Maximum-Likelihood Estimates Of Racehorse Earnings And Profitability
AbstractThoroughbred racehorses are commonly characterized as unprofitable investments. Previous studies, grouping all racehorses together, estimate that over 80% of all racehorses in training fail to earn enough to recover the variable costs of training. However, these studies are not truly representative, because they fail to account for a number of factors affecting profitability. This study estimates expected purse earnings and profitability of claiming horses in Kentucky. Maximum-likelihood estimates of probability distribution parameters show that expected purse earnings follow an exponential distribution with a mean of $25,267. Profitability is best described by a Gamma distribution with a mean of $4,824. Of the 305 claims analyzed for profitability, 61% were profitable. The results indicate substantial financial risk associated with claiming race horses, but conclude that there are positive economic returns on average.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Agricultural Economics Association of Georgia in its journal Journal of Agribusiness.
Volume (Year): 17 (1999)
Issue (Month): 1 ()
claiming horses; financial risk; maximum likelihood; probability; profitability; thoroughbred; Agribusiness;
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- John Freebairn & Bill Griffiths, 2006. "Introduction," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 82(s1), pages S1-S1, 09.
- Neibergs, J. Shannon & Thalheimer, Richard, 1997. "Price Expectations And Supply Response In The Thoroughbred Yearling Market," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 29(02), December.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.