Amazing how the highest bid is only one bid short of the reserve!

[slam dunk 1,317]

I remember standing in a betting que at Paeroa races in the mid eighties and David Ellis tipping me a horse trained by Bill Ford. He either had $50 or $500 on it but it won at good odds. Hardly looked the tycoon type but what he has done with Te Akau would make Arab oil sheiks proud and several Australian billionaires have failed to do investing at least $200 million a time. Its something the NZ racing industry can be proud of the sad fact there are not others. Anyone now has to beg for Asian dollars. However there's no point knocking the armchair critics. Those in the racing limelight are probably used to being thick skinned and realize some interest is better than no interest.

 

[chevy86 2,710]

5 hours ago, scooby3051 said:

Chevy ... the owner has every right to put his value on his OWN horse and the buyer has every right to say yes or no to his valuation... end of story.

Very true Scooby. The problem is the illegal, dummy bids that form the charade presented as a genuine auction.

Just as an aside, are you SURE you are not on a retainer from TA--you are very easily goaded into defending them at every turn.

[barryb 2,064]

Is it just me or are a shitload getting passed in today?.

[tasman man 11 979]

15 hours ago, army said:

I agree he does get more. I know what happened to my Aunty (89yrs old)  and her  100000 she invested with them.  She wasnt new to racing and for years her and her husband had horse with Rodgerson but once hubby died after a while she moved down this way and thought she would get horse down her. Not one horse she invested in raced and she was informed they were sent overseas and that was the last she heard of them. Bye bye money

 

Interesting army.......can you please dig up the facts ,the breeding etc and we can follow up on these horses.

Unusual for a horse to go overseas without any sale taken place and odd for the 'manager' of horse not to reconcile with owners .

Sounds risky for a reputable business.

Ive heard of 'mother-in-law' research ,sounds like 'aunty ' research very similar.

Gather your facts  and folk on here can follow up.

[scooby3051 10,976]

11 minutes ago, chevy86 said:

Very true Scooby. The problem is the illegal, dummy bids that form the charade presented as a genuine auction.

Just as an aside, are you SURE you are not on a retainer from TA--you are very easily goaded into defending them at every turn.

No it just seems many in here are easily goaded to rubbish them... I have no agenda but do think they do not deserve the attacks they sometimes get... it some there is a certain amount of tall poppy syndrome associated to them.

[crustyngrizzly 1,702]

2 minutes ago, tasman man 11 said:

Interesting army.......can you please dig up the facts ,the breeding etc and we can follow up on these horses.

Unusual for a horse to go overseas without any sale taken place and odd for the 'manager' of horse not to reconcile with owners .

Sounds risky for a reputable business.

Ive heard of 'mother-in-law' research ,sounds like 'aunty ' research very similar.

Gather your facts  and folk on here can follow up.

I recall many years ago that the radio host,Tim Bickerstaff went to visit his horse at a Waikato stable,only to be told the horse had been sold and was now in Canada.

The horses name was BICKERSTAFF (not sure on the spelling).Also not sure what % of the horse Tim owned.

He mentioned this several times when he was a host on a sports show.True or not i don't know.

[crustyngrizzly 1,702]

Can a vendor mention to a buyer that he would like to retain a share in a horse if he is the purchaser.

If the horse sells for 500k what amount is  required to be paid.to satisfy the sale. based on the vendor wanting to retain 10%

[chevy86 2,710]

20 minutes ago, crustyngrizzly said:

I recall many years ago that the radio host,Tim Bickerstaff went to visit his horse at a Waikato stable,only to be told the horse had been sold and was now in Canada.

The horses name was BICKERSTAFF (not sure on the spelling).Also not sure what % of the horse Tim owned.

He mentioned this several times when he was a host on a sports show.True or not i don't know.

Trained, I believe by a well-known, still active, trainer in the Waikato region.

Legally too expensive to pursue your rights. Was a majority shareholder in a handy animal with National Bloodstock (you remember, that teepee-occupying hippy David Phillips) and on enquiring where it was lining-up next after it had won 4 of 5, I was told the mare had been sold to the US and here is your share (unaudited!) of the sale price. Don't know the sale price, but most likely a "Glynn Schofield" deal.

