# New Guideline Changes - Regarding Guest Certificates



## ecwinch

Starting Sept 12, 2018 - guest certificates will be required for guest reservations.

From the Worldmark website:

_During their June meeting, the Board of Directors voted to approve two additions to the WorldMark, The Club Guidelines.
_
*Multiple Reservations:*

_When an owner books multiple reservations at a resort for the same time period, each owner on the account is allowed to check into a reservation for the specific unit they will occupy. Any further reservations will require a guest name._
_The guest listed on the reservation must be present at check-in and occupy the unit._
_The multiple reservations policy is currently enforced at many WorldMark resorts today and will now be part of the Club Guidelines.
_
*Guest Certificates:*

_Effective Sept. 12, 2018, all guest reservations will require a Guest Certificate at the time of booking. Owners will receive complimentary Guest Certificates based on the number of annual Vacation Credits owned, with a fee of $99 (online) or $129 (phone) charged for each additional Guest Certificate required within a 12-month period._
_All owners will receive at least one complimentary Guest Certificate each anniversary year, which will expire 13 months after the award date._
_Annual awards are calculated by taking the number of Vacation Credits owned divided by 10,000 and rounding up to the nearest whole number. For example, an owner who owns between 5,000 and 10,000 Vacation Credits will be awarded one Guest Certificate each anniversary year, while an owner who owns between 11,000 and 20,000 Vacation Credits will be awarded two Guest Certificates each anniversary year._
_New online functionality will give owners the ability to add and modify guest names on confirmed reservations on worldmarktheclub.com._
_The addition of this fee supports a fee-for-service model where charges are incurred when a non-owner uses services provided by WorldMark, The Club.

If you would like to add a guest name to an existing reservation without incurring the Guest Certificate fee, you may do so up until Sept. 11, 2018. After that date, a Guest Certificate will be required for all guest reservations regardless of original booking date.

_


----------



## rhonda

Boo ... I [Dislike] until I'm convinced otherwise??

EDIT:  FWIW, I don't see myself having to pay for a Guest Cert often given the formula for complimentary Certs.  Still ... it just bugs me as "_family unfriendly_."


----------



## taterhed

I've heard of people renting multiples and doing the VRBO/ABNB thing....wonder if this was aimed at that?


----------



## tschwa2

Would love to hear from those who love to think that Wyndham doesn't own Worldmark and that the owners own Worldmark and reconcile this one. 

 An owner should be able to check in for as many rooms as he or she wants regardless of whether they overlap and regardless of whether the owner intends to leave one or more empty or allow guests traveling with the owner to stay.  There really shouldn't be any difference between an owner booking 3 studios for self and guest on a trip and booking a 2-3 bedroom that fits the same number of guests travelling with and staying with the owner.    Yes I know Wyndham has been doing this for years, but Wyndham owns Wyndham and I can't imagine Worldmark owners wanting to pay extra fees for what they have always been able to do without paying those fees.  I know I really resent guest cert fees in general but to be charged when guest are staying in a different unit (often due to availability not intentionally) during the same stay.


----------



## ecwinch

taterhed said:


> I've heard of people renting multiples and doing the VRBO/ABNB thing....wonder if this was aimed at that?



I think it was a combination of factors. Rentals certainly are factor. If you follow some of the AirBnb hosts that frequently list WM resorts, you will find some of them list months and months of inventory on AirBnb. Of course they do not actually have that inventory booked as it would tie up hundreds of thousands of credits. They are just using placeholders. So when a guest "requests" a booking - they will go see if anything is available and if so, make the reservation; and if not just decline the request. Booking it with FAX, IS, or whatever specials are running at the time. Adding guest certificates will likely cripple that business, as I suspect they are working off pretty slim margins.

The other thing involved here is that Wyndham has zero incentive to try anything different then what they do with Club Wyndham. I dont get the general sense that any of our non-affiliated BoD members use their memberships extensively, so I doubt any of the techniques that experienced members use even occurs to them. So it is fairly easy for most of them to go along to get along, as they dont see how this policy hurts their usage and are swayed by statistics that Wyndham offers on how this has minimal impact is on how most people use their memberships.

And as much as everyone will say this is just another money grab by Wyndham, the fact is the Club does have some long-term financial issues. This is an issue that every BoD has to face - even if we had the most pro-owner/anti-Wyndham BoD elected. Increasing acct size, hard cap on due increases, and aging physical plant do not bode well in the long-run.


----------



## ecwinch

tschwa2 said:


> An owner should be able to check in for as many rooms as he or she wants regardless of whether they overlap and regardless of whether the owner intends to leave one or more empty or allow guests traveling with the owner to stay.  There really shouldn't be any difference between an owner booking 3 studios for self and guest on a trip and booking a 2-3 bedroom that fits the same number of guests travelling with and staying with the owner.    Yes I know Wyndham has been doing this for years, but Wyndham owns Wyndham and I can't imagine Worldmark owners wanting to pay extra fees for what they have always been able to do without paying those fees.  I know I really resent guest cert fees in general but to be charged when guest are staying in a different unit (often due to availability not intentionally) during the same stay.



I agree with you on this point. This - in combination with ban on HK transfers - are probably the two changes where the BoD has impacted the general membership more than they realized. 

If we only had an owner advocacy group that controlled enough voting power to place an issue on the ballot.


----------



## geist1223

Another horrible strike/attack on the average owner. Also the extra $30 for call in is unjustifiable and just a money grab. The VPC Counselor (ha) does not get paid $120 per hour - assuming the average call is 15 minutes. Do they reimburse money to WM for the cost of all the hours VPC sits around and not on the telephone.


----------



## taterhed

ecwinch said:


> I agree with you on this point. This - in combination with ban on HK transfers - are probably the two changes where the BoD has impacted the general membership more than they realized.
> 
> If we only had an owner advocacy group that controlled enough voting power to place an issue on the ballot.



Yup, the HKT transfer was what burned me.  I have 2 accounts....so it's a $$$ impact.


----------



## ronparise

I don’t get it. You guys wanted some control on the megarenters and now you got it   

Wyndhams goal here is to level the playing field. Ie take away whatever advantage a large owner might have when making reservations.  This helps. 

I predict major changes to the wait list by the end of the year


----------



## ronparise

tschwa2 said:


> Would love to hear from those who love to think that Wyndham doesn't own Worldmark and that the owners own Worldmark and reconcile this one.
> 
> An owner should be able to check in for as many rooms as he or she wants regardless of whether they overlap and regardless of whether the owner intends to leave one or more empty or allow guests traveling with the owner to stay.  There really shouldn't be any difference between an owner booking 3 studios for self and guest on a trip and booking a 2-3 bedroom that fits the same number of guests travelling with and staying with the owner.    Yes I know Wyndham has been doing this for years, but Wyndham owns Wyndham and I can't imagine Worldmark owners wanting to pay extra fees for what they have always been able to do without paying those fees.  I know I really resent guest cert fees in general but to be charged when guest are staying in a different unit (often due to availability not intentionally) during the same stay.



Wyndham dosent own Worldmark any more than they own Club Wyndham in both cases the owners own the resorts

What Wyndham own are the development rights and the management contracts. Ie they control the club.   Ownership has nothing to do with anything 

They are on a tear to rid the club of the commercial renters which is I thought what most owners want


----------



## geist1223

Everything they have done hurts the average Owner/Member more than it hurts the Megarenter.


----------



## rickandcindy23

That sucks.  I just rent about four per year because we don't use our points each year.  I guess mine will be included with the points I own.  

I should really get rid of some timeshare points and weeks.  I grow tired of the constant changes by Wyndham.  I am sure Shell will do this too, and you cannot even rent Shell for the cost of the MF's.


----------



## rhonda

ronparise said:


> I don’t get it. You guys wanted some control on the megarenters and now you got it
> 
> Wyndhams goal here is to level the playing field. Ie take away whatever advantage a large owner might have when making reservations.  This helps.
> 
> I predict major changes to the wait list by the end of the year


FWIW, I don't think I particularly felt pained by mega-renters. Likely because I was a power-user (for my own family's use).  However, the following changes, perhaps in name of mega-renters, has made it increasingly difficult to enjoy WM with and for my family:

Changes to Grouped Reservations rules (specifically the start date and the need for consistent season; we never rented out the throw-away nights so restricting the names on the reservation segments meant nothing to me)
Restricting the transfer of housekeeping tokens when transferring credits across accounts.
Changes to Guest Certs as it impacts my use of booking multiple units for family gatherings.  I still want a large unit for the "gathering place" but as the kids grow up and marry ... we need multiple small units as well.
I've been enormously successful getting my WM reservations when/where I wanted.  I didn't feel threatened by renters ... but do feel 'squished' by these rule changes.  Sigh.  Oh, well.


----------



## ronparise

rhonda said:


> FWIW, I don't think I particularly felt pained by mega-renters. Likely because I was a power-user (for my own family's use).  However, the following changes, perhaps in name of mega-renters, has made it increasingly difficult to enjoy WM with and for my family:
> 
> Changes to Grouped Reservations rules (specifically the start date and the need for consistent season; we never rented out the throw-away nights so restricting the names on the reservation segments meant nothing to me)
> Restricting the transfer of housekeeping tokens when transferring credits across accounts.
> Changes to Guest Certs as it impacts my use of booking multiple units for family gatherings.  I still want a large unit for the "gathering place" but as the kids grow up and marry ... we need multiple small units as well.
> I've been enormously successful getting my WM reservations when/where I wanted.  I didn't feel threatened by renters ... but do feel 'squished' by these rule changes.  Sigh.  Oh, well.




Just wait, there will be more.  It dosent matter that you dont feel threatened. There are enough owners that dont like the idea of non owners staying at the resorts and feel renters reduce availability for legitimate owners that the board (and Wyndham) is going to keep changing things up until large scale commercial renting is no more


----------



## rhonda

ronparise said:


> Just wait, there will be more.  It dosent matter that you dont feel threatened. There are enough owners that dont like the idea of non owners staying at the resorts and feel renters reduce availability for legitimate owners that the board (and Wyndham) is going to keep changing things up until large scale commercial renting is no more


I hear you.  It is sad when something you enjoyed for so long is ruined by any segment of the population ... but it the way things go (down).  It happened at my very favorite resort ... and one of those owners also showed up in the WM community soliciting rentals.  I saw his name and something died inside my heart even then.  He destroys everything he touches ...


----------



## taterhed

I do think this change should cause larger owners (I mean for personal use, not  commercial) to consider owning multiple accounts.  The cost isn't that prohibitive.
Of course, the GC cost isn't that prohibitive but is disappointing.


----------



## breezez

ronparise said:


> Wyndham dosent own Worldmark any more than they own Club Wyndham in both cases the owners own the resorts
> 
> What Wyndham own are the development rights and the management contracts. Ie they control the club.   Ownership has nothing to do with anything
> 
> They are on a tear to rid the club of the commercial renters which is I thought what most owners want



Ron - Not sure I agree on this one.   On some resorts I believe Wyndham owns a right to use, I don’t even think they own the resorts they sell.  Example the new Wyndham Grand Clearwater Beach resort is not owned by Wyndham at all the Patel family’s company owns it.   Mr. Patel was a renowned surgeon turned entrepnuer and owns the largest home in Tampa Bay metro area.


----------



## breezez

Where this policy hurts both the everyday account holder and a renter is on credits transferred in.   Your allowed 2 times account size, can no longer bring in HK tokens and now if putting others on reservation will need to now pay for that too.

I have only needed a guest certificate 2 times in last 4 years so not too big of a deal for me, but you will never convince me how these policies are to the benefit of me as an owner.   Each new one they make makes my ownership less valuable to me.

I also see this policy changing my combine strategy.   I look for combines on MF chart that are right at the edge of next cost bump.   Now I’ll look at it this way plus at at the edge to get one more guest certificate.

To a mega renter their is not much of a reduction in MF’s after a certain point no matter how big your account size is for most of them they will just have more accounts.


