Value of a mare..
 

this is a great read from the racingpost in light of what many were chatting about last week..

IT was pure emotion as the two massive chestnut frames battled through the Belmont's achingly long final furlong on Saturday, Curlin's narrow-striped face straining to get past Rags To Riches' determined broad blaze.

Reputations, history, and the hopes of females everywhere were on the line – and the filly, Rags To Riches, crossed it first.

One hundred and two years of history were defeated along with Curlin, as Todd Pletcher's charge became the first filly to win the Belmont Stakes since Tanya in 1905. It was also the first victory in a Triple Crown race for Pletcher, on the leading trainer's 29th try.

Shortly after – or perhaps, during – the tears, hugs and congratulations, the more pecuniary minds among us began ticking away. Despite her name, this filly hardly came from the wrong side of the railroad tracks, as they say in New York. At least half of her name is right, though – she's found riches galore, and the inquiring mind can't help but wonder, just what is her net worth?

It is a natural question in the extraordinary context of this season's Classic races and, were things a bit different, we might have expected to see Sheikh Mohammed opening the chequebook again to secure the breeding rights to his fourth Classic performer in as many weeks. But this is no Street Sense, Hard Spun or Authorized, for even if Rags To Riches were not a filly, her Coolmore-affiliated owners Michael Tabor and Derrick Smith would hardly be entertaining offers from their arch-rival for one of the most valuable genetic troves in the thoroughbred world.

There is a fine irony here, as Sheikh Mohammed has been among the most enthusiastic buyers of stock by A.P. Indy, the 1992 Belmont Stakes winner and Horse of the Year, and the sire of Rags To Riches. Since 2002 the Sheikh's agent JohnFerguson has spent $14,475,000 for ten A.P. Indy yearlings at the Keeneland September Sale. But Ferguson was buying mainly colts, with their Triple Crown and stud value potential. Tough luck that the filly bought by Coolmore should win the Belmont Stakes, leaving future Darley stallion Hard Spun unplaced behind her.

The financial line of thought is difficult to avoid in a year in which every Classic win is followed by a hard cash deal for stud rights. With the news that Cockney Rebel's owner Phil Cunningham is pondering a bid of £10 million for his dual Guineas winner, the picture is nearly complete: win a Classic, hit the jackpot. Cockney Rebel's value as a yearling was just 30,000gns.

Rags To Riches was no bargain yearling, although at $1.9m she was only the fifth most expensive of A.P. Indy's progeny at the 2005 Keeneland September Sale, costing less than two colts bought by Ferguson, one by Eugene Melnyk, and one by Demi O'Byrne (who also signed for Rags To Riches). Her value has since soared, but what exactly is it based on?

A potential broodmare's worth is trickier to evaluate than that of a stallion. While a stallion's earnings potential can be calculated fairly easily, multiplying his nomination fee by the number of live foals he sires in a year, with a mare it is a less straightforward matter. She will produce only one foal a year, if that, and any breeder knows how many things can go wrong with one foal. Moreover, the time frame with a mare is long; it will be a year and a half before her foal makes it to the yearling sales, and far longer before it hits the racetrack.

From the shrewd view of the insurer, a good stallion is worth a lot more money than even the best broodmare. “I'd value the mare on about five times the sale price ofher potential offspring,” explains David Ashby of Amlin Plus, one of the leading bloodstock underwriters at Lloyds. “Take a good mare going to Montjeu, and let's say she was going to have a $1m foal – I'd value the mare at $5m.”

A successful broodmare of middle age whose progeny to date have been worth several million dollars could be valued at up to $10m, Ashby adds. That is in line with the top prices for mares sold at auction – Magical Romance's 4,600,000gns last year and Ashado's $9m in 2005.

However, the calculations for a high-priced stallion add up to a comparatively astronomical value. As a rule of thumb, Ashby explains, he would take the number of covers in a stallion's book, multiply it by his live foal percentage, multiply that by the stallion's covering fee and then multiply the resulting figure by four – a reasonable number of years in which the same scenario might continue.

So take a stallion who covers 150 mares in a season and has a 75 per cent live foal rate – fairly conservative numbers – to produce 112 foals. Say that stallion is Galileo and has a fee of €150,000 – he would be worth €67,200,000 to the insurers. On the other hand, his dam would be worth no more than €7,500,000.

It doesn't seem fair. Urban Sea, Galileo's dam, is after all one of the best mares around, having produced five Group winners, two of them of Group 1s, and six stakes scorers to date, with her eighth foal, Cherry Hinton, looking likely to add a black-type winsoon. Moreover, she has produced one of Coolmore's best young sires.

