# Now Ive done it



## ronparise (Jun 8, 2012)

I just did what I said Id never do, and Ive done it twice

I spent some real money for timeshares and I used borrowed money to do it

Ive been watching and reading and thinking about Worldmark for quite a while, and about a month ago agreed to buy a 13000 credit contract with an assumable loan. It took no money up front, but there will be loan payments....and now before the ink is dry on that contract I bid on another Worldmark assumable loan deal, another 13000 credits...and I won

So now (or soon) I will be the owner of 26000 Worldmark credits..with annual payments (loan plus maintenance fees) of right at $5000

Does that make any sense?  Lets see if I can justify what Ive done to myself

These are fully loaded contracts, meaning they have last years points allocation unused and available to me, this years points and I can borrow next years..so in 5 years I will have the use of 182000 credits

In the worldmark system a typical 2 bedroom can be had for 10000 credits. a week...

So in 5 years i will have spent roughly $25000 for 18 weeks or $1400 per weeks reservation or $200 a night....I can bring that number down by taking advantage of bonus time, inventory specials and the use of rented credits

Ok I dont feel too bad, actually I feel pretty good about it


----------



## pacodemountainside (Jun 8, 2012)

Ron:

Are you trying to corner time share  resale market like those Hunt  brothers down in Texas  tried to corner silver  market in mid  eighties? 

Shoot, you may want to set up  an LLC and  go for it with a couple backers. RR will probably  jump in with all his holdings!!

Worst case LLC sails off into sunset and sinks.


----------



## MelBay (Jun 8, 2012)

Sometimes, you've just got to go for it....

Enjoy, can't take those timeshares with us, darn it!


----------



## Beefnot (Jun 8, 2012)

Dang that seems awfully expensive for resale.


----------



## ausman (Jun 8, 2012)

It was some years ago now that I looked at Worldmark with an eye to acquiring.

Then, it seemed best to acquire a smaller contract and rent credits from other owners as needed. 

I kinda thought that would still be the case, what changed.?


----------



## rrlongwell (Jun 8, 2012)

pacodemountainside said:


> Ron:
> 
> Are you trying to corner time share  resale market like those Hunt  brothers down in Texas  tried to corner silver  market in mid  eighties?
> 
> ...



I think Ron may have beet you to the idea.  Click on his new webpage link.  I have heard that Ron and another person, not me (I'll pass), are in the process of setting up such a enity (for the name of the enity, go to new web link).  One is specilizing in Wyndham one Bluegreen.  The ones they keep for themselves will be used for rentals, so the story goes


----------



## rrlongwell (Jun 8, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> Dang that seems awfully expensive for resale.



Taking over a morgage usally suggests the timeshares involved are considered developer purchases by Wyndham.


----------



## am1 (Jun 9, 2012)

pacodemountainside said:


> Ron:
> 
> Are you trying to corner time share  resale market like those Hunt  brothers down in Texas  tried to corner silver  market in mid  eighties?
> 
> ...



Im sure he has a long way to go still to get out of the kids pool.

Pero poco poco.  

Every person he can convince to rent a timeshare reservation is a person that will be interested in my rentals and vice versa.


----------



## ronparise (Jun 9, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> Dang that seems awfully expensive for resale.



Worldmark credits can be had for 35 cents per credit. For my 26000 credits about $9000.. Add about 5 cents for every "banked" credit included; in my case another about $1500...

What I bought should sell for $10000 more or less...I paid about 30% more because it is all financed, no money down...My bet is that Ill be able to make several high value reservations in my first year. Rent them,  and pay off the loan,


----------



## ronparise (Jun 9, 2012)

rrlongwell said:


> Taking over a morgage usally suggests the timeshares involved are considered developer purchases by Wyndham.



Maybe, but it really doesnt make any difference in Worldmark. And Im not buying from Wyndham,  Im buying from individual owners through their brokers


----------



## ronparise (Jun 9, 2012)

duplicate post


----------



## rhonda (Jun 9, 2012)

Congratulations, Ron.  I hope you *love* your new Worldmark account(s)!


----------



## ronparise (Jun 9, 2012)

pacodemountainside said:


> Ron:
> 
> Are you trying to corner time share  resale market like those Hunt  brothers down in Texas  tried to corner silver  market in mid  eighties?
> 
> ...



Not corner the market, just trying to stake a little corner of the sandbox to play in by myself...and since I havent changed much since 1st grade, when my teacher told my parents "he doesn't play well with others" I dont do partners very well..


----------



## Explorer7 (Jun 9, 2012)

ronparise said:


> Not corner the market, just trying to stake a little corner of the sandbox to play in by myself...and since I havent changed much since 1st grade, when my teacher told my parents "he doesn't play well with others" I dont do partners very well..



There is a quote that says" The only ship that won't sail is a partner ship".  It's tough to work out an adequate partnership operating agreement that sufficiently covers what happens if/when one of the partners introduce one of the "four D's; divorce- what happens if your partners wife or husband winds up with their share of the business, drug abuse, disinterest or death of a partner...


----------



## kalua (Jun 9, 2012)

*worldmark*

ron congrat's on your purchase i've been looking at worldmark for about 4 years but haven't bought yet,i saw one on e bay probably the one you got and almost bid on it , enjoy


----------



## csxjohn (Jun 9, 2012)

Ron, your advice to others is to make sure your MFs are not higher than you can get for renting a unit.

I know you have this all calculated and even though the price seems high to me and others, I'm sure this is going to make money for you.

Good Luck.


----------



## DebBrown (Jun 9, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> Dang that seems awfully expensive for resale.



My first thought too but I'm sure Ron knows what he is doing.  If anyone is an expert at juggling timeshares, he's the one!

Good luck in your "expansion".

Deb


----------



## rrlongwell (Jun 9, 2012)

DebBrown said:


> My first thought too but I'm sure Ron knows what he is doing.  If anyone is an expert at juggling timeshares, he's the one!
> 
> Good luck in your "expansion".
> 
> Deb



Just a thought, in the way of the world, for what was spent, someone could probably go VIP Platium with Wyndham Vacation Resorts using a combination of resale through Wyndham and PICs.  Personal preference is the wider selection of resorts, a stable Trust fund (i.e. members not in a major war with Wyndham), etc.


----------



## slip (Jun 9, 2012)

Congrats Ron, I hope this works out for you. I saw that on EBay also. I always
Liked your advice on not borrowing for timeshares but I too thought it is doable
In some situations. This one sounds close. Do you mind saying how large the
Loans are for? That would make it a little easier for me to see if this would work.
Can you rent the bonus time in Worldmark? 
Either way good luck, your doing well so far.


----------



## Corinne1123 (Jun 9, 2012)

Not sure what your plans are, but I think I read that Worldmark has restrictions on how you are allowed to rent reserved units out?


----------



## rrlongwell (Jun 9, 2012)

Corinne1123 said:


> Not sure what your plans are, but I think I read that Worldmark has restrictions on how you are allowed to rent reserved units out?



Could you share what the restrictions are on renting Worldmark reservations?


----------



## Rent_Share (Jun 9, 2012)

rrlongwell said:


> Could you share what the restrictions are on renting Worldmark reservations?


 
NONE and there is no charge to put the reservation in a guests name, There is a restriction on reservations made under Bonus Time (< 14 Days from check in) but the likelihood of securing and finding a renter within two weeks of check in is rare IMHO YMMV

The risk is that the Management Company Doesn't require a credit card swipe on check in so you are left with your own deposit mechanism to cover any damages to the unit by the renter


----------



## ronparise (Jun 9, 2012)

Somebody could and somebody will, but not yet





rrlongwell said:


> Just a thought, in the way of the world, for what was spent, someone could probably go VIP Platium with Wyndham Vacation Resorts using a combination of resale through Wyndham and PICs.


----------



## jebloomquist (Jun 9, 2012)

I think that Ron's new web site is brilliant. It reads like an old Eddie Lawerence "Is that what's bothering you, Bunkie?" commerial. For those of you who are not old enough to have heard one, you have missed something.

Unlike the rest of us who go out to ebay and elsewhere to buy properties, Ron brilliance is to offer to the bunkies of the world an opportunity to unload their properties, and it will only cost $995. And they will feel good about it.

I wish that I had thought of the idea. Unlike the Worldmarks that Ron just purchased, he is saying, give me your property and $995, and we will all be happy. I love it. 

Congratulations Ron.


----------



## Rent_Share (Jun 9, 2012)

jebloomquist said:


> I think that Ron's new web site is brilliant. It reads like an old Eddie Lawerence "Is that what's bothering you, Bunkie?" commerial. For those of you who are not old enough to have heard one, you have missed something.
> 
> Unlike the rest of us who go out to ebay and elsewhere to buy properties, Ron brilliance is to offer to the bunkies of the world an opportunity to unload their properties, and it will only cost $995. And they will feel good about it.
> 
> ...