----------



## ronparise

breezez said:


> Ron - Not sure I agree on this one.   On some resorts I believe Wyndham owns a right to use, I don’t even think they own the resorts they sell.  Example the new Wyndham Grand Clearwater Beach resort is not owned by Wyndham at all the Patel family’s company owns it.   Mr. Patel was a renowned surgeon turned entrepnuer and owns the largest home in Tampa Bay metro area.



That’s my point. Wyndham dosent own the Worldmark resorts and Wyndham dosent own the Wyndham resorts

What wyndham does own is the right to develop for the clubs and they own the management contracts

So they are able to set the rules that we owners must follow


----------



## taterhed

Well....I'll keep assigning my proxy....hope it helps.  We'll see.


----------



## easyrider

taterhed said:


> I've heard of people renting multiples and doing the VRBO/ABNB thing....wonder if this was aimed at that?



Probably. WM kind of messed up the private rental market of WM inventory with a bunch of rules. One rule that I didn't like was not being able to rent as many points from others as I wanted. In the past I was able to start trips in a different location studio and grab two bedroom units in popular areas at popular times.

Now it is a bit difficult to manipulate the system for profit or personal family gatherings.

Bill


----------



## rhonda

easyrider said:


> Probably. WM kind of messed up the private rental market of WM inventory with a bunch of rules. One rule that I didn't like was not being able to rent as many points from others as I wanted. In the past I was able to start trips in a different location studio and grab two bedroom units in popular areas at popular times.
> 
> Now it is a bit difficult to manipulate the system for profit or personal family gatherings.
> 
> Bill


FWIW, the limit on credit transfer volume doesn't bother me as it basically takes us back to a system restriction we had in place before the IRIS (?) reservation system was introduced.  The maximum number of credits in our account were, long ago, capped at 2x our annual credit ownership. (If I recall correctly ...?)


----------



## easyrider

rhonda said:


> FWIW, the limit on credit transfer volume doesn't bother me as it basically takes us back to a system restriction we had in place before the IRIS (?) reservation system was introduced.  The maximum number of credits in our account were, long ago, capped at 2x our annual credit ownership. (If I recall correctly ...?)



I'm not too concerned about the limit on credit transfer because I have multiple accounts that I can load if I need to. It is a problem trying to get even a few units in the same location in a popular resort in a popular season. In the past I was able to get nine two bedroom units at Seaside for family reunions by burning points. It is much harder now to reserve the units I need. I can still get nine units but they won't all be two bedroom deluxe and the units will likely be scattered throughout the resort. 

Bill


----------



## taterhed

Yeah, the max credit limit doesn't bother me nearly as much as the no hkt transfer.

As long as we're complaining, I'm sure you've noticed the pattern of units being reserved and dropped at the last moment... Obviously these are renters.  on the bright side, you can always go to Facebook WorldMark waitlist and see the units that people are willing to rent instead of drop

Tater on my Note8 tapatalk


----------



## geist1223

easyrider said:


> I'm not too concerned about the limit on credit transfer because I have multiple accounts that I can load if I need to. It is a problem trying to get even a few units in the same location in a popular resort in a popular season. In the past I was able to get nine two bedroom units at Seaside for family reunions by burning points. It is much harder now to reserve the units I need. I can still get nine units but they won't all be two bedroom deluxe and the units will likely be scattered throughout the resort.
> 
> Bill



Under the new Guidelines you can check into 1 unit, your SO (Co-owner) can check into 1 Unit, and then you will need Guest Certificates for the other 7 Rooms.


----------



## ronparise

geist1223 said:


> Under the new Guidelines you can check into 1 unit, your SO (Co-owner) can check into 1 Unit, and then you will need Guest Certificates for the other 7 Rooms.



I don’t think the issue for Bill is the guest confirms.  I think it’s a question of whether he can get all the reservations he wants


----------



## geist1223

But this just adds to the complexity. Because once he confirms a Guest Certificate that person has to show up or he is out of a room.


----------



## CO skier

geist1223 said:


> Because once he confirms a Guest Certificate that person has to show up or he is out of a room.


That seems simple and straightforward to me.

Make a guest reservation and anyone shows up?  I do not know of any hotel that allows that.

Most hotels have a policy of no show the first night, and the entire reservation is cancelled.  I do not think WorldMark has reached that extreme.


----------



## easyrider

geist1223 said:


> Under the new Guidelines you can check into 1 unit, your SO (Co-owner) can check into 1 Unit, and then you will need Guest Certificates for the other 7 Rooms.



I wonder , with one account, if I reserved a room for me and then reserved a room for my wife and then a guest certificate, would I be reserving within the rules ? Then with the other another accounts I do the same.

Or would I need to get eight guest certificates ?

Actually, it wouldn't matter anymore because there is no way that nine two bedroom deluxe at Seaside would be able to rent for August unless there was an effort on my part with multiple laptops making the reservations at 6 am which could net 3 units, one for each account .

Are guest certificate reservations non-cancel-able ?

Bill


----------



## geist1223

You can cancel the Guest Reservation but if you paid for the Guest Certificate you do not get the money back. I assume that if you used one of your "free" Guest Certificates it is not restored. I say "free" because we paid for it by buying in and by paying MF's. 

WM pays Wyndham millions of dollars to manage our Club, which includes the VPC, OC, maintaining the resorts, housekeeping staff, Front Desk Staff, etc. Well at least the sales staff costs are not billed to WM or at least I do not think so. Plus Wyndham collects millions in profit from WM. But our BOD approved this larceny.


----------



## geist1223

CO skier said:


> That seems simple and straightforward to me.
> 
> Make a guest reservation and anyone shows up?  I do not know of any hotel that allows that.
> 
> Most hotels have a policy of no show the first night, and the entire reservation is cancelled.  I do not think WorldMark has reached that extreme.



So I am planning a family reunion. By luck I am able to get 4 3 Bedroom Units at Seaside in November. Each sleeps up to 8 people. My name is on one room, Patti's name is on another Room. The third Room has my Brother Mike's name because Mike would not miss a family get together if he was still breathing. In addition to the person's name on the Reservation there are 7 other family members staying in each room. On the way to the Airport Mike is in car accident and while not seriously injuried he can not travel.

So under the new Policy my family has lost a room, 7 people are on the street, I can't get my Guest Certificate fee back, and I lost my 13,000 Points.

How this worked in prior years is that the 3 Reservations would be in my name.  Patti and I would check-in all 3 rooms. We would bring by each Guest to Register with the Front Desk. Isn't this one of the things WM was designed to do - support families and family vacations? Now it is becoming about more Corporate dollars into Wyndham's pocket and our BOD enthusiastically supports this Robbery.


----------



## CO skier

rhonda said:


> FWIW, I don't think I particularly felt pained by mega-renters. Likely because I was a power-user (for my own family's use).  However, the following changes, perhaps in name of mega-renters, has made it increasingly difficult to enjoy WM with and for my family:
> 
> Changes to Grouped Reservations rules (specifically the start date and the need for consistent season; we never rented out the throw-away nights so restricting the names on the reservation segments meant nothing to me)
> Restricting the transfer of housekeeping tokens when transferring credits across accounts.
> Changes to Guest Certs as it impacts my use of booking multiple units for family gatherings.  I still want a large unit for the "gathering place" but as the kids grow up and marry ... we need multiple small units as well.
> I've been enormously successful getting my WM reservations when/where I wanted.  I didn't feel threatened by renters ... but do feel 'squished' by these rule changes.  Sigh.  Oh, well.


This is the difference.  Individual owners look at the changes as to how it affects their personal situation.  The Board must look at how changes affect all 225,000+ owners.  The BOD is valuing owner occupancy over guest occupancy, as it should be considering the thousands, tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of dollar members paid to join WorldMark for their personal use.

The Grouped Reservation change prevented a few thousand owners from using a loophole to jump the 13-month booking window against the other 220,000+ owners.  Result:  WorldMark Hawaii rentals (and many other popular locations) disappeared from EBay.  What is not fair about that?  This is pro-family vacations for owners who save up two years worth of credits to reserve Hawaii for 12,000 credits, something that was not possible before the change.

30,000,000 fewer credits were transferred in the six months after the rule change eliminating HK transfers and limiting credit transfers to 2X ownership.  Megarenters were using huge block of rented credits to reserve units at 13 months.  Result?  More owners booking for their occupancy at 13 months, many rental operations fold.  Good for 225,000+ owners, bad for the few thousand owners who regularly rent in more than 2X the size of their ownership.

As to the Guest Certificate, the bylaws make no distinction between Craigslist renter/guests and family renter/guests.  It gets emotional when family is involved, but there is no distinction. 




rhonda said:


> It is sad when something you enjoyed for so long is ruined by any segment of the population ... but it the way things go (down).



It is not right when a relatively few owners blame the WM Board of Directors for heeding other owners who complain about megarenters and instituting policies that put owner occupancy ahead of non-owner occupancy.  Blame those who ruined the system.

I am sure that the feedback from the recent ownership survey will again focus on megarenters, and there will be more changes that increase owner usage and reduce guest usage.


----------



## CO skier

geist1223 said:


> So I am planning a family reunion. By luck I am able to get 4 3 Bedroom Units at Seaside in November. Each sleeps up to 8 people. My name is on one room, Patti's name is on another Room. The third Room has my Brother Mike's name because Mike would not miss a family get together if he was still breathing. In addition to the person's name on the Reservation there are 7 other family members staying in each room. On the way to the Airport Mike is in car accident and while not seriously injuried he can not travel.
> 
> So under the new Policy my family has lost a room, 7 people are on the street, I can't get my Guest Certificate fee back, and I lost my 13,000 Points.
> 
> How this worked in prior years is that the 3 Reservations would be in my name.  Patti and I would check-in all 3 rooms. We would bring by each Guest to Register with the Front Desk. Isn't this one of the things WM was designed to do - support families and family vacations? Now it is becoming about more Corporate dollars into Wyndham's pocket and our BOD enthusiastically supports this Robbery.


Oh, please.  Owner care deals with medical emergency exceptions all the time.

And if it is not a medical emergency, and Mike just flaked out at the last minute (my relatives do it too frequently), pay the $99 to change the guest name, then tell Mike he owes you 99 bucks.


----------



## geist1223

Is the WM BOD simply heeding the crys of anguish from Members who think they should be able to get Summer in Hawaii or Seaside but don't get there act together until January. Before all these changes we never had a problem getting Seaside, Hawaii, or any other resort we wanted when we wanted it. We have never rented Points in. We have never rented Points out. We have never charged anyone (family or friend) when we made a Reservation in their name, except for TOT.

If I paid for the Points how is it different if I am in the Unit or my Son and his family are in the Unit. I paid for the Points and I am using them for the enjoyment of my family.

So if the WM BOD was interested in the average Owner and not in lining Wyndham's pocket they would allow us to submit a List of at least our siblings and children and they should be except from this ridiculous Guest Certificate.

With the large number of Gift Certificates we will receive each year we will never have to pay for one. But that is not the point. The Point is that once again the WM BOD is hurting the avarage owner and will not make much of a dent in Megarenters.


----------



## CO skier

geist1223 said:


> Is the WM BOD simply heeding the crys of anguish from Members who think they should be able to get Summer in Hawaii or Seaside but don't get there act together until January. Before all these changes we never had a problem getting Seaside, Hawaii, or any other resort we wanted when we wanted it. We have never rented Points in. We have never rented Points out. We have never charged anyone (family or friend) when we made a Reservation in their name, except for TOT.
> 
> If I paid for the Points how is it different if I am in the Unit or my Son and his family are in the Unit. I paid for the Points and I am using them for the enjoyment of my family.
> 
> So if the WM BOD was interested in the average Owner and not in lining Wyndham's pocket they would allow us to submit a List of at least our siblings and children and they should be except from this ridiculous Guest Certificate.
> 
> With the large number of Gift Certificates we will receive each year we will never have to pay for one. But that is not the point. The Point is that once again the WM BOD is hurting the avarage owner and will not make much of a dent in Megarenters.


According to the statistics given, 70-80% of owners will not have to pay for any Guest Certificates.  So, this does not hurt the super-majority of owners.

It may or may not hurt a majority of megarenters -- Wyndham might know the answer to that.


