Ghost Bidding

Yip, there are those who push their prices to their reserve level. It doesnt bother me, as I set a value on each horse, which I am prepared to pay for that horse. After that level is reached, I am out and good luck to the winning bidder, even if bought back. Rob Faux pretty much sums it up - look in the mirror !

But, where I do have a problem is with kickbacks. Some unsuspecting Owner is paying for that....

So, no new car for me, after National One....just back to the grindstone, working for a living.....happily looking in the mirror.

And I believe that the majority of Trainers do exactly the same.

hibernia Wrote:

---

> Ebay suffers from Ghost bidders as well mrh
yes Shill bidding - if you are caught your account is suspended and the buyer does not need to pay for the item -

Bidding against the wall sometimes is needed to get a sale going but to increase the price is just puke..

one of the major reasons why new blood(intelligent enough to have made the money to buy a horse - but not stupid enough to be conned out of that money) is so difficult to find. If you start studying old sales and you see consigned Robberfarms - Buyer Robberfarms - you take a step back and keep your hands in your pocket. I will never buy the idea that a farm puts a horse on sale to get a value on the horse/split partners etc . The best horses to buy are the ones you own for two minutes of a race!

interesting thread ..on the sportingpost website a week or 2 ago an article was written about the aa scenario and also the t.bred auction industry maybe somebody can post it for us on here

This one Pirates?

The recent spotlight on the methods and processes adopted by the South African Auctioneering profession at large may well have some overdue ramifications for the way we conduct our business in horseracing. It seems a very good time for the breeders and industry to get together and set the performance standards.

The question of the legitimacy and potentially distorting effects of buy-backs at our thoroughbred auctions and even insider type price inflation, amongst other issues, needs to be addressed. Transparency should be adopted as a non-negotiable watchword.

The reality is that the world has changed and times are tough. Honour and valor may not yet be extinct but the ages long principle of a gentlemanly handshake and trust accompanied by a celebratory drink, may sadly require a review and remodeling to the ways of the 21st century.

The media storm that has erupted around allegations of manipulative practices by certain auctioneers and the various stakeholders linked to auctions has placed the interrogation lamp firmly on the profession and on the generally supposedly sqeaky clean supporting components such as the legal profession, bankers and the servants of the Courts. In horseracing this role will be played by the Vets, the Trainers, the Bloodstock Agents and even the Vendors themselves.

Man In The Middle. Renowned Auctioneer Rael Levitt is enduring a trial by media.

The awful trial by media of Rael Levitt’s Auction Alliance group has fairly or unfairly been a damning one. It is early days yet and one hopes that sanity will prevail and a fair opportunity granted to all those involved to state their case and clear the air, if appropriate. The initial picture though is one of consumer misunderstanding, poor communication and skewed perceptions of the law and professional duties.

And let’s clean our house up, before something similar erupts where it affects us. Sectors of the racing industry have been calling for some time for bidders at our Sales to be properly identified by means of clear cut numbered paddles. Confidentiality is fully respected, but the sinister mystery bidder adds no value and we do not allow horses to be raced under the lap – so why allow phantoms to bid on and buy them?

There have been some semantic acrobatics in the press too with regards to the functionality of the ‘vendor bidder’ and ‘proxy bidder’. We accept the proxy bidder as a practical necessity if properly registered and declared, but the vendor bidder is something of a grey area. It seems that Levitt is charging that vendor bidding is ‘internationally and nationally regarded as acceptable practice. It was also regulated, transparent and advertised.’ Mmmmm… We do have reserves set, don’t we?

Ringing The Changes? Horse Auctions are big money business today.

The ever burgeoning strategic role of the Bloodstock Consultant also needs clarification. We have some of the top men in the world but no professional can wear two hats comfortably and act for and in the best interests of opposing parties in any instance. While the prospective buyer obviously needs to do his homework and appoint a professional to act in his very best interests, he needs to be fully appraised of the realities that Mr X is actively involved in the promotion of Stallion Y or Breeder Z. A measure of innocently incestuous involvement at some level is probably unavoidable in a closed community like South African racing, but conflicting interests can never be good for the medium-term credibility and image of this sector of the industry.