 

I am dazed and Confused - the OP's website is a rental site Nothing Special


----------



## csxjohn (Jun 9, 2012)

Rent_Share said:


> I am dazed and Confused - the OP's website is a rental site Nothing Special



He had a second website up for awhile but as he's said, it's a work in progress.

Now you are only confused and no longer dazed.


----------



## kalua (Jun 9, 2012)

*platinum*



ronparise said:


> Somebody could and somebody will, but not yet



this has been already !


----------



## ronparise (Jun 9, 2012)

Rent_Share said:


> I am dazed and Confused - the OP's website is a rental site Nothing Special



I took it down...not the website or the intention to complete it...just the link from TUG

Im not ready for all the discussion yet...I thought I was, but not yet, and there is just too much more to decide on the conceptual end, (and thats all it is at this point; a concept) before its rolled out 


It will be back


----------



## cotraveller (Jun 9, 2012)

ronparise said:


> . . . My bet is that Ill be able to make several high value reservations in my first year. Rent them,  and pay off the loan,





Corinne1123 said:


> Not sure what your plans are, but I think I read that Worldmark has restrictions on how you are allowed to rent reserved units out?



The only current rerstrictions on WorldMark rentals are contained in the Guidelines where it is stated "_An Owner may charge a Guest for use of Vacation Credits in whatever amount the Owner chooses, but may charge Guests for Bonus Time usage in only the actual cost of Bonus Time_."

However, if you read some of the comments on the WorldMark Owner-to-Owner site you will find that rentals are a common source of complaint by WorldMark owners. Many WorldMark owners would welcome the placing of a similar maximum rental amount restriction on all reservations.  Especially on those rentals of high demand units that fit the "high value reservations" category.


----------



## Rent_Share (Jun 9, 2012)

But since a Bounud Time reservation can only be made *in a guests name* 5 days before check in, the window of opportunity to reserve and rent is very narrow


----------



## jjmanthei05 (Jun 9, 2012)

Explorer7 said:


> There is a quote that says" The only ship that won't sail is a partner ship".  It's tough to work out an adequate partnership operating agreement that sufficiently covers what happens if/when one of the partners introduce one of the "four D's; divorce- what happens if your partners wife or husband winds up with their share of the business, drug abuse, disinterest or death of a partner...



We just set up an LLC between my brother and myself. My lawyer had an agreement set up that both wives had to sign that said if they ever become owners of the husband's share they are required to sell it back to the company. 

Jason


----------



## csxjohn (Jun 9, 2012)

cotraveller said:


> ...However, if you read some of the comments on the WorldMark Owner-to-Owner site you will find that rentals are a common source of complaint by WorldMark owners. Many WorldMark owners would welcome the placing of a similar maximum rental amount restriction on all reservations.  Especially on those rentals of high demand units that fit the "high value reservations" category.




I don't think that the owners who are making money by renting out their units will be in favor of this restriction.  I hate the elitist attitude some people get when they decide to by 1/52 of a condo.  



Rent_Share said:


> But since a Bounud Time reservation can only be made *in a guests name* 5 days before check in, the window of opportunity to reserve and rent is very narrow



If Ron rents me a unit today for July 7th and puts my name on the reservation 5 or less days before check in, I don't see this to be a problem.  Unless he has to put the name on at the time he makes the reservation and can't change it later.


----------



## rrlongwell (Jun 9, 2012)

jebloomquist said:


> I think that Ron's new web site is brilliant. It reads like an old Eddie Lawerence "Is that what's bothering you, Bunkie?" commerial. For those of you who are not old enough to have heard one, you have missed something.
> 
> Unlike the rest of us who go out to ebay and elsewhere to buy properties, Ron brilliance is to offer to the bunkies of the world an opportunity to unload their properties, and it will only cost $995. And they will feel good about it.
> 
> ...



Great words on the Web Site.  Might be a surprise or two when you call.  Maybe, some unresolved issues over who pays the $700 dollars to another company to take it after it transfers to the enity named on the site to take it off their hands and who pays of the closings if the unit is not a Wyndham or Bluegreen unit.  If something is to good to be true, it usally is.

I feel sorry for the poor "bunkies".


----------



## Gophesjo (Jun 9, 2012)

The question - as  I see it - is can Ron break even at that amount without being choosy about the properties he accepts?  There are many many units that he would need, if he accepts them, to probably give two years of prepaid MF's with to actually find a taker.  I thought about doing essentially the same in just one geographic area with generally desireable properties, and finally got scared off by all of the white and blue weeks that would probably be the first to knock on my door.  (It kind of reminds me of the dilemna health insurers face if they have to accept all pre-existing conditions without a guaranteed increase in their population of healthy insurees also paying premiums into the pool.)

That all said, I hope Ron makes it work, as - imho - he has been as insightful here about the secondary market issue as anyone, and more than most by far.


----------



## ronparise (Jun 9, 2012)

jjmanthei05 said:


> We just set up an LLC between my brother and myself. My lawyer had an agreement set up that both wives had to sign that said if they ever become owners of the husband's share they are required to sell it back to the company.
> 
> Jason



Ive done the same thing in the past but added life insurance policies to the mix. The heirs had to sell back to the company and the company had the money to buy with the proceeds of the insurance.

Worked well until my partner asked about the death benefit when we were together on the roof of a 4 story building...He thought I might be worth more dead than alive


----------



## jjmanthei05 (Jun 9, 2012)

ronparise said:


> Ive done the same thing in the past but added life insurance policies to the mix. The heirs had to sell back to the company and the company had the money to buy with the proceeds of the insurance.
> 
> Worked well until my partner asked about the death benefit when we were together on the roof of a 4 story building...He thought I might be worth more dead than alive



You may need to find a new partner...lol

Jason


----------



## Rent_Share (Jun 9, 2012)

csxjohn said:


> I don't think that the owners who are making money by renting out their units will be in favor of this restriction. I hate the elitist attitude some people get when they decide to by 1/52 of a condo.


 
Just a complaint (whine) , can't imagine except within the rules of a website, where any organization that allows rental could legally cap the rate




csxjohn said:


> If Ron rents me a unit today for July 7th and puts my name on the reservation 5 or less days before check in, I don't see this to be a problem. Unless he has to put the name on at the time he makes the reservation and can't change it later.


 
I would need to re-read the exact rules, but I do believe changing the name on a Bonus time reservation is prohibited, the real point is since WM allows for < 7 days stays at 90 days prior, bounus time (14 days from check in) is scarce and wouldn't be a practical rental strategy



> When a Bonus Time reservation is for a Guest to occupy the Unit without the presence of the Owner for any days of the reserved period, then the reservation must not be made until five (5) days before the first day of the reserved period.


----------



## ronparise (Jun 9, 2012)

slip said:


> Congrats Ron, I hope this works out for you. I saw that on EBay also. I always
> Liked your advice on not borrowing for timeshares but I too thought it is doable
> In some situations. This one sounds close. Do you mind saying how large the
> Loans are for? That would make it a little easier for me to see if this would work.
> ...



The loans are a total of just under 13000 or about $0.50 per credit

The payments a total of $300 a month, mf once I combine the accounts $1400 a year.. 

If I can get the reservations I want and rent them for what I think I can get Ill break even until the loans are paid..in 4 years

The bonus is what Ive talked about in another post..these are fully loaded contracts so I can get 3 years worth of reservations in the first year.


----------



## ronparise (Jun 9, 2012)

Gophesjo said:


> The question - as  I see it - is can Ron break even at that amount without being choosy about the properties he accepts?  There are many many units that he would need, if he accepts them, to probably give two years of prepaid MF's with to actually find a taker.  I thought about doing essentially the same in just one geographic area with generally desireable properties, and finally got scared off by all of the white and blue weeks that would probably be the first to knock on my door.  (It kind of reminds me of the dilemna health insurers face if they have to accept all pre-existing conditions without a guaranteed increase in their population of healthy insurees also paying premiums into the pool.)
> 
> That all said, I hope Ron makes it work, as - imho - he has been as insightful here about the secondary market issue as anyone, and more than most by far.




Thats my question as well and why Im still thinking and not yet doing...It would be easy if I was willing to take the Viking ship route, (ie sell what I can and junk the rest) but Im not, and I dont think its necessary.  

However, Ive been a salesman all my life, and I believe that there is a market for everything...I just havent found it yet

How about this?...put 13 blue weeks in a package and sell it as a summer/winter home...Ill manage the process for my customer.(for another fee)..Ill deposit all 13 weeks into rci and trade into someplace like Vacation Village at Parkway where there always seems to be availability


----------



## pacodemountainside (Jun 9, 2012)

jebloomquist said:


> I think that Ron's new web site is brilliant. It reads like an old Eddie Lawerence "Is that what's bothering you, Bunkie?" commerial. For those of you who are not old enough to have heard one, you have missed something.
> 
> Unlike the rest of us who go out to ebay and elsewhere to buy properties, Ron brilliance is to offer to the bunkies of the world an opportunity to unload their properties, and it will only cost $995. And they will feel good about it.
> 
> ...



