# TERRIBLE news for Eagle Crest Owners who trade into Worldmark



## SharonD

A letter arrived today announcing that the "special trade arrangements" Eagle Crest owners have with Worldmark is ending.  I have a 10-week fractional at Eagle Crest which I used to trade for Worldmark credits (for a fee of $35, and we got 10,000 credits for each red week).

Now they are switching to the regular trade credit program.  This is a triple whammy:

1) The fee is increasing from $35 to $129.  That part I could live with, but...

2) There is a limit of 4 weeks per calendar year.  I have 10 weeks I usually trade.  I'm not sure if I could trade 4 more if I had a 2nd Worldmark membership (does anyone know?)  And worse yet...

3) The value of the trade has now gone down by 2000 credits per week.  So for a red week 2 br instead of 10,000 we get 8,000.  

And, this starts June 1, 2009 so we didn't even have much notice this was happening!  (I haven't been keeping up with the timeshare boards; maybe people knew about this before?)

I own a lot of timeshare weeks so I'm used to changes in timeshare programs, and expect them, and know they are usually not for the better.  But that doesn't soften the blow on this terrible change.

Anyone else in this situation?


----------



## BocaBum99

That sucks.  The only good news is that the 4 exchange plus limit is per account.  You can have a second account and get 4 more deposits.


----------



## SharonD

Thanks, Boca.  That's good to know.



BocaBum99 said:


> That sucks.  The only good news is that the 4 exchange plus limit is per account.  You can have a second account and get 4 more deposits.


----------



## Cathyb

Bocabum:  What do you suppose is the advantage to Worldmark to make this change?


----------



## BocaBum99

Cathyb said:


> Bocabum:  What do you suppose is the advantage to Worldmark to make this change?



My guess is that they are no longer selling fractionals at Eagle Crest.  So, there is no need to continue to have such a program in place.  It hurts owners who bought for this specific purpose, but WordMark by Wyndham probably decided that it wasn't many people and they could get away with it without much vocal opposition.


----------



## easyrider

Did we just get screwed ? Can Eagle Crest and Wyndham change the rules when ever they want ? jeez


----------



## kapish

*Welcome to the world of Wyndham!*

This is just another tactic by Wyndham Corp. to help their bottom line. They have managed to charge WorldMark owners outrageous amounts of credits for their newer properties. (ie. To stay at a 1BR at the WM San Diego owners are charged 15K credits!)

Now they are rewriting the rules re. Eagle Crest deposits! 

I am sure they are looking for the next thing(s) to screw WorldMark owners. 

It is time to get the developer out of the WorldMark board and put real owners make decisions that actually helps the owners!!


----------



## melschey

easyrider said:


> Did we just get screwed ? Can Eagle Crest and Wyndham change the rules when ever they want ? jeez



I am sure this change is from Wyndham's side, as far as I can see Wyndham's bottom line is the only thing that will benefit from this change.


----------



## cruisin

The reason is simple, For wyndham, 20-33% less credits given out, 360% more money coming in. For a red week, Wyndham got .35 cents per credit, now they get 1.6 cents per credit, 450% more profit, not bad.


----------



## LLW

I think Wapato Point and Schooner Landing are under the same program as Eagle Crest (with some restrictions for Wapato Point). I wonder if they are changing at the same time. Did the letter come from Wyndham or Eagle Crest?


----------



## pranas

LLW said:


> I think Wapato Point and Schooner Landing are under the same program as Eagle Crest (with some restrictions for Wapato Point). I wonder if they are changing at the same time. Did the letter come from Wyndham or Eagle Crest?




Wapato Point is in RCI, at least the Lakeside association is.  I just got a letter from my association that they will be switching to II. I am concerned about what will happen to my unused points. I hope I don't lose them.


----------



## easyrider

Our leter from Eagle Crest came from Worldmark by Wyndhan. 8000 credits instead of 10000 credits and an additional $100.00. What a rip off. Is there anything anyone can do about it ?


----------



## LLW

easyrider said:


> Our leter from Eagle Crest came from Worldmark by Wyndhan. 8000 credits instead of 10000 credits and an additional $100.00. What a rip off. Is there anything anyone can do about it ?




It may already be a done deal, but you could at least email the wyndham executives (who probably initiated this) who are also on the Worldmark board (and supposed to represent owners' interest). Peggy Fry is VP Owner Services and a WM board member. Her email is Peggy.Fry  at  wyndhamvo.com. She is also up for re-election this year.

Please report back.


----------



## ecwinch

I agree that it is a terrible thing. I have thought about buying an Eagle Crest week for awhile.

But it could it be something as simple as their is a supply/demand imbalance on the supply side, and WM is taking steps to manage the supply?

Obviously Eagle Crest in the summer is not the problem. But what about off-season/shoulder weeks. Is WM receiving a significant number of those type of weeks due to this program?


----------



## SharonD

Seems like their bottom line would do better if they just raised the fee to $129.  Then I'd probably still exchange my weeks.  With the lower credit value and 4 week limit I'll have to make other plans for the weeks, so they won't get any exchange fee at all.  

Also, it's disconcerting that we got 3 weeks notice for this change.  Surely they could have set the cut-off date to June 1, 2010, to give us time to adjust our plans.


----------



## ecwinch

SharonD said:


> Seems like their bottom line would do better if they just raised the fee to $129.  Then I'd probably still exchange my weeks.  With the lower credit value and 4 week limit I'll have to make other plans for the weeks, so they won't get any exchange fee at all.
> 
> Also, it's disconcerting that we got 3 weeks notice for this change.  Surely they could have set the cut-off date to June 1, 2010, to give us time to adjust our plans.