----------



## tschwa2

CO skier said:


> Oh, please.  Owner care deals with medical emergency exceptions all the time.
> 
> And if it is not a medical emergency, and Mike just flaked out at the last minute (my relatives do it too frequently), pay the $99 to change the guest name, then tell Mike he owes you 99 bucks.


or likely Worldmark will start selling points insurance and stop offering medical emergency exceptions.


----------



## rhonda

tschwa2 said:


> or likely Worldmark will start selling points insurance and stop offering medical emergency exceptions.


Yep.


----------



## easyrider

tschwa2 said:


> or likely Worldmark will start selling points insurance and stop offering medical emergency exceptions.



This is what Vacation International does.They sell point protection for about $45 a reservation. When I cancel a reservation I loose the $45 + $20 booking fee. It does make some people sit on the fence regarding making their reservations. VI also implemented a commercial use amendment that keeps their inventory off limits to renting for profit.

If WM follows and implements the same policies then there would be a lot of inventory not rented at 6 am 13 months out.

Bill


----------



## tschwa2

I think the fees will stop some of low-mid level amateur rental folks but the semi pro high volume folks will find a way to work with the fees.  And if that is the case so be it but the total fees collected will be fairly substantial.  The fees should not simply line Wyndhams pockets.  Wyndham should be entitled to 10% or less and the rest of the collected fees needs to be invested into the club in ways that truly benefit the membership as a whole.


----------



## bizaro86

I would be happier with it if I thought the extra fees would go to making this year's increase less than 5% (yeah right) or increasing the funding for reserves. Some of the buildings are going to start needing big structural items (windows, elevators, etc) which is going to be a big drain on reserves.

What I think will actually happen is an increased management fee.


----------



## ronparise

geist1223 said:


> You can cancel the Guest Reservation but if you paid for the Guest Certificate you do not get the money back. I assume that if you used one of your "free" Guest Certificates it is not restored. I say "free" because we paid for it by buying in and by paying MF's.
> 
> WM pays Wyndham millions of dollars to manage our Club, which includes the VPC, OC, maintaining the resorts, housekeeping staff, Front Desk Staff, etc. Well at least the sales staff costs are not billed to WM or at least I do not think so. Plus Wyndham collects millions in profit from WM. But our BOD approved this larceny.



How is it that paying wyndham to maintain the resorts, to provide housekeeping staff, a front desk staff a reservations staff and all the other expenses of running a bunch of resorts for us owners is larceny

You wouldn’t have a club without paying for its management

By the way, the new guest certificate charge will be income to the club, not Wyndham


----------



## ronparise

bizaro86 said:


> I would be happier with it if I thought the extra fees would go to making this year's increase less than 5% (yeah right) or increasing the funding for reserves. Some of the buildings are going to start needing big structural items (windows, elevators, etc) which is going to be a big drain on reserves.
> 
> What I think will actually happen is an increased management fee.


That’s what the reserves are for. Ie replacing window and doors and furniture, roofs, etc etc. 

Spending reserve money to replace items that need replacement or as you put it, “draining the reserves” is not a problem.  It’s good management


----------



## ronparise

tschwa2 said:


> I think the fees will stop some of low-mid level amateur rental folks but the semi pro high volume folks will find a way to work with the fees.  And if that is the case so be it but the total fees collected will be fairly substantial.  The fees should not simply line Wyndhams pockets.  Wyndham should be entitled to 10% or less and the rest of the collected fees needs to be invested into the club in ways that truly benefit the membership as a whole.




I believe wyndham is attacking the mega renters by squeezing their profits. Limiting owner to owner transfer of credits forces them to buy more credits  at a significant cost. Now two thirds of a megarenters rentals will cost an additional housekeeping fee. Every speculative reservation made will cost an additional $198 for the two guest confirmation fees needed. 

For routine reservations the difference between fair market rent and the cost for a reservation is getting close to zero. This will , I think drive the mega renters to the special events and other high value reservations. Like Mardi Gras, Coachella, Comic Con. Christmas at Disney, Etc and the in season reservations at the beach and ski resorts and of course Hawaii

The hard to get reservations will get harder to get

Wyndham knows that they can’t outlaw rentals so I see them attacking this thing on two fronts, one is as I’ve said.  Squeeze profits and the other will be an. Effort to level the playing field, ie make it impossible for a big owner to have any advantage over a small owner when it comes to making a reservation

With that in mind, here’s my prediction. Watch for changes in the wait list. This is the feature of the Worldmark system that the megarenters with millions of credits and lots of  accounts are using to get multiple reservations at the most profitable times and places


----------



## bizaro86

ronparise said:


> That’s what the reserves are for. Ie replacing window and doors and furniture, roofs, etc etc.
> 
> Spending reserve money to replace items that need replacement or as you put it, “draining the reserves” is not a problem.  It’s good management



I'm a professional engineer, and I have done building reserve fund studies. I know how they work.

It is my considered (but not professional) opinion that worldmark does not have sufficient reserves in place to cover the costs they will face in the future. 

I cite a couple pieces of evidence for that. 

The first is that the auditors report says their goal is 40% funding of reserves, and that they intend to increase reserve payments to get there. That implies the current level of the reserve fund is insufficient, although not enough information is provided in the auditors report to judge that with certainty. 

The second is the fact they have been out spending reserves the last two years. So the reserve fund balance is actually declining.  That is concerning to me (as a WM owner). The existing resorts are getting older by definition. Expensive structural repairs (4 month new elevator in San Francisco in 2019) are going to get more frequent. Plus, they add new resorts every year, and the reserves have to cover them as well. 

So every year the appropriate size of the reserve fund is getting larger, while the actual fund gets smaller. That is not sustainable. I'm young enough that a special assessment will be within my lifetime.


----------



## JohnPaul

easyrider said:


> This is what Vacation International does.They sell point protection for about $45 a reservation. When I cancel a reservation I loose the $45 + $20 booking fee. It does make some people sit on the fence regarding making their reservations. VI also implemented a commercial use amendment that keeps their inventory off limits to renting for profit.
> 
> If WM follows and implements the same policies then there would be a lot of inventory not rented at 6 am 13 months out.
> 
> Bill



It is important to note that the $20 booking fee took the place of housekeeping fees for VI.


----------



## geist1223

Whose pocket would the trip insurance end up in?


----------



## ronparise

Sorr


bizaro86 said:


> I'm a professional engineer, and I have done building reserve fund studies. I know how they work.
> 
> It is my considered (but not professional) opinion that worldmark does not have sufficient reserves in place to cover the costs they will face in the future.
> 
> I cite a couple pieces of evidence for that.
> 
> The first is that the auditors report says their goal is 40% funding of reserves, and that they intend to increase reserve payments to get there. That implies the current level of the reserve fund is insufficient, although not enough information is provided in the auditors report to judge that with certainty.
> 
> The second is the fact they have been out spending reserves the last two years. So the reserve fund balance is actually declining.  That is concerning to me (as a WM owner). The existing resorts are getting older by definition. Expensive structural repairs (4 month new elevator in San Francisco in 2019) are going to get more frequent. Plus, they add new resorts every year, and the reserves have to cover them as well.
> 
> So every year the appropriate size of the reserve fund is getting larger, while the actual fund gets smaller. That is not sustainable. I'm young enough that a special assessment will be within my lifetime.


you are exactly right.  I misread your post. I still had in mind someone’s post that referred to maintenance fees as larceny

I think wyndham is hamstrung by the 5% limit in mf increases. As long as reserves are funded by maintenance fees the reserves will be short changed


----------



## bizaro86

ronparise said:


> Sorr
> 
> you are exactly right.  I misread your post. I still had in mind someone’s post that referred to maintenance fees as larceny
> 
> I think wyndham is hamstrung by the 5% limit in mf increases. As long as reserves are funded by maintenance fees the reserves will be short changed



I agree with that somewhat. If these extra fees end up adding money to the reserve I'll be on board, even though I'll probably pay more fees for exactly the same usage.

If they decide to add a bunch of fees and leave the reserve fund contributions the same, then the long term future of the club won't be any healthier but Wyndham will get a higher management fee. That doesn't excite me too much.


----------



## CO skier

ronparise said:


> For routine reservations the difference between fair market rent and the cost for a reservation is getting close to zero. This will , I think drive the mega renters to the special events and other high value reservations. Like Mardi Gras, Coachella, Comic Con. Christmas at Disney, Etc and the in season reservations at the beach and ski resorts and of course Hawaii
> 
> The hard to get reservations will get harder to get


I am sure the hard to get reservations is a saturated market; megas get whatever they can and owners get whatever they can, both at 6 a.m. PT every morning.  These reservations cannot get any harder to get.

There is no room for marginal renters to move up in the market; if there was, they would already be reserving these higher profit reservations.  Result:  Marginal reservations are no longer profitable with $198 added on to speculative reservations booked just under 13 months in advance.  Owners reserve and move (with their families) into these second tier, but highly desirable reservations, because their cost is only credits and an HK versus a renter's cost of credits plus HK plus profit margin plus $198 Guest Certificate fees.


----------



## bizaro86

Marginal renters might move. Lots of reasons someone might not be competing for the very best reservations.

Two I can think of: they don't want to wait for 13 months to get something rented out, might not want to deal with Hawaii taxes.

Also, I suspect the 70-80% of people not affected will change year by year. I held a 90th birthday party at Canmore awhile ago. We had 7-8 rooms for a long weekend. So I'm probably in the 20-30% of people who would have paid, as even with my 2 accounts I'd be over. 

On the other hand, next year I think it'll just be San Diego/Canmore for me/wife/kids, as I'm well into my "to borrow" credits...


----------



## ecwinch

bizaro86 said:


> I'm a professional engineer, and I have done building reserve fund studies. I know how they work.
> 
> It is my considered (but not professional) opinion that worldmark does not have sufficient reserves in place to cover the costs they will face in the future.
> 
> I cite a couple pieces of evidence for that.
> 
> The first is that the auditors report says their goal is 40% funding of reserves, and that they intend to increase reserve payments to get there. That implies the current level of the reserve fund is insufficient, although not enough information is provided in the auditors report to judge that with certainty.
> 
> The second is the fact they have been out spending reserves the last two years. So the reserve fund balance is actually declining.  That is concerning to me (as a WM owner). The existing resorts are getting older by definition. Expensive structural repairs (4 month new elevator in San Francisco in 2019) are going to get more frequent. Plus, they add new resorts every year, and the reserves have to cover them as well.
> 
> So every year the appropriate size of the reserve fund is getting larger, while the actual fund gets smaller. That is not sustainable. I'm young enough that a special assessment will be within my lifetime.



I absolutely agree with you. We have an aging physical plant, and many of the resorts with classic credit values are not generating enough dues revenue and are essentially being subsidized by the credit valuations on new resorts. So fewer and fewer resorts actually contributing to the reserve fund, and more drawing it down.

And unfortunately - with the dues increases capped at 5% - the BoD has few viable options for increasing revenues.

When we do get hit with our first special assessment - it will either be a sizable amount OR become a regular occurrence. WM has always been a great value (relative to other systems), and as the saying goes "everything returns to the mean".


----------



## CO skier

ecwinch said:


> I absolutely agree with you. We have an aging physical plant, and many of the resorts with classic credit values are not generating enough dues revenue and are essentially being subsidized by the credit valuations on new resorts. So fewer and fewer resorts actually contributing to the reserve fund, and more drawing it down.
> 
> And unfortunately - with the dues increases capped at 5% - the BoD has few viable options for increasing revenues.
> 
> When we do get hit with our first special assessment - it will either be a sizable amount OR become a regular occurrence. WM has always been a great value (relative to other systems), and as the saying goes "everything returns to the mean".


WorldMark owners have benefited the last 10 years or so from the fact that the Governing Documents allow the greater of 5% or the CPI for maintenance fee increases.  Inflation has been increasing by more than the artificially depressed rate reported by the government (CPI), but maintenance fees have been able to increase beyond that percentage to cover the true, increasing costs of running the Club.