One has to admire Ron for being an entrepeneur in the what makes America  great style. The olde better mouse trap! Obviously he had a leg up with prior  professional real estate experience, but then that is the way things are supposed to work. Learn from mistakes and build ones knowledge into power and profit!

Donald Trump, Rockafeller, Kennedy, et. al.  had to start somewhere!

$995 sure beats post card  guys $2K+ to whatever.  And,  he does recording  ASAP get in his name so can make reservations and  collect rent.

A few more people doing this and post card guys will be out of business!


----------



## csxjohn (Jun 9, 2012)

pacodemountainside said:


> $995 sure beats post card  guys $2K+ to whatever.  And,  he does recording  ASAP get in his name so can make reservations and  collect rent.
> 
> A few more people doing this and post card guys will be out of business!



As long as there are units out there that have MFs higher than you can get for rent, something other than a landlord is needed.  Ron may have that covered too, we'll have to wait and see.


----------



## Gophesjo (Jun 9, 2012)

Vacation Village is a good possibility, as it is managed by Platinum, and you actually could do it cheaper with them than you could with RCI.  That said - MF's for 13 weeks worth of blue weeks at a very reasonable property still comes to @$7000.  With another $1600 for Platinum's exchange fees will any of your customers still bite for a winter/summer home?



ronparise said:


> Thats my question as well and why Im still thinking and not yet doing...It would be easy if I was willing to take the Viking ship route, (ie sell what I can and junk the rest) but Im not, and I dont think its necessary.
> 
> However, Ive been a salesman all my life, and I believe that there is a market for everything...I just havent found it yet
> 
> How about this?...put 13 blue weeks in a package and sell it as a summer/winter home...Ill manage the process for my customer.(for another fee)..Ill deposit all 13 weeks into rci and trade into someplace like Vacation Village at Parkway where there always seems to be availability


----------



## Gophesjo (Jun 9, 2012)

And that's assuming you can get around the 'no renting exchanges' rules...


----------



## ronparise (Jun 9, 2012)

Gophesjo said:


> Vacation Village is a good possibility, as it is managed by Platinum, and you actually could do it cheaper with them than you could with RCI.  That said - MF's for 13 weeks worth of blue weeks at a very reasonable property still comes to @$7000.  With another $1600 for Platinum's exchange fees will any of your customers still bite for a winter/summer home?



This is just an idea off the top of my head

There wont ne any renting involved, I would sell someone 13 timeshares, and if they needed it do the exchanging for them, 

I sell real estate in SW Florida now. Many of my clients buy a home or condo here to use just in the three winter months. They pay taxes and condo fees often more than $10000 a year to use a place just 3 months...I think a timeshare comes in cheaper, and no capital tied up and no mortgage payments...No appreciation either...but we havent seen that here in a while


----------



## slip (Jun 9, 2012)

Ron

I can see why you pulled the trigger on this. Two key things, they were fully
Loaded and now the second one renting those key weeks. You'll find out within
A year. I think you'll succeed in this and have that loan paid off either in a year
Or slightly longer. With your experience in your rentals, I don't think it was much
Of a gamble.

On your other plan with your new website, I also agree with you. Your not quite
There yet. I don't know if vacation village is where people would want to use as
A winter place. Even if it is, I don't know if you could come up with a few others
That would work.

Keep us posted on how it's going. I always enjoy the thought process in getting
Something like this going. Good luck!!!


----------



## Gophesjo (Jun 9, 2012)

Actually, if someone wanted to 'winter home' at the Vacation Village properties, because Platinum will give two - or even three - weeks credit for each week deposited, a person who is willing to gamble with last minute reservations for some of the 13 weeks could actually do the plan you are talking about with just 5 to 7 blue weeks deposited.  That could perhaps be an easier sale for you, too.



ronparise said:


> This is just an idea off the top of my head
> 
> There wont ne any renting involved, I would sell someone 13 timeshares, and if they needed it do the exchanging for them,
> 
> I sell real estate in SW Florida now. Many of my clients buy a home or condo here to use just in the three winter months. They pay taxes and condo fees often more than $1000 a year to use a place just 3 months...I think a timeshare comes in cheaper, and no capital tied up and no mortgage payments...No appreciation either...but we havent seen that here in a while


----------



## cotraveller (Jun 9, 2012)

csxjohn said:


> I don't think that the owners who are making money by renting out their units will be in favor of this restriction.  I hate the elitist attitude some people get when they decide to by 1/52 of a condo.



Those owners who think they have bought into a system where they can book a condo for their vacation get very upset when they find they cannot make a reservation but can find the same unit they are trying to book offered on Craigs List or one of the many rental sites.  They consider those that are using the system to make a profit rather than using it to enjoy pleasant vacations to be the elitists. Those owners far outnumber the ones who are renting out units and could potentially persuade the BOD to do something about the rentals.  Happy owners buy more credits, unhappy ones do not.



Rent_Share said:


> Just a complaint (whine) , can't imagine except within the rules of a website, where any organization that allows rental could legally cap the rate



Considering the restrictions they recently placed on the rental of HK tokens I don't think it is much of a stretch to see them  placing restrictions on rentals.  It would only take a guideline change which does not require a vote of the owners.


----------



## ronparise (Jun 9, 2012)

cotraveller said:


> Those owners who think they have bought into a system where they can book a condo for their vacation get very upset when they find they cannot make a reservation but can find the same unit they are trying to book offered on Craigs List or one of the many rental sites.  They consider those that are using the system to make a profit rather than using it to enjoy pleasant vacations to be the elitists. Those owners far outnumber the ones who are renting out units and could potentially persuade the BOD to do something about the rentals.  Happy owners buy more credits, unhappy ones do not.
> 
> 
> 
> Considering the restrictions they recently placed on the rental of HK tokens I don't think it is much of a stretch to see them  placing restrictions on rentals.  It would only take a guideline change which does not require a vote of the owners.



Ive been involved in a number of similar discussions , here and on the Worldmark owners forum, and I understand the concern..I just dont buy the argument, 

In a points system like Worldmark or Wyndham or any of them for that matter, the problem is that there are some resorts and weeks  that are more popular than others, and like in a game of musical chairs someone wont get what they want. There will always be more folks that want the good stuff than there is good stuff to go around. That some of the winners rent their stuff out doesn't change a thing. 

The worldmark feature I dont like is the one that favors the big owner over the small owner in the competition for the best weeks at the best resorts. In Worldmark everyone can make a reservation 13 months in advance of check in; you can check in any day of the week; and in red season you have to reserve 7 nights..

Looking at Christmas in Orlando  this year.. If you wanted to be there Christmas week you might have planned to check in on Saturday Dec 22. So you got on the computer at 6am exactly 13 months in advance only to find that there was no availability...What happened?  What happened is that the guys with credits to burn, made their reservations for 10 days with a check in on Wed Dec 19...They wont actually check in until Saturday, either, so the first 3 days of their reservation will be wasted, but they dont care, they got what they wanted..Christmas Week 

So its not the guys like me that are trying to squeeze a profit out of this stuff that will screw you, Those wasted days are likely to be the difference between profit and loss for me. Im not doing this to throw credits away..Its the guy that has more credits than you and is willing to wast them thats going to screw you. 

Oh!, and Im not particularly worried about rule changes making rentals impossible..as long as the guy that wants to change the rules is willing to either buy my useless credits, or watch his mf go up as we landlords walk away


----------



## cotraveller (Jun 10, 2012)

ronparise said:


> Ive been involved in a number of similar discussions , here and on the Worldmark owners forum, and I understand the concern..I just dont buy the argument,
> 
> In a points system like Worldmark or Wyndham or any of them for that matter, the problem is that there are some resorts and weeks  that are more popular than others, and like in a game of musical chairs someone wont get what they want. There will always be more folks that want the good stuff than there is good stuff to go around. That some of the winners rent their stuff out doesn't change a thing.



That's true, but to the owner who doesn't understand all the ins and outs of the system it doesn't make any difference.  All he sees is that he can't get the reservation he wants througn the club but he sees the same unit being offered for rent.  That makes him mad and wanting to do something to change things.



ronparise said:


> The worldmark feature I dont like is the one that favors the big owner over the small owner in the competition for the best weeks at the best resorts. In Worldmark everyone can make a reservation 13 months in advance of check in; you can check in any day of the week; and in red season you have to reserve 7 nights..
> 
> Looking at Christmas in Orlando  this year.. If you wanted to be there Christmas week you might have planned to check in on Saturday Dec 22. So you got on the computer at 6am exactly 13 months in advance only to find that there was no availability...What happened?  What happened is that the guys with credits to burn, made their reservations for 10 days with a check in on Wed Dec 19...They wont actually check in until Saturday, either, so the first 3 days of their reservation will be wasted, but they dont care, they got what they wanted..Christmas Week
> 
> So its not the guys like me that are trying to squeeze a profit out of this stuff that will screw you, Those wasted days are likely to be the difference between profit and loss for me. Im not doing this to throw credits away..Its the guy that has more credits than you and is willing to wast them thats going to screw you.