I agree that they should have given more advance notice. But it appears that they are only dropping the special exchange rights, and taking the weeks in their ordinary exchange program. 

If WM is making this change because they are getting more Eagle Crest weeks in the off-season and those weeks are not getting used, then as a WM owner I support this change.


----------



## Elan

ecwinch said:


> But it could it be something as simple as their is a supply/demand imbalance on the supply side, and WM is taking steps to manage the supply?



  I would suspect this is the case.  Finding Eagle Crest rentals, even for prime summer weeks, is not that difficult, especially in this economy.  I own at EC, and found a week for my friends to join us this summer for $500.  That's $100+ less than MF's for a bright red week.


----------



## ecwinch

Actually it has been pointed out to me on the wmowners site that the exchange rights that were modified were a change made by Wyndham (the developer), and not Worldmark the Club. In the trade, Wyndham is just paying the owner in WM credits, just as they could do in dollars or Wyndham points or travel shampoo's, or anything else they choose.

So if the letter (and I have not seen it), is stating that "special trade arrangements" with Worldmark are ending, that is a mis-nomer. I think it should accurately state that "Worldmark By Wyndham is ending their special trade program for Eagle Crest, but owners will still be able to exchange their week under the Worldmark By Wyndham Exchange Plus program."

To some it might seem a small distinction, but to others it is not. Just wanted to clarify that my previous posts should have said the Developer not WM or Worldmark. So it really is not - at least directly - an owners rights issue, or even a Worldmark the Club issue. I know the name similarities make it confusing, but they are two separate entities.

And to answer the other question, it would appear that this is a Developer program, and we all know how set in stone they are.


----------



## djyamyam

SharonD said:


> 2) There is a limit of 4 weeks per calendar year.  I have 10 weeks I usually trade.  I'm not sure if I could trade 4 more if I had a 2nd Worldmark membership (does anyone know?)





ecwinch said:


> ...exchange rights that were modified were a change made by Wyndham (the developer), and not Worldmark the Club.




I'll point it out since no one else has stated it yet.  Anyone getting shades of deja vu in comparison to RCI's points for deposit program changes made last year?  Makes sense why the similarities given it's the same parent company for both.

Guess you can have too much of a good thing.


----------



## cruisin

Remember this program was an in house worldmark run deal from its inception, when Cendant took over developer control, the Cendant/Wyndham controlled Worldmark Board of directors sold the FAX and exchange plus program to Wyndham.Worldmark has no say over it because our Board of directors sold it, and for very little.   

It almost sounds funny to say "our" board of directors


----------



## cruisin

I am editing this, I should have said that I am guessing that  Exchange plus will be a part of the TEN agreement.


----------



## taffy19

cruisin said:


> The exchange Plus program is eventually going to be a part of the TEN agreement, unless your account is *TEN qualified*, you will be locked out.


What does TEN qualified stand for?


----------



## cruisin

Schooner landing and Wapato are also out, only the fractionals at Seaside, Depoe bay, and Tahoe keep the same deal, they were sold that when they bought.

Regular timeshare owners book redweeks in their season to deposit, almost no blue weeks go into Exchange plus, Many fractional owners deposit all 10 weeks, so a couple blue weeks from them would end up there, better to deposit a blue EagleCrest week in an exchange than to space bank 6,000 WM credits for a lesser trader to be determined.

3 weeks left to turn every week you have into WM credits.


----------



## cruisin

iconnections said:


> What does TEN qualified stand for?



It is a program put into place when travelshare was rolled out, eventually all new resell accounts will be locked out of the Wyndham affiliated resorts from WVO, all of the Worldmark South Pacific, probably the exchange plus program etc...

As long as you are willing to buy another $10,000 worth of credits from the developer it will not affect you at all


----------



## SharonD

cruisin said:


> It is a program put into place when travelshare was rolled out, eventually all new resell accounts will be locked out of the Wyndham affiliated resorts from WVO, all of the Worldmark South Pacific, probably the exchange plus program etc...
> 
> As long as you are willing to buy another $10,000 worth of credits from the developer it will not affect you at all



Are previously purchased resale accounts grandfathered into TEN?  (Mine was purchased in 2002).


----------



## BocaBum99

cruisin said:


> The exchange Plus program is eventually going to be a part of the TEN agreement, unless your account is TEN qualified, you will be locked out.



You sound so sure of this change.  Do you know something or are you just guessing?

I see exchange plus as just part of the normal exchange feature we get with RCI or II.  When Exchange plus weeks come in, WorldMark by Wyndham can relinquish exchange plus weeks instead of Worldmark resorts.  This helps them retain control of Club inventory.  Having it broadly across all owners helps them.  

I doubt WorldMark by Wyndham will take away II and RCI exchange privileges from resale owners.  Exchange plus can be construed as simply an extension of that program.

I see TEN as an internal exchange program between affiliated resort groups within Wyndham.  They can withhold that from resale buyers in an attempt to differentiate developer bought credits. They could do the same with exchange plus, but it's still a grey zone for me.


----------



## Bill4728

cruisin said:


> Schooner landing and Wapato are also out,



What do you mean when you say Wapato point?  Wapato point isn't and has never been associated with WM. Lake Chelan Shores is associated with WM, Is that what you meant?


