Handle, Purses on the Down Escalator

Thanks to Ray Paulick for posting the latest Equibase figures on handle and purses. Both figures dropped in May, as compared to a year ago.  Total US handle was off by 8.26%, to $1.375 billion, even though May, 2009 had one more weekend/holiday race date than the same month in 2008.  Purses for the month declined by a lesser percentage -- 6.73% -- to $105.1 million.

For the first five months of the year, through May 31st, total US handle was down 9.22% from the corresponding period last year, while purses declined by 5.54%  

While purses are generally set as a fraction of total handle or takeout, there are a couple of reasons why the decline in purses has been somewhat milder then the decline in total handle.  First, some tracks use slot machine revenue or other gambling income (e.g., the casino supplement in New Jersey) to augment the purse account.  Second, there's a time lag in the calculation of purses; tracks set an initial level for a race meet based on what they estimate the handle will be; when handle doesn't meet expectations, the purse account is subsequently adjusted downward. But eventually, purses will catch up to the drop in handle, making a tough business for owners and trainers even tougher.

While the 2008-2009 declines in betting and purses can be, and are in most industry circles being, blamed on the general US economic malaise,  the longer-term trend, which predates the financial crisis of the past two years, is equally depressing.  As this chart from Equibase shows, total US handle reached a peak in 2003 and has since been on a downward path; the total for 2008 was less than the amount for 1999, even before adjusting for any inflation in the intervening years. The final numbers for 2009, now that the big spring meets at Churchill and Santa Anita are ending, and the Triple Crown races are in the past, seems unlikely to do anything better than continue the trend that's been established so far this year.  Paulick estimates that this year's total handle will be the lowest since 1996.

With purses declining, or, at best, flat, and with costs increasing, owners are getting squeezed even more than is customary.  The rule of thumb used to be that purse money nationwide was equal to about half of the total cost of keeping all US race horses in training. And that's before taking into account the costs of breeding or buying those horses. That was bad enough, but I suspect that, when the final numbers are in for 2009, it'll be more like 40-45% of our costs being covered by purses. It's tough to stay in business on those terms, no matter how much one loves horses. At this point, if slot machines were installed at Aqueduct tomorrow, I couldn't be confident that those of us racing in New York would have a fair chance to break even.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Economics of Owning a Race Horse in New York

I've been wanting for some time to write about the economics of racing from the owners' and trainers' point of view. And the quarterly ritual of preparing financial statements for my Castle Village Farm partnerships has finally provided both the motivation and the data to get started. So, this post will look at racing from an owner's point of view. I'll follow up later with a look at the economics of being a trainer. In both cases, I'll be focusing on the New York racing scene, that is, as an owner or a trainer stabled at Aqueduct or Belmont, and making an annual pilgrimage to Saratoga. New York has the best purses around -- they'll average over $700,000 a day at the upcoming Saratoga meet -- but it also has very high expenses. So, even with the kind of horses that most of us are satisfied to have -- solid, hard-working thoroughbreds -- not a stakes horse, but not a $4,000 Finger Lakes claimer either -- it's not easy to come out ahead -- even when you...
Read more

NEWSPAPER RESTRUCTURING IS PAINFUL, BUT NECESSARY

Financial pages are full of developments and changes at newspaper companies and these are being commented upon anxiously by those in the industry. Unpleasant conditions certainly abound, but these development are not indications that the industry is dead or dying in the near future. What they signal is that things which worked in the past are not working now, that newspaper companies are badly in need of restructuring, refocusing, and renewal, and that the boards of the companies and the company managers are taking badly needed action. The techniques for restructuring are no mystery. First, you need some cash. This can be obtained by attracting new capital through investment or loans. New York Times Co. did this recently by borrowings $250 million from Carlos Slim. Other firms are looking for friendly investors with liquidity. Another way of raising cash is by turning assets into cash. A classic move made by many types of firms is the sell their building and lease back any space that i...
Read more

Is the future of digital journalism an outside job?

Making small digital news providers sustainable has become the holy grail of journalists and the search continues for workable business models and revenue streams. Advertising may produce some revenue, but it will never generate sufficient resources to support digital journalism because so little advertising money is available for sites with small audiences. About three-quarters of all online advertising goes to the top 10 sites and Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and Yahoo account for about 60 percent of all online revenue. This leaves very little advertising expenditures to be contested among all other players--of which news providers are only a small fraction. At the same time, the prices paid for online advertising are falling because there are so many sites offering advertising, the advertising inventory is nearly infinite, and audiences continue fragmenting. This means the majority of funding for start-up digital journalism must come from elsewhere and online news sites—especially s...
Read more