money or credit. Are all used car salesmen crooks? No, neither are all horse traders but the thing with stereotypes is that there is a basis of partial truth that forms the stereotype.
Instead of thinking the business will be changed by the elites in the business I would think a simple idea like a Thoroughbred online feedback similar to eBay feed back would get quicker results. Everyone wants to tell you how honest and knowledgeable they are but can they back it up? An online clearinghouse like a TB BBB would be an avenue of seeking experiences of previous clients. Sure it can be inflated and embellished, as is done with all review sites, but the bad experiences would jump out as a warning. Certainly, there would have to be a way to address feedback that might be malicious, but it can be done.