[crustyngrizzly 1,702]

9 minutes ago, chevy86 said:

Trained, I believe by a well-known, still active, trainer in the Waikato region.

Legally too expensive to pursue your rights. Was a majority shareholder in a handy animal with National Bloodstock (you remember, that teepee-occupying hippy David Phillips) and on enquiring where it was lining-up next after it had won 4 of 5, I was told the mare had been sold to the US and here is your share (unaudited!) of the sale price. Don't know the sale price, but most likely a "Glynn Schofield" deal.

National Bloodstock,were they the ones that spoke with FORKED TONGUES

[chevy86 2,710]

53 minutes ago, barryb said:

Is it just me or are a shitload getting passed in today?.

Unfortunately seems the case Barry and in most cases the reserve is very low. A bit of a worry for middle tier breeders.

[Leggy 4,096]

5 hours ago, rdytdy said:

Vendor bids became illegal under some Act (Fair Trading Act?) a few years ago.

I note in the NZB sales catalogues under Conditions Of Sale:

2.4.  Vendor Bids Prohibited

You as Vendor or any person acting as Your Agent must not bid on any Lot if You are the owner of the Lot, nevertheless;

(a) A co-owner of a Lot (such as a partner or syndicate member) may bid if intending to purchase the Lot; and

(b) You must in relation to any improper bidding by You or on Your behalf:

(1) Pay full commission on any Lot that you buy back; and

(2) Indemnify Us for all losses, costs and expenses that We incur whether as a result of a sale being rescinded or otherwise.

And under NZB's Code Of Practice

The Agent (NZB) shall not bid or assist a person to bid on behalf of a vendor except as expressly authorized by the Conditions of Sale.

 

Correct. The Fair Trading Act was amended in 2013 to clearly prevent the vendor or an agent including the auctioneer from running bids up to the reserve if they were not genuine bids as far as I know.

[chevy86 2,710]

39 minutes ago, Leggy said:

Correct. The Fair Trading Act was amended in 2013 to clearly prevent the vendor or an agent including the auctioneer from running bids up to the reserve if they were not genuine bids as far as I know.

So as the TAB trumpets  "you know the odds so beat them". So what are the odds that nearly every passed-in Lot gets to within one bid of it's reserve?( as per my posting headline). I'd be wanting 1000-1 as a minimum.

[TOM(the other Molloy) 1,774]

It would appear pretty bloody obvious to me.

They always ask for a vendor rep to the back of the Auctioneers box(assuming one is not already there).  When they have extracted what they gauge the maximum bid the vendor will indicate sell or pass.  Accordingly if it passes they just state the reserve at the next price increment.

If it is past the acceptable price I guess the vendors rep will indicate it is for sale and the Auctioneer will state that the horse is on the market

 

[cherry_bomb 89]

13 hours ago, scooby3051 said:

You think they will be any different... you make no sense... house auctions do not announce the reserve ... you put a value on what you want to pay if it fits your budget its sold if not the owner keeps it... same thing in horses... why should any owner have to announce his reserve so he has no chance to get more then... it makes no sense your argument... sorry.

So you are in favour of a free for all buyer-beware model? Fair enough I guess. The problem is that it just isn't good enough for a modern day industry on the global stage. Shill bids are illegal in the better part of the developed world for a simple reason: to protect buyers. And we want buyers.

Whether you agree or not with the namby pamby regs as I imagine you see them, the PR of operating like the wild west will keep buyers well away.

Re China and Mongolia you prove my point - would you pay $100k for a horse at an Ulan Bator auction? Exactly. That's how a USA buyer may perceive NZ.

 

[chevy86 2,710]

1 hour ago, TOM(the other Molloy) said:

 

They always ask for a vendor rep to the back of the Auctioneers box(assuming one is not already there).  

 

 

 

1 hour ago, TOM(the other Molloy) said:

 

 

So there is never a pre-set reserve.( yeah right) It is done "on the hoof" so to speak. The vendor reps that i have observed intercede if the auctioneer is struggling to meet the reserve and often that pragmatism to "put it up" generates more bidding.

As for setting the reserve post-auction as the next increment from the highest bid, shill or genuine, well you know that is BS.