What you are describing is supply and demand or perhaps inflation.  The number of credits required to book a week at any given resort is fixed.  But with fewer units available than the number of owners that wish to book those units, the demand is higher than the supply.  Thus the cost of booking a unit goes up, in this case in terms of the extra days and associated credits needed to book that week.

If you understand how things work you can get any reservation you want. I'd wager you could start looking today and get that Christmas week at Orlando for this year or the 4th of July week at Depoe Bay in 2013.  But most owners are not willing to invest the time required to learn all of the intricacies of the reservation system.  They would rather complain about others who they see as taking advantage of them.

Rentals are a relatively minor issue within WorldMark. But their visibility makes them a source of irritation within the owner community.  It's not an issue I'm going to get significantly involved in. I'm concentrating on Owner Education, trying to teach owners how to get the reservations they want.  It's a lot less stressful and more rewarding than getting involved in the issues side of things.

Will anything change regarding WorldMark rentals?  Not likely, but I would be very hesitant to make a business investment based on someone elses business model.  If I recall correctly there were several people doing that who got burned when Wyndham changed some of the rules for their resorts.



ronparise said:


> Oh!, and Im not particularly worried about rule changes making rentals impossible..as long as the guy that wants to change the rules is willing to either buy my useless credits, or watch his mf go up as we landlords walk away



One of the nicest things about WorldMark is that if you landlords walk away is that it improves the availability for us non-landlord types.  Your credits go back to the developer, currently Wyndham, and they pick up the maintenance dues until the credits are resold.  My dues remain unchanged, as least as far as repossessions are concerned.  WorldMark lost 10 to 20 percent of their owners during the recent economic downturn but remained financially solid due primarily to that feature of the club.   So feel free to walk away, other owners will gladly book the units you are no longer renting.


----------



## Rent_Share (Jun 10, 2012)

cotraveller said:


> Those owners who think they have bought into a system where they can book a condo for their vacation get very upset when they find they cannot make a reservation but can find the same unit they are trying to book offered on Craigs List or one of the many rental sites. They consider those that are using the system to make a profit rather than using it to enjoy pleasant vacations to be the elitists. Those owners far outnumber the ones who are renting out units and could potentially persuade the BOD to do something about the rentals. Happy owners buy more credits, unhappy ones do not.
> 
> 
> 
> Considering the restrictions they recently placed on the rental of HK tokens I don't think it is much of a stretch to see them placing restrictions on rentals. It would only take a guideline change which does not require a vote of the owners.


 

As always a defending Wyndham Corporate


----------



## ronparise (Jun 10, 2012)

cotraveller said:


> That's true, but to the owner who doesn't understand all the ins and outs of the system it doesn't make any difference.  All he sees is that he can't get the reservation he wants througn the club but he sees the same unit being offered for rent.  That makes him mad and wanting to do something to change things.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ive read through a lot of thestuff on your website as well as the comments on the worldmark owners forum and have been struck by the differences.  The forum seems always to be fighting management and resisting change. I get the sense that they would rather see no expansion, no growth and no improvements, while you seem to take the attitude 'what is is, lets learn to use it'

The situation as I see is that there are two classes of owners, and one is able to take advantage of the other..I see the "upper class"   as those with a lot of credits, who can afford to waste them, and you see the the upper class class as the educated 

I dont see a difference, either way, some of us are going to get those "best" reservations and others are not..If I am able to get what I want its because I intend to have a lot of credits and because I understand the system.. and the guy thats either uneducated or only has a few credits, is likely to be upset

You are absolutely right that when Wyndham changes the rules it has an impact. But the folks the can adapt to the changes will succeed

I appreciate the insight regarding walk-aways..I knew mf increases are limited to 5% a year, and I had heard that there was no penalty for walking away, Its nice to have that confirmed by another party..Its why I like the Club Wyndham Access Program...Its a club



I came across another strategy recently that Ive been afraid to try out..A person could buy contracts with large assumable loans, strip off the credits and either sell them, use them, or make reservations and rent them...but never make a payment...now that Ive been "educated" Im likely to try it out


----------



## rrlongwell (Jun 10, 2012)

ronparise said:


> ... I came across another strategy recently that Ive been afraid to try out..A person could buy contracts with large assumable loans, strip off the credits and either sell them, use them, or make reservations and rent them...but never make a payment...now that Ive been "educated" Im likely to try it out



Be careful, you might get room and board for a period of time paid by the Great State of Flordia.  I am not an attorney, but it sounds like theft by deception to me.


----------



## jebloomquist (Jun 10, 2012)

Rent_Share said:


> As always a defending Wyndham Corporate



This quote refers to Ron.

I don't see Ron as always defending Wyndham.

I see Ron as a person who looks at the current and potential futures of the situation and then tries to do what is legal, moral, and profitable. If he knows more about the various aspects of the timeshare business and Wyndham, and uses that knowledge, more power to him.

Every time I log into TUG, I look for what Ron has posted. If you dare, learn at the feet of a master.


----------



## Rent_Share (Jun 10, 2012)

jebloomquist said:


> This quote refers to Ron.
> 
> I don't see Ron as always defending Wyndham.
> 
> .


 

I was referring to *cotraveller* (the text quoted in my post)

[Originally Posted by *cotraveller]*


----------



## ronparise (Jun 10, 2012)

rrlongwell said:


> Be careful, you might get room and board for a period of time paid by the Great State of Flordia.  I am not an attorney, but it sounds like theft by deception to me.



No question its theft. The question is who did I steal from, Wyndham or the Club? and who is going to complain?  Not paying Wyndhams note is between me and Wyndham, and it seems that they dont care to pursue it...and We have already heard from a Worldmark master that the Club members dont care, because the dues will be paid either way.


----------



## rrlongwell (Jun 10, 2012)

ronparise said:


> No question its theft. The question is who did I steal from, Wyndham or the Club? and who is going to complain?  Not paying Wyndhams note is between me and Wyndham, and it seems that they dont care to pursue it...and We have already heard from a Worldmark master that the Club members dont care, because the dues will be paid either way.



And the bank that Wyndham deals with.  They could object to the write-off.  Thanks, now I understand the occassional chatter on why some think the sellers to enities that engage is such practice should be legally gone after as well as the ones doing it.


----------



## rrlongwell (Jun 10, 2012)

jebloomquist said:


> This quote refers to Ron.   ... If you dare, learn at the feet of a master.



Please see posts 55 and 56.  A risk I do not care to take.  Thanks.


----------



## Beefnot (Jun 10, 2012)

jebloomquist said:


> I see Ron as a person who looks at the current and potential futures of the situation and then tries to do what is legal, moral, and profitable.



Minus the moral. And maybe even minus the legal.


----------



## pacodemountainside (Jun 10, 2012)

cotraveller said:


> That's true, but to the owner who doesn't understand all the ins and outs of the system it doesn't make any difference.
> 
> 
> One of the nicest things about WorldMark is that if you landlords walk away is that it improves the availability for us non-landlord types.  Your credits go back to the developer, currently Wyndham, and they pick up the maintenance dues until the credits are resold.  My dues remain unchanged, as least as far as repossessions are concerned.  WorldMark lost 10 to 20 percent of their owners during the recent economic downturn but remained financially solid due primarily to that feature of the club.   So feel free to walk away, other owners will gladly book the units you are no longer renting.




Interesting:

Wyndham increased from 515K owners in 2009 to   523K in 2011.

WorldMark decreased  from 305K  in 2009 to 290K in 2011  Since this is net number would assume  some  sales making actual  foreclosures  higher. Figure  say $25K  MF  for a 1 BR interval for a year and say $45K for 2 BR this has to add up especially after adding in acquisition and re-marketing costs.


----------



## ronparise (Jun 10, 2012)

Going in with that intent is not something I am willing to tdo either..If it was my Viking Ship Vacation Club would have already sailed.  But what about the guy that develops a reasonable business plan, gives it an honest effort, and then fails..Should he be put in the same cell as the guy that  plans to fail

A look at the mortgage market over the last several years should give us a clue. Goldman sold mortgage backed securities to their clients knowing that they (the securities) would fail. and then they (goldman) took positions that would mean a profit to them, when they(the securities) failed...The securities failed, and you know the rest

The fact is no one gore to jail for financial fraud. We save the jails for young men of ..... .....I wont go there for revealing my self to be the lprogressive, liberal, socialist, communist, pig that I am


----------



## ronparise (Jun 10, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> Minus the moral. And maybe even minus the legal.