----------



## cruisin

BocaBum99 said:


> You sound so sure of this change.  Do you know something or are you just guessing?
> 
> I see exchange plus as just part of the normal exchange feature we get with RCI or II.  When Exchange plus weeks come in, WorldMark by Wyndham can relinquish exchange plus weeks instead of Worldmark resorts.  This helps them retain control of Club inventory.  Having it broadly across all owners helps them.
> 
> I doubt WorldMark by Wyndham will take away II and RCI exchange privileges from resale owners.  Exchange plus can be construed as simply an extension of that program.
> 
> I see TEN as an internal exchange program between affiliated resort groups within Wyndham.  They can withhold that from resale buyers in an attempt to differentiate developer bought credits. They could do the same with exchange plus, but it's still a grey zone for me.



I would seriously doubt that Wyndham will take away rci and II from Worldmark owners.

I would think they are trying to be more like the WVO side all the time, I am no WVO expert, Can WVO resell owners use their other timeshare for PIC weeks? Does WVO have an exchange plus program. If WVO has exchange plus also, then I would think they would keep it for Worldmark.

By limiting exchange plus they are definitely not retaining control of club inventory, so that does not seem to be the driving factor,  I could see charging more, and giving less points to increase profit, but taking less weeks? 

I  would guess that many owners will purchase additional WM accounts to deposit more than 4 weeks, but that does not help Wyndham sell more credits. Putting all of this in with Travelshare and TEN, would.

I am speculating  on the future of exchange plus and TEN.  TEN seems to be the catch all place for this kind of program, Eagle Crest owners that joined Travelshare have been getting free exchange plus since Travelshare was started, just seems like a logical progression of the direction they are going. I actually thought that since they gave Travelshare people the free perk that they may make Travelshare mandatory to use the exchange plus at all.


----------



## cruisin

SharonD said:


> Are previously purchased resale accounts grandfathered into TEN?  (Mine was purchased in 2002).



I forget the official date, but it was the same date travelshare rolled out, but 2002 is certainly grandfathered in.


----------



## easyrider

While depositing my Eagle Crest week into WM this morning I asked who is eligable to participate in The Exchange Network (TEN) and was told all WM owners who own at Eagle Crest. The cost difference for us is $90.00 + 2000 WM credits or aprox. $250.00. This doesn't include the RCI or II membership that is needed to facilate the exchange. 

Does 8000 WM credits trade better than a 2 bed red week at Eagle Crest ? What kind of units have others pulled with an Eagle Crest deposit is what we wonder now.


----------



## LLW

Bill4728 said:


> What do you mean when you say Wapato point?  Wapato point isn't and has never been associated with WM. Lake Chelan Shores is associated with WM, Is that what you meant?



PA- is the Wapato Point expert, but it is Wapato Point, not Lake Chelan Shores, that is/was in the same program as EC and SL, with the additional restriction that the week can only be between Memorial and Labor Days. It has been confirmed on WMO by a SL owner that the SL program "falls  under the same curse", except he said that the account also has to be in good standing with TEN. 

The Wapato Point arrangement may have come from the earlier days when WM was Club Esprit and both WP and WM were being introduced into the market. PA- probably has more background.


----------



## LLW

easyrider said:


> While depositing my Eagle Crest week into WM this morning I asked who is eligable to participate in The Exchange Network (TEN) and was told all WM owners who own at Eagle Crest. The cost difference for us is $90.00 + 2000 WM credits or aprox. $250.00. This doesn't include the RCI or II membership that is needed to facilate the exchange.
> 
> Does 8000 WM credits trade better than a 2 bed red week at Eagle Crest ? What kind of units have others pulled with an Eagle Crest deposit is what we wonder now.



WM Eagle Crest deposits have very good trade power in II. I have been told that Eagle Crest has even better power than WM Eagle Crest. The II exchange fee is $139 on line, and the Exchange Plus fee is $129, so II is $10 more expensive, probably a better deal than the loss of 2000 WM credits, which have a market value of about $120.


----------



## BocaBum99

cruisin said:


> I would seriously doubt that Wyndham will take away rci and II from Worldmark owners.
> 
> I would think they are trying to be more like the WVO side all the time, I am no WVO expert, Can WVO resell owners use their other timeshare for PIC weeks? Does WVO have an exchange plus program. If WVO has exchange plus also, then I would think they would keep it for Worldmark.
> 
> By limiting exchange plus they are definitely not retaining control of club inventory, so that does not seem to be the driving factor,  I could see charging more, and giving less points to increase profit, but taking less weeks?
> 
> I  would guess that many owners will purchase additional WM accounts to deposit more than 4 weeks, but that does not help Wyndham sell more credits. Putting all of this in with Travelshare and TEN, would.
> 
> I am speculating  on the future of exchange plus and TEN.  TEN seems to be the catch all place for this kind of program, Eagle Crest owners that joined Travelshare have been getting free exchange plus since Travelshare was started, just seems like a logical progression of the direction they are going. I actually thought that since they gave Travelshare people the free perk that they may make Travelshare mandatory to use the exchange plus at all.



It looks like your prediction may be coming true.  Someone on the wmowners board just reported that they received word that their Schooner Landing fractional requires them to be a member of TEN in order to use weeks for Exchange Plus.  So, perhaps they are making all of these changes now.

The question is whether or not Exchange Plus is only for Class A members or if they will also make it available to Class B members.   My guess is that they will make it available to Class B members as well.  Using your example of PIC, Fairfield grandfathered in everyone with PIC weeks when starting putting limits on them.  Not sure which way they will go, though.

I guess I really should spend some time learning about TEN.


----------



## Cathyb

Worldlmark owners:  Is there any information passed on to us thru newsletters/websites, etc. that even mentions all this behind the scenes stuff happening?