5% per year increases the last few years have just barely allowed the WorldMark budget to tread water.  When understated government CPI inflation approaching 5% returns (it is inevitable), there is no way the WorldMark budget will balance without special assessments.  This does not include the reserve fund, which I agree is underfunded due to the 5% maintenance fee cap.  So, even higher special assessments to cover the reserve fund in addition to the budget deficit.

WorldMark Owners who do not understand the budget (99%+ by my estimate) and expenses think the 5% or CPI cap on maintenance fees is something wonderful.  All it does is amplify the inevitable special assessments that will become a regular occurrence if (most likely when) inflation above 5% returns to the economy.


----------



## ronparise

CO skier said:


> I am sure the hard to get reservations is a saturated market; megas get whatever they can and owners get whatever they can, both at 6 a.m. PT every morning.  These reservations cannot get any harder to get.
> 
> There is no room for marginal renters to move up in the market; if there was, they would already be reserving these higher profit reservations.  Result:  Marginal reservations are no longer profitable with $198 added on to speculative reservations booked just under 13 months in advance.  Owners reserve and move (with their families) into these second tier, but highly desirable reservations, because their cost is only credits and an HK versus a renter's cost of credits plus HK plus profit margin plus $198 Guest Certificate fees.




You are missing the advantage that big owners with multiple accounts may still have  with the their use of the wait list

If guest fees are non refundable and cant be transferred from reservation to reservation; you are right mega renters wont have any advantage over regular owners and will be limited to just one of those extremely hard to get reservations, like everyone else


----------



## IsaiahB

CO skier said:


> WorldMark owners have benefited the last 10 years or so from the fact that the Governing Documents allow the greater of 5% or the CPI for maintenance fee increases.  Inflation has been increasing by more than the artificially depressed rate reported by the government (CPI), but maintenance fees have been able to increase beyond that percentage to cover the true, increasing costs of running the Club.
> 
> 5% per year increases the last few years have just barely allowed the WorldMark budget to tread water.  When understated government CPI inflation approaching 5% returns (it is inevitable), there is no way the WorldMark budget will balance without special assessments.  This does not include the reserve fund, which I agree is underfunded due to the 5% maintenance fee cap.  So, even higher special assessments to cover the reserve fund in addition to the budget deficit.
> 
> WorldMark Owners who do not understand the budget (99%+ by my estimate) and expenses think the 5% or CPI cap on maintenance fees is something wonderful.  All it does is amplify the inevitable special assessments that will become a regular occurrence if (most likely when) inflation above 5% returns to the economy.


The recent Minimum wage increases have accelerated the issue, it shouldn't have presented itself for another 5-10 years. 

The amount that fully understands the situation we are in is a rounding error. 
I'd estimate it to at around 500 owners, and that's generous.  
The rest of the owners complain about the 5% increases and the poor service, deferred maintenance, etc in the same breath. 
I think the blueprint will be to SA for major renovations of the biggest resorts.
Either it's deferred by a year or 150% of the cost is SA'd to the reserves.

The 50k deductible minimum for insurance doesn't help either. 
I'll be incredibly disappointed if a new policy isn't announced next board meeting.

The other solution is to amend the MF provisions.


----------



## samara64

geist1223 said:


> Is the WM BOD simply heeding the crys of anguish from Members who think they should be able to get Summer in Hawaii or Seaside but don't get there act together until January. Before all these changes we never had a problem getting Seaside, Hawaii, or any other resort we wanted when we wanted it. We have never rented Points in. We have never rented Points out. We have never charged anyone (family or friend) when we made a Reservation in their name, except for TOT.
> 
> If I paid for the Points how is it different if I am in the Unit or my Son and his family are in the Unit. I paid for the Points and I am using them for the enjoyment of my family.
> 
> So if the WM BOD was interested in the average Owner and not in lining Wyndham's pocket they would allow us to submit a List of at least our siblings and children and they should be except from this ridiculous Guest Certificate.
> 
> With the large number of Gift Certificates we will receive each year we will never have to pay for one. But that is not the point. The Point is that once again the WM BOD is hurting the avarage owner and will not make much of a dent in Megarenters.





This is from club declaration. No fees are mentioned. Bylaws are based on Declaration and has to comply:

2.15 Renting of Units. A Member other than Declarant may
charge a fee or rent for the use of a Unit during such Member's
Vacation Credit Uses by a guest or invitee. However, the WorldMark
Board of Directors may determine to either restrict or place
conditions on rentals at particular resorts to comply with laws or
restrictions by governing entities, so that The Club can own and
operate at a resort location; and so that no excessive financial
burden is imposed on The Club.

They can limit rental of a specific resort but no extra charges. 

Frankly I am all for limiting the rentals (on all resorts or specific ones) to a list of gusts attached to each account that can only be modified for a fee once the list is full. 

Not sure how Wyndham will calculate the 5% maximum per year increase. Will they adjust the MF to factor in the revenue from GC.


----------



## ecwinch

samara64 said:


> This is from club declaration. No fees are mentioned. Bylaws are based on Declaration and has to comply:
> 
> 2.15 Renting of Units. A Member other than Declarant may
> charge a fee or rent for the use of a Unit during such Member's
> Vacation Credit Uses by a guest or invitee. However, the WorldMark
> Board of Directors may determine to either restrict or place
> conditions on rentals at particular resorts* to comply with laws or
> restrictions by governing entities, so that The Club can own and
> operate at a resort location; and so that no excessive financial
> burden is imposed on The Club.*
> 
> They can limit rental of a specific resort but no extra charges.



You seem to be ignoring the bolded text that limits the scope of BoD's ability to restrict renting at a specific resort. It is not a unrestricted right the BoD can impose by fiat.  The BoD would have to demonstrate how the local law prohibits it, or that renting imposes an excessive financial burden on the Club. So a very narrow scope.

And nothing in that provision limits their ability to impose extra charges. And under the by-laws, the BoD is granted the implicit right to impose fees on guest usage. 

_Rules. To promulgate Rules regarding, among other things, conduct of Club business, behavior of Members and guests, and use of the Resorts, including, but not limited to, the following subjects:
(iv) Number of occupants, guests and fees;_


----------



## samara64

ecwinch said:


> You seem to be ignoring the bolded text that limits the scope of BoD's ability to restrict renting at a specific resort. It is not a unrestricted right the BoD can impose by fiat.  The BoD would have to demonstrate how the local law prohibits it, or that renting imposes an excessive financial burden on the Club. So a very narrow scope.
> 
> And nothing in that provision limits their ability to impose extra charges. And under the by-laws, the BoD is granted the implicit right to impose fees on guest usage.
> 
> _Rules. To promulgate Rules regarding, among other things, conduct of Club business, behavior of Members and guests, and use of the Resorts, including, but not limited to, the following subjects:
> (iv) Number of occupants, guests and fees;_



by-laws are based on club declaration which are more essential.

What you refer to is to state the BOD can limit the numbers of people in the unit and various fees for any services like extra cleaning changes etc. which is understandable.

My credits in Worldmark represent my deed. There should be no restriction to allow someone to use my deeded property if I cannot use it myself.

Not sure where the $198 that Ron stated is coming from. You can add a GC after the reservation is made. Why do you need 2 fees.


----------



## ecwinch

samara64 said:


> by-laws are based on club declaration which are more essential.
> 
> What you refer to is to state the BOD can limit the numbers of people in the unit and various fees for any services like extra cleaning changes etc. which is understandable.
> 
> My credits in Worldmark represent my deed. There should be no restriction to allow someone to use my deeded property if I cannot use it myself.
> 
> Not sure where the $198 that Ron stated is coming from. You can add a GC after the reservation is made. Why do you need 2 fees.



Which would be true if we had deeds, but unfortunately we do not have a deed or a deeded interest in any real property. We own a membership in Worldmark The Club and are bound by the rules of the Club.

Our credits do not represent a deed in any fashion. They are more similar to shares in the Club, than anything representing a deed. As clearly spelled out in the Declaration.

And yes - various fees - like a fee for allowing a guest to occupy a room you reserve.


----------



## samara64

Not really. Here it is again:

A Member other than Declarant may charge a fee or rent for the use of a Unit during such Member's Vacation Credit Uses by a guest or invitee.

BOD can limit that if jurisdiction require it but not charge the owner a fee to do so.

Also as Ron stated, I am all for changing the waitlist to end (not to begin as it is now) at the 13 month mark. This way megas cannot use it any longer.


----------



## easyrider

JohnPaul said:


> It is important to note that the $20 booking fee took the place of housekeeping fees for VI.



I didn't know that. My rtu only had 9 years left on it when I bought it. When it expires in 2022 I plan to let it go. 

Bill


----------



## bizaro86

samara64 said:


> Not really. Here it is again:
> 
> A Member other than Declarant may charge a fee or rent for the use of a Unit during such Member's Vacation Credit Uses by a guest or invitee.
> 
> BOD can limit that if jurisdiction require it but not charge the owner a fee to do so.
> 
> Also as Ron stated, I am all for changing the waitlist to end (not to begin as it is now) at the 13 month mark. This way megas cannot use it any longer.



Mega renters could still use it, but just not use it to dominate a specific resort past the 13 month window.

I would support that change, because I would like to take my kids to Yellowstone in the summer...


----------



## CO skier

ronparise said:


> For routine reservations the difference between fair market rent and the cost for a reservation is getting close to zero. This will , I think drive the mega renters to the special events and other high value reservations. Like Mardi Gras, Coachella, Comic Con. Christmas at Disney, Etc and the in season reservations at the beach and ski resorts and of course Hawaii


I notice that this morning there is quite a selection of availability in the WorldMark Kihei, HI resort, including 5+ unit showing for 2 Bedroom Twin for September 16, 2019 (13 months) and September 15th, 2019 (13 months less one day).  Before the changes of the last 3 years, it was impossible to get into Maui without using throwaway days to reach beyond 13 months.

It would appear that the megarenters that were working the Hawaii market using throwaway days, are not operating there now, or their activity has been noticeably reduced.


----------



## samara64

I think it is just past summer vacation time.


----------



## bizaro86

CO skier said:


> I notice that this morning there is quite a selection of availability in the WorldMark Kihei, HI resort, including 5+ unit showing for 2 Bedroom Twin for September 16, 2019 (13 months) and September 15th, 2019 (13 months less one day).  Before the changes of the last 3 years, it was impossible to get into Maui without using throwaway days to reach beyond 13 months.
> 
> It would appear that the megarenters that were working the Hawaii market using throwaway days, are not operating there now, or their activity has been noticeably reduced.



The state of Hawaii cracked down on rentals by people who didn't have hawaii tax licences. I bet that had something to do with it as well.


----------



## ronparise

samara64 said:


> by-laws are based on club declaration which are more essential.
> 
> What you refer to is to state the BOD can limit the numbers of people in the unit and various fees for any services like extra cleaning changes etc. which is understandable.
> 
> My credits in Worldmark represent my deed. There should be no restriction to allow someone to use my deeded property if I cannot use it myself.
> 
> Not sure where the $198 that Ron stated is coming from. You can add a GC after the reservation is made. Why do you need 2 fees.




If I make multiple speculative reservations  (meaning I don’t I have guests yet) I have to put a guests name on them. Call these placeholders ($99 each) then when I get a paying guest I’ll have to remove the placeholder name and add the real name (another $99). $99 + $99 = $198


And you don’t have a deeded Ownership with Worldmark and even if you did like any condo there are condo docs created and in file with the local land records that established the condo and set certain rules. Also the hoa can set new rules as time goes on

I know of condo associations that  restrict rentals, that require white linings for curtains and some that don’t allow children


----------



## samara64

ronparise said:


> If I make multiple speculative reservations  (meaning I don’t I have guests yet) I have to put a guests name on them. Call these placeholders ($99 each) then when I get a paying guest I’ll have to remove the placeholder name and add the real name (another $99). $99 + $99 = $198
> 
> 
> And you don’t have a deeded Ownership with Worldmark and even if you did like any condo there are condo docs created and in file with the local land records that established the condo and set certain rules. Also the hoa can set new rules as time goes on
> 
> I know of condo associations that  restrict rentals, that require white linings for curtains and some that don’t allow children



But that has to be voted by members of the HOA ie the owners of the condos. I would love to see this on the ballot this or next year.

