# Sign the petition to send to Wyndham corporate, which protests our losses of benefits



## rickandcindy23 (Jan 26, 2009)

Be sure to read it before signing, and there is a place to add comments, such as the number of points you own, or the status of your membership.  Some have made additional comments.  

This petition specifically asks for the retention of our current benefits, but you must read it, as I have some reading comprehension issues at the moment, because I cannot remember what it says:rofl: --I just thought it was well written.  

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/RestoreWyndhamBenefits/signatures.html


----------



## ajjensen (Jan 26, 2009)

Come On everybody...  Get on the band wagon!  Many are hesitant to write letters or such things but this is VERY easy to do.  We have to let Wyndham know that we will not just sit by and watch them continue to erode our ownership.  Even if you somehow have managed to not be personally affected by the changes thus far it is just a matter of time until you are affected.  All the more reason to try our best to stop them NOW!

Carla


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jan 26, 2009)

1. *Sign it, even if you bought resale*, because the salespeople are talking about how after March 1st, you will not be able to trade into any other resorts other than where you own points.  People here on TUG are posting this on another thread that is current, so if you worry about these kinds of changes, you best speak up for the protection of your ownership!   

I expect some bad stuff to come along in time that will affect even those who don't care about points transfers. 

2. *Sign it, if you were thinking of buying in the future*.  

3. *Sign it if you are disgusted with any point system's loss of benefits.*  If you don't own a Wyndham resort, and you feel funny about that, add that information into the comments.  Say something about how you don't own in this system, but you do own RCI Points (or Diamond, or WorldMark), and you are tired of the salesperson promising one thing and getting something that doesn't even resemble what you bought.  

We could get hundreds of signatures from this group, just with resale buyers.  Wyndham/ Fairfield is tired of resale values, which are hurting their sales, but they caused the low resale values by de-valuing the product by not allowing the benefits of VIP to transfer in resale (hurting the original owner who needs to sell).  The bargain ebay points' purchases could be their next target.  Don't wait until this happens to you as a resale buyer-- join in the fight.


----------



## Carol C (Jan 27, 2009)

Would someone please advertise this petition on TS Forums and other such sites? Also, maybe it would be a good idea to take the petition to Wyndham resorts when we vacation there. What is the cut-off date for this petition effort anyway?


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jan 27, 2009)

Hi Carol,

I don't know when the petition is going to be cut-off, but I don't see why it cannot be ongoing for a good long time.  I will ask the person who designed it.  I found the petition on www.wyndhamowners.org and recommend that site to anyone who owns Fairfield points.


----------



## Neesie (Jan 27, 2009)

Can I sign it if I don't own at Wyndham, but vacationed at a Wyndham just a few weeks ago?  Of course, I'd only buy resale but they might see me as a potential mark!


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jan 27, 2009)

Neesie, I wouldn't think this petition would get anywhere near the sales department.  Sign it if you are considering a purchase and state that in the comments.  

As for the amount of time this petition will be circulating, I was informed that it is only out there for a few weeks, so sign it as soon as you can.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jan 29, 2009)

Hi Everyone!

*The petition is now 72 hours young and has about 250 signatures*.  Some signatures are repeats because some have probably hit enter more than once because they thought it didn't take.  BUT some are signing ANONYMOUS.  Please don't sign anonymously because Wyndham needs names to take this seriously.  If you signed anonymously, please go back in and put your name, or the name of the co-owner.  

Don't worry about the query for money at the end of the petition, as that is not something the originator intended.  The petition is free to sign.


----------



## ajjensen (Jan 31, 2009)

Here is the wording at the beginning of the petition:  
We, the undersigned Wyndham owners *and other supportive parties*

So anyone can sign.  It is now about 350.  Surely more than that are interested in their ownership!  This is a very simple united stand we can make.

PLEASE SIGN!!!

Carla


----------



## GrayFal (Jan 31, 2009)

I keep getting an error message.....


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jan 31, 2009)

GrayFal said:


> I keep getting an error message.....



Pat, the link was working when I checked a minute ago.  It should work....

Now 375 signatures!


----------



## Aussiedog (Jan 31, 2009)

*worked for me*

I am on the list - hurray!

I like this idea for 2 reasons:

to send a message to Wyndham
to send a message to other TS companies that when potential owners look at a chain's value equation, something like this can do much more damage long term than any savings they think they are getting short term.
Ann


----------



## GrayFal (Feb 1, 2009)

rickandcindy23 said:


> Pat, the link was working when I checked a minute ago.  It should work....
> 
> Now 375 signatures!


I was able to sign it thru the Owners site.....thanks.


----------



## ajjensen (Feb 2, 2009)

Everyone,

Wyndhamvideo.com has had over 5000 views now! It would be fantastic if we could get that many signatures on the petition.

WE REALLY NEED TO GET WYNDHAM'S ATTENTION!! If you haven't yet signed please do and if you signed anonymously please go back and sign your name. Anonymous signatures will not be counted. For most of us this affects our family members and may of our friends so you can get them to sign as well.

Carla


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Feb 8, 2009)

We still need more signatures.  I was hoping the signatures would multiply exponentially, but I guess not.


----------



## ajjensen (Feb 9, 2009)

Cindy,

I really thought that between this site and the Wyndham Owners Forum we would have had close to 5000 signatures.  It has very surprising and disappointing to see only 500 signatures.

It makes me feel bad to know that at some point at least 99% of us will be affected by Wyndham's taking of benefits.  It will not stop here! There has to be more support for Wyndham to take notice. Signing the petition is the EASIEST way to voice your concern. You don't have to speak to anyone.  You don't have to figure out what to write in a letter (although it would be great to do that as well).  Signing the petition is the very least we can do.

It will only be open until 2/26 - ONE MORE WEEK!!!

Carla


----------



## BocaBum99 (Feb 9, 2009)

Maybe there are owners who want to do something, but don't see a petition to be a good way to address this problem.  Maybe they think that they will get on a blacklist or something.  Who knows.

It seems to me that the best way to address this problem is through a lawsuit.  Maybe an anti-trust lawsuit.  It used to be that owners could sell their one time use points on the open market for around $4-6/1000.  Now, they can only get about $2/1000 for them due to restricted transfers.

In addition, if someone wants to buy some one time use points, they use to be able to get them for between $4-6/point.  Now, they have to pay $8/1000 or more since there is only one supplier.  Isn't that acting like a monopoly by using board power to reduce options for owners and harm them?

I'm not an attorney, but this does seem to be the case.  Maybe someone is already thinking about this?


----------



## ajjensen (Feb 9, 2009)

Cindy,

I really thought that between this site and the Wyndham Owners Forum we would have had close to 5000 signatures.  It has very surprising and disappointing to see only 500 signatures.

It makes me feel bad to know that at some point at least 99% of us will be affected by Wyndham's taking of benefits.  It will not stop here! There has to be more support for Wyndham to take notice. Signing the petition is the EASIEST way to voice your concern. You don't have to speak to anyone.  You don't have to figure out what to write in a letter (although it would be great to do that as well).  Signing the petition is the very least we can do.

It will only be open until 2/16 - ONE MORE WEEK!!!

Carla

Sorry, I don't how I manged to post this twice.  I tried to cancel this one but couldn't figure out how...


----------



## jdb0822 (Feb 10, 2009)

BocaBum99 said:


> Maybe there are owners who want to do something, but don't see a petition to be a good way to address this problem.  Maybe they think that they will get on a blacklist or something.  Who knows.
> 
> It seems to me that the best way to address this problem is through a lawsuit.  Maybe an anti-trust lawsuit.  It used to be that owners could sell their one time use points on the open market for around $4-6/1000.  Now, they can only get about $2/1000 for them due to restricted transfers.
> 
> ...



Boca, where are you seeing people renting their points for 2/1000 ?


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Feb 10, 2009)

jdb0822 said:


> Boca, where are you seeing people renting their points for 2/1000 ?