[TOM(the other Molloy) 1,774]

9 minutes ago, chevy86 said:

 

So there is never a pre-set reserve.( yeah right) It is done "on the hoof" so to speak. The vendor reps that i have observed intercede if the auctioneer is struggling to meet the reserve and often that pragmatism to "put it up" generates more bidding.

As for setting the reserve post-auction as the next increment from the highest bid, shill or genuine, well you know that is BS.

Well all right what is your explanation?  It has been made clear vendor bids are unacceptable so why is it that the stated reserve is always the next increment?  And if the reserves are pre set why do the Auctioneers request a vendor rep to the back of the box if one is not there already? Why would they need that?

Given the vendors are presumably paying commission on the reserve price of unsold lots why would they want to divulge a reserve that might be far in excess of the highest bid? It might be all right for Sir Patrick or Garry Chittick who maybe have deals with NZB on that but the average vendor really wants the salt in the wound of paying commission on a huge reserve as well as having not sold their horse.

Far more logical is that NZB just state the reserve as the next increment with the 'bid now' option.  If it were the true reserve surely 'buy now' would be the wording?

 

 

 

[Leggy 4,096]

33 minutes ago, TOM(the other Molloy) said:

Well all right what is your explanation?  It has been made clear vendor bids are unacceptable so why is it that the stated reserve is always the next increment?  And if the reserves are pre set why do the Auctioneers request a vendor rep to the back of the box if one is not there already? Why would they need that?

I was trying to stay out of this but there is a fair bit of misinformation here, aside from the fact that rules and even the law may be being broken.

Reserves, if any, are pre-set. The vendor can instruct the auctioneer to waive those during the auction if they wish. Auctioneers are obviously keen to have a vendor available to do that so they potentially get a sale rather than a pass-in.

[chevy86 2,710]

The vendor rep is there to OK the auctioneer to "squeeze" a sale if they have "hooked" a genuine buyer or buyers and the latest bids are in the reserve ball-park.

As for stating that the reserve becomes the "next increment", which may be 1K or 20K, why not just accept the highest bid? Why is "one more bid" the latent notional reserve? Ahh, the "floating reserve"? Like the small-time vendor would be privy to what were genuine bids and what was hype. Under your hypothesis they could still get hammered with an elevated commission for a horse that never attracted a single genuine bid.

In spite of all the suspect behaviour that goes on with the Karaka Mafia it is still great theatre and I never miss it, but always subscribe to the notion of "caveat emptor".

[TOM(the other Molloy) 1,774]

10 minutes ago, Leggy said:

I was trying to stay out of this but there is a fair bit of misinformation here, aside from the fact that rules and even the law may be being broken.

Reserves, if any, are pre-set. The vendor can instruct the auctioneer to waive those during the auction if they wish. Auctioneers are obviously keen to have a vendor available to do that so they potentially get a sale rather than a pass-in.

So what you are saying Leggy is that NZ Bloodstock is misinforming likely buyers by stating an untrue reserve?  Does that not amount to misleading advertising or unfair trading(even if they are the selling agent not the actual vendor)?

Or maybe it is a remarkable coincidence that the reserve is always one bid higher than the last bid taken?  And as I said if that is the case why would NZB not have 'buy now' rather than 'bid now' on its results page?

I have not listened terribly much this year but certainly last year the Auctioneers were making it clear if there was a vendor bid and it was inevitably the initial bid taken.

I personally know of at least one lot that the vendors would have wanted a lot more for than the reserve NZB's website stated.  Whether they indicated that reserve or not I do not know but there is no way the horse would have sold at the stated reserve.

[chevy86 2,710]

Only one way forward--introduce the "Dutch" auction system. How exciting would that be!

[barryb 2,064]

Nothing wrong with the current Auction set up.

Plenty of very happy sellers and since they pay the bills I guess everything is fine.

 

[chevy86 2,710]

16 hours ago, chevy86 said:

Unfortunately seems the case Barry and in most cases the reserve is very low. A bit of a worry for middle tier breeders.

In the wash-up for the day the passings are up and unfortunately Average and Median are both down a massive 25%. Hope for a pick-up today?? Not so sure Barry about your assertion that there are plenty of happy sellers. SOME, maybe.