Now that hurts


----------



## cotraveller (Jun 10, 2012)

ronparise said:


> Ive read through a lot of thestuff on your website as well as the comments on the worldmark owners forum and have been struck by the differences.  The forum seems always to be fighting management and resisting change. I get the sense that they would rather see no expansion, no growth and no improvements, while you seem to take the attitude 'what is is, lets learn to use it'
> 
> The situation as I see is that there are two classes of owners, and one is able to take advantage of the other..I see the "upper class"   as those with a lot of credits, who can afford to waste them, and you see the the upper class class as the educated
> 
> I dont see a difference, either way, some of us are going to get those "best" reservations and others are not..If I am able to get what I want its because I intend to have a lot of credits and because I understand the system.. and the guy thats either uneducated or only has a few credits, is likely to be upset


The ideal situation would be an educated owner with a large account.  For the majority of owners that is not an option, either for financial or other equally valid reasons. A small account owner who understands the system can get better reservations than a large account owner who does not have that understanding and can do almost as well as an educated large account owner.   



ronparise said:


> I appreciate the insight regarding walk-aways..I knew mf increases are limited to 5% a year, and I had heard that there was no penalty for walking away, Its nice to have that confirmed by another party..Its why I like the Club Wyndham Access Program...Its a club


A misinterpretation of what I said.  There would be little or no penalty to me or other owners if you walk away from a WorldMark contract.  For you however, there would be some potentially serious repercussions.

First, if you fall behind in your payments, either on the loan or the maintenance dues, your account would be frozen and you would not be able to make any reservations, transfer any credits into or out of the account, or do anything else that you could normally do with a financially current account.

At some point if you do not bring the account up to date, any existing reservations would be cancelled.  If the cancellation was for a unit you had rented, your renter would show up at the resort and have no place to stay.

Your account would be turned over to collections and you would get a hit on your credit rating.  Whether or not you consider that a significant factor, I'd see it as one.

So yes, walk away.  It will take one more landlord out of the system.  Maybe others will hear your story and decide to get out of the business also.  I don't like the rental of WorldMark units as a profit making venture, I don't think it is good for the club.  That opinion will get little support here, TUG is very pro rental.  That was evidenced in a thread a little while back concerning a potential Wyndham wait list where one of the big concerns seemed to be the potential negative effect on those who are renting out units.



ronparise said:


> Going in with that intent is not something I am willing to tdo either..If it was my Viking Ship Vacation Club would have already sailed.  But what about the guy that develops a reasonable business plan, gives it an honest effort, and then fails..Should he be put in the same cell as the guy that  plans to fail



If you fail, you fail.  Why should others assume the risk you took and pick up the bills?  That is what you seem to be advocating when you say it's ok to walk away.  Like all the bailouts, it's one more hit on the honest folks who properly manage their money and life. Maybe the penalty should be less severe if you started our with a reasonable plan, but if you fail, you pay, not everyone else.


----------



## ampaholic (Jun 10, 2012)

ronparise said:


> Now that hurts



If just one of your renters does significant damage to a unit ($5000?)- it might destroy your business model as WM will come after you for restitution. 

This will leave you two choices 1. fold your tent 2. pay up for the damages since they will likely freeze your account until you pay.


----------



## ronparise (Jun 10, 2012)

ampaholic said:


> If just one of your renters does significant damage to a unit ($5000?)- it might destroy your business model as WM will come after you for restitution.
> 
> This will leave you two choices 1. fold your tent 2. pay up for the damages since they will likely freeze your account until you pay.



Worldmark is no different than anyplace else....Wyndham takes $100-$150 or nothing at all. That little bit wont protect me in case of significant damage

Im prepared for a broken coffee pot or something like that, but you are right..the really big deal would be a problem.

My experience has been, however that these things can happen, but they dont..People are generally pretty respectful..Earlier this year I rented 22 units for the BCS Football game in New Orleans, almost 10 percent of Avenue Plaza was mine that weekend. In conversation with the guest services manager I asked if they tried to keep LSU fans on one floor and Alabama fans on another. (to avoid fights). I asked with tongue in cheek, but I was just a little worried.  She answered  "we dont have problems like that here" And they havent...Also this year five Mardi Gras reservations and six for the final 4...no problems

New Orleans is a notorious party town and Im renting  the biggest party weekends...with no  problems..The resort i use the most has Wyndham units, Worldmark units, floating weeks owners, leased units, and they trade through RCI and II...Folks rent there through RCI, Wyndham and from guys like me...The desk doesnt ask  anyone for a credit card...and as the guest services manager said..."we dont have problems here"

There was however the wine glass I dropped in Las Vegas...they didnt bill me


----------



## ronparise (Jun 10, 2012)

cotraveller said:


> If you fail, you fail.  Why should others assume the risk you took and pick up the bills?  That is what you seem to be advocating when you say it's ok to walk away.  Like all the bailouts, it's one more hit on the honest folks who properly manage their money and life. Maybe the penalty should be less severe if you started our with a reasonable plan, but if you fail, you pay, not everyone else.



Perhaps others shouldnt have to pick up the pieces for defaults, , but they do in most systems, They do whether or not someone fails  on purpose or by accident.  Worldmark is apparently unique in that Wyndham will cover the shortfall. 

Perhaps that and the fact that the mf is so low, is why Worldmark prices havent fallen through the floor


----------



## DeniseM (Jun 10, 2012)

ronparise said:


> Im prepared for a broken coffee pot or something like that, but you are right..the really big deal would be a problem.



I broke a Worldmark coffee pot yesterday, and reported it at check-out.  They said, no problem - accidents happen - no charge.


----------



## Born2Travel (Jun 10, 2012)

Quote:  I don't like the rental of WorldMark units as a profit making venture,  I don't think it is good for the club.  That opinion will get little  support here, TUG is very pro rental.  That was evidenced in a thread a  little while back concerning a potential Wyndham wait list where one of  the big concerns seemed to be the potential negative effect on those who  are renting out units.

I'm also a Worldmark owner and I would love to see restrictions put on renting of the units.  I have rented units on occaision, but never to the general public.  It's nice for owners to be able to rent out a unit they have reserved but are unable to use for one reason or another.  I do not believe it was ever the intent for owners to make a business of renting.  Renters do not take care of the units like owners and extra maintenance requires more fees, as well as owners not being able to book the vacations the sales department told them would be available.  I'd like to see restrictions put on the number of rentals per year.


----------



## Rent_Share (Jun 10, 2012)

I completely disagree regarding ANY restriction on renting

I have only rented once


----------



## am1 (Jun 10, 2012)

Born2Travel said:


> I'm also a Worldmark owner and I would love to see restrictions put on renting of the units.  I have rented units on occaision, but never to the general public.  It's nice for owners to be able to rent out a unit they have reserved but are unable to use for one reason or another.  I do not believe it was ever the intent for owners to make a business of renting.  Renters do not take care of the units like owners and extra maintenance requires more fees, as well as owners not being able to book the vacations the sales department told them would be available.  I'd like to see restrictions put on the number of rentals per year.




I have never been on a Worldmark tour but I am sure the sales people sell buyers on the fact that they can rent their timeshare for a profit.  

There should be no reason why owners cannot rent their reservations.  It is too hard to enforce and being able to rent a reservation adds value to the ownership.  Exchanges are a grey area and I understand why some do not allow it.  

I am sure owners who feel that rentals should not be allowed think differently when they are in need of renting their unit.  

Timeshare ownership does favour people who rent over those who own but do not care to learn how a system works.


----------



## rrlongwell (Jun 10, 2012)

ronparise said:


> Going in with that intent is not something I am willing to tdo either..If it was my Viking Ship Vacation Club would have already sailed.  But what about the guy that develops a reasonable business plan, gives it an honest effort, and then fails..Should he be put in the same cell as the guy that  plans to fail
> 
> A look at the mortgage market over the last several years should give us a clue. Goldman sold mortgage backed securities to their clients knowing that they (the securities) would fail. and then they (goldman) took positions that would mean a profit to them, when they(the securities) failed...The securities failed, and you know the rest
> 
> The fact is no one gore to jail for financial fraud. We save the jails for young men of ..... .....I wont go there for revealing my self to be the lprogressive, liberal, socialist, communist, pig that I am



Law enforcement is getting smarter and smarter on using the internet.  I guess they have kids that teach them these things.  Intent, I would think, could be a very very easy thing to do if somene discusses a illegal plan, then takes actions to implement said plan, then the final consequences occur.  I am not saying this is applicable in this case.  Since you say you are a licensed real estate agent in the State of Floridia, I would assume you would be following the State and Federal real estate laws and the assoicated code of ethics.  However, some that may read your advice and try the same thing may not have the background you have to avoid having room and board paid for by the state who's laws and regulations that may be being broken as a result of the advise.


----------



## Born2Travel (Jun 10, 2012)

am1 said:


> I have never been on a Worldmark tour but I am sure the sales people sell buyers on the fact that they can rent their timeshare for a profit.
> 
> There should be no reason why owners cannot rent their reservations.  It is too hard to enforce and being able to rent a reservation adds value to the ownership.  Exchanges are a grey area and I understand why some do not allow it.
> 
> ...