So what prevents the BOD of adding a $500 reservation fee per booking. They can justify that by stating that some owners use their credits and some do not so adding the fee justifies the usage as a fee for service. People who do not use their credits will simply pay the MF only.

And if the BOD states that guest usage damages the condo, they do take a $100 deposit from guests to charge if need be.

You still have the 5% limit that adding all the fees charged to the owners cannot exceed that increase from year to year.

I called Worldmark after reading your post and spoke to 3 different people. All stated that a GC can be added anytime after booking. If I book a stay and later cannot use it, I can just send someone by using a GC.


----------



## overthehill

easyrider said:


> This is what Vacation International does.They sell point protection for about $45 a reservation. When I cancel a reservation I loose the $45 + $20 booking fee. It does make some people sit on the fence regarding making their reservations. VI also implemented a commercial use amendment that keeps their inventory off limits to renting for profit.
> 
> If WM follows and implements the same policies then there would be a lot of inventory not rented at 6 am 13 months out.
> 
> Bill



Bill, I agree with your final comment. I like the reference you made to VI and the reservation charges they have. In 1998 when I bought my first WM credits (on the secondary market), the reservation cancellation rate was 28%. A recent quote from a CSR at WM Vacation Planning was there are now 41% cancellations. Being retired, I make travel plans out as far as two years and I use not only my current allocation of credits (72,000) but always use some of my next year's credits. Unfortunately, the WM system allows owners to book 13 months out and cancel a short time before the check-in date without penalty. As my wife and I try to book time in Hawaii every year, I don't bother trying to secure units through the WM system because I want to know my travel dates as far in advance as possible so I can lock in the cost of my flights to Hawaii. For years I have been more successful getting reservations through RCI or Wyndham Club Pass than WM. This year I ended up renting a week in Hawaii (through Homeaway) from a timeshare owner. From my perspective, I would welcome reservation charges similar to those you mention as it would hopefully reduce the number of reservations made on a whim or those reservations being made with the intent of renting the time. Further, I would like to see the cancellation date be changed to 90 days out for exotic locations so owners wanting to go to those locations would have a better chance booking a unit and securing flights. As most people know, flights these days are booked out further in advance and prices are typically higher the closer to a travel date.


----------



## silentg

Ok, in this situation, a family reunion, why can’t you put more than one family member on the guest certificate? You could put Mike and one of the other guests who will be staying in the timeshare?
Since it’s a reservation for 8-12 people, shouldn’t they allow more than one name?
Silentg


----------



## jmkhager

_I, as well as thousands of other timeshare individuals, really don't like to see increased fees of any type; however, this idea of Guest Certificates, IMHO, is acceptable to us.  As a WorldMark owner since 1994, I appreciate the fact that this avenue is an attempt to reduce the blatant misuse of reservation power that some individuals are presently implementing.  It has been increasingly difficult to complete a reservation due to members (individuals) turning their memberships into a revenue producing product rather then enjoying the membership for what is was intended to be, improving and enjoying family quality vacation time.  WorldMark was intended to do just that; not becoming a revenue producing product for some and ruining and reducing the opportunity for others to truly vacation.

I see this implementation as an effort to reduce money producers and increase our opportunity to vacation as the program was originally intended.  If you read the information carefully, you will understand that each owner receives one complimentary Guest Certificate each year and for each 10,000 credits of membership you receive an additional Guest Certificate.  IMHO, this is still providing opportunities for the money producer.  I, for one, would like the continuation of program changes that will increase our opportunity to vacation.  and decrease their money producing options._


----------



## ecwinch

To those suggesting that a booking or cancellation fee might need to be considered, I have a feeling that is not too far off either.


----------



## roadsister

I have been an owner since 1990.  I have a no housekeeping acct. and have been Grandfathered in to all new resorts, etc.  I am wondering how this will affect my membership if at all.


----------



## jpegan

tschwa2 said:


> Would love to hear from those who love to think that Wyndham doesn't own Worldmark and that the owners own Worldmark and reconcile this one.
> 
> An owner should be able to check in for as many rooms as he or she wants regardless of whether they overlap and regardless of whether the owner intends to leave one or more empty or allow guests traveling with the owner to stay.  There really shouldn't be any difference between an owner booking 3 studios for self and guest on a trip and booking a 2-3 bedroom that fits the same number of guests travelling with and staying with the owner.    Yes I know Wyndham has been doing this for years, but Wyndham owns Wyndham and I can't imagine Worldmark owners wanting to pay extra fees for what they have always been able to do without paying those fees.  I know I really resent guest cert fees in general but to be charged when guest are staying in a different unit (often due to availability not intentionally) during the same stay.



When I bought into World Mark 19 years ago it was understood, that any member of the family was eligible to use my membership and said membership could be maintained by my family members and their family's, importunity, as long as the annual dues are paid.

Why should any member of my family or spouse, need a gift certificate?  This looks like Wyndham is trying to make rental income from World Mark shares.


----------



## rhonda

roadsister said:


> I have been an owner since 1990.  I have a no housekeeping acct. and have been Grandfathered in to all new resorts, etc.  I am wondering how this will affect my membership if at all.


ROADSISTER!  Welcome back!  Good to see you!


----------



## FLYNZ4

rhonda said:


> ROADSISTER!  Welcome back!  Good to see you!


Rhonda... you stole my welcome.  

Welcome back Roadsister.

/Jim


----------



## roadsister

rhonda said:


> ROADSISTER!  Welcome back!  Good to see you!


Hi Rhonda!!! I didn’t think anyone would remember me. 
Still trying to find my way around this website.


----------



## FLYNZ4

rhonda said:


> Boo ... I [Dislike] until I'm convinced otherwise??
> 
> EDIT:  FWIW, I don't see myself having to pay for a Guest Cert often given the formula for complimentary Certs.  Still ... it just bugs me as "_family unfriendly_."



Rhonda,

Like you, I do not think this rule change will affect me personally... especially since I only use my credits for personal or family use.   The number of free GC will impact very few owners irrespective of account size if they use it for primarily personal use with some family use included.

I know that WM has stated the GC fee is not a move against Mega-renters, but I do think it is.   Like Ron has stated in this thread... the (up to) extra $198 per reservation does impact rental reservations, especially small reservations.   The rental market is competitive, and taking this off the profit line makes WM rentals less attractive to rent.

Regarding Mega-renting... most who follow other forums (particularly WMowners) know I am not a fan of Mega-renting.  I hold no bad feelings against those that are mega-renters, especially if they follow the rules. However, I believe that it is not in the best interests of the club, especially when raised to commercial levels.

I believe that most of the rule changes implemented to combat mega-renting have been ineffective.  In fact, I believe they have caused more issues for the average owner rather than curtailing renting.   This change will have a minor impact... but by itself will certainly not stop renting.

I've looked at how to curtail renting for some time now, and quite frankly, only Eric's suggestions seem to have enough teeth to  significantly solve the problem.   If I was to summarize them (with my own interpretation & additions):

1) Require a guest name at time of reservation, with no modifications, just cancellations.
2) Strict enforcement against a cancel/rebook (even across multiple controlled accounts)
3) Limit the waitlist for owner occupancy only
4) Strict enforcement (at the resort level) of the "man on the street" check-in.
5) Violations of above result in cancellation of all reservations in the account (or set of controlled accounts)

This would indeed cause impact to normal owners.  It can be debated if it would be a net positive or negative for the club.  However, the current state of bandaid on bandaid certainly does not work, and certainly makes the club less useful to ordinary owners.   If implemented, most (or all) of the current bandaids could be removed.

/Jim

PS:  I invite Eric to modify the above since I credited him


----------



## roadsister

FLYNZ4 said:


> Rhonda... you stole my welcome.
> 
> Welcome back Roadsister.
> 
> /Jim


Hi Jim, I’ve been gone a long time! I read the newsletter and never dig farther. Now have to learn to maneuver around.


----------



## roadsister

FLYNZ4 said:


> Rhonda,
> 
> Like you, I do not think this rule change will affect me personally... especially since I only use my credits for personal or family use.   The number of free GC will impact very few owners irrespective of account size if they use it for primarily personal use with some family use included.
> 
> I know that WM has stated the GC fee is not a move against Mega-renters, but I do think it is.   Like Ron has stated in this thread... the (up to) extra $198 per reservation does impact rental reservations, especially small reservations.   The rental market is competitive, and taking this off the profit line makes WM rentals less attractive to rent.
> 
> Regarding Mega-renting... most who follow other forums (particularly WMowners) know I am not a fan of Mega-renting.  I hold no bad feelings against those that are mega-renters, especially if they follow the rules. However, I believe that it is not in the best interests of the club, especially when raised to commercial levels.
> 
> I believe that most of the rule changes implemented to combat mega-renting have been ineffective.  In fact, I believe they have caused more issues for the average owner rather than curtailing renting.   This change will have a minor impact... but by itself will certainly not stop renting.
> 
> I've looked at how to curtail renting for some time now, and quite frankly, only Eric's suggestions seem to have enough teeth to  significantly solve the problem.   If I was to summarize them (with my own interpretation):
> 
> 1) Require a quest name at time of reservation, with no modifications, just cancellations.
> 2) Strict enforcement against a cancel/rebook (even across multiple controlled accounts)
> 3) Limit the waitlist for owner occupancy only
> 4) Strict enforcement (at the resort level) of the "man on the street" check-in.
> 5) Violations of above result in cancellation of all reservations in the account (or set of controlled accounts)
> 
> This would indeed cause impact to normal owners.  It can be debated if it would be a net positive or negative for the club.  However, the current state of bandaid on bandaid certainly does not work, and certainly makes the club less useful to ordinary owners.   If implemented, all of the current bandaids could be removed.
> 
> /Jim
> 
> PS:  I invite Eric to modify the above since I credited him


Jim, is that Etic from Red season??


----------



## FLYNZ4

roadsister said:


> Hi Jim, I’ve been gone a long time! I read the newsletter and never dig farther. Now have to learn to maneuver around.



Well, welcome back.   I don't usually post here... but gave it a whirl myself today.  

/Jim


----------



## FLYNZ4

roadsister said:


> Jim, is that Etic from Red season??


No,  I haven't seen or heard from Erick Clark in ages.    I was talking about Eric Winch.

/Jim


----------



## Larry M

taterhed said:


> I've heard of people renting multiples and doing the VRBO/ABNB thing....wonder if this was aimed at that?


Why is that a problem for the association or the management company? They are getting their maintenance fee and also getting some exposure. The renter might want to buy a timeshare after having a good week as a renter.

How is this different from an investor who buys four or five year-round condominiums and sub-lets them?


----------



## samara64

I would like to add:

6) Make the waitlist not go in the future so last day of the waitlist cannot be more then 13 month from the day it is set.

This will help a lot of owners book at 13 month out. Megas do a trick that allow them to book at 13 month even if there is no availability in the system by trimming an existing reservation and catching the last days via the waitlist to start a new reservation. That is why Yellowstone 3BR is never available.

That what the owner services told me when I asked how comes there was availability in the morning at 6:10AM for 13 month + 1 day and it is gone by 8:30AM.


----------



## ecwinch

samara64 said:


> I would like to add:
> 
> 6) Make the waitlist not go in the future so last day of the waitlist cannot be more then 13 month from the day it is set.
> 
> This will help a lot of owners book at 13 month out. Megas do a trick that allow them to book at 13 month even if there is no availability in the system by trimming an existing reservation and catching the last days via the waitlist to start a new reservation. That is why Yellowstone 3BR is never available.
> 
> That what the owner services told me when I asked how comes there was availability in the morning at 6:10AM for 13 month + 1 day and it is gone by 8:30AM.



Here is impact of that rule (if it was implemented):

So 13 months out I get up to book my 3BR West Yellowstone unit at 6:00am. They are all gone, and the next available check-in is 13 months 6 days out.  So I put in my waitlist for 1 day.

Then I have to repeat this process six more times, expanding my reservation one day each time.

And even with this change, they still could manipulate the wait list - since they control the event that is "triggering" the waitlist match. They just have to be first person to call in and add the wait list request at 8:30am. This suggestion would make a little less likely they could manipulate it, but not prevent it.