Urban Sea has something in common with Rags To Riches: she beat the boys in one of the most prestigious middle-distance events, the Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe. There has always been afeeling that a filly who can beat the colts is something out of the ordinary. In the past, the feeling was in part suspicion regarding the filly's femininity, and hence her breeding ability. However, there is now abundant evidence that fillies who win top-class races against the colts are more often superior in the breeding shed than not.

Take the Arc, for instance. Urban Sea in 1993 was the last female winner of the race, but there was a heady time, coinciding with feminism's heyday, when seven fillies landed the Arc, beginning with San San in 1972 and ending with All Along in 1983. Including Urban Sea, all but one have produced Group or Graded winners.

Although Urban Sea is the best of the lot, they also include Detroit, who produced 1994 Arc winner Carnegie, and Gold River, who produced not only Group 1 heroine Riviere d'Or but Poule d'Essai des Poulains runner-up and useful sire Goldneyev, the grandsire of Alexander Goldrun – who notched her own Group 1 victory against the males in the 2004 Cathay Pacific Hong Kong Cup.

Compare this to the recent stud record of male Arc winners. Montjeu aside, it is nothing to boast about. From a less tangible calculation than that used by the insurers, a female Arc winner may have more potential value than a colt.

There are two reasons behind this thinking. First, a broodmare can rake in a lot of money, if nowhere near as much as a successful stallion. Serena's Song, who beat colts to win the 1995 Haskell Invitational, has produced yearlings worth $12,200,000 at auction through 2006. That does not include their considerable racecourse earnings and subsequent breeding value, which leads us to the second reason that a broodmare can be worth at least as much to a breeder as a stallion prospect.

All the top breeding operations can trace to at least one tap-root mare whose family consistently produces not only superior athletes, but superior breeding stock. Meon Valley Stud's Reprocolor, the late Gerald Leigh's Brocade and Moyglare Stud's Easy To Copy all proved what an independent breeder can do with the right family when well cultivated. But those studs were not in the business of producing stallions, where the serious money lies.

For stallion-makers such as Coolmore and Juddmonte a mare who can generate stallions as well as runners and producers is the most valuable commodity of all. A Hasili or a Tussaud, a Mariah's Storm or an Urban Sea, produces over time what money can't buy, or more accurately, what can only be bought with the multi-millions used to purchase Authorized et al or scores of ultimately moderate yearlings.

Tussaud, a Grade 1 winner and Kentucky Broodmare of the Year in 2002, was named for the famous waxwork museum as a nod to the name of her dam, Image Of Reality. Alluding to this arty history, Juddmonte used to describe her son Chester House as “a genetic masterpiece”.

Rags To Riches' dam Better Than Honour, whose own dam, Blush With Pride, won the Kentucky Oaks, has produced five foals sold at auction to date for a sum of $6,000,000. They already include two Belmont winners, Jazil having won the title last year. A genetic masterpiece – Rags To Riches may in time prove priceless.

I wonder how much Better than Honuor's next foal will sell for?

The amount of ignorant, self-agrandizing money that goes into this end of the business never ceases to amaze me. I dont get it. But then again I never got the Nike shoe thing either. The market of ignorance and selfworth is huge. But the business within these driving forces is tangible to so many. Absolutely baffling.

Status gone nuts.

Please repeat in laymans terms.

The sport of Kings has not a flipping clue as to how good a runner a foal will turn out.

Or, you would be a poor man (if training is your primary income) if you had to rely on a group like this board to bring you business.

But one can always hope for better.

that's why the breeders and buyers are bigger gamblers than the bettors.

pretty interesting article, thanks for posting Brock....

I would not put breeders in the same category as owners. It is a parasitic relationship, and not always directly parasitic. When the two blend it gets interesting.

And the article is very informative. Probably really interesting discussing the next big stallion or farm...

I meant those that still breed to race, I guess I wasn't very clear.

What's the diffrence between a direct parasite and an indirect parasite?

As far as blending, I DO know that bad things happen when you add water to good scotch whisley.

Nah. My bad. I always get frustrated with the breeding posts so I was an intruder. And I can see how it might be very interesting to follow family trees of racing studs and mares.

Enough of me. Done. Too hot to hold.

Trainers, auction houses, etc... who dupe owners (indirect).
Breeder directly to owner, not as frequent (direct).

Or agent for owner who acts in breeders interest (indirect).

Cool, I'm making my own little groupings.

Isn't that what makes it a challenge? You dont know how your kids will turn out when they are 2 either. At least we can geld horses.

Most large breeders own lots of racehorses too

these days they sell their culls instead of just killing them.

Seems it would be more fun with a bit more variety (like the NBA tapping into the world market). Market forces, market forces... I gotta stop now. Storm Cat, AP INdy, Storm Cat, AP INdy.

A lot of them run them....and then they wished they killed them

There are 5000+ horses in the Kee sale and only about 50 by Storm Cat and AP Indy

So variety is not a problem?