Yes, sales will try to sell buyers on renting and I agree that it is very useful and a great benefit as long as it does not turn into a business venture.  As I stated I have personally had a need to rent units I could not use in the past and it is a great benefit BUT I do not agree that unlimited rentals should be allowed.  That doesn't mean any thing will change; I'm just stating my opinion.  Once someone turns it into a business venture it is no longer a "club" IMO.  Your opinion may differ -


----------



## Born2Travel (Jun 10, 2012)

Rent_Share said:


> I completely disagree regarding ANY restriction on renting
> 
> I have only rented once




No problem - disagree with me, I don't have a problem with that.  It doesn't change my opinion though


----------



## cotraveller (Jun 10, 2012)

am1 said:


> I am sure owners who feel that rentals should not be allowed think differently when they are in need of renting their unit.



I have never advocated a complete ban on renting, only on renting for comercial purposes.  If you book 10 units at a resort for a family get together and have everyone contribute their share of the cost of that booking, that is renting.  If you have a reservation and something comes up that prevents you from using it, and instead you let a friend use it for the cost of the reservation, that is renting.  Those and similar types of rentals are fine, no problem. They are special cases that happen sporadicaly, not on a regular basis.

If you book 10% of the units for Mardi Gras (or summer on the beach, or spring vacation skiing, etc, etc) and rent them out at a high profit, that is a commercial operation.  If your primary purpose of ownership is to make a profit, no matter how many units are involved, that is a commercial operation. That is the type of operation that WorldMark owners complain about. It is the type of operation that many WorldMark owners would like to see curtailed.

If enough units dissappear from the availability pool and show up on the rental market those unhappy non-renting owners will begin to exert enough pressure that changes will be made.  I proposed one solution, remove the profit potential.  Born2Travel proposed a different one, limit the number of rentals an owner can do.  Neither solution is perfect and I am sure there are other ways to accomplish the same thing.


----------



## sue1947 (Jun 10, 2012)

cotraveller said:


> I have never advocated a complete ban on renting, *only on renting for comercial purposes.*  If you book 10 units at a resort for a family get together and have everyone contribute their share of the cost of that booking, that is renting.  If you have a reservation and something comes up that prevents you from using it, and instead you let a friend use it for the cost of the reservation, that is renting.  Those and similar types of rentals are fine, no problem. They are special cases that happen sporadicaly, not on a regular basis.
> 
> If you book 10% of the units for Mardi Gras (or summer on the beach, or spring vacation skiing, etc, etc) and rent them out at a high profit, that is a commercial operation.  If your primary purpose of ownership is to make a profit, no matter how many units are involved, that is a commercial operation. That is the type of operation that WorldMark owners complain about. It is the type of operation that many WorldMark owners would like to see curtailed.
> 
> If enough units dissappear from the availability pool and show up on the rental market those unhappy non-renting owners will begin to exert enough pressure that changes will be made.  I proposed one solution, remove the profit potential.  Born2Travel proposed a different one, limit the number of rentals an owner can do.  Neither solution is perfect and I am sure there are other ways to accomplish the same thing.



The biggest renter of Worldmark is Wyndham.  That is the reason the Wyndham controlled BOD will never curtail or put limitations on renting.  I don't mind seeing rentals done by other owners who are utilizing their accounts/membership as they want.  I do have a problem seeing the Party Weekends and other sales tools along with Expedia rentals for resorts that don't have availability for owners.  At the very least, any rentals of so-called 'excess inventory' should be available to owners via IS.  

Sue


----------



## dr_adventure (Jun 10, 2012)

rrlongwell said:


> Just a thought, in the way of the world, for what was spent, someone could probably go VIP Platium with Wyndham Vacation Resorts using a combination of resale through Wyndham and PICs.



Many people have!


----------



## Beefnot (Jun 11, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> Minus the moral. And maybe even minus the legal.





ronparise said:


> Now that hurts



There was no judgment in my comment.


----------



## ronparise (Jun 11, 2012)

cotraveller said:


> I have never advocated a complete ban on renting, only on renting for comercial purposes.  If you book 10 units at a resort for a family get together and have everyone contribute their share of the cost of that booking, that is renting.  If you have a reservation and something comes up that prevents you from using it, and instead you let a friend use it for the cost of the reservation, that is renting.  Those and similar types of rentals are fine, no problem. They are special cases that happen sporadicaly, not on a regular basis.
> 
> If you book 10% of the units for Mardi Gras (or summer on the beach, or spring vacation skiing, etc, etc) and rent them out at a high profit, that is a commercial operation.  If your primary purpose of ownership is to make a profit, no matter how many units are involved, that is a commercial operation. That is the type of operation that WorldMark owners complain about. It is the type of operation that many WorldMark owners would like to see curtailed.
> 
> If enough units dissappear from the availability pool and show up on the rental market those unhappy non-renting owners will begin to exert enough pressure that changes will be made.  I proposed one solution, remove the profit potential.  Born2Travel proposed a different one, limit the number of rentals an owner can do.  Neither solution is perfect and I am sure there are other ways to accomplish the same thing.



I still dont understand why it makes any difference to you (or (any club member) who is staying in the unit next door to you... ..It could be someone that owns a fixed or floating week there, it could be an RCI member that exchanged in, it could be an II member that exchanged in, it could be a club members kid on spring break, It could be someone that Wyndham gave the week to, in exchange for a 90 min tour and sales presentation, it could be someone that Wyndham rented to, or it could be someone I rented to or it could be me... As long as I pay my fees, and as long as the Club Guidelines remain unchanged, I dont see the problem

But if you have a problem its Seems easy enough, to solve it...just change the wording in Sec C-12 of the guidelines, or perhaps limit the number of credits any one person can own

12. Guest Use. Any non-owner use, whether by rental or gift, is considered Guest usage by the definition given above in Section A.2. The Owner making the reservation is responsible for Guest behavior, charges resulting from Guest usage and Guest compliance with all applicable Club Guidelines and Restrictions. The Owner does not have to be present during Guest usage of Vacation Credits. However, the Owner does have to be present during the Guest usage of Bonus Time, unless the reservation is made no earlier than five (5) days before the first day of the reserved period. An Owner may charge a Guest for use of Vacation Credits in whatever amount the Owner chooses, but may charge Guests for Bonus Time usage in only the actual cost of Bonus Time. Owners shall not charge any fee in cases where rental is prohibited by local law or restriction, or in cases that the Club Board determines are not in the best interest of the Club.


----------



## cotraveller (Jun 11, 2012)

ronparise said:


> But if you have a problem its Seems easy enough, to solve it...just change the wording in Sec C-12 of the guidelines, . . .
> 
> 12. Guest Use. Any non-owner use, whether by rental or gift, is considered Guest usage by the definition given above in Section A.2. The Owner making the reservation is responsible for Guest behavior, charges resulting from Guest usage and Guest compliance with all applicable Club Guidelines and Restrictions. The Owner does not have to be present during Guest usage of Vacation Credits. However, the Owner does have to be present during the Guest usage of Bonus Time, unless the reservation is made no earlier than five (5) days before the first day of the reserved period. An Owner *may charge a Guest for use of Vacation Credits in whatever amount the Owner chooses, *but may charge Guests for Bonus Time usage in only the actual cost of Bonus Time. Owners shall not charge any fee in cases where rental is prohibited by local law or restriction, or in cases that the Club Board determines are not in the best interest of the Club.



That is precisely what I have suggested.  Change the part I highlited in red. So far there has been no change, but as I said, when enough owners start raising the issue over and over, something will change.  Perhaps a cap on the rate similar to the Bonus Time cap, perhaps something else.


----------



## csxjohn (Jun 11, 2012)

sue1947 said:


> ...  I do have a problem seeing the Party Weekends and other sales tools along with Expedia rentals for resorts that don't have availability for owners.  At the very least, any rentals of so-called 'excess inventory' should be available to owners via IS.
> 
> Sue



What you seem to be forgetting is that these weeks were available to owners and some owners booked them.  If those owners happen to be in the business of renting units, like Ron is, then you will see them on the rental market.

This is not excess inventory, this is a case of some owners taking the time to figure out how to get the weeks they want, for what ever reason.

The whiners and complainers need to get on the ball and figure out how to use what they have.

Now if you're talking about RCI or another company taking weeks that were deposited by owners then put up for rent instead of being made available to other members for exchange, then I totally agree with you.


----------



## Beefnot (Jun 11, 2012)

Taking desirable weeks--be it by RCI, Wyndham, or other owners themselves-- and making them available to the public, instead of to other owners and exchangers, is a problem.


----------



## jebloomquist (Jun 11, 2012)

cotraveller said:


> That is precisely what I have suggested.  Change the part I highlited in red. So far there has been no change, but as I said, when enough owners start raising the issue over and over, something will change.  Perhaps a cap on the rate similar to the Bonus Time cap, perhaps something else.



If the ability to rent at a profit is removed, I suggest that the resale market will drop so far that owners will not be able to sell their units regardless of how much they are willing to pay a buyer. 

I suggest that many of the current resales are to individuals who want to use the property primarily as rental, not personal use. 

There are many people who don't want to own but want to use timeshare properties and are willing to rent. The rental price is based upon the convergence of the supply and demand curves. Arbitrary rules would just screw things up even worse than you already think that they are.