----------



## ladycody

Hey Bill...as LLW mentioned...Wapato point has had the same special exchange plus privleges as the other resorts listed...though it was not widely known.

Cathy...most of the behind the scenes stuff that kicks us in the fanny (like this Eagle crest thing) is behind the scenes at _Wyndham_.  While the majority of our board is most assuredly aware of what's going on due to their connections to Wyn...they're under no obligation to report it or keep us abreast of things because it's Wyndham business...not WM business.  That's why we find out about many changes (TEN etc) after decisions have been made rather than while the changes are under development.  Anyway...to answer your question...no...there is no normal or regularly used method for early communication regarding much of this information to WM owners...other than notification of implementation.


----------



## BocaBum99

ladycody said:


> Hey Bill...as LLW mentioned...Wapato point has had the same special exchange plus privleges as the other resorts listed...though it was not widely known.
> 
> Cathy...most of the behind the scenes stuff that kicks us in the fanny (like this Eagle crest thing) is behind the scenes at _Wyndham_.  While the majority of our board is most assuredly aware of what's going on due to their connections to Wyn...they're under no obligation to report it or keep us abreast of things because it's Wyndham business...not WM business.  That's why we find out about many changes (TEN etc) after decisions have been made rather than while the changes are under development.  Anyway...to answer your question...no...there is no normal or regularly used method for early communication regarding much of this information to WM owners...other than notification of implementation.



That's true, but as soon as WBW changes anything, someone on wmowners.com figures it out.  It may not be an early warning system.  But, it is a rapid detection system.

I would just sign up for www.wmowners.com and watch the home page.  That is about the best place for owners to learn the latest and greatest of what impacts WorldMark owners.


----------



## ladycody

What Boca said...
wmowners.com is a great resource and gets news about as quickly as it's getable. (howdja like _that_ word...getable)


----------



## BocaBum99

ladycody said:


> What Boca said...
> wmowners.com is a great resource and gets news about as quickly as it's getable. (howdja like _that_ word...getable)



I like "howdja" better.


----------



## cruisin

I  called WM exchange dept. today, the limit is 4 per OWNER , so multiple accounts dont work, also anything postmarked by May 31st will be ok, I spoke with Eagle crest this morning, everybody is turning in their weeks right now


----------



## cruisin

Bill4728 said:


> What do you mean when you say Wapato point?  Wapato point isn't and has never been associated with WM. Lake Chelan Shores is associated with WM, Is that what you meant?



Also, it was not worth turning in a Wapato Point summer week except maybe first 2 weeks of June. I do not think they got very many of these weeks.


----------



## BocaBum99

cruisin said:


> I  called WM exchange dept. today, the limit is 4 per OWNER , so multiple accounts dont work, also anything postmarked by May 31st will be ok, I spoke with Eagle crest this morning, everybody is turning in their weeks right now



Is therule of 4 per OWNER related to Eagle Crest fractional deposits?  Or, ALL exchange plus deposits?

In the past, the rule was 4 exchange plus deposits per account.  I am jus wondering if this was a general rule change.


----------



## bogey21

And I thought it was only Marriott who screwed their owners with "program changes".  I guess I was wrong.

George


----------



## cotraveller

Why is this a surprise?  It was reported at the 2006 Annual Owners meeting that one owner had deposited over 40 weeks into the Exchange Plus program and received over 300,000 WorldMark credits.

On eBay you continually see weeks at Eagle Crest and Schooner Landing advertised with the note that they can be exchanged for 10,000 WorldMark credits for a small fee.  The pitch is that it is a low cost way to gain extra WorldMark credits since those weeks sell for considerably less than a block of 10,000 WorldMark credits would cost.

The 4 week limit was placed on the Exchange Plus program as a result of excessive deposits by a few.  The new restrictions on Eagle Crest and Schooner Landing are probably the result of something similar as more and more of the weeks were sold with the sole purpose of conversion.  Abuses by a few result in penalties for others.


----------



## calgal

I hope this change leads some folks to deposit their 2010 summer weeks in II instead of RCI. I am hoping for an exchange to Eagle Crest via II.


----------



## BocaBum99

cotraveller said:


> Why is this a surprise?  It was reported at the 2006 Annual Owners meeting that one owner had deposited over 40 weeks into the Exchange Plus program and received over 300,000 WorldMark credits.
> 
> On eBay you continually see weeks at Eagle Crest and Schooner Landing advertised with the note that they can be exchanged for 10,000 WorldMark credits for a small fee.  The pitch is that it is a low cost way to gain extra WorldMark credits since those weeks sell for considerably less than a block of 10,000 WorldMark credits would cost.
> 
> The 4 week limit was placed on the Exchange Plus program as a result of excessive deposits by a few.  The new restrictions on Eagle Crest and Schooner Landing are probably the result of something similar as more and more of the weeks were sold with the sole purpose of conversion.  Abuses by a few result in penalties for others.



You are probably correct about the rationale for the changes.   WorldMark should take actions to balance out supply and demand and keep the operations running smoothly with policies that help do that.

However, I would have to disagree with you on characterizing it as "abuses."  I say that because Trendwest sold this product with those features as part of the program.  It would be like saying that a single owner who purchases 300,000 credits is abusing the system when they use all 300,000 credits to book up all July 4th weeks at Pismo Beach every year since the inventory is so low there.  That owner is just following the rules of the product they purchased.  That is not abuse.  That's using what they bought.