I really must stop myself. Im sorry. This thread should be going the way of the 2nd poster. This is a thread to talk about the next generation of desirable offspring from certain female runners.

When evaluating the value of a broodmare...people shouldn't forget that their best foals are very often one of their first four.

If you look at the 50 ranked horses of the 1900's, 32-out of-50 (64%) were one of the first three live foals dropped out of their dam. 40-of-50 (80%) were one of the first four live foals dropped.

Rags to Riches was the 4th foal dropped out of her dam.

Sure all the females Better Than Honour drops from this stage on will have tremendous residual value..and any colt with some talent will have stallion potential...however, statistics would suggest her future foals might not compare favorably to the ones she has had so far.

Biological explaination? Damn I cant stop.

Sorry, I'm only a gambler....and one without much of a formal education at that.

Perhaps the following might be helpful to you (it sounds like a bunch of mumbo-jumbo to me)

in her first couple of years as a broodmare she will have the best mating opportunities (assuming she is halfway decent herself) because she is an unknown in the shed....unless her foal run well those opportunities dry up, and the quality of the runner drops off.

even crappy broodmares usually got the best chance for a good runner early on.

I realize that isn't a biological explanation...but I don't really buy the whole 'dried up uterus' deal.

No that actually is a heck of a reasonable explaination that is not biological that the authors above probably took into account if they did their study properly.

Basically all they are saying it is the female's oven (uterus) that is responsible for baking the cake properly. They dont say anything about the ingredients supplied from both mom and dad (genetics). Which is good to know because there is nothing about genetics involved in this particular study. Sorry for the talk down.Your explaination would be one of the first things you would query the authors about.

The 55 to 60 thing v. the male would be something I would have to say why not 50/50

Oops I just realized you did not even ask about the uterus, you just said you dont buy it.

It works both ways....the broodmares who gets production from low-profile sires early on....will get mated to much classier stallions later on...and those foals often tend to be extreme busts.

Just from the expierence of betting so many races with unraced maidens, I really prefer to bet against foals who dropped from old dams. The ones whos dams have produced a long list of winners from a long list of foals are notoriously bad bets.

I agree it works both ways....the problem with a mare that had good sucess with lesser stallions is that the matings were usually pretty well planned to give her the best chance and then when she hits with a runner they send her to whatever big stallion is trendy....without giving enough thought as to how she might cross on him IMO.

you run up against the nature vs. nurture debate which is really what they are talking about IMO when they say the mare contributes more...not much different than a woman who goes to the sperm bank and then raises a child on her own....she obviously has a greater bearing on the childs success than the father despite equal genetic contributions.

I believe the mare contributes a great deal more to the pedigree than the sire...but I never thought of it having anything to do with nature vs nurture.

Virtually all stallions excelled on the race track....and for just $5,000 you can breed to a multiple Grade 1 winner like Jade Hunter, who's sired a slew of top horses before (Horse of the year Azeri, Three-time Grade 1 Yagli, Halory Hunter, Stuka, Midway Road, Diazo, etc)

For $5,000 you can also breed to a Real Quiet, who came within a nose of winning a triple crown...and has thrown Grade 1 caliber horses like Pussycat Doll, Wonder Lady Anne L., and Midnight Lute.

An all-time great stallion like Storm Cat has a $500,000 stud fee, and inspite of the incredible book of mares he gets every year, he has just two eclipse award winners...a couple of 2-year-old fillies who fell apart as 3yo's.

Obviously some stallions are better than others...and sure Storm Cat's a lot better than a Jade Hunter or Real Quiet...but there isn't as much seperation as there are with mares in my opinion.

From a bettors standpoint....when I judge a pedigree, I put minor emphasis on the sire himself and huge emphasis on the tail-female line. IMO, nothing else matters.

But it has complete control over how valuable it will be as a yearling at auction. That, I suspect, is why the market breeders breed sales yearlings first and racehorses as an afterthought.

Both very good points(Pas and Drugs) I think. I dont think enough about the business side and that makes perfect sense.

The mare does contribute more genetically. And it is a very important bit of genetic information. Information that would greatly affect stamina, the genes associated with cellular respiraton. Its in the mares egg already in her mitochondria. I have seen a few papers on this, but I was suprised there were not more, suprised. There has to be more work on this that is not published with all the money that goes into breeding. Or maybe not, since the market seems to be driven in ways I do not fully understand.

Theoretically mares should play more of a role in stamina. Theoretically, but I would back this guess with some convinction because those genes in the mitochondria code for some very important enzymes that affect efficient use of oxygen by muscles. I do not have any numbers to back this up. But the mare side should be super important.

This is why I would have asked why not 50/50 from a genetic standpoint. Its is not 50/50 genetically.