More effective IMHO would be prevent waitlist reservations from adding-on extra days that are outside the 13 month booking window.


----------



## CO skier

FLYNZ4 said:


> I believe that most of the rule changes implemented to combat mega-renting have been ineffective.  In fact, I believe they have caused more issues for the average owner rather than curtailing renting.   This change will have a minor impact... but by itself will certainly not stop renting.


The change requiring all segments of a Grouped Reservation to be only Red Season was two steps backward.  It forced throwaway days to be Red Season.  Forcing some Red Season days to sit empty hurt prime availability for all owners.  This change also eliminated using summer White and Blue Season days in the Desert Southwest as part of Grouped Reservations.  The modest cost increase to megarenters for using Red Season throwaway days instead of White or Blue Season days was easily absorbed.

The change requiring the first day of all segments of a Grouped Reservation to be within 13 months succeeded where the previous change failed, by eliminating lead-in throwaway days, altogether.  The improvement in 13-month availability was immediately observable and can easily be seen today in the 13-month availability for Marina Dunes and the Hawaii resorts, as examples.  There will always be rentals, but the scale of renting was significantly reduced by this change, because megarenters could not reserve multiple units more than 13 months in advance.  They might get one or two at the most popular resorts at the most popular times at 13 months.  All WorldMark Owners benefited from the increased 13-month availability; not all owners, of course, reserve their vacations at 13 months, but the availability is there now where it was not before.

The change limiting credits and housekeeping transfers reduced credit transfers by 60,000,000 credits per year.  Megarenters would transfer credits into their accounts in bulk.  At 10,000 credits per reservation that would be 6,000 reservations.  Not all reservations are for full weeks, and many reservations are for only 2-3 days, so it is hard to calculate, but easy to think that 8,000 fewer rental reservations are made each year as a result of the credit transfer limit of 2 times annual allotment.  That is 8,000 prime reservation for owners to reserve for their own vacations each year that were not available before the change.

The Guest Certificate will reduce megarenter reservations incrementally, but nothing like the scale of limiting Grouped Reservations to 13 months and credit/HK transfer limits.  But it is another step in putting more owners and fewer renters in WorldMark units, and that benefits every WorldMark Owner, except those who use their ownership primarily as a business.

Nothing will ever eliminate renting in WorldMark.  There are many resorts where the credits costs are so low versus comparable rental rates that only extraordinary guest usage fees would equalize.  The Guideline changes over the last three years do show how WorldMark may be modified to increase owner usage while reducing guest usage.


----------



## FLYNZ4

CO skier said:


> Nothing will ever eliminate renting in WorldMark.  There are many resorts where the credits costs are so low versus comparable rental rates that only extraordinary guest usage fees would equalize.  The Guideline changes over the last three years do show how WorldMark may be modified to increase owner usage while reducing guest usage.



Rentals should not be eliminated.   If an owner cannot use their credits, there is nothing wrong in renting out their reservation to recoup their fees.  However, when rentals become the fuel for a business, that is when it becomes harmful to the club as a whole.

We still have rampant renting going on, despite the steps mentioned in your reply.   I am not intimate with every mechanism being used, but from what I understand... some have automated programs running and scoop up every bit of bonus time available at certain resorts... only to be dropped at 48 hours if a renter is not found.   Also, reservations are being made in non-red seasons using $0.08 FAX credits... only to be dropped when unable to rent.   Both of these two examples require zero credits to deploy.  There are many other things that happen, some technical, some with multiple coordinated simultaneous users, computers or servers automatically scavenging the inventory and booking speculative rentals.  Others are using social engineering to confuse VPCs, or have VPCs on the inside doing work for them.    Like I have said... I do not know every technique being used, and I have only heard 2nd or 3rd hand about the above type of activities.   It is clear to me that the most aggressive renters are barely impacted by any of the rules so far.

The examples listed in the post #76 above address the issue more directly than the current examples.   By requiring a guest name at the time of reservation... that allows regular owners to book units for themselves, and their family at the 13 month mark.    Mega-renters generally do not have many customers at 13 months, so it is futile to book early, unless they plan to cancel and rebook through coordinated activities across multiple users, or accounts.   That is where item #2 comes into play.   WM can and should enforce the 48 hour rebooking rule... and they should deploy electronic methods to detect and group various logins to create "account sets" that are know to be in play to circumvent those rules.  When such coordinated activity is identified, the resulting reservations should be canceled.. even retroactively.

Taking these type of actions are my (heavily influenced by Eric Winch) best estimates of how to thwart the excessive rental activity ... if in fact, it is a big enough problem for the club.   I think these steps would be more effective (by far) than what has been implemented so far... which has been barely a speed bump in the road for those in the know.

/Jim


----------



## ecwinch

Jim - thanks for dropping into this conversation.

I absolutely agree with you that renting should not be eliminated. But all things in moderation.

And 100% agreement on system measures to prohibit using multiple accounts to pass reservations. As much as I would like to see the named guest rule implemented, preventing reservation passing is far more important.


----------



## ronparise

Larry M said:


> Why is that a problem for the association or the management company? They are getting their maintenance fee and also getting some exposure. The renter might want to buy a timeshare after having a good week as a renter.
> 
> How is this different from an investor who buys four or five year-round condominiums and sub-lets them?




There are two issues as I see it.  The management company is obligated to manage the club for the benefit of all the owners and they have gotten complaints that certain owners seem to have an advantage over other owners when making the "hard to get" reservations. They(management) has taken on the task of leveling the playing field, when it comes to making reservations. They want to be able to assure the pwners that every owner has an equal chance to make every reservation.  The second issue  (and this is just my opinion) is that rentals hurt sales.and Wyndham is all about sales.  Imagine two guys on vacation sharing the hot tub at the end of the day, and the subject of ownership comes up...One guy owns his credits and has just decided to upgrade by buying another 10000 credits this trip, so he can take another weeks vacation each year. He wrote Wyndham a $20000 check this week for those new credits.  The other guy says he dosent own, rather he rents his worldmatk vacations from Ron for just a little more than maintenance fees. The first guy does a quick calculation in his head and figures even if he saves $500 each vacation (maintenance fees vs Ron's rental rate) his break even point is 40 years down the road. He decides he would rather keep his $20000 in the bank and  to rescind his purchase the next day


----------



## ronparise

CO skier said:


> The change requiring all segments of a Grouped Reservation to be only Red Season was two steps backward.  It forced throwaway days to be Red Season.  Forcing some Red Season days to sit empty hurt prime availability for all owners.  This change also eliminated using summer White and Blue Season days in the Desert Southwest as part of Grouped Reservations.  The modest cost increase to megarenters for using Red Season throwaway days instead of White or Blue Season days was easily absorbed.
> 
> The change requiring the first day of all segments of a Grouped Reservation to be within 13 months succeeded where the previous change failed, by eliminating lead-in throwaway days, altogether.  The improvement in 13-month availability was immediately observable and can easily be seen today in the 13-month availability for Marina Dunes and the Hawaii resorts, as examples.  There will always be rentals, but the scale of renting was significantly reduced by this change, because megarenters could not reserve multiple units more than 13 months in advance.  They might get one or two at the most popular resorts at the most popular times at 13 months.  All WorldMark Owners benefited from the increased 13-month availability; not all owners, of course, reserve their vacations at 13 months, but the availability is there now where it was not before.
> 
> The change limiting credits and housekeeping transfers reduced credit transfers by 60,000,000 credits per year.  Megarenters would transfer credits into their accounts in bulk.  At 10,000 credits per reservation that would be 6,000 reservations.  Not all reservations are for full weeks, and many reservations are for only 2-3 days, so it is hard to calculate, but easy to think that 8,000 fewer rental reservations are made each year as a result of the credit transfer limit of 2 times annual allotment.  That is 8,000 prime reservation for owners to reserve for their own vacations each year that were not available before the change.
> 
> The Guest Certificate will reduce megarenter reservations incrementally, but nothing like the scale of limiting Grouped Reservations to 13 months and credit/HK transfer limits.  But it is another step in putting more owners and fewer renters in WorldMark units, and that benefits every WorldMark Owner, except those who use their ownership primarily as a business.
> 
> Nothing will ever eliminate renting in WorldMark.  There are many resorts where the credits costs are so low versus comparable rental rates that only extraordinary guest usage fees would equalize.  The Guideline changes over the last three years do show how WorldMark may be modified to increase owner usage while reducing guest usage.





Its important to note that the purpose of grouped reservations was always written in the guidelines, Specifically grouped reservations enable an owner to combine reservations to comply with the 7 day rule (which requires red season reservations made 10-13 months in advance, to be at least 7 days )   It was never intended to use blue and white days to violate the 7 day rule. My point is that the "new" rule wasnt a new rule at all, It was simply a clarification of the old rule. 

Similarly there is another rule that requires reservations be made no more than 13 months in advance. Grouped reservations are several individual reservations, grouped together and the way grouped reservation were administered allowed violations of the 13 month rule. this was never the intent. Again, the "new" rule was simply a clarification requiring that all reservations (including the individual legs of a grouped reservation) comply with the 13 month rule


Wyndham may intend to stop commercial rentals, but since renting is allowed by the declaration, without any qualification regarding "commercial" renting they have to come at it in a less direct way than a simple ban.   Their stated goal is a reservations system where every owner has an equal chance at every reservation and they will reach that goal by  closing the loopholes and squeezing the profits of the commercial renters.


----------



## taterhed

Here's a solution:

Generate a 1099 (right form?) for all 'imputed' income exceeding $XXXXX based on owner activity.  Allow the owners to demonstrate that they were conducting private activity and not 'commercial for profit enterprise.'

Bet that would slow things a bit.


----------



## ronparise

taterhed said:


> Here's a solution:
> 
> Generate a 1099 (right form?) for all 'imputed' income exceeding $XXXXX based on owner activity.  Allow the owners to demonstrate that they were conducting private activity and not 'commercial for profit enterprise.'
> 
> Bet that would slow things a bit.


A 1099 is used to report monies paid to contractors and sub contractors. 

The monies that would be reported on wyndhams 1099 to a megarenter would be expenses incurred by Wyndham  and income to the megarenter

Wyndham however dosent pay the rent that a megarenter collects. So no 1099

However Wyndham now offers a rental program for Worldmark owners. The owners turn their reservations over to Wyndham Wyndham finds the rental customers and collects the rent. They take their fees and turn the rest over to the owner.  These monies will be reported on a 1099

I used a points manager to handle nearly all  of my Wyndham points. They found the rental customers, and collected the rent. They sent my share to me and reported those monies on a 1099. I of course included that income (less my expenses) on my tax return 


I resent your assumption  that megarenters don’t pay taxes. Paying taxes is a privilege.  The more taxes I pay, the more money I’m making.  Paying taxes is a good thing


----------



## taterhed

ronparise said:


> A 1099 is used to report monies paid to contractors and sub contractors.
> 
> The monies that would be reported on wyndhams 1099 to a megarenter would be expenses incurred by Wyndham  and income to the megarenter
> 
> Wyndham however dosent pay the rent that a megarenter collects. So no 1099
> 
> However Wyndham now offers a rental program for Worldmark owners. The owners turn their reservations over to Wyndham Wyndham finds the rental customers and collects the rent. They take their fees and turn the rest over to the owner.  These monies will be reported on a 1099
> 
> I used a points manager to handle nearly all  of my Wyndham points. They found the rental customers, and collected the rent. They sent my share to me and reported those monies on a 1099. I of course included that income (less my expenses) on my tax return
> 
> 
> I resent your assumption  that megarenters don’t pay taxes. Paying taxes is a privilege.  The more taxes I pay, the more money I’m making.  Paying taxes is a good thing



You assume too much.

First, I have no beef with you.  So, if you insulted or angered....it's not by me.

I'm glad you pay taxes.  I'm glad you feel it's a privilege.  
I think there are some that under-report rentals income.  Megarenters?  I don't know.  I have no idea what the statistics are.  In fact, I'm not sure it's the megarenters that are causing the problems.  It may be some other 'unnamed' class of renters.