----------



## cotraveller

BocaBum99 said:


> However, I would have to disagree with you on characterizing it as "abuses."  I say that because Trendwest sold this product with those features as part of the program.  It would be like saying that a single owner who purchases 300,000 credits is abusing the system when they use all 300,000 credits to book up all July 4th weeks at Pismo Beach every year since the inventory is so low there.  That owner is just following the rules of the product they purchased.  That is not abuse.  That's using what they bought.



The owner who purchases an additional 300,000 WorldMark credits pays an additional $12,000 per year in annual dues to WorldMark the Club for the priviledge of using those credits.  The person who purchases non-WorldMark units and then exchanges them for 300,000 WorldMark credits pays no dues to WorldMark.  Their dues go to the timeshare they own, not to WorlMark.  

It doesn't matter what the 300,000 credits are used for.  They came into the WorldMark system without generating any revenue for WorldMark.  Exchange Plus is a developer program, the exchange fees go to the developer, not to WorldMark.  That means other owners dues are subsizing those exchange credits.

The common argument is that weeks deposited under Exchange Plus end up going to the exchange company (RCI or II) when an owner exchanges for one of the exchange company units.  Therefore it is not necessary for WorldMark to give up a WorldMark unit for the exchange.

That argument doesen't hold water.  The person receiving the WorldMark credits for the Exchange Plus deposit can use those credits to book a WorldMark unit.  Even though the deposited week ends up going to the exchange company, a WorldMark week is still given when the exchange credits are used to book a WorldMark week.


----------



## ecwinch

cotraveller said:


> The owner who purchases an additional 300,000 WorldMark credits pays an additional $12,000 per year in annual dues to WorldMark the Club for the priviledge of using those credits.  The person who purchases non-WorldMark units and then exchanges them for 300,000 WorldMark credits pays no dues to WorldMark.  Their dues go to the timeshare they own, not to WorlMark.
> 
> It doesn't matter what the 300,000 credits are used for.  They came into the WorldMark system without generating any revenue for WorldMark.  Exchange Plus is a developer program, the exchange fees go to the developer, not to WorldMark.  That means other owners dues are subsizing those exchange credits.
> 
> The common argument is that weeks deposited under Exchange Plus end up going to the exchange company (RCI or II) when an owner exchanges for one of the exchange company units.  Therefore it is not necessary for WorldMark to give up a WorldMark unit for the exchange.
> 
> That argument doesen't hold water.  The person receiving the WorldMark credits for the Exchange Plus deposit can use those credits to book a WorldMark unit.  Even though the deposited week ends up going to the exchange company, a WorldMark week is still given when the exchange credits are used to book a WorldMark week.



I agree with CoTraveller to a point. As he highlights, the key point to note is that this change is not from Worldmark the Club. It is from Wyndham the developer. 

Worldmark makes no money in this exchange and is not directly involved in this exchange. The inventory is not placed into Worldmark so the other Worldmark owners have access to it. 

However, WM owners are not subsidizing this program. The credits the Eagle Crest owner is receiving back are credits that Wyndham owns visa via their developer status and pts they receive back in exchange from the developer programs like TravelShare. The only "cost" to WM owners is the increased utilization of developer controlled credits.

It is not something that Worldmark is doing to at all. Worldmark is not involved in this change. It is what Wyndham is doing to reduce over-utilization of a program that is costing them too much in terms of relative value. In essence they are over-paying for those units, because they have a greater supply of those weeks than they need and want to reduce inventory. You do so by lowering the price you pay. if the program suddenly started yielding no exchanges, the pendulum would likely shift back the other way.

This same theme plays out whenever people start buying timeshares to exploit an imbalance in a developer or exchange program. Eventually too many people  exploit that imbalance, and the imbalance shrinks or disappears. Usually the death knell starts when you see ads on e-bay touting the imbalance.

Wyndham pt transfers, South Africa weeks, Eagle Crest exchanges, etc.   The buyer should always be aware that the imbalance can be corrected at any time, and the program that is such a great value today could disappear.


----------



## ecwinch

BocaBum99 said:


> However, I would have to disagree with you on characterizing it as "abuses."  I say that because Trendwest sold this product with those features as part of the program.  It would be like saying that a single owner who purchases 300,000 credits is abusing the system when they use all 300,000 credits to book up all July 4th weeks at Pismo Beach every year since the inventory is so low there.  That owner is just following the rules of the product they purchased.  That is not abuse.  That's using what they bought.



I certainly agree that this might be a legal definition of "abusing a system". My personal definition tends to extend to the concept of fair and equitable.

The same logic you outline above could be extended to someone who shows up at an buffet and empties the line of all the shrimp. You can argue that they have that right and are not abusing the system. To the person right in line behind them, there might be a different viewpoint.


----------



## BocaBum99

cotraveller said:


> The owner who purchases an additional 300,000 WorldMark credits pays an additional $12,000 per year in annual dues to WorldMark the Club for the priviledge of using those credits.  The person who purchases non-WorldMark units and then exchanges them for 300,000 WorldMark credits pays no dues to WorldMark.  Their dues go to the timeshare they own, not to WorlMark.
> 
> It doesn't matter what the 300,000 credits are used for.  They came into the WorldMark system without generating any revenue for WorldMark.  Exchange Plus is a developer program, the exchange fees go to the developer, not to WorldMark.  That means other owners dues are subsizing those exchange credits.
> 
> The common argument is that weeks deposited under Exchange Plus end up going to the exchange company (RCI or II) when an owner exchanges for one of the exchange company units.  Therefore it is not necessary for WorldMark to give up a WorldMark unit for the exchange.
> 
> That argument doesen't hold water.  The person receiving the WorldMark credits for the Exchange Plus deposit can use those credits to book a WorldMark unit.  Even though the deposited week ends up going to the exchange company, a WorldMark week is still given when the exchange credits are used to book a WorldMark week.