Through Wyndham, I believe.


----------



## oregonguy (Feb 10, 2009)

BocaBum99 said:


> Maybe there are owners who want to do something, but don't see a petition to be a good way to address this problem.  Maybe they think that they will get on a blacklist or something.  Who knows.



You're right about this, an anonymous online petition site is very worthless. I've seen lots of causes go on website petitions, but they don't carry any weight. A real letter, phone call or even traced email will do more, but most people are even too lazy to do that.


----------



## e.bram (Feb 10, 2009)

I emailed Wyndham to congratulate them and encouraging them to keep the new rules. It is best for someone in my position


----------



## jdb0822 (Feb 10, 2009)

e.bram said:


> I emailed Wyndham to congratulate them and encouraging them to keep the new rules. It is best for someone in my position



explain.  I am a points owner, and as far as I am aware, I cannot make any reservations sooner than 13 months at my home resort, and 10 months at any other resort.  Don't weeks owners have the same reservation windows?

I don't rent out my points, but I only have 126K, so if I want to go somewhere (at the 10month window) that needs 180K, I would like to rent the 54K points at $4/per K than wyndham's $10/per k.


----------



## Miss V (Feb 10, 2009)

e.bram said:


> I emailed Wyndham to congratulate them and encouraging them to keep the new rules. It is best for someone in my position



I guess I just don't understand how the new rules are good for _any _owner. How could taking away your rights be a good thing? More and more owners will now have to rent out units as a way of using up credits, rather than selling those to current owners. That could not be good for the resorts in general. More and more owners will also not be able to take full vacations as they do not have enough credits, can't pay the yearly MF to buy more credits, and will find their ownership useless. Plus, Wyndham knows that more and more owners will end up not using their points and most likely, just let them expire as there is nothing else they can do with them of real value. Because of this, more and more owners will default on their MFs and will just let the ownership go. Since they are selling for less than $.01/point in most cases, and owners can make, what $1 on the membership... why not?!


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Feb 10, 2009)

e.bram owns Wyndham floating weeks and believes he will get better weeks now, because mega renters won't be grabbing his time.  I doubt it's true, because an owner of a week probably has plenty of time to choose a week.  I see so much inventory at ten months.


----------



## e.bram (Feb 10, 2009)

Simple. Wyndham gloms up the best weeks with their points since they also control the reservation systems. They do it the second the weeks become available(as I said they have their fingers on the reservation keyboard). I never even see the best weeks available in my float period. Wyndham already has them with the points they control in my converted resort(I did not convert)

ie. Wyndham has control of the points. they take the best(seasonal)weeks for themselves and make them available to points owners. I have dregs left for me and other weeks owners.


----------



## jdb0822 (Feb 11, 2009)

e.bram said:


> Simple. Wyndham gloms up the best weeks with their points since they also control the reservation systems. They do it the second the weeks become available(as I said they have their fingers on the reservation keyboard). I never even see the best weeks available in my float period. Wyndham already has them with the points they control in my converted resort(I did not convert)
> 
> ie. Wyndham has control of the points. they take the best(seasonal)weeks for themselves and make them available to points owners. I have dregs left for me and other weeks owners.




Since you own weeks, *how many months out can you make a reservation?  its the same 13 month window or is it different?  *
Also, if Wyndham is taking blocks of time and "reserving" it for points owners, that will not change, regardless of whether points owners can rent their points or not.

Owners that have say 1 million points can still simply reserve the best weeks in Newport and then rent them out on redweek, ebay, etc and possibly turn a profit on them.  

All that they can't do is rent the actual points to other owners.

I can't see how any of this changes the availability at your resorts.

Actually, with points on the resale market practically free, you should sell your weeks on ebay, even for $1, and pickup a couple hundred thousand points (for next to nothing), and by your statements, solve your dilema.


----------



## donnaval (Feb 11, 2009)

Well e.bram, that's kind of an interesting take on things.  However, I know that in my case we own WAY more Wyndham points than we can currently use--purchased what we plan to use for retirement traveling now. but won't be able to enjoy full use of them on our own for a few more years.  We were content to rent the excess points to just cover our MFs.  Since we will no longer have that option, I am going to more seriously enter the rental market.  I dabbled with it in the past with some success, but will by necessity get into it more heavily in the future.  So instead of me grabbing and renting out one or two extra units per year, I'll be on the hunt for about 10.  I know that's small potatoes in the overall scheme of things, but I have to believe there will be others out there in my same position.  

I have rented points to a mega-renter, but more often have rented small amounts to other "regular" Wyndham users who just wanted to get enough points to complete a reservation, or get an extra unit or two for a family get-together.  Regardless of who uses them, the number of points I own reserve a finite number of units per year.

Since the cost of guest certificates is now so high, and since I don't enjoy VIP discounts, you'd better believe I am going to pounce on the most prime of prime weeks for my newly expanded rental business.  And I will be booking those units at the 13- or 10-month mark, not waiting for the throw-backs to come into the system at under 60 days like most of the mega-renters do.

I truly don't see how this change will result in more prime inventory opening for regular owners.


----------



## Miss V (Feb 11, 2009)

donnaval said:


> Well e.bram, that's kind of an interesting take on things.  However, I know that in my case we own WAY more Wyndham points than we can currently use--purchased what we plan to use for retirement traveling now. but won't be able to enjoy full use of them on our own for a few more years.  We were content to rent the excess points to just cover our MFs.  *Since we will no longer have that option, I am going to more seriously enter the rental market.  *I dabbled with it in the past with some success, but will by necessity get into it more heavily in the future.  So instead of me grabbing and renting out one or two extra units per year, I'll be on the hunt for about 10.  I know that's small potatoes in the overall scheme of things, but I have to believe there will be others out there in my same position.
> 
> I have rented points to a mega-renter, but more often have rented small amounts to other "regular" Wyndham users who just wanted to get enough points to complete a reservation, or get an extra unit or two for a family get-together.  Regardless of who uses them, the number of points I own reserve a finite number of units per year.
> 
> ...




I think this is going to be true across the board. This change by Wyndham actually does the exact opposite of what they stated they wanted to do, discourage renting. Based on these changes, more and more owners will have to rent if they do not want to see their credits go to waste. But, I believe Wyndham is a smart company and knows that. How much more will they make on the $99-129 guest certificates, than they made on the other transaction fees??? My problem is that they say one thing, and their actions depict something completely different. They obviously want more people in the rental market as this must mean that they can make more money that way.


----------



## ajjensen (Feb 11, 2009)

Donna,

Very well put!! 

Carla


----------



## BocaBum99 (Feb 11, 2009)

e.bram said:


> Simple. Wyndham gloms up the best weeks with their points since they also control the reservation systems. They do it the second the weeks become available(as I said they have their fingers on the reservation keyboard). I never even see the best weeks available in my float period. Wyndham already has them with the points they control in my converted resort(I did not convert)
> 
> ie. Wyndham has control of the points. they take the best(seasonal)weeks for themselves and make them available to points owners. I have dregs left for me and other weeks owners.



As usual, you have only a superficial understanding of how the points system actually works.  This leads you to the wrong conclusion yet again.

What happens in the point system and its reservation system does not impact weeks owners at your resort at all.  All of the weeks that were converted to points remain as points inventory never again to be available to weeks owners  unless they get deposited into an exchange company and you trade for it.  Or, if you rent it from extra holidays.

That points inventory will either be snapped up by another points owner or will be rented by Extra Holidays or will go empty.  So, you situation and availability stays the same.  If anything, it will go down as additional weeks owners convert their weeks to points.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Feb 11, 2009)

Miss V said:


> I think this is going to be true across the board. This change by Wyndham actually does the exact opposite of what they stated they wanted to do, discourage renting. Based on these changes, more and more owners will have to rent if they do not want to see their credits go to waste. But, I believe Wyndham is a smart company and knows that. How much more will they make on the $99-129 guest certificates, than they made on the other transaction fees??? My problem is that they say one thing, and their actions depict something completely different. They obviously want more people in the rental market as this must mean that they can make more money that way.