So, am I to assume by your comments that you truthfully believe that all 'commercial' renters on Worldmark--whether self-declared as commercial or not--are claiming their income appropriately and being fully taxed on this amount?  

I'd be interested to know your opinions.

BTW:  I'm not in favor of stopping all rental activity on Worldmark, Marriott, Wyndham or anywhere else.  
I am in favor of leveling the playing field so that individual owners have the same opportunities as commercial renters--whether they are 'megarenters' or idiots with a pc or ?.

If the opportunity exists....then I do not fault the renter.  I fault the managers/club for not moderating the rentals to balance the opportunities between 6000 point owners and 6 million point owners.

Put your feathers down Ron.  No insult intended.


----------



## ronparise

taterhed said:


> You assume too much.
> 
> First, I have no beef with you.  So, if you insulted or angered....it's not by me.
> 
> I'm glad you pay taxes.  I'm glad you feel it's a privilege.
> I think there are some that under-report rentals income.  Megarenters?  I don't know.  I have no idea what the statistics are.  In fact, I'm not sure it's the megarenters that are causing the problems.  It may be some other 'unnamed' class of renters.
> 
> So, am I to assume by your comments that you truthfully believe that all 'commercial' renters on Worldmark--whether self-declared as commercial or not--are claiming their income appropriately and being fully taxed on this amount?
> 
> I'd be interested to know your opinions.
> 
> BTW:  I'm not in favor of stopping all rental activity on Worldmark, Marriott, Wyndham or anywhere else.
> I am in favor of leveling the playing field so that individual owners have the same opportunities as commercial renters--whether they are 'megarenters' or idiots with a pc or ?.
> 
> If the opportunity exists....then I do not fault the renter.  I fault the managers/club for not moderating the rentals to balance the opportunities between 6000 point owners and 6 million point owners.
> 
> Put your feathers down Ron.  No insult intended.



I’m not insulted 

But I do think you are wrong to assume  that anyone wouldn’t pay their taxes. I’m just saying that paying taxes is a good sign you are making money

But that’s secondary to the point i wanted to make with my post and the point you apparently missed altogether 

My point is that Wyndham can’t  issue a 1099 for income someone  might make renting their Wyndham or Worldmark reservations Because they (Wyndham) didn’t pay the rent.


----------



## taterhed

Thanks Ron.  
There is a process for reporting 'gained value' or 'imputed income.'
I haven't the foggiest what it is.  That's why I posted it with a question mark (?) to indicate my lack of knowledge in this area.

My point was this:  Just like AirBnb and VRBO, government and others are figuring out ways to determine where income is being generated far beyond the 'casual' renter.  I suspect that Wyndham or Worldmark could figure out a way to trip the flag at a certain threshold and shed a bit more light on the activity just in case some folks might not be aware.  Ignorance and all that.

Based on current legislation targeting ABNB and VRBO renters.....I think I'm not the only sole human being alive that believes that people are not fully disclosing what or how much they are renting.

It's a guess....I may be wrong.
Thanks for the chat.....I'm done with the subject.


----------



## samara64

ecwinch said:


> Here is impact of that rule (if it was implemented):
> 
> So 13 months out I get up to book my 3BR West Yellowstone unit at 6:00am. They are all gone, and the next available check-in is 13 months 6 days out.  So I put in my waitlist for 1 day.
> 
> Then I have to repeat this process six more times, expanding my reservation one day each time.
> 
> And even with this change, they still could manipulate the wait list - since they control the event that is "triggering" the waitlist match. They just have to be first person to call in and add the wait list request at 8:30am. This suggestion would make a little less likely they could manipulate it, but not prevent it.
> 
> More effective IMHO would be prevent waitlist reservations from adding-on extra days that are outside the 13 month booking window.




This is very easy to implement by adding a high priority waitlist to catch the 13 month cancellations.

Once a user cancels or adjusts the last days of a reservation (has to be done by a VPC), the software can check if the cut days are unavailable on line and can be used to book 13 month out. In such a case, the first day will be held for one day then will go to next waitlist on the list.

So for example, if the next available day on the calendar is 13 month + 2 days away and someone cancels a reservation that will fill in these 2 days, software will keep the first day in priority waitlist until next day and will release the following days to availability so everyone can book it next morning.

This way we did not bypass any user waitlist but we also gave everyone a good chance to book.


----------



## ecwinch

Sam - it is not that there are no solutions that can curb commercial renting. It is that we have some that are focused on finding a magic bullet that has no impact for the members and is 100% effective.

That is a pipe-dream. Rules have to apply to everyone, and there is no rule that will kill commercial renting and have no impact. As Voltaire said "Perfect is the enemy of the good.".  So we by-pass lots of good solutions because they are not perfect, and because some are unwilling to accept any solution that impacts them - or might impact them in the future.

The guest fee is a good example, as there is certainly a segment of the commercial rental market that will be impacted by this change. Just go to AirBnb and see how many members are operating "on-demand" rental businesses where they do not hold inventory, but instead make reservations on-request. Some might argue that is not a problem, but success breeds competition.


----------



## rickandcindy23

I have a reservation next year for Dolphin's Cove, and my name is on it now.  What if I change the name later on?  Am I going to incur this fee?  Or will my four free guest certificates (I own 40K credits) allow me to change the name without a cost?  

I guess I am asking if the free guest certificates are only good to use at the time of booking and not later.


----------



## ecwinch

They can be used any time - not just at the time of booking. So in your case, you would use one of your free guest certificates, or pay the fee if you were out of them.


_If you would like to add a guest name to an existing reservation without incurring the Guest Certificate fee, you may do so up until Sep. 11, 2018. After that date, a Guest Certificate will be required for all guest reservations regardless of original booking date._


----------



## Shannon1

Does anyone else feel this is a lawsuit waiting to happen? I am going to spend the next month or so digging into the regulations. Currently, i myself am extremely upset about the guest certificates. Every year in December, Worldmark post all resorts on special offer and each owner is allowed 6 reservations. On top of that there are inventory specials and bonus time reservation. For the holidays, birthdays and more as gifts, I usually give a night or two stay to most of my family, and friends. I have been for over 10 years. I do transfer reservations to their names as I was told was allowed at no additional fee for years. This new policy will ultimately cost me a few thousand dollars a year. The truth is my family and friends look forward to this gift, but I can’t afford another $99 per gift for a one night stay.  Needless to say, I am not happy.


----------



## ecwinch

Shannon1,

It sounds like you might be someone who uses their member benefits heavily -  ie. someone who makes extensive use of cash bookings, and a high percentage of those bookings are for non-member use.

If so, then you probably one the members I believe they are targeting with this new "fee for service" model they claim they are migrating the Club to. I think of it as "use more, pay more". Use more Club benefits than the *average owner*, and pay more towards the Club's operating expenses.

I know that is not a popular view. But as you find discussed early in this thread, this new fee is definitely within the authority of the BoD. The reserves would certainly benefit from it.


----------



## ecwinch

I just want to point out that another targeted class is NHK accounts with a high percentage of short-stay guest usage.


----------



## herindoors911

Be aware, that any reservation already in the name of a guest,  may use a guest certificate if days are added or subtracted.   The VPA's have to remake the reservation, which prompts a GC token or cost.


----------



## rhonda

herindoors911 said:


> Be aware, that any reservation already in the name of a guest,  may use a guest certificate if days are added or subtracted.   The VPA's have to remake the reservation, which prompts a GC token or cost.


Thanks for adding this to the knowledge base!  

(I couldn't simply hit the [Like] button.  Yes, I like your information sharing ... but I don't like the policy and how it impacts reservations or impinges on the system's former flexibility.)


----------



## breezez

easyrider said:


> I'm not too concerned about the limit on credit transfer because I have multiple accounts that I can load if I need to. It is a problem trying to get even a few units in the same location in a popular resort in a popular season. In the past I was able to get nine two bedroom units at Seaside for family reunions by burning points. It is much harder now to reserve the units I need. I can still get nine units but they won't all be two bedroom deluxe and the units will likely be scattered throughout the resort.
> 
> Bill


The limit in transfers does affect average owners.   Let’s say account A is out of HK tokens.  But account B has 2 in it.   To save fees you used to be able to move 5000 credits and HK from B to A.  You can’t do this now.   Let’s say you already hit 2 times your credit transfer limit on Account B.   You used to be able to move A to B so you could use HK token in account B.   Under current rules you can’t due this either once threshold is reached.


----------



## breezez

ecwinch said:


> I just want to point out that another targeted class is NHK accounts with a high percentage of short-stay guest usage.


I know some like to complain about NHK accounts.  What’s any different than people benefiting from bonus time, inventory special or fax time vs those with a NHK account.   Neither of these pay housekeeping and most are short stays.

I have NHK, live in Florida on west coast.     I don’t stay very often in WM here.   But travel out west 3-4 times a year most trips are 4-5 days and general stay night close to departure airport before leaving.   

But I would say those that live out west just having access to WM specials and bonus time is a huge benefit and doesn’t have housekeeping either.


----------



## ecwinch

breezez said:


> I know some like to complain about NHK accounts.  What’s any different than people benefiting from bonus time, inventory special or fax time vs those with a NHK account.   Neither of these pay housekeeping and most are short stays.



The difference is a NHK can book any 1-2 days that are sitting out there without waiting for the BT window. That is a huge advantage over the rest of the members.

And my complaint with them is that they were illegally created by fiat of the BoD, as creation of another class of owners requires a vote of the membership. And that there is large concentration of them that like to rail against what the developer is doing to the Club, but have no problem benefiting from their illegal acts.


----------



## breezez

ecwinch said:


> The difference is a NHK can book any 1-2 days that are sitting out there without waiting for the BT window. That is a huge advantage over the rest of the members.
> 
> And my complaint with them is that they were illegally created by fiat of the BoD, as creation of another class of owners requires a vote of the membership. And that there is large concentration of them that like to rail against what the developer is doing to the Club, but have no problem benefiting from their illegal acts.


Eric,

While I don’t profess to know the entire history, weren’t NHK accounts created first.   Then developer realized error in their decision and made all accounts going forward after a certain date require housekeeping?   If so then anyone that bought an account after that date signed agreeing to this.  While those accounts sold prior to this date had there would never be a housekeeping fee.

If a person were to buy 63,000 points from developer to this day they too would not have HK fees.  Almost all timeshare companies create different classes of owners based on VIP levels and developer vs resell owner

The way I use my account I may get 1 or 2 housekeeping’s above what I would have gotten for the year anyway based just on credits.  I am sure others get tons more.   I just don’t live close to many WM resorts in my area to make weekend or mid getaways work for me.   I didn’t even get into WM trying to buy a NHK account just so happens seller had account he still had a small loan on I bought account and payed his loan off.  It was not till I got my first credit installment and did not get HK tokens that I realized I had a NHK account after talking with owner care.

While I don’t really get much use out of it now I hope to in the future.

Please describe this illegal activity you are referring to.


----------



## breezez

After reading this entire thread I am still confused about this Guest Certificate Policy

I get 5 certificates a year.   If I use one when I book a reservation, but later change the persons name, because that person can no longer make it.   Can I change it online without using another certificate or paying a GC fee?

I see a lot of people saying that if you book a reservation and guest is occupying room then you must book with GC, but what happens if you book for self then life changes can you just add GC to reservation at a later time. 

Example I have HI-Kona booked next year, really wanted a 2 bdr, because I have friends traveling with us.  But a 2 bdr was not available.   I got RCI match for same time in a 2 bedroom HGVC Kona area.   So my daughter / fiancé now wants the Kona WM reservation can you just use one of your GC for them even though I didn’t do it when I booked?


----------



## herindoors911

https://www.worldmarktheclub.com/board/info/pdfs/WM_Club_Guidelines.pdf

Item number 13 and more.