First of all, my comment was related to labelling the actions of an Eagle Crest Fractional owner as "abusing" the system.  I took exception to that label because I'll bet more than one were sold the product to do exactly what they are doing.  The Abuse was the resort developer who sold them a product to work in this way.

Secondly, if a fractional product was indeed sold and planned into the system as inventory to be used by ALL WorldMark owners, then it's no different than having extra units at Eagle Crest that were inserted into the system in the first place.  Just think what would have happened if Trendwest took all of those fractionals and put them into worldmark generating the credits they do today.  The net impact to the Club is the same as if there were an exchange plus program where all weeks are accepted into the Club.  The fee paid is nothing more than a processing fee which at $35/week is probably profitable.   Maintenance fees are covered directly by the owner.  So, I completely disagree with your assessment.

Thirdly, I did agree that there is a need to balance supply and demand and it was right for WBW to implement new polcies to correct any such issue.  They should do the same thing for resorts that have too much inventory at other resorts they've developed.  If a resort has too much inventory, they should take some out of commission and make them fractionals.  Lastly, they should add inventory where there is way more demand than supply.  So, if balancing supply and demand were the key consideration, I'm all for it as long as it is applied consistently across many areas of the business.


----------



## BocaBum99

ecwinch said:


> I certainly agree that this might be a legal definition of "abusing a system". My personal definition tends to extend to the concept of fair and equitable.
> 
> The same logic you outline above could be extended to someone who shows up at an buffet and empties the line of all the shrimp. You can argue that they have that right and are not abusing the system. To the person right in line behind them, there might be a different viewpoint.



The difference is that in your analogy, it would be like the owner of the restaurant telling a customer who only likes shrimp to come on in and eat all of the shrimp.  "It's okay.  We built the system to do this.  Go for it."   In this case, the customer is not abusing the system, the owner screwed over the other guests who also wanted to eat shrimp.

Fair and equitable is in the eyes of the beholder.  Here's an example. What if I think you are paying to little for your timeshares?  I then propose as a penalty that you should pay higher maintenance fees.  That's not fair.  There are only rules, following rules and enforcing rules.  If someone bought something and were sold for it to work a certain way, it is NOT abuse if they indeed use it the way it was sold.


----------



## cotraveller

BocaBum99 said:


> Secondly, if a fractional product was indeed sold and planned into the system as inventory to be used by ALL WorldMark owners, then it's no different than having extra units at Eagle Crest that were inserted into the system in the first place.  Just think what would have happened if Trendwest took all of those fractionals and put them into worldmark generating the credits they do today.  The net impact to the Club is the same as if there were an exchange plus program where all weeks are accepted into the Club.  The fee paid is nothing more than a processing fee which at $35/week is probably profitable.   Maintenance fees are covered directly by the owner.  So, I completely disagree with your assessment.



There is a big difference between a fractional and having extra units at the same resort.  A fractional owner does not pay maintenance fees to WorldMark.  They pay maintenance fees to the company backing the fractional.  They get WorldMark credits for those fractionals without contributing dues to WorldMark.  Even if those deposited units stay in the WorldMark system and are available for all WorlMark owners, the credits generated are not producing any WorldMark income and thus the resort useage that results is being subsidized by the rest of the owners.  

If all of the fractionals were placed within the WorldMark system, rather than being deposited from the outside, it would be better for WorldMark owners.  Then those units would generate income for WorldMark rather than generating income free credits.

Just as you disagree with my assessment I disagree with yours.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

BocaBum99 said:


> The difference is that in your analogy, it would be like the owner of the restaurant telling a customer who only likes shrimp to come on in and eat all of the shrimp.  "It's okay.  We built the system to do this.  Go for it."   In this case, the customer is not abusing the system, the owner screwed over the other guests who also wanted to eat shrimp.



I can t think of an even better analogy.

Imagine, if you will, a timeshare operation that as part of the sales pitch told buyers that if they didn't want to use their weeks they could rent those units out and make money.  Suppose the sales staff put numbers on a pieces of paper during the sales presentation, showing the buyers how they could actually turn a profit renting out the weeks that they buy.  And a buyer, seeing an opportunity here, asks if there are any limits on the number of weeks a person could own.  

The sales staff of course, accurately and honestly responds, "why no, of course not.  When you buy into the system it's just like owning your own property. You can do with it whatever you want."

And based on all of these representations our buyer puts his or her money down and buys up  a bunch of weeks.  Our buyer in fact figures out how to make actually rent units profitably, and buys up more weeks to add to the portfolio.

****

Then one day the timeshare developer unilaterally decides to change the rules, prohibiting owners from renting units commercially, because it's "not fair" to other members (of course not mentioning that the  timeshare operation itself is renting units commercially).  Our owners is now socked with huge annual fee payments, with no income to pay those fees.  He sells whatever units he can for what he can get, and has to let the others go into foreclosure. His credit is ruined because the unpaid maintenance fees get reported to credit agencies as unpaid debt, and the capital that he invested in the timeshares is completely wiped out.

But, hey, that's fair, right, because the owner, relying on how the product was sold, knew how to work the system to get the units that were the best rentals???

****

Not that somethng such as that has ever happened.