----------



## csxjohn (Jun 11, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> Taking desirable weeks--be it by RCI, Wyndham, or other owners themselves-- and making them available to the public, instead of to other owners and exchangers, is a problem.



I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.  Why should an owner have to make his reserved week available to other owners and exchangers instead of disposing of the week any legal way he sees fit? 

Isn't one of the advantages of ownership that you can rent out your unit  if you so wish?

I think that  everyone who just lets their week go without using it instead of renting it out is a big problem.  They eventually get fed up with paying MFs year after year then turn to a PCC to rid them of the burden.  I think we know this can turn into higher MFs for the rest of us in the end.  My reasoning is that if they can't take the time to figure out how to take advantage of their ownership they probably won't take the time to figure out how to rid themselves of it either.  (I probably shouldn't make generalizations like this.)

.


----------



## ronparise (Jun 11, 2012)

ronparise said:


> 12. Guest Use. Any non-owner use, whether by rental or gift, is considered Guest usage by the definition given above in Section A.2. The Owner making the reservation is responsible for Guest behavior, charges resulting from Guest usage and Guest compliance with all applicable Club Guidelines and Restrictions. The Owner does not have to be present during Guest usage of Vacation Credits. However, the Owner does have to be present during the Guest usage of Bonus Time, unless the reservation is made no earlier than five (5) days before the first day of the reserved period. An Owner may charge a Guest for use of Vacation Credits in whatever amount the Owner chooses, but may charge Guests for Bonus Time usage in only the actual cost of Bonus Time. Owners shall not charge any fee in cases where rental is prohibited by local law or restriction, or in cases that the Club Board determines are not in the best interest of the Club.



cotraveler

I know I may sound like Bill Clinton when he said "that depends on what the meaning of is, is"  but Im not charging  my guest for use of Vacation Credits. Im charging my guest for the use of a condo during a specific time frame....As you well know Credits are the currency we use to make reservations, they are different than the reservation itself. and I make the reservation and rent it, I dont rent credits, although there might be some profit (sorry, that dirty word again) renting credits too

As you know, worldmark allows the transfer (sale/rental) of one time use credits from one owner to another for money, and there is no limit placed on the amount charged or the number transferred. There has even been a discussion on the WMowners forum about the possibility of making a business of this, With mf of about 4.8 vents per credit, and the market rate for sale of about 6 cents, it might work..the point is no one objected... 


And Im not using  inventory that isnt available to every other member as well. Its not like I can make 10 reservations at one time, or when Im on the website no one else can get in. If there were others that want the reservations  Im targeting, they can get it before I hit the button for my second one

There are folks that buy Worldmark because the mf is so low and because it trades well in II and RCI. What that means is some stranger gets to use a Worldmark unit and the worldmark owner gets to use a more desirable unit in some other resort paying less for it than if he owned that unit. How is that not profiting from their ownership, and why doesnt anyone object to that.....It seems to me that if you are going to try to ban rentals , because it allows the rif-raf in you should also call for a ban on exchanges

Heres wht it sounds like to me

You dont object to making a profit as long as the profit comes from other members, And you dont object to a member using credits he doesnt own.(credit rentals) And you dont object to a member trading up (profiting) from his ownership. And you dont object to non  members trading in to the system,. Ive already spoken to the complaint that folks that rent, take units away from members, They dont. and you seem to agree, Its the bigger educated owner that takes units away from the smaller, uneducated owners....not renters, So whats left....I think the  objection is to the possibility that a certain undefined class of non owner  might be in the unit next to you.or might have been in your unit before you.  Thats prejudice in my book,   Perhaps you could ask them to sit at the back of the shuttle bus to the park


----------



## jjmanthei05 (Jun 11, 2012)

cotraveller said:


> That's true, but to the owner who doesn't understand all the ins and outs of the system it doesn't make any difference.  All he sees is that he can't get the reservation he wants througn the club but he sees the same unit being offered for rent.  That makes him mad and wanting to do something to change things.



But most likely these are the same owners trying to get these in demand weeks 2 months before hand and get mad because there is no availability. They see the rentals but don't understand that those owners have been sitting on those for almost a year to be able to rent them. I only own Wyndham so my experiences come from there but if it is a credits based system, everyone has the same opportunity to get the units. If the people who are mad can't plan that far in advance, that's a them problem. Would you have a problem if Ron booked 10% of all available units for a 4th of July week at an in demand resort and just let them sit empty? The units still wouldn't be there for you but he isn't making money on them. Is that acceptable? 

It seems like the Worldmark system can be "gamed" a little bit more than Wyndham but the small only use point owners have the same opportunity to book 10 nights to only use 7. The thing to remember is renters in either system (except for Wyndham themselves) have to play by the same rules. They don't get special access to the inventory that other owners don't get. 

Jason

Full disclosure: I rent out Wyndham reservations for in demand resorts but I get 100% of my inventory between 45 and 15 days of check in all from cancellations.


----------



## sue1947 (Jun 11, 2012)

csxjohn said:


> What you seem to be forgetting is that these weeks were available to owners and some owners booked them.  If those owners happen to be in the business of renting units, like Ron is, then you will see them on the rental market.
> 
> This is not excess inventory, this is a case of some owners taking the time to figure out how to get the weeks they want, for what ever reason.
> 
> ...



You misunderstood me.  I was referring to the practice of Wyndham taking inventory out to rent for sales purposes while there are owners on the waitlist for those units.   Claiming excess inventory for places where there are no units available is stretching the definition of excess inventory.   Cotraveller was warning  of dire consequences if the Board somehow tried to limit renting.  My point is that as Wyndham is the biggest renter, there will be no crack down.  They will try to make the competition a little more difficult as they did with adding a fee for transferring a housekeeping token, but they won't do any major damage.  

My big point is that an owner should be allowed to use their reservations any way they want and that will include renting to others.  Wyndham, as the develeper and manager, but not owner, of Worldmark has more limitations built into the bylaws.  They are not supposed to be using their developer credits for renting, but I believe they are.  There is no audit or transparency over where the credits come from for the Party Weekends or other sales events as well as the Monday Madness and fax programs offered to owners.   They also claim to make 'excess inventory' available, but that is what the Inventory Specials are supposed to be.  I don't like seeing the spot I have waitlisted for many months in advance on Expedia from Wyndham.  

Sue


----------



## rrlongwell (Jun 11, 2012)

From this thread it appears that Worldmark may be a well kept secret on it being Rentor friendly.  I also notice their are a number of Worldmark memberships on E-Bay.  This may the up and coming possable haven for Rentors.  Especially since it appears the better Wyndham Vacation Resorts seem to be showing up less often on E-Bay.  Hopefully, the Worldmark rentors will join this discussion.


----------



## csxjohn (Jun 11, 2012)

sue1947 said:


> You misunderstood me.  I was referring to the practice of Wyndham taking inventory out to rent for sales purposes while there are owners on the waitlist for those units.   Claiming excess inventory for places where there are no units available is stretching the definition of excess inventory.   Cotraveller was warning  of dire consequences if the Board somehow tried to limit renting.  My point is that as Wyndham is the biggest renter, there will be no crack down.  They will try to make the competition a little more difficult as they did with adding a fee for transferring a housekeeping token, but they won't do any major damage.
> 
> My big point is that an owner should be allowed to use their reservations any way they want and that will include renting to others.  Wyndham, as the develeper and manager, but not owner, of Worldmark has more limitations built into the bylaws.  They are not supposed to be using their developer credits for renting, but I believe they are.  There is no audit or transparency over where the credits come from for the Party Weekends or other sales events as well as the Monday Madness and fax programs offered to owners.   They also claim to make 'excess inventory' available, but that is what the Inventory Specials are supposed to be.  I don't like seeing the spot I have waitlisted for many months in advance on Expedia from Wyndham.
> 
> Sue



Yes, I did misunderstand you.  I'm having diffuculty trying to figure out how the different points systems work.  But that's why I keep reading.  Thank you.


----------



## cotraveller (Jun 11, 2012)

ronparise said:


> cotraveler
> 
> I know I may sound like Bill Clinton when he said "that depends on what the meaning of is, is"  but Im not charging  my guest for use of Vacation Credits. Im charging my guest for the use of a condo during a specific time frame....As you well know Credits are the currency we use to make reservations, they are different than the reservation itself. and I make the reservation and rent it, I dont rent credits, although there might be some profit (sorry, that dirty word again) renting credits too
> 
> ...



You don't get it and I doubt that you ever will.  Here's a simplified short form.

The official name of the organization is _*WorldMark, the Club*_.  The Club Articles of Incorporation state that the Club is organized as a _*Nonprofit Mutual Benefit Corporation*_.  The Club Declaration states that _*Each person who acquires sufficient Vacation Credits and is issued a Basic Membership in the Club is a Member*_. The Club Bylaws state that _* Members hold Memberships primarily for occupancy or personal use.*_

Those are the basic tenets that most members (owners) operate under. They purchased WorldMark credits to become a member of a club whose purpose is not to make a profit, but rather is for the mutual benefit of all members for their personal use on their vacations.  Sharing with owners of other Timeshares who trade their time for WorldMark time fits within the nonprofit personal use mutual benefit paradigm. Occasional renting of credits or units in times of financial hardship or due to events that preclude the taking of a vacation are accepted. Those are not seen as business ventures intent on profit making. 