And they have not stepped foot on a track...

I guess if they look good as yearlings, and have the desired pedigree (which again, I am totally perplexed by much of this) they sell. And the horse is going to go through enormous physiological changes. A gamble that escapes me.

So I must respect people who can pick out a horse that has run, buy it, and make the horse better because they see potential. Congrats Mr. Simon.

This is only true ON AVERAGE. And one must remember that many mares have only a handful of foals, so their small numbers average out vs. those mares who have many foals.

I can give numerous examples of mares who produced SWs early and late in their broodmare careers (Somethingroyal, Dahlia) or who didn't produce a stakes horse until later (Bird Town and Birdstone were foals number 8 and 9 for Dear Birdie).

This is a case where one must consider the individual rather than the population figures.

If you breed a fashionably bred mare to a fashionably bred stallion, you are guaranteed to have a fashionably bred foal. The risk is whether he is - or can be artificially made to appear - reasonably correct.

If you are trying to breed a racehorse, the risk of failure is much greater and it will take a longer time before you find out.

If you stand stallions as sires of runners, it will be four years before the first foals hit the track. The odds of a given stallion being a top sire of runners is low. Compare that to standing stallions as sires of sales yearlings. If your stallion is popularly bred and you can get vast numbers of good mares to him, you're making big money in year one. Assuming the foals are decent-looking, it doesn't matter if they can't outrun a goat. No one will know for at least four years, during which time you're making a lot of money, and by the time the stallion is exposed as a moderate sire of runners, you'll have an exciting new young sire of sales yearlings.

Breeding sales yearlings is a much surer bet, with a faster return.

I tried to stress that.

In the olden days, the axiom was that you breed a young, unproven mare to an older, proven stallion, and an older proven mare to a young, unproven stallion. That way, a breeder could tell which parent was to blame if the offspring turned out to be lousy and cull the appropriate animal. Naturally because of genetic variation, the breeding has to be repeated at least a couple of times to fully test it.

Nowadays we see far too many unproven mares bred to unproven stallions, merely for big bucks in the auction ring. Then when the offspring run well (or badly) they both get the credit (or blame) and nobody knows which one is worth keeping. Then there are those mares who can produce runners even 'if she was bred to the teaser' and can make a bad stallion look good. And of course, hardly anybody repeats matings anymore - you have to go to the lastest 'flavor of the month' stallions to bring the biggest auction prices.

Believe me - I have friends who advise breeders and it's like pulling teeth to get them to send their best mare, who has had a good SW by a so-called second tier stallion, back to that same stallion. They feel it's so old news; they want the hot young stallion for their mare, the one that was making headlines most recently, not the proven commodity.

I never really bought into this.

By "breeding for racing" I assume you mean breeding good mares to a lot of excellent distance race horses turned sires....the result of which is typically slowpoke, plodding offspring who get outpaced.

Storm Cat is always the one sire people talk about when it comes to "breeding sales yearlings."

However, as late as 1993, Storm Cat's stud fee was just $20,000, and it wasn't like his offspring really excelled at yearling sales early on.

In 1990, the first crop of Storm Cat yearlings averaged $54,769

In 1991, the second crop of Storm Cat yearling averaged $78,735

In '92, the 3rd crop averaged $74,050

It wasn't until '93, when they averaged $109,000 that he hit six figures.

By comparison, the $6.7 million earning, stoutly bred, great race horse Alysheba...stood for $75,000 and his first crop of yearlings sold for an average of $175,000.

People who know how to handicap understand that speed wins horse races. Storm Cat offspring often have excellent early speed and can carry it beyond sprint distances. That is why he's excelled at stud and become such a hot prospect.

He didn't start to get the best book of mares, and sire the most expensive of yearlings, until his offspring first established themselves as exciting race horses.

breeding sales yearlings is all about the first crop sire...

it's true that pretty much any storm cat that goes through the ring will bring $$ but for the commercial breeder the potential for profit isn't really in the big ticket sires it is in the first year sires in the 40-60k stud fee range...those yearlings are the real bread and butter of the breed to sell market...they might make more $$ on an ap indy or a storm cat but they will often get a better ROI on a 1st year stud.

I can certainly understand why a freshman stallion prospect, who has a stud fee in that price range, would look like a more attractive buy than a "proven commodity" for the same price.

If I was a buyer, and looking to buy a good racehorse, and saw two I liked equally, I'd obviously want the freshman stallion, if it was one I felt had good upside, over the proven commodity stallion.

as an example...of the 30 storm cat yearling offered at auction last year 12 of them failed to bring bids equal to the stud fee...

there were 6 "home runs" but obviously for a commercial breeder thats a fairly big risk to take.

and his 2YO numbers at auction are AWFUL...which makes sense since only the real train wrecks show up there...but still...