Wyndham's cover story is that they are doing this for security reasons.  They don't claim to be doing it to stop the rental activities of owners.

I think they are doing it because they want to stop Megarenters from transferring points from non-VIP owners to VIP owners who will then make use of the 60-day discount to book and rent units.


----------



## Miss V (Feb 11, 2009)

BocaBum99 said:


> I think they are doing it because they want to stop Megarenters from transferring points from non-VIP owners to VIP owners who will then make use of the 60-day discount to book and rent units.




Then why not do what Worldmark did for No-Housekeeping accounts. Make it so that credits transferred into the account do not qualify for the special status. 

It just doesn't make sense to me, that if this is why they were doing it, they are okay with hurting a lot of other owners who are not mega-renters. There are also too many other "small" security measures they could have put in place rather than stopping the ability to do this altogether.


----------



## Charlie D. (Feb 11, 2009)

I agree with that, BocaBum.

Charlie D.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Feb 11, 2009)

Miss V said:


> Then why not do what Worldmark did for No-Housekeeping accounts. Make it so that credits transferred into the account do not qualify for the special status.
> 
> It just doesn't make sense to me, that if this is why they were doing it, they are okay with hurting a lot of other owners who are not mega-renters. There are also too many other "small" security measures they could have put in place rather than stopping the ability to do this altogether.



Probably because creating a new class of points was too difficult for the Wyndham system to handle.


----------



## Jya-Ning (Feb 11, 2009)

BocaBum99 said:


> Probably because creating a new class of points was too difficult for the Wyndham system to handle.



Actually, with $129 or $99 per GC, it is a heavy tax on front for discount and upgrade.  And if the new class is hard to implement, it should be no problem to count how many transfer points owner actually received, and add certain limits, when excess, add another layer of tax on it.

I think they just try to force owner with excessive points to rent some premiun units, so they can also start to heavily rent these units.

Jya-Ning


----------



## rickwward (Feb 16, 2009)

I agree with BocaBum on the rationale for the no-transfer rule -- to deter megarenters.  I personally should benefit from the no-transfer rule, but would prefer that one transfer be allowed per year (I discussed this in detail on the wyndhamowners board).  

R. Ward


----------



## toomanytimeshares01 (Feb 16, 2009)

Bocabum has it right - 

Megarenters take in lots, and lots of points.

but then..... they gobble up inventory at 60 days for 50% the price.  They hang onto them until 14 days out, and then dump them when they can't rent them.

While someone who can travel on 2 weeks notice can really benefit from this,  the average owner cannot...and they can't get the inventory at the 45 day or 30 day mark. (reasonable flights are available at 30 days).  For most, 2 weeks is too short of a time to make plans.

(Take a look at ebay, and the various site that do wyndham rentals......and note that they have inventory to rent is from 15 days out to 60...and thats all)   (then take a look at whats available at those resorts and you will see nix, nada, until the 14 day mark.....)  I have been watching this since the "announcement" and the flurry of posts on the various boards protesting the changes.  The biggest protests, and most passionate pleas come from for-profit renters. 

I, for one, am in favor of limiting the guest certificates (one renter even notes how many of these reservations he has done in the past year - his 50 to my 1 guest certificates), and in limiting the transfer to reasonableness for a not-for-profit user.  I am tired of subsidizing the renters!  

Yes I recognize that Extra Holidays is in the picture too - but we need to separate these 2, as well as separate out the VOA non-vote issues.  They are 3 separate items.......

I won't sign the petition because I am IN FAVOR of limiting some of the perks that are taken advantage of in the Renters Business Model !

You will notice that it was the Transfer issue that got the huge rise from "everyone" - it is the first item that STOPS renters from doing something - all other actions have just increased their costs.  (Which one renter puts on their website "we stronly disagree with Wyndhams policy and will split the guest fee cost with you").  How magnanamous of them - I don't see them renting the units "at cost" - or sharing the profits with those they got points from!)

(and don't get me started on the PIC contracts....you do realize that the renters don't pay the M/Fs for the points into the VOA - they pay the MF to the original resort, not Wyndham, and a small fee to Wynh- $250 I believe, for up to 254k points...thats 254k points that you and I would pay $1300 plus for.......)

Be aware of what you signing, and how it affects YOUR costs verses someone who is using Wyndham as a basis for their business model.  Do you really want to share the cost of something that only 3% of the membership uses? and when further delved into - that 3% turns into 1% is for family and friends and averages 2 per account vs the rest that are 50+ per account?????

A contrary opinion and why I am NOT in favor ......


There I have said my peace -- perhaps other non-signers will cite their reasons too....


----------



## toomanytimeshares01 (Feb 16, 2009)

*why I won't sign...*

duplicate posting....too many enters !


----------



## jdb0822 (Feb 16, 2009)

you may not support this petition, but if Wyndham takes this away, you need to ask yourself "what benefit is next?".

If wyndham pulls this off, who knows what else they will take away.  They have already severly increased fees such as GC's and point rental rates, its only going to get worse.

While the petition is specific to this issue, it also represents the owners standing up as one voice to wyndham and their ever increasing greed and saying "enough"


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Feb 16, 2009)

They're raising fees on you as well.  Perhaps you haven't noticed?  Don't even think they aren't going to do even more of it.  You will someday be sorry you didn't stand up to the "man."  

I respect your opinion, as long as you aren't a Wyndham employee, and we have many of them lurking here.  I just talked to one the other day who said she watches TUG and the Wyndham owners' site.  She was very nice, but she made me very well aware that she knew who I was by my email addy.  Oh, well. I am a child of the '60's and '70's, and we are all about protests.   

This is my protest, so just picture me with a picket sign:  "Wyndham is unfair!  Wyndham doesn't care!"  :hysterical: 



toomanytimeshares01 said:


> Bocabum has it right -
> 
> Megarenters take in lots, and lots of points.
> 
> ...


----------



## ausman (Feb 16, 2009)

toomanytimeshares01, Sure sounds like a Wyndham party liner.

Mega Renters are Wyndham's rental arm, Extra Holidays, competition in a sense. That entity sure has a vested interest in stamping out Mega Renters.

The reason the loss of the ability to transfer points to other owners is the issue that all owners have reacted to with revulsion, is that it takes a valued benefit away from ALL of us.

You have some, shall we say misdirections in your post, the PIC comments clearly show a misunderstanding of what PIC is.

Wyndham has already taken many actions against Mega Renters and raised their costs substancially. This change while to their detriment also affects all other owners. 

If I lose my job and can not travel next year what realistic option do I have for my points. Previously I would have been able to transfer them to other owners, shortly I'll have to deposit them into RCI/II for vacations I will no longer be able to afford.

It is not only Mega Renters affected by this contemplated change and that is what Wyndham has misjudged, it has allowed us all to see where we are headed with a greedy corporate entity.





toomanytimeshares01 said:


> Bocabum has it right -
> 
> Megarenters take in lots, and lots of points.
> 
> ...


----------



## BocaBum99 (Feb 17, 2009)

toomanytimeshares01 said:


> Bocabum has it right -
> 
> Megarenters take in lots, and lots of points.
> 
> ...



If you are against rentals from megarenters, then you may not be considering the full picture.  Here is some additional detail that may help change your mind:

1) Let's say you don't like megarenters because they take points and book up the last minute stuff making it hard to get.  You need to first determine what happens when they stop.

2) When megarenters stop renting, it is true that availability in the 30-60 day rental period will become more available.  However, what happened to those points that the megarenters used to use to book these reservations?

3) Those points are from owners who couldn't use their points.  Without the megarenters, they have a few choices of their own:
    a) let them expire.  If this happens too often, they can just stop paying their maintenance fees.  Other owners such as yourself pays for owners who fail to pay their maintenance fees.
    b) they give them to Wyndham to pay part of their maintenance fees.  Wyndham then does exactly what another megarenter would do.  But, the owner gets less which increases their likelihood of defaulting on their maintenance fees.
    c) they decide to book a prime week with those points instead of last minute bookings.  This ties up good weeks when the same points were only tying up last minute rentals.