----------



## herindoors911

herindoors911 said:


>



https://www.worldmarktheclub.com/board/info/pdfs/WM_Club_Guidelines.pdf


----------



## herindoors911

https://www.worldmarktheclub.com/board/info/pdfs/WM_Club_Guidelines.pdf


----------



## herindoors911

breezez said:


> After reading this entire thread I am still confused about this Guest Certificate Policy
> 
> I get 5 certificates a year.   If I use one when I book a reservation, but later change the persons name, because that person can no longer make it.   Can I change it online without using another certificate or paying a GC fee?
> 
> I see a lot of people saying that if you book a reservation and guest is occupying room then you must book with GC, but what happens if you book for self then life changes can you just add GC to reservation at a later time.
> 
> Example I have HI-Kona booked next year, really wanted a 2 bdr, because I have friends traveling with us.  But a 2 bdr was not available.   I got RCI match for same time in a 2 bedroom HGVC Kona area.   So my daughter / fiancé now wants the Kona WM reservation can you just use one of your GC for them even though I didn’t do it when I booked?



Don't think you need to worry about an RCI booking.  Maybe RCI already charged a GC from their side?   If you had a guest name on a WM reservation before 12th September , it won't cost a GC, I less you make changes.


NO GC is refundable.  NO GC's continue into  the next year's allotment.

***Always leave a WM guest name change to the last minute if a guest is going.   Put their name on a few days before they occupy the unit.   Therefore, any unforeseen cancellations won't cost a GC.


----------



## herindoors911

ecwinch said:


> The difference is a NHK can book any 1-2 days that are sitting out there without waiting for the BT window. That is a huge advantage over the rest of the members.
> 
> And my complaint with them is that they were illegally created by fiat of the BoD, as creation of another class of owners requires a vote of the membership. And that there is large concentration of them that like to rail against what the developer is doing to the Club, but have no problem benefiting from their illegal acts.




Eric....   anyone can book 1-2 day Stays if they are sitting out there without waiting for BT to start.  The difference is it requires a HK token or fee.   Anyone can book the same places as an NHK owner..same timing,  same days, same places. 

So, have a cup of coffee, preferably at Seaside, as this seems to be your annual rant about NHK accounts.    .   Tee hee

It is also being reported that BT and all the other extra WM extras are charging 
A GC for guests.  Whether you have a have an NHK or not, you pay the same at five days out.   Personally don't use BT.


----------



## geist1223

If you have a Booking for yourself and change to a Guest you will be debited a GC or pay a Guest Fee. If you have a Booking with a Guest and change it in any way (changing to a different Guest, subtract a day, add a day, any change, etc) you will be debited another GC or pay another Guest Fee. Hard to make changes Online and so normally a call to VPC is necessary. The Guest Fee if Booking done Online is $99. The Guest Fee is done by telephone is $129.


----------



## geist1223

The WMTC BOD did not create a new separate class of Members with NHK. That is what was sold originally. They created a new separate class of Owners that had to use HK Tokens or pay a HK Fee. Every Owner (to include you Eric) that bought after the start of HK Tokens/Fees acknowledged this in signing their Contract to purchase Points. If you bought resell then you stand in the shoes of the person from whom you bought.


----------



## ecwinch

breezez said:


> Eric,
> 
> While I don’t profess to know the entire history, weren’t NHK accounts created first.   Then developer realized error in their decision and made all accounts going forward after a certain date require housekeeping?   If so then anyone that bought an account after that date signed agreeing to this.  While those accounts sold prior to this date had there would never be a housekeeping fee.
> 
> Please describe this illegal activity you are referring to.



When the Club was started in 1989, housekeeping charges for credit usage did not exist. So in Apr 1991, the BoD passed this resolution:

_Peare moved for Board's approval to* implement additional maid service charges to those that are currently charged to be applicable only to Owners who have purchased after May 1, 1991.* Sites seconded the motion, and it was unanimously:

RESOLVED, that Trendwest Resorts, Inc. as Club Manager be authorized to implement additional maid service charges for new Owners only who have purchased after May 1, 1991._

There is just one problem with that approach. The BoD had no authority to exclude existing members from the new fee. Here is what the CA Corp Code says about member benefits:

*CORPORATIONS CODE 
SECTION 7330-7333 
7330. A corporation may issue memberships having different rights,
privileges, preferences, restrictions, or conditions, as authorized
by its articles or bylaws
7331. Except as provided in or authorized by the articles or
bylaws, all memberships shall have the same rights, privileges,
preferences, restrictions and conditions.*


7331 is pretty clear on the point. Under our governing documents, there is only one class of members. And as 7331 points out we all share the same rights, privileges, preferences, restrictions and conditions. Excluding certain members from a fee is illegal.


----------



## breezez

herindoors911 said:


> Don't think you need to worry about an RCI booking.  Maybe RCI already charged a GC from their side?   If you had a guest name on a WM reservation before 12th September , it won't cost a GC, I less you make changes.
> 
> 
> NO GC is refundable.  NO GC's continue into  the next year's allotment.
> 
> ***Always leave a WM guest name change to the last minute if a guest is going.   Put their name on a few days before they occupy the unit.   Therefore, any unforeseen cancellations won't cost a GC.




Thanks for your info I wasn’t worried about RCI, I was originally going to squeeze us all into a 1 bedroom but I got matched on a RCI - HGVC 2 bedroom unit they we are now going to stay in vs WM Kona, but I was going to add my daughter as a guest on my WM Owner reservation for the Kona unit I booked.


----------



## breezez

ecwinch said:


> When the Club was started in 1989, housekeeping charges for credit usage did not exist. So in Apr 1991, the BoD passed this resolution:
> 
> _Peare moved for Board's approval to* implement additional maid service charges to those that are currently charged to be applicable only to Owners who have purchased after May 1, 1991.* Sites seconded the motion, and it was unanimously:
> 
> RESOLVED, that Trendwest Resorts, Inc. as Club Manager be authorized to implement additional maid service charges for new Owners only who have purchased after May 1, 1991._
> 
> There is just one problem with that approach. The BoD had no authority to exclude existing members from the new fee. Here is what the CA Corp Code says about member benefits:
> 
> *CORPORATIONS CODE
> SECTION 7330-7333
> 7330. A corporation may issue memberships having different rights,
> privileges, preferences, restrictions, or conditions, as authorized
> by its articles or bylaws
> 7331. Except as provided in or authorized by the articles or
> bylaws, all memberships shall have the same rights, privileges,
> preferences, restrictions and conditions.*
> 
> 
> 7331 is pretty clear on the point. Under our governing documents, there is only one class of members. And as 7331 points out we all share the same rights, privileges, preferences, restrictions and conditions. Excluding certain members from a fee is illegal.




I would say then there are 2 classes those who bought before 5/1/1991...    And those that bought later....  Again even today their is different classes if I buy 63,000 credits from developer.   I’m in a totally different class then buying 63,000 resell.

I think the problem is the NHK wording was part of the contract between owner and developer.

If they have broken the law then I am sure they would have had a class action by now.

As far as classes go.  There is also another class of owner those who own fractionals at Southshore, Depoe Bay, or Seaside.   Hmmm I wonder if they need GC’s?   If they give up units for credits do they get GC’s


----------



## geist1223

So Eric when are you going to retain an attorney in California and file a law suit? You shouldn't need more than $50K to $100K for a retainer. You might have a slight up hill battle explaining to the Court why you waited so long after becoming a Worldmark Member to file the law suit.

Actually we are also Seaside Residence Club Members. If we trade in a Residence Club Week for Worldmark Points in addition to the WM Points we get a HKC and a GC Credit.

We do not need to use a GC or pay a Guest Fee if we allow someone else to use (for free or rent) one of our Residence Club Weeks. They are Deeded Weeks that we can use in any manner we choose.


----------



## ecwinch

breezez said:


> I would say then there are 2 classes those who bought before 5/1/1991... And those that bought later.... Again even today their is different classes if I buy 63,000 credits from developer. I’m in a totally different class then buying 63,000 resell.
> 
> I think the problem is the NHK wording was part of the contract between owner and developer.
> 
> If they have broken the law then I am sure they would have had a class action by now.
> 
> As far as classes go.  There is also another class of owner those who own fractionals at Southshore, Depoe Bay, or Seaside.   Hmmm I wonder if they need GC’s?   If they give up units for credits do they get GC’s



In terms of the "rights and privileges" that you are entitled to as a member of the Club, there is no distinction between resale credits and developer credits. Of course there are benefits the developer makes available to their customers, but that has no bearing on the benefits from the Club.

No, there is nothing in a *contract* that explicitly states that they are exempt from housekeeping fees. But everyone's contact has a stipulation that they are subject to the rules and guidelines of the Club, which are subject to change. [I point out the term contract only because someone will likely chime in and say "there is a checkbox on the transfer paperwork". Transfer paperwork is not a contract.]

And the reason that there has not been a class action is only thing a lawsuit would accomplish would be removing NHK benefits from those accounts.

And the fractional owners are not a separate class. Every member who owns a fixed week that trades thru RCI/II can exchange their week for credits.


----------



## geist1223

So why go on and on and on.


----------



## bizaro86

herindoors911 said:


> Eric....   anyone can book 1-2 day Stays if they are sitting out there without waiting for BT to start.  The difference is it requires a HK token or fee.   Anyone can book the same places as an NHK owner..same timing,  same days, same places.
> 
> So, have a cup of coffee, preferably at Seaside, as this seems to be your annual rant about NHK accounts.    .   Tee hee
> 
> It is also being reported that BT and all the other extra WM extras are charging
> A GC for guests.  Whether you have a have an NHK or not, you pay the same at five days out.   Personally don't use BT.



I think legally Eric is probably right about this, but it doesn't benefit anyone enough to sue about it so nobody has, and Wyn will never change it because then the original NHK owners would sue them. 

All that said, this post is hilarious.


----------



## ecwinch

geist1223 said:


> So Eric when are you going to retain an attorney in California and file a law suit? You shouldn't need more than $50K to $100K for a retainer. You might have a slight up hill battle explaining to the Court why you waited so long after becoming a Worldmark Member to file the law suit.



Tom, while I am not a lawyer like yourself,  I am familiar with the concept of laches. As is the fact [that as a lawyer], that is all you offer in rebuttal.


----------



## herindoors911

Can we get back to the GC situation ?   Very off topic here.


----------



## herindoors911

Wanted to add that each owner on an account can book a reservation for a room, as long as they are present at check in.


----------



## herindoors911

NB....   anyone using TPI and SFX, or other small exchange companies will be paying $129 fee for the "guest" occupying the WM unit.   These smaller companies do not take the week out of your account and have to call in to change into guest name.   That prompts a GC or the $129 call in fee.  Possibility of account being frozen if fee is attached.  Check often if using these exchange companies.  

II and RCI are not affected.


----------



## MommaNance

Does anyone know if they have ever talked about letting you have more than 2 names on your account?  This would help lessen the issue of needing a guest certificate for your children to use your points.  Make it so you can add your children or your parents as users depending on who owns the account .......parent or child.


----------



## smmatrix

My spouse is on our account and we are checking into two rooms this coming Saturday.  We'll both check into one room each and wait for our family members to arrive to provide them the keys.


----------



## ecwinch

Current rules limit it to two names on the account with two additional names as authorized to make/cancel/change reservations via the permission addendum. But unfortunately only the two members on the account can check into rooms.

Hopefully with some prodding the BoD will find a way to allow the authorized names to check-into reservations also without a GC. I see a pitfall there, but that seems like the best way to limit the adverse impact on families.


----------



## Richelle

ecwinch said:


> That is the Club Wyndham system, this discussion is about Worldmark system.



Sorry about that.  Deleted the comment to avoid confusion.


----------



## MommaNance

ecwinch said:


> Current rules limit it to two names on the account with two additional names as authorized to make/cancel/change reservations via the permission addendum. But unfortunately only the two members on the account can check into rooms.
> 
> Hopefully with some prodding the BoD will find a way to allow the authorized names to check-into reservations also without a GC. I see a pitfall there, but that seems like the best way to limit the adverse impact on families.


  Hopefully people will do some pushing for this.  I see it as a reasonable way to try to keep the mega renters under control but not punish the families who believe in sharing this with their family.  I see nothing wrong with making us pay a $99 fee to let non family members use it, I just don't think is is right to place extra charges on your immediate family using it.


----------

