Postby dray33 » Sun Mar 16, 2008 12:03 pm
I'll answer it, even though you won't answer mine.
Your 3,017 horses for 2006 is one number, use them for both statistics, since they go on to earn monies for both categories. The data speaks for itself. It's sales data. Yearlings sold at auction (any and all yearlings) go on to win back far less money that the total of and and all two year-olds that sell. Adena claims a 150% return on investment over the course of their sale (unprecedented). Thoroughbred Times data showed the following: "Remarkably enough, the 23,333 horses sold at those ten (two year-old) sales over that ten-year window have earned back 95.2% of their $1.45-billion total purchase price. That is a far higher percentage than graduates of yearling sales manage." I just don't know how to word it so you understand... but thats ok.
We both know that words are just that... words. Personally, I'm trying my best to do better. Unless you put it on the line, it's fire and fury without substance. I live it, and put my money on the line. That's all i can do. We just disagree. That's cool, I enjoy the discussion, but I don't want it to dwindle down to the "you admit it" and the other guys saying "you admit it" loop. I'm in a bad position to start. You're saying "don't burn the flag" and arguing the merits of doing so is pointless. I happen to agree with some of what you say... I only take issue with the way you present it. But again, thats your right, and I would fight to allow you to express it. People, in the end, decide for themselves.
So there is your answer. I want to include ALL the yearlings, and ALL the 2YO's sold (including the 3,017 yearlings sold).
Your turn: You are going to buy a racehorse. Year after year, where's your best shot, on average (in your opinion) to earn back your investment dollar? The yearling sale, or the two year-old sale? (I'll give you a boost. You don't have to include the 6 extra months of carrying the yearling).