I think the best option for the entire system is for the megarenters to take as much unused inventory as possible leaving the best stuff more than 60-days out for other owners to use which allows owners to pay their maintenance fees and reduce the uncollectibles.


----------



## donnaval (Feb 18, 2009)

I believe we will all see our costs rise when the mega-renters aren't there to put our points and units to work for us instead of for Wyndham.  As Boca pointed out, folks who can't use or transfer their points may well decide to default.  

Taking points out of the mega-renters hands doesn't automatically translate into more units being made available to the masses.  As it stands, Wyndham can and does hoover up most of any decent units remaining at the 60-day point.  If -- and I have my doubts about it -- if this change means more units are available at 60 days, Wyndham will just take more.  

I've already marked my calendar to be on the phone at 8 a.m. exactly 10 months out for the prime weeks I plan to reserve for 2010, weeks that I will rent out  now that I won't be able to transfer my excess points.  And guess what--if I don't rent those prime weeks early, I am not going to return them to Wyndham one minute before 15 days out.  

I've tried looking at this situation up, down and sideways and just can't see how this change is going to result in more units available for regular owners at 15 to 59 days.

But...I guess to some it's okay that our whole system will become more costly and many folks will just plain lose their points or have to basically give them away--at least the evil mega-renters won't make a few dollars profit


----------



## toomanytimeshares01 (Feb 18, 2009)

Sorry all - don't work for Wyndham, never have, never will....(I do IT work and am semi-retired with time to do some research.....) VIP Gold, with 3 other properties with other companies.

Find it interesting that if you comment that you actually agree with SOME (note I don't agree with evertything Wyn has done) of Wyndhams changes -you are automatically a Wyn Mole.

Please clarify what I have wrong about the PIC program.  My understanding (from a Mega Renter's lips) is that they bought a bunch of SA 3 bedroom units,  pays (significantly) less maintenance than what they would have to pay for the 254k points ($1320 at my rates), and only pay Wyn a $250 fee for the use of these 254k points,  which they then book units a 8 am on day 60 for 50% and rents out.   (and then they dump them at 14 days when they don't rent.)

I still fail to understand why anyone would to have their MF raised due to the on-going costs of the guest certificates that the renters use - I'm sorry, but "Joe" on ebay even notes that "I did 40 of these last year !"   I did one.  


Mary


----------



## ecwinch (Feb 18, 2009)

I agree with Mary - sorry all you Mega-Renters.

The Mega-Renter's activities on ebay significantly devalue the reasons for owning a Wyndham timeshares. How many posts on TUG include the comment - "why buy when I can rent for less"? 

Yes, Wyndham does the same. But they have a vested interest in maintaining a floor in rental prices, which the Mega-Renters do not. Just look at the number of rentals available on e-bay for Bonnet Creek. You cannot get the same inventory at the same price point from Wyndham.

And I have yet to hear a good answer on how the activities of the Mega-Renters some-how benefit us who want to use their points. All the focus is on marginal reasons on how the change hurts us.


----------



## e.bram (Feb 19, 2009)

Great:Finally seeing some posters who are not itimidatedby the prevailing megaposters and moderators and putting in hteir two cents in against the mrgarenters and pro the new Wyndham rules. HooRay


----------



## BocaBum99 (Feb 19, 2009)

ecwinch said:


> I agree with Mary - sorry all you Mega-Renters.
> 
> The Mega-Renter's activities on ebay significantly devalue the reasons for owning a Wyndham timeshares. How many posts on TUG include the comment - "why buy when I can rent for less"?
> 
> ...



I am not a megarenter, but I worked closely with the biggest Megarenter in the whole system.  And, I have experience in renting units in most other systems.

Here's what I can say that is really surprising about Wyndham vs. other systems.  Wyndham units command HIGHER prices than average, not lower ones.  Sure, the rates for less than 60 days from checkin are low.  But, GREATER than 60-days and you can get a significant premium over other similar system.  This isn't an opinion, it is fact based on real data I've collected over the past 6 months.

I believe that Megarenters have played a big role in this by getting renters over the years into the resorts.  This rental activity creates some demand for resale points with decent maintenance fees.

The problem is that Wyndham maintenance fees are too high for most resorts.  And, the fees the have imposed make it not cost effective to be a renter of Wyndham properties.  All this does is help contribute to the zero value of resales.  Wyndham is one of the world's best at devaluing ownerships.


----------



## ecwinch (Feb 19, 2009)

BocaBum99 said:


> And, the fees the have imposed make it not cost effective to be a renter of Wyndham properties.  All this does is help contribute to the zero value of resales.



I do not follow you on this statement. So if it was cheaper to rent Wyndham properties, the resale value would improve - ie. since more renters would want to buy resale points and then transfer them to their VIP accounts. If effect washing the resale points?

I understand that high m/f decrease the resale value, but you lose me on that last point regarding the cost of renting. 

And from my vantage point, the whole issue is that Mega-Renters are at cross purposes to those of us who use our timeshares. I simply do not want non-owners to enjoy benefits of membership at a lower price than having to join. Mega-Renters facilitate this, and reduce value.  The ebay market for Hyatt properties is another good example of renters enjoying the benefits of membership without having to join the club, and making a long-term commitment.

Again - using Bonnet Creek as an example. What would your Mega-Renter ask for a 2 BR week during Thanksgiving at this resort?


----------



## cruisin (Feb 19, 2009)

Whenever Wyndham takes away something, it is never for the benefit of the owners. We know their motivation, once in a while the unintended consenquences may have some small benefit, but it was never a decision for our benefit. that is why the actions of Wyndham will in the end never benefit us, we would all be much better off if things stayed the same even with the flaws. All the changes make things worse, again what is the motivation for the changes. A loss is a loss, even if it does not have much impact on lowly me.


----------



## ecwinch (Feb 19, 2009)

cruisin said:


> All the changes make things worse, again what is the motivation for the changes. A loss is a loss, even if it does not have much impact on lowly me.



I understand that point, and motivation is clearly to reduce the third-party rental market - particularly those renters that exploit last minute programs designed to increase timeshare owner value.  And when those change reduces third-party rental activity or increases the cost of doing so, I think we do benefit. We can disagree on that point. 

And while I do think that the rule on not allowing points transfers is an over-reaction, I think the average timeshare owner will benefit from these changes.   I think a balance is to allow a certain number of transfers a year, but recognize that would be problematic also.


----------



## wyndhamtimeshare (Feb 20, 2009)

*"Mega-Renters" Exposed*



ecwinch said:


> And from my vantage point, the whole issue is that Mega-Renters are at cross purposes to those of us who use our timeshares. I simply do not want non-owners to enjoy benefits of membership at a lower price than having to join. Mega-Renters facilitate this, and reduce value.  The ebay market for Hyatt properties is another good example of renters enjoying the benefits of membership without having to join the club, and making a long-term commitment.
> 
> Again - using Bonnet Creek as an example. What would your Mega-Renter ask for a 2 BR week during Thanksgiving at this resort?



I've been a bit quiet lately as I DO have a life outside of fighting injustice in an effort to keep what I purchased, and is rightly mine.  However, I cannot remain silent on this issue that seems to be raised repeatedly concerning "Mega-Renters".  If I am correct in understanding the comments I've read, these "Mega-Renters" are hoarding inventory, thus limiting it's availability to others.  Additionally, they are renting at a low price which further devalues everyone's ownership.

In the quote sited above the question is raised, "What would your Mega-Renter ask for a 2 BR week during Thanksgiving at this resort (Bonnet Creek)?"  *How about $799 for the ENTIRE week!*  I think that's RIDICULOUS!  But the fact is Mega-Renters ARE hoarding this inventory and renting it to non-owners at SUPER low rates.  And guess who pays for all of the wear and tear on the properties from these renters.  WE do through our maintenance fees.