When you turn your membership into your private profit center you violate those basic tenets. What is the mutual benefit of your profits? Other portions of the governing documents may show that you are within your legal rights to do so, but you will meet resistance from within the owner community. The more units that go into the rental market the more significant that resistance will become.


----------



## jjmanthei05 (Jun 11, 2012)

ronparise said:


> As you know, worldmark allows the transfer (sale/rental) of one time use credits from one owner to another for money, and there is no limit placed on the amount charged or the number transferred. There has even been a discussion on the WMowners forum about the possibility of making a business of this, With mf of about 4.8 vents per credit, and the market rate for sale of about 6 cents, it might work..the point is no one objected...



I don't think you would get the push back on this because no one can see the end result. Say you sell 50,000 credits to someone who then books rooms to rent out. The "community" would be mad at the renter not the person who facilitated it. 

Jason


----------



## Born2Travel (Jun 11, 2012)

Ron Quote:  You dont object to making a profit as  long as the profit comes from other members, And you dont object to a  member using credits he doesnt own.(credit rentals) And you dont object  to a member trading up (profiting) from his ownership. And you dont  object to non  members trading in to the system,. Ive already spoken to  the complaint that folks that rent, take units away from members, They  dont. and you seem to agree, Its the bigger educated owner that takes  units away from the smaller, uneducated owners....not renters, So whats  left....I think the  objection is to the possibility that a certain  undefined class of non owner  might be in the unit next to you.or might  have been in your unit before you.  Thats prejudice in my book,    Perhaps you could ask them to sit at the back of the shuttle bus to the  park                                                                                __________________

You've got to be kidding!!  That is absolutely not what this is about, but Fred is right, you are not going to "get" it and you probably never will.  You might if you were not trying to make a profit out of it.  Some of us just want to enjoy our vacations and it has nothing to do with the "class" of people - good god, where did that come from?  If you already owned and checked reservations or checked with some other owners you would find that it's already very hard to get the desirable reservations they were "sold" because Wyndham as put properties in locations where no one wants to go, making it all the harder to book the desirable locations while they continue to sell more and more credits while everyone tries to book the same "few" locations and others sit empty or worse.


----------



## rrlongwell (Jun 11, 2012)

jjmanthei05 said:


> I don't think you would get the push back on this because no one can see the end result. Say you sell 50,000 credits to someone who then books rooms to rent out. The "community" would be mad at the renter not the person who facilitated it.
> 
> Jason



The code may have been broken for the uneducated, like me, on Worldmark.  Moral of the Story:  Buy the smallest Worldmark contract possable.  The Rentor would then buy Worldmark points from people who are not going to use them.  Book the reservation and make money on the spread between the price to rent and the rental price of the unit.  Do not have to find a way to get rid of the maintance fees when the use period or desired use period is up.  Makes a lot of sense to me.  Maybe I should consider a Worldmark contract.

A big vote of thanks goes to Ron for starting this thread.  Maybe even team up with a Manager of a Viking Ship company, then they would not have to go broke anytime soon.


----------



## LLW (Jun 11, 2012)

ronparise said:


> I appreciate the insight regarding walk-aways..I knew mf increases are limited to 5% a year, and *I had heard that there was no penalty for walking away, *Its nice to have that confirmed by another party..Its why I like the Club Wyndham Access Program...Its a club
> 
> 
> 
> *I came across another strategy recently that Ive been afraid to try out..A person could buy contracts with large assumable loans, strip off the credits and either sell them, use them, or make reservations and rent them...but never make a payment...now that Ive been "educated" Im likely to try it out*



Don't believe everything that you hear. 

Both Wyndham (for loan payments) and Worldmark (for MF) report to the Credit Bureaus (read past Board minutes). Even if you don't care what walking away does to your credit rating (thereby impacting future business opportunities), if you are a legitimate landlord who has the intention of honoring the July 4 vacation that you have contracted, that your renters have long planned for, you can't walk away. Because if you do, Worldmark would cancel all your existing reservations, and your renters will have no unit to check into. They can do this the day before, or the day of. I have personally seen that happen to somebody.

It would be a moral nightmare, in addition to being a legal one.

I wonder what that would do to your profits (think lost business now and in the future), not to mention your name (would you want your grandchildren to hear about this?).   I don't know about you, but I think at least it would not be a viable strategy for most people, although a young punk may not care. _I think _it's a hassle that most timeshare owners may not care for.


----------



## ronparise (Jun 11, 2012)

jjmanthei05 said:


> I don't think you would get the push back on this because no one can see the end result. Say you sell 50,000 credits to someone who then books rooms to rent out. The "community" would be mad at the renter not the person who facilitated it.
> 
> Jason



Thats not allowed. I did read far enough to know that one   The call points transferred from owner to owner, "assigned credits) and you cant use them for renting


----------



## ronparise (Jun 11, 2012)

LLW said:


> Don't believe everything that you hear.
> 
> Both Wyndham (for loan payments) and Worldmark (for MF) report to the Credit Bureaus (read past Board minutes). Even if you don't care what walking away does to your credit rating (thereby impacting future business opportunities), if you are a legitimate landlord who has the intention of honoring the July 4 vacation that you have contracted, that your renters have long planned for, you can't walk away. Because if you do, Worldmark would cancel all your existing reservations, and your renters will have no unit to check into. They can do this the day before, or the day of. I have personally seen that happen to somebody.
> 
> ...



I didnt suggest that I did this or would ever, there are to many ways to make a buck without going there. I only mentioned it because I was presented such a strategy.  and thought the story would fit in this thread


----------



## ronparise (Jun 11, 2012)

Born2Travel said:


> Ron Quote:  You dont object to making a profit as  long as the profit comes from other members, And you dont object to a  member using credits he doesnt own.(credit rentals) And you dont object  to a member trading up (profiting) from his ownership. And you dont  object to non  members trading in to the system,. Ive already spoken to  the complaint that folks that rent, take units away from members, They  dont. and you seem to agree, Its the bigger educated owner that takes  units away from the smaller, uneducated owners....not renters, So whats  left....I think the  objection is to the possibility that a certain  undefined class of non owner  might be in the unit next to you.or might  have been in your unit before you.  Thats prejudice in my book,    Perhaps you could ask them to sit at the back of the shuttle bus to the  park                                                                                __________________
> 
> You've got to be kidding!!  That is absolutely not what this is about, but Fred is right, you are not going to "get" it and you probably never will.  You might if you were not trying to make a profit out of it.  Some of us just want to enjoy our vacations and it has nothing to do with the "class" of people - good god, where did that come from?  If you already owned and checked reservations or checked with some other owners you would find that it's already very hard to get the desirable reservations they were "sold" because Wyndham as put properties in locations where no one wants to go, making it all the harder to book the desirable locations while they continue to sell more and more credits while everyone tries to book the same "few" locations and others sit empty or worse.



I came to the conclusion by process of elimination I honestly cant find any other reason why anyone would object to a renter in the same building with them, but calling you guys racists was over the top even for me. Im sorry...

But I do get it now, it has nothing to do with profit or renting it has everything to do with the club charter..ie the club is a non profit so therefore the members must be. I have been involved in real estate a long time and have recently gotten into timeshares. everything i have so far is real estate. Worldmark is a club, not real estate, and I missed the distinction... Freds post brought that into focus for me

I agree with Groucho Marx when it come to clubs  "I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members".

My first posts on the Worldmark forum explained why I was considering such an expensive club..it had everything to do with using it myself and nothing to do with renting. My plan all along has been to use half of what I own and rent the other half to cover mf...The rental side is pretty much in place and now Im looking for my use....Worldmark works, ie decent properties, and low mf, so I bought some.."primarly" for my own use


----------



## rrlongwell (Jun 12, 2012)

ronparise said:


> I came to the conclusion by process of elimination I honestly cant find any other reason why anyone would object to a renter in the same building with them, but calling you guys racists was over the top even for me. Im sorry...
> 
> But I do get it now, it has nothing to do with profit or renting it has everything to do with the club charter..ie the club is a non profit so therefore the members must be. I have been involved in real estate a long time and have recently gotten into timeshares. everything i have so far is real estate. Worldmark is a club, not real estate, and I missed the distinction... Freds post brought that into focus for me
> 
> ...



If I understand the thread properly, the personal use portion can be what is bought from other members and used leaving the points on the purchased ones available for rental and also as a side line, opening up the Wyndham Vacation Resorts points that are currently for personal use for rental.


----------



## csxjohn (Jun 12, 2012)

cotraveller said:


> .. Occasional renting of credits or units in times of financial hardship or due to events that preclude the taking of a vacation are accepted.



In trying to figure out this particular points program, I'm wondering if these words are in the by laws or any other governing documents, or if this is just your interpretation?


----------