----------



## BocaBum99

cotraveller said:


> There is a big difference between a fractional and having extra units at the same resort.  A fractional owner does not pay maintenance fees to WorldMark.  They pay maintenance fees to the company backing the fractional.  They get WorldMark credits for those fractionals without contributing dues to WorldMark.  Even if those deposited units stay in the WorldMark system and are available for all WorlMark owners, the credits generated are not producing any WorldMark income and thus the resort useage that results is being subsidized by the rest of the owners.
> 
> If all of the fractionals were placed within the WorldMark system, rather than being deposited from the outside, it would be better for WorldMark owners.  Then those units would generate income for WorldMark rather than generating income free credits.
> 
> Just as you disagree with my assessment I disagree with yours.



Please quantify the difference in the amount paid.  I don't see a material difference.  When I stayed at Depoe Bay, it seemed that residence club owners had access to the same amenities as owners.  So, I presume they pay a maintanence fee for that use.  All the stuff inside the condo is paid for by the owner of the Club or the fractional as is housekeeping.   Where is all this income and how much is the difference?


----------



## ladycody

cotraveller said:


> Even if those deposited units stay in the WorldMark system and are available for all WorlMark owners, the credits generated are not producing any WorldMark income and thus the resort useage that results is being subsidized by the rest of the owners



Just gotta point out that there is no such thing as income free credits, Fred.  The mf's on credits handed out ARE paid by someone without additional subsidization by wm owners...be it the person who deposited them into the FAX program where they were drawn from...or by the developer...who pays dues on the credits they hold (we assume).  

You're entire premise that credits are being 'generated' and then 'given' away at WM's expense and to WM's financial detriment is flawed and inaccurate.  Those credits given out _already existed_ and they've already generated wm income in that their mf's _are_ paid for _some_where.  There are not new, unfunded, credits 'generated' from thin air to accomodate the credits paid out through the program.  

As someone else mentioned...the only_ real _detriment to the exchange-plus system for Wm owners is that it puts more credits (with mf's paid) into the hands of _very_ knowledgeable people who will use them to their absolute fullest.

JMO


----------



## BocaBum99

cotraveller said:


> There is a big difference between a fractional and having extra units at the same resort.  A fractional owner does not pay maintenance fees to WorldMark.  They pay maintenance fees to the company backing the fractional.  They get WorldMark credits for those fractionals without contributing dues to WorldMark.  Even if those deposited units stay in the WorldMark system and are available for all WorlMark owners, the credits generated are not producing any WorldMark income and thus the resort useage that results is being subsidized by the rest of the owners.
> 
> If all of the fractionals were placed within the WorldMark system, rather than being deposited from the outside, it would be better for WorldMark owners.  Then those units would generate income for WorldMark rather than generating income free credits.
> 
> Just as you disagree with my assessment I disagree with yours.



I forgot to mention that I am conversant in the operations of the Bluegreen Vacation Club.  If you are referring to the cost associated with operating "Club" operations, I can tell you that Bluegreen charges $129 for annual dues for Bluegreen Vacation Club owners.  That covers the reservation system, the RCI account, owner services, the call centers and extra housekeepings associated with the Club.  The average stay of a Bluegreen guest is between 2-3 days and Bluegreen does NOT charge extra housekeeping fees.  Each resort gets paid it's maintenance fees and taxes and resort operations are funded from those fees.  The RCI account costs about $20.  So, for $109 per owner, it covers the entire Bluegreen operation above and beyond the resort operations.  Bluegreen has about 200,000 owners.  When you take out extra housekeeping, it's even less.

If anything, I could see the Fractional customer paying a single annual dues for the privilege of depositing weeks.  Bluegreen has a program like Exchange Plus called AIM.  It costs only $50 to deposit a week.  What Bluegreen does with the weeks is trade back for Bluegreen inventory deposited into RCI for the Club members thereby increasing inventory in the Club.  It's a value added feature intended to help owners convert their non-Bluegreen timeshares into one time points.  Owners must buy from the developer to participate.

So, with WBW charging $129 per week, that is overcharging owners who deposit more than one week.  And, they are taking a 20% surcharge on top of that.  Those are my economics and they are published in the annual disclosure for Bluegreen.  Show me your numbers.  I assure you that there is NO huge difference.


----------



## ecwinch

cotraveller said:


> *If all of the fractionals were placed within the WorldMark system, rather than being deposited from the outside, it would be better for WorldMark owners.*  Then those units would generate income for WorldMark rather than generating income free credits.



I think LadyCody pointed this out to me in another forum, but what would Worldmark give you in return for your weeks?

 Worldmark the Club does not own any points to give you in return for your week. All the points in Worldmark are fully committed to other owners. To give you some points they would have to create some points. Worldmark does not have any uncommitted  points to exchange with you like Wyndham the developer does.

The units do not flow to Worldmark, they are deposited into II or RCI. Wyndham is just giving you Worldmark credits in return. As I said early on - it just as easy could be Wyndham points or bottles of shampoo.

I agree it would benefit WM owners if the units were made available to us for usage. They are not, so you are implying an new exchange agreement between WM and the fractional owners. Even then I think most WM owners would want value for value, rather than a flat exchange rate.


