A May 16, 2019 article in the NY Times by Allison Schrager on the state of the business of Fine Art, "Even the Rich Aren’t Rich Enough for Jeff Koons" - As billionaires compete for art in an overheated market, the merely affluent are giving up) provides a striking parallel to the state of the thoroughbred industry today. In the article, Ms. Schrager explains “Art collecting has always been an exclusive activity, but the world of contemporary art, in particular, has become dominated in recent years not by the 1 percent — the millionaires — but by the super-wealthy billionaires of the 0.01 percent”. That same statement applies precisely to the Thoroughbred auction market, where virtually all of the top-priced offerings are purchased by a tiny handful of uber-wealthy buyers, making it difficult for even millionaire buyers to compete. According to the article, “..a 2019 report published by Art Basel and UBS, in 2018 art sales reached nearly $30 billion, compared with just over $12 billion in 2009. But these numbers mask a serious problem: A small number of large galleries and artists took in most of those sales. Art that cost more than $1 million accounted for 40 percent of the market but just 3 percent of transactions”. The same is true with thoroughbred auctions, where typically less than 5% of the horses represent 40%+ of the gross sales.

As Ms. Schrager concludes “A market where extremely rich people pay too much for mediocre art and shut out the not-quite-as rich may not be the biggest issue in a wildly polarized economy”. There too, the same applies to the thoroughbred industry. The one significant difference between fine art and fine racehorses is the majority of top racehorses are still purchased for less than $100,000; prices middle-market thoroughbred buyers can afford. As long as the billionaires keep overpaying for a tiny handful of horses with elite pedigrees that have a lot less to do with racing ability than the ability to impress their friends, the millionaire owners should still be able to compete.