Then the question of the glossy catalogue. Is this a vendor’s document or a buyer’s guide? Can it really be both without blushing? The stretching of a point with regard to Black Type has been a dinner table debate all around the world for many years. There are quarters that hold the opinion that it is a bell and whistle that has been bastardized in the interests of creating a fuzzy good feeling when glancing at the page. Surely the black type should only relate to that of performers of real consequence to the pedigree? We need a think tank on this issue alone.

Consumer Protection. No laughing matter!

Fair enough, we accept that generally assets disposed of on auction are sold ‘voetstoots’ with declarations that may impact on the value or otherwise being declared upfront. While buyers obviously need to make every effort to be informed and to do their own homework upfront, reliance on the property law doctrine Caveat emptor, or buyer beware, can only be of assistance if it can be shown that the vendor, or auctioneer, had actively concealed latent defects or otherwise made material misrepresentations. Proving this is probably another story entirely.

It is an interesting debate and probably something that needs addressing sooner rather than later.And only good can come from wholesale transparency and the wiping out of any opportunity for manipulation.

yes thks hibs

Yep interesting indeed...although I have never bid or signed for a horse I have heard comments like "that horse is not for sale"..which I don't exactly know what that means..maybe just speculation...although I often get approached by trainers ( NOT Louis Goosen) after the sales to say their buyer has not paid..now how does that fit into the picture. Also I think with the new Consumer Act they should !. Scope and Xray all horses at the breeders cost before the sale and 2. Put the commission structure very high to stop buy backs.

hibernia Wrote:

---

> This one Pirates?
>
>> The question of the legitimacy and potentially
> distorting effects of buy-backs at our
> thoroughbred auctions and even insider type price
> inflation, amongst other issues, needs to be
> addressed. Transparency should be adopted as a
> non-negotiable watchword.
>
>>
> The ever burgeoning strategic role of the
> Bloodstock Consultant also needs clarification. We
> have some of the top men in the world but no
> professional can wear two hats comfortably and act
> for and in the best interests of opposing parties
> in any instance. While the prospective buyer
> obviously needs to do his homework and appoint a
> professional to act in his very best interests, he
> needs to be fully appraised of the realities that
> Mr X is actively involved in the promotion of
> Stallion Y or Breeder Z. A measure of innocently
> incestuous involvement at some level is probably
> unavoidable in a closed community like South
> African racing, but conflicting interests can
> never be good for the medium-term credibility and
> image of this sector of the industry.
>
>>
> It is an interesting debate and probably something
> that needs addressing sooner rather than later.And
> only good can come from wholesale transparency and
> the wiping out of any opportunity for
> manipulation.

Lets cut to the chase....no spooks here....it is as plain as a nose on a man's face....:

Here's a story for you.
Breeder meets owner and says " I have a nice horse you should come and have a look at. Reminds me of the top class horse you already have."
Owner goes to sales, sees horse there and asks trainer to look at horse. Trainer says horse not worth more than 20k. Chap from P.E bids and gets horse for 35k. Breeder phones owner and says bidder not interested anymore and breeder now wants 40k for horse. Owner believes trainer and rejects offer. Some time later same horse ends up in same trainers yard and rumored to have been sold now for 150k. Same horse wins 4 in a row including feature. Owner still sick to stomach.

PP if that story is true...it makes me wonder exactly how dirty this industry is.

Here's another.
Same owner leases 50% of horse from trainer who has 25 and another oke 25. Lease continues for about 2 years when owner owes trainer about 10k for fees and vet bills. Trainer says not to worry, lease must now end and horse to go to stud. Sparingly raced filly with problems does not go to stud, improves dramatically and wins 4 more races in trainers colours! To top it all trainer sues lessee for outstanding amount now!

And another.
Lessee gets 33% of horse. Trainer and another the other 66%. after lease period of 3-4 years, "partner and trainer visits breeder who gives them the horse for free. They sell horse and keep the bucks for themselves. New lessee in the game gets diddly squat!