----------



## ecwinch

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> I can t think of an even better analogy.
> 
> Imagine, if you will, a timeshare operation that as part of the sales pitch told buyers that if they didn't want to use their weeks they could rent those units out and make money.  Suppose the sales staff put numbers on a pieces of paper during the sales presentation, showing the buyers how they could actually turn a profit renting out the weeks that they buy.  And a buyer, seeing an opportunity here, asks if there are any limits on the number of weeks a person could own.
> 
> The sales staff of course, accurately and honestly responds, "why no, of course not.  When you buy into the system it's just like owning your own property. You can do with it whatever you want."
> 
> And based on all of these representations our buyer puts his or her money down and buys up  a bunch of weeks.  Our buyer in fact figures out how to make actually rent units profitably, and buys up more weeks to add to the portfolio.
> 
> ****
> 
> Then one day the timeshare developer unilaterally decides to change the rules, prohibiting owners from renting units commercially, because it's "not fair" to other members (of course not mentioning that the  timeshare operation itself is renting units commercially).  Our owners is now socked with huge annual fee payments, with no income to pay those fees.  He sells whatever units he can for what he can get, and has to let the others go into foreclosure. His credit is ruined because the unpaid maintenance fees get reported to credit agencies as unpaid debt, and the capital that he invested in the timeshares is completely wiped out.
> 
> But, hey, that's fair, right, because the owner, relying on how the product was sold, knew how to work the system to get the units that were the best rentals???
> 
> ****
> 
> Not that somethng such as that has ever happened.



Or the analogy of someone who makes a significant financial investment with ensuring that their rights to benefit from that investment are legally protected. They make the investment knowing that their plan for making money runs counter to the purpose of what they are buying.

But they see the opportunity to make a buck and take the plunge. They create such a large "unintended use" of the system, that the backer has to implement rules to stop them.

Yes, their use also hurts the backer who is exercising their legal rights, but I would rather deal with the impact of the one devil I know, rather than having to deal with hundreds and thousands of them that are subject to no control.

It is disenguous to suggest that those individuals that who established commercial businesses to rent out owner usage had no inkling that the practice could be changed in the future.

Would be happy to debate this point in another thread.


----------



## BocaBum99

ecwinch said:


> Or the analogy of someone who makes a significant financial investment with ensuring that their rights to benefit from that investment are legally protected. They make the investment knowing that their plan for making money runs counter to the purpose of what they are buying.
> 
> But they see the opportunity to make a buck and take the plunge. They create such a large "unintended use" of the system, that the backer has to implement rules to stop them.
> 
> Yes, their use also hurts the backer who is exercising their legal rights, but I would rather deal with the impact of the one devil I know, rather than having to deal with hundreds and thousands of them that are subject to no control.
> 
> It is disenguous to suggest that those individuals that who established commercial businesses to rent out owner usage had no inkling that the practice could be changed in the future.
> 
> Would be happy to debate this point in another thread.



There are tons of businesses that rent and exchange timeshare inventory along with individuals.  I know the principals from many of these companies including the big exchange companies, the independent exchange companies, Vacation Clubs, wholesalers, Travel sites and even the developers themselves.  And, from what I can see, it is mostly very honest business.  It doesn't make timeshare owners happy, but the often don't understand fully what is involved and what is happening behind the scenes.

I can see individual owners being against commercial usage of weeks, but there is far more going on by formal businesses than individual owners who thought they could make a buck.  And, it really does make the industry more efficient.  I can prove it economically and through experience.

The biggest issue is that resort developers need to adopt policies that enhance resale value of their resorts.  And, they need to update policies such as exchange plus that create supply and demand imbalances no matter where they come from.  Again, I am not arguing against the policy changes because if they make the Club more efficient, then in the end everybody wins.  Some commercial enterprise will make money or lose money based on their understanding of the rules that are in place and the likely future changes that manifest themselves.  That's the risk of going into business.


----------



## ecwinch

Change my second to the last sentence to read:

_It is disenguous to suggest that those individuals that who established commercial businesses based on renting out their owner usage rights had no inkling that the practice could be changed in the future_.

We can dance around it, but it comes down to owners over-utilizing programs designed to increase owner value. When they do so, the value equation shifts, and the benefits realized are reduced. When people do so for commercial gain the effect is accelerated and the net result is less benefits for the average owners.

To tie into my shrimp analogy, the "big" eater may claim that he is allowed to do so. Even that the hostess said it was ok. Those facts to not mitigate the impact on the next guy in line. 

If you did not have e-bay sellers touting the WM advantage of owning a Eagle Crest week, not as many weeks would be placed in the system, and the imbalance would not have been created to the extent that WVO changed the rules. And you have to know that the ratio to summer weeks to all other weeks was great. Again the program was stopped by too many people exploiting the system. The anger is mis-directed.

Eagle Crest is just another case in point. Others will be in the future.


----------



## cotraveller

The following two quotes are related so I’ll respond to both.



BocaBum99 said:


> Please quantify the difference in the amount paid.  I don't see a material difference.  When I stayed at Depoe Bay, it seemed that residence club owners had access to the same amenities as owners.  So, I presume they pay a maintanence fee for that use.  All the stuff inside the condo is paid for by the owner of the Club or the fractional as is housekeeping.   Where is all this income and how much is the difference?



It is not the dollar amount, it is who gets the money.  Fractional dues are paid to the developer, not to WorldMark.  Dues on deposits through the Exchange Plus program are paid to the deposited timeshare, not to WorldMark.  On an incremental 10,000 credits added to an existing account that is approximately $415 per year.  

Do part of the dues the fractional owners pay at resorts that have both WorldMark and fractional units go to WorldMark for use of the common amenities.  I don’t know, but I certainly hope so.



ladycody said:


> Just gotta point out that there is no such thing as income free credits, Fred.  The mf's on credits handed out ARE paid by someone without additional subsidization by wm owners...