AH, but HERE'S what everyone needs to realize.  The "Mega-Renters" are NOT owners like you and me.  You see, in addition to inventory offered through their own rental arm, Extra Holidays, Wyndham actually makes it's inventory available to a host of membership only discount travel clubs.  Just to give you an example of one, there's Global Resorts Network.

*Here is a quote taken from GRN's website;* "Enjoy a lifetime of the world’s finest luxury resorts starting at just $298 per week/family, and never pay more than $799 for an entire 8 days and 7 nights."  NEVER more than $799!  For an entire week!

*Here is another quote from GRN's website;* "Timeshares have huge up front costs and are also known to obligate purchasers to iron clad contracts, annual dues, maintenance fee's and other ongoing costs. This membership allows total freedom and flexibility to travel anytime, anywhere, worldwide, with a one-time membership fee and no other fees aside from the low weekly rates when you take a vacation. Browse through a tremendous online catalog of luxury resort properties and select the destination of your choice. (including world famous Sheraton Resort properties, Marriott Resort Properties, Wyndham, Hyatt, WIVC, Club Intrawest, Fairmont, Four Seasons, and many other luxury resort destinations)"

Non-owners, simply by virtue of their membership into these clubs, have full and complete access to the inventory that we purchased at a GREATLY reduced price.

*So how do they get all of this inventory?*  GRN explains, "With us you have the ability to travel immediately without certificates to mail in, no black out dates, and no waiting. You can purchase the perfect vacation and travel now or schedule it months later. *Membership purchases an enormous amount of inventory every year in advance* which means when you see the vacation you want, buy it and it's yours. It's that simple. The customer service also allows you the convenience of selecting your own travel dates giving you the ultimate in service and selection."

Did you see that?  "Membership purchases an enormous amount of inventory every year in advance."  Is it not obvious who the culprit is here?  It's NOT owners who have chosen to rent their accommodations hoarding inventory.  It's not OWNERS taking "enormous" amounts of inventory.  Wyndham has for some time now fed everyone the propaganda that owners who have chosen to rent their accommodations are the cause for all of these changes being made.

It is, in fact, Wyndham's self-serving corporate greed that is responsible for the diminishing value of our ownership.  It is Wyndham's attempt to protect it's interest and profit, without regard for we owners, that is responsible for the changes being made.  The changes have clearly been an attempt to PROTECT "Mega-Renters", Wyndham included, and all the revenue they bring to Wyndham.

Wyndham prefers to profit from the bulk sale of enormous blocks of inventory to such membership clubs, as well as through their own rental arm, Extra Holidays, than be subject to the fiduciary responsibility they have to owners like you and I.

Additionally, the specific membership group I mentioned above, Global Resorts Network, is only ONE of a host of such groups, ALL enjoying the benefits of resorts that you and I maintain, at only a fraction of the cost.  When you consider that many of these clubs have 10's of thousands of members it should be apparent why there is an increasing LACK of inventory available for we owners.

It is my hope, albeit unrealistic, that this "mega-Renter" issue be put to rest once and for all.  OR, if it is going to continue to be raised AT LEAST identify who the real culprits are.  It's NOT WE OWNERS ! ! !

In closing, here is a sample listing of available properties I obtained from one of these discount travel clubs.

*(1-3 Bedroom prices range from $298/wk to $699/wk)*

Resort Name 					City 			Address
Windsor Palms 				Kissimmee 		2300 Butterfly Palm Way
*Wyndham Sea Gardens* 			Pompano Beach 	615 N. Ocean Blvd
*Wyndham Star Island Resort & Club* 	Kissimmee 		5000 Avenue of the Stars
*Wyndham Santa Barbara* 			Pompano Beach 	1301 S. Ocean Blvd.
*Wyndham Cypress Palms* 			Kissimmee 		5324 Fairfield Lake Drive 


Just my thoughts, not intended to represent fact.


----------



## ecwinch (Feb 20, 2009)

wyndhamtimeshare said:


> You see, in addition to inventory offered through their own rental arm, Extra Holidays, Wyndham actually makes it's inventory available to a host of membership only discount travel clubs.  Just to give you an example of one, there's Global Resorts Network.



Are you saying that Wyndham is directly selling inventory to GRN, and that GRN is not just another Mega-Renter? And you have proof of that business relationship, beyond GRN's representation?

I mean look at the other chains they claim to get excess inventory from (Hyatt, Hilton, Marriott, Four Seasons, etc.).  Given that statement, and the shady nature of their GRN multi-level marketing business, not sure I would take that at face value.


----------



## e.bram (Feb 20, 2009)

Look, be real. It is possible that a Megarenter with  a large financial income from renting could get(you know what I mean) to the person with access to the reservation system and obtain the best TS weeks available before anyone else(us). How do scalpers get get tickets to sold out events(ie concerts, sports and games(superbowl)). Maybe thats what is happening to prime weeks in the points and floating systems. Fixed weeks don't have this problem.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Feb 20, 2009)

ecwinch said:


> Again - using Bonnet Creek as an example. What would your Mega-Renter ask for a 2 BR week during Thanksgiving at this resort?



Eric,

I don't know about Thanksgiving, but I can tell you about June 2009.  Just this week, I rented 2 weeks at Bonnet Creek Resort.  The rent I got was $1050 for each week.   So, even though those 2 families see the $799 rates, they opted for $1050.  Why?  Because they really wanted to go to Bonnet Creek and there wasn't any availability at the cheaper rate.  

Outside of Disney resorts, how many resorts are commanding $1050 in this bad market in Orlando for early summer?


----------



## wyndhamtimeshare (Feb 20, 2009)

ecwinch said:


> Are you saying that Wyndham is directly selling inventory to GRN, and that GRN is not just another Mega-Renter? And you have proof of that business relationship, beyond GRN's representation?
> 
> I mean look at the other chains they claim to get excess inventory from (Hyatt, Hilton, Marriott, Four Seasons, etc.).  Given that statement, and the shady nature of their GRN multi-level marketing business, not sure I would take that at face value.



GRN is not the only discount travel club that claims to have access to Wyndham properties.  Does it seem reasonable that a number of such membership clubs could make such claims if they indeed did NOT have access to said inventory?

Additionally, GRN aside, Wyndham's real 'cash cow' is it's own rental arm Extra Holidays.  As is clearly stated in the FSP Trust Agreement Wyndham reserves the right to take up to 90% of all inventory at 60 days from check-in and the remaining 10% at 30 days for it's OWN use, for rentals to the public.

Wyndham has DESPERATELY fought to protect revenue from it's own rentals by imposing the changes we have seen.

IF Wyndham was completely 'above board' in their dealings would they have, upon recent request, REFUSED to release minutes from this past year's Board meetings?  Yet, that's exactly what they DID!  Their resistance to transparency is indeed incriminating. 

As for "Mega-Renters", the highest volume "Mega-Renter" is, in my opinion, Wyndham, through Extra Holidays.  Wyndham has continued to pedal their propaganda concerning those who would use their ownership in a way never intended as the motive behind decisions made, in an effort to look after the interests of the majority of owners.

It just amazes me that so many simply CANNOT see whose interest Wyndham is REALLY protecting.

Just my thoughts.


----------



## Maurie17 (Feb 20, 2009)

Wyndham has DESPERATELY fought to protect revenue from it's own rentals by imposing the changes we have seen.

IF Wyndham was completely 'above board' in their dealings would they have, upon recent request, REFUSED to release minutes from this past year's Board meetings?  Yet, that's exactly what they DID!  Their resistance to transparency is indeed incriminating. 


I requested in October from Deanne Gabel a copy of the Board Minutes after the hugh price increase in guest fees. She responded back in an email that they would be posted after the November Board Meeting. They never were posted so I emailed her back a couple of weeks ago to inquiry and she responded back "the decision had been made not to post them at this time". I emailed her back that same day to ask how I formally go about requesting the minutes and, of course, I received no response. My question is if there is nothing to hide why can't we have access to this information???????

As far as rentals, just go to Wyndham's Hotel and Resorts website and you will see Bonnet Creek and many others for rent. Go to Craig's List and you will see Extra Holiday Rentals.

It only makes sense that if they can't sell timeshares the next best source of revenue would be to step up rentals and eliminate their competition with price increases and as many roadblocks as they can dream up.


----------



## ecwinch (Feb 20, 2009)

We are in agreement that Wyndham is largest renter available. 

But they have a vested interest in maintaining a floor in terms of rental prices, which other renters do not. Particularly those home based businesses without fixed overhead, staffing, advertising, etc.

 For instance, for a June week at Bonnet Creek - 2 BR on Extra Holidays is $1568. As BocaBum indicated, he just booked weeks at $1050.  At $1050, we are near the m/f for that resort. The availability of rental weeks at or near the m/f directly contributes to the "why buy when I can rent" mentality. At $1568, then buying a t/s is more appealing, increasing the value of owning a t/s - in turn supporting prices.

 These changes increase the costs for the renters, and in my mind, that is a good thing. It balances out the rent vs buy equation, and increases the reasons for buying a timeshare. I like that they are taking steps to shut down the third-party rental market.

 And I am sorry, I just do not get why so many people think that having Wyndham make money is a bad thing. I guess we would be better off if they lost money and went into bankruptcy.


----------



## ecwinch (Feb 20, 2009)

Maurie17 said:


> IF Wyndham was completely 'above board' in their dealings would they have, upon recent request, REFUSED to release minutes from this past year's Board meetings?  Yet, that's exactly what they DID!  Their resistance to transparency is indeed incriminating.
> 
> I emailed her back that same day to ask how I formally go about requesting the minutes and, of course, I received no response. My question is if there is nothing to hide why can't we have access to this information???????



I completely agree. We need more transparency, and I have no doubt that they are playing fast and loose with how the BOD operates. And I do think the  BOD has inherent conflict of interests and most BOD members do not fully understand the fiduciary responsibility they have. 

I also think, that there will be a day of reckoning on those issues. It will take time, and it will be incremental in nature.


----------



## cruisin (Feb 20, 2009)

ecwinch said:


> And I am sorry, I just do not get why so many people think that having Wyndham make money is a bad thing. I guess we would be better off if they lost money and went into bankruptcy.




Its how they make their money at our expense that bothers most people. They make money by devaluing our memberships, and that is crummy. skyrocketing fees, less flexibility, but they still allow us to rent our credits to them at such a wonderful rate for us. It is hard not to be negative about Wyndham when they aren't doing anything for us.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Feb 20, 2009)

ecwinch said:


> We are in agreement that Wyndham is largest renter available.
> 
> But they have a vested interest in maintaining a floor in terms of rental prices, which other renters do not. Particularly those home based businesses without fixed overhead, staffing, advertising, etc.
> 
> ...



I see.  So, what you want is to take away the rights of all owners to rent their timeshare units.  The units I rented don't belong to me.  No VIP benefits were used.  I told you.  I am not a megarenter.  The owner's felt it was good amount.  So, they could pay all or part of their maintenance fees.  I just provided a service that they believed was valuable to them.  I got more than they felt they could get themselves.  You must be against owner's rights to rent their ownerships.

My guess is that you want to eliminate resales because those darn owners dumping their timeshares on the market are just destroying their value.  It's not Wyndham doing it.  It's the current owners.  If it weren't for owners dumping their ownerships, they would be worth $.10-.12/point.

I don't see Wyndham making money as a bad thing.  I also don't think it hurts owners that Megarenters exist.  They provide a very valuable service to owners who want to rent their points and get more back than they can from Wyndham or by themselves.

The problem with the resorts is NOT the market rate that people are willng to pay for timeshare rentals.  The problem is that Wyndham's fees are way too high for what you get.  They should have a 30% across the board cut in maintnenace fees.


----------



## ecwinch (Feb 20, 2009)

cruisin said:


> Its how they make their money at our expense that bothers most people. They make money by devaluing our memberships, and that is crummy. skyrocketing fees, less flexibility, but they still allow us to rent our credits to them at such a wonderful rate for us. It is hard not to be negative about Wyndham when they aren't doing anything for us.



I guess we will have to disagree. Clearly these changes are targeting a specific group (renters). The changes do not affect the majority of the members, as most do not have a rental business, do not rent out their points or use more guest certificates then they are allowed. 

They are taking specific steps to prevent abuse of programs they have designed to increase membership value. Other people have found ways to commercially exploit these programs, and they are closing those loopholes. As I said before, I think that it is a good thing.

Keep in mind, if there was not this third-party market that was abusing the system, they would not have needed to make these changes in the first place. I think the angst is mis-directed.

For instance, right now there are for 67 ads for Bonnet Creek on e-bay right now. Most at price points below m/f.  I really do not understand how that is a good thing for owners.

If you went to Bonnet Creek on one of those rentals at $899, why would you want to buy? Even if you grab a resale bargain on e-bay, you still have higher m/f to deal with.


----------



## ecwinch (Feb 20, 2009)

BocaBum99 said:


> I see.  So, what you want is to take away the rights of all owners to rent their timeshare units.



These changes do not impede the rights of owners to rent their timeshare. They impede the rights of owners to establish businesses engaged in renting out the membership rights incurred as a result of ownership.

If I choose to rent my Majestic Sun week out, I can still do so. These changes do not impede my ability to do so. I can book a prime week well in advance, and make money for the hassle of placing the ad, collecting payment, etc.

Now if I want to set up a rental business, have people transfer points to me,  and then work the book then cancel process, or last minute specials, well now it is tougher to do so. Again that is a good thing.

And thanks for expanding my position to a completely unrelated area. I love the technique of expanding a point to the absurd as a counter-point. On a personal level I think that would be great as I bought all my timeshares via resale, but then again I might want to buy more in the future.


----------



## jdb0822 (Feb 20, 2009)

a few things....

#1.  The weeks on ebay will amost certainly increase.  Mega-renters will still gobble up weeks and rent them.  Nothing is changing that.  Wyndham is simply stopping them from renting points to other owners, thats all.  Now that the mega-renters can't do that, they will keep the points, reserve prime weeks, and rent them out, still making a profit.

   Here's how I lose in this, I have 126K points.  I goto bonnet creek each november (off-season), and I rent a 2 bed at 112K.  This year, I would like a 3-bed unit, at around 170K.  So, I would simply rent 58K from another owner at say $5 per K, instead of Wyndham's $10 per K.  Now I can't do that.  So, some mega renter would rent me 58K or whatever I needed for me to book a OFF-SEASON week.   Now, they can't do that so they will use those same points and book a PRIME PEAK week and rent it on ebay.  And to some, this is a good thing.

#2.  Wyndham making a profit:  Yes, they are a corporation, this is a capitalist country (barely these days, but thats another story for another forum).  Corp's are supposed to make money.  Wyndham is not a non-profit organization, I get that.  Here's the problem, obviously, sales are down, thats no suprise.  Wyndham is unfortunately turning to current owners and gauging them in order to try to balance their books.  In a perfect world, they would invest their time & money in creating a timeshare program that would hold some value.  There's a reason why resale points are less than a penny a point these days.  How many other timeshare programs do you know of that lose 95%+ of their value the moment you buy from the developer?  Something is fundamentally wrong with that scenario.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Feb 20, 2009)

ecwinch said:


> But they have a vested interest in maintaining a floor in terms of rental prices, which other renters do not. Particularly those home based businesses without fixed overhead, staffing, advertising, etc.



Eliminating competition is what all monopolies want to do.  They, too, have a vested interest in keeping prices high.  The Sherman Anti-Trust Act passed in 1890 was passed to eliminate predatory pricing practices.  Here is a purpose of the act:  



> The law attempts to prevent the artificial raising of prices by restriction of trade or supply



This is EXACTLY what Wyndham is doing.  It is intentionally eliminating competition by raising owners fees and eliminating their right to transfer points to other owners.

I guess we should outlaw eBay because those home businesses are killing the retailers.

Face it. Your interest is to keep the resorts empty while having owners with points have them expire instead of using their points to increase average occupancy at the resorts.  The fallacy in your point of view is that those owners will continue to pay for their points over time so that you can get access to more units due to lower occupancy.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Feb 20, 2009)

ecwinch said:


> These changes do not impede the rights of owners to rent their timeshare. They impede the rights of owners to establish businesses engaged in renting out the membership rights incurred as a result of ownership.



First of all, this is a capitalistic country.  Any entrepreneur can and should be able to create service businesses that help other people who are willing to pay for those services.  The more small businesses we have with low cost structures, the better off is the country.

I am a broker.  I am a service provider.  I found those 2 owners renters for their points.  I fail to see how anyone lost out in that deal.  The renters get a nice vacation, the owners get a fair price for their points, they keep paying their maintenance fees which keeps fees down for everyone else, other owners wanting those weeks had 6 months lead time to book those units that I ended up renting before they were booked so they weren't harmed.

Let's take a megarenter, they get points from another owner transfered between accounts.  That made it easier for the owner to get paid upfront.  That is a valuable service to that owner.  That megarenter books units 60-days or less from checkin leaving all the prime weeks from 60-days to 10 months available to all other owners to book.  Why is that bad?

If you are arguing that the renter is damaging the unit, I will claim that renters do no more or no less damage than owners do.  Owners with small children do more damage to units than adult renters.  That is a fact.

If you want to argue that those units are better off empty, then that amounts to saying that the system is better off is owners keep paying their maintenance fees and let their poins expire without being used.  That's true, but it is unrealistic to assume they will subsidize other owners forever.  

If you believe that the existence of cheap rentals is the cause for the devaluation of Wyndham points, let's debate that topic in its own thread.  It's not.  The devaluation of points is due primarily to the oversupply of points that Wyndham put onto the market rather than buying back inventory and then reselling it at retail rates.  And, it's due to artificially high maintenance fees.


----------



## ecwinch (Feb 20, 2009)

Let me repeat my point one more time. I think it is a simple one:

The presence of a rental market that is at or below m/f of ownership, devalues our timeshare ownership. If I can rent without having to own and for less money, then why buy?

I am not for:
 abolishing e-bay
 stopping resales
 having units sit empty
 monopolies

I do ask that you quit extrapolating my position to the absurb as a defense of your position. 



BocaBum99 said:


> And, it's due to artificially high maintenance fees.



Is it just a coincidence, that the only brand (Wyndham) with such a wide-spread third party market, is the one that has suffered the greatest decline in resale prices. While all resale prices have fallen, none of the other major brands has had such a significant decline as Wyndham. Even Worldmark is doing much better in value retention. And most of the other brands, have much higher m/f. So the correlation between high m/f and low resale value is incorrect, except where there is a large rental market priced below the cost of ownership. There are currently 300% more Wyndham rentals on ebay then all other timeshare brands combined. Coincidence?

I did not hijack this thread from its intended course. The discussion was already off-point when I joined.


----------



## cruisin (Feb 21, 2009)

ecwinch said:


> Let me repeat my point one more time. I think it is a simple one:
> 
> The presence of a rental market that is at or below m/f of ownership, devalues our timeshare ownership. If I can rent without having to own and for less money, then why buy?
> 
> ...


----------



## cruisin (Feb 21, 2009)

I mostly own worldmark and 1 wyndham, Just curious, the dues on a brand new 2 bedroom deluxe at Wyndham/Worldmark Steamboat springs probably average $650 a week for the 50 weeks sold averaging the seasons etc.. for a worldmark owner , what do the dues cost on a 2 bedroom deluxe average for the 50 weeks if you are paying Wyndham dues.


----------



## ecwinch (Feb 21, 2009)

cruisin said:


> Looks like the problem is on the dues side of the equation. Wyndham is clearly charging more than the real cost of maintenence at a resort like Bonnet Creek.



I think their m/f are in-line to what the other name brands charge. I have not stayed at all their resorts, but the three I have stayed at (Bonnet Creek, Panama City, and Santa Barbara) where similar in quality to the Marriotts I have stayed at. 

And yes - I want m/f to be more than the real cost of "just" maintenance. I want them to fund replacement reserves properly. And for them to make a reasonable profit on their operation. When the hotel down the street is charging $200 for just a hotel room, it is not unreasonable to pay m/f near that amount for the additional space. That is why I chose to own a timeshare.

A 2BR Dlx at Streamboat Springs would cost between 10k-14k points for a standard reservation. My dues are around the $600 mark for 9k of points. 

Others may disagree. However, if the high m/f is the core issue here, then lets make that the cause. Not programs that facilitate the rental our of ownership benefits for the individual gain of one group of members.


----------



## wyndhamtimeshare (Feb 21, 2009)

ecwinch said:


> We are in agreement that Wyndham is largest renter available.
> 
> And I am sorry, I just do not get why so many people think that having Wyndham make money is a bad thing. I guess we would be better off if they lost money and went into bankruptcy.



Eric,

I agree with you that renters who charge ridiculously low rates create a reduction in the value of our ownership.  However, whether you want to accept it or not, there ARE discount travel clubs offering Wyndham inventory to their membership at greatly reduced prices.  They can only do so if it is made available to them by the developer, Wyndham.

As for Wyndham losing money to the point of bankruptcy, I do not want to see anyone hurt financially, EVEN Wyndham, as much as I despise them.  I do NOT mind that Wyndham makes money.  ANY business should be entitled to a profit.  Just do it ETHICALLY!

OK, I'm going to come out of the closet here, as if anyone didn't already suspect, I AM a RENTER.  I'm not sure what a "Mega" renter is.  I think only someone as big as Wyndham's Extra Holidays would qualify for that label.  But I am a "renter".  I am a businessman, an ETHICAL businessman.  I simply wish that Wyndham had the same ethics as other businesses.

The fact is I teach people how to build home businesses.  Just read my blog at http://marketingontrack.com.  I am 50 years old and, although raised in poverty, have NEVER been employed, NEVER punched a time clock.  I started my first business when I was in the eleventh grade of high school.  My son & son-in-law are still running that business today, 33 years later.  So, unlike most, I approach almost EVERYTHING as a business idea.

I have built businesses on sound ethics, good customer service, and sound financial principles.  Wyndham seems to be more like The Godfather, building and protecting business with the principles of a Mob boss.

Wyndham talks about the intent with which they sell a timeshare.  I say that the intent of the seller has NOTHING to do with the intent of the buyer and the subsequent use of the thing bought.  I've bought a lot of real estate over the years.  There may have been many properties I bought that the seller hoped I would use for my permanent 'home place', to raise my family as they raised theirs.  However, MY intent was much different than theirs.

When we purchased our timeshare THIS was our intent.  We LOVED the resorts.  The properties were great.  But to buy a timeshare for personal use doesn't make sen$e financially.  So our idea was to buy the timeshare and let others pay the mortgage and the maintenance fees.  We have rented vacations so that our guests pay for our ownership.  We, in turn, enjoy our FREE vacations at beautiful resorts.

Clearly this presents competition for Wyndham which they wish to eliminate by whatever methods they choose.  But, as wolves in sheep's clothing, they want everyone to believe that it is in the interest of the majority of owners that actions have been taken.  THAT IS A LIE!  It is, in my humble opinion, an attempt to create their own little monopoly in the vacation rental market.

Someone previously posted comments about GRN being a "scam".  Let me be clear, I am in NO way affiliated with GRN.  But I AM an internet marketer and I know that "scam" is one of the most common terms used by internet marketers to promote a competitive product and very little weight can be attached to the use of that term as it relates to any specific business.

What I do think constitutes a LEGITIMATE SCAM is what Wyndham has done to members of the FSP Trust.

Just my thoughts, not intended to represent fact.


----------



## jdb0822 (Feb 21, 2009)

*


ecwinch said:



			Let me repeat my point one more time. I think it is a simple one:

The presence of a rental market that is at or below m/f of ownership, devalues our timeshare ownership. If I can rent without having to own and for less money, then why buy?
		
Click to expand...

*


ecwinch said:


> The market controls the rental and resale rates, no me, you, wyndham or mega-renters.  People will rent for only what they feel the week is worth to them.  Sure, you can rent for less than owning in some cases, yet I still bought resale.  Why?  Simply because the marginal extra cost to me was worth it for me to have complete control of the points & reservations.  Call it a trust issue, but not having to worry about a virtually unknown 3rd party making the reservation, etc is worth it to me, and again, its only a marginal difference.
> 
> As for the Maint fees, some resorts are higher than others, and who really knows what games Wyndham could be playing.
> 
> ...


----------



## wyndhamtimeshare (Feb 21, 2009)

OOPS Double Posted


----------



## ecwinch (Feb 21, 2009)

jdb0822 said:


> People will rent for only what they feel the week is worth to them.
> I think what is the problem here is that many feel that with this change next month that somehow there will be this massive availability of prime weeks, resale values will begin to go up, and maint. fees will go down.
> 
> There's also a pot of gold at the end of every rainbow.
> ...



I do not believe that these changes will significantly result in any of the the items you mention. 

And I really cannot believe that this many owners actually believe this third-party market is a good thing for t/s ownership.

And yes, our m/f will go up next year. I think that will happen to almost every resort/brand. Based on the economy, the number of defaulting owners is simply going to require it.


----------



## cruisin (Feb 21, 2009)

ecwinch said:


> A 2BR Dlx at Streamboat Springs would cost between 10k-14k points for a standard reservation. My dues are around the $600 mark for 9k of points.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> I was wanting to know what it costs for a week for a WVO/Fairfield owner in their units at steamboat, I think you are quoting the Worldmark price?


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Feb 21, 2009)

ecwinch said:


> And yes, our m/f will go up next year. I think that will happen to almost every resort/brand. Based on the economy, the number of defaulting owners is simply going to require it.



You won't find that to be true in strong, independently managed resorts.  Twin Rivers and Val Chatelle in CO keepscosts as low as possible by offering owners free weeks.  The resorts are older, but some of those people who couldn't afford a ski week for $10K back in 1981 are thrilled to get the week FREE.  The cost to record these deeds is about $9.00.  

That is part of my complaint with Wyndham.   Owners are their cash cow.  Resorts like Kingsgate, where we own most of our points, might have a lot of owners who are not paying fees, but they make it MY problem by overcharging for fees, even after we paid special assessments.  The obvious cure is giving these weeks to the same owners that are charged with paying for all that bad debt through our increased fees.  BUT they want to charge us more than I can find them on eBay, with the points included.  Where is their incentive to save us money?  They don't give a hoot.   

They are just like the other big guys, always charging more for their services, like Marriott and Starwood.  If I own at Mariott or Starwood, I can also rent my units, and not pay a guest certificate fee because what is the big deal about adding a name to a reservation?  NO OTHER company charges such outrageous fees to add a name.  

YES, they are targeting people who rent.  According to our salesperson, Wyndham thinks the mega renters will go on sales presentations and purchase more points, just to get the extra guest certificates per million.  But most owners are smarter than Wyndham thinks we are; we know the rules can change again, so we are not biting, unless they offer a deal I cannot refuse.


----------



## ecwinch (Feb 22, 2009)

rickandcindy23 said:


> According to our *salesperson*, Wyndham thinks the mega renters will go on sales presentations and purchase more points, just to get the extra guest certificates per million.  But most owners are smarter than Wyndham thinks we are; we know the rules can change again, so we are not biting, unless they offer a deal I cannot refuse.



You have a lot of posts, so I want to give you the benefit of the doubt. Cause, I am sure you are not suggesting we should believe something a timeshare salesperson said.

Really?


----------



## rickwward (Feb 22, 2009)

*Give us the time/points at Kingsgate -- don't rent it out*

Rick and Cindy raise an interesting idea.  Maintenance fee default at Kingsgate is paid for by the owners in the form of a "bad debt" component of the maintenance fee.  I think it would be in the best interest of the owners to actually receive Kingsgate time in exchange for that bad debt, as we are paying for the maintenance fees.  If bad debt is 15% of maintenance fees (an example and a total guess), one owning 7 days of vacation time on a point basis should get 8 days.  If we don't want to use the time, then it could be sold to a pool which is accessible to other Wyndham owners, or banked for later internal use.

Another option would be to still permit the "extra vacations" practice, but give owners first crack at renting the extra vacations, and a credit which is equal to the "bad debt" portion of their maintenance fees.

Anything to keep that resort from being overrun by prospective owners on free promotional visits would be a big plus in my book.  If Wyndham wants to use that time for promotional visits, then they should cover the whole maintenance fee, e.g., about 5 cents per point -- or even more, as non-owners on these promotional visits would inherently care less about the property that they are visiting than owners.

Rick from Alexandria


----------



## rickwward (Feb 22, 2009)

*I cannot sign the petition...yet*

As I have indicated on the Wyndham owners board, because I only own resale points (308K + 159K at Bonnet Creek, and a supposedly low maintenance fee converted 203K floating week at Kingsgate), I definitely benefit from the pull-back of VIP benefits, and probably benefit from the elimination of transfers.

However, as echoed many times on this board, there needs to be a whole lot more transparency by the individual HOAs and the VOA (run by Deanne -- spelled her name incorrectly earlier).  I would sign on to a "transparency" petition.  

Rick from Alexandria


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Feb 22, 2009)

The petition is not longer open for signatures.  It was sent already.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Feb 22, 2009)

ecwinch said:


> You have a lot of posts, so I want to give you the benefit of the doubt. Cause, I am sure you are not suggesting we should believe something a timeshare salesperson said.
> 
> Really?



It makes sense to me, so that is why I mentioned it.  If current owners want guest certificates, think of how quickly they would pay off a dev purchase, if you used every one you had and needed more.  If you use 60 per year, and your account allows you 30, 30 additional guest certificates is worth an additional $3,000 per year to you.  So if you buy a developer contract, you will pay it off in a few years, just in the savings of guest certicate fees.  It's not a bad way to go, if you want a bunch more guest certificate fees.  You can turn a non-Platinum account into Platinum account with a purchase (I have no idea what it would require).  

My salesperson actually looked at that scenario as a way to sell more Platinum memberships.  He thinks the increase in fees is good for his business.


----------



## ecwinch (Feb 22, 2009)

rickwward said:


> As I have indicated on the Wyndham owners board, because I only own resale points (308K + 159K at Bonnet Creek, and a supposedly low maintenance fee converted 203K floating week at Kingsgate), I definitely benefit from the pull-back of VIP benefits, and probably benefit from the elimination of transfers.
> 
> However, as echoed many times on this board, there needs to be a whole lot more transparency by the individual HOAs and the VOA (run by Deanne -- spelled her name incorrectly earlier).  I would sign on to a "transparency" petition.
> 
> Rick from Alexandria



I completely agree. Far better use of our energy, rather then attempting to preserve benefits for the third-party renters.



rickandcindy23 said:


> My salesperson actually looked at that scenario as a way to sell more Platinum memberships.  He thinks the increase in fees is good for his business.



I am sure that is way he is spinning it. Since resale points do not count in the VIP calculation, I really cannot see that many Mega-Renters upgrading their accounts - unless they are relatively close to the 1 mil mark. And I thought Platinum was only 15 gc. By my math calculations, that is large incremental cost to obtain those 10 extra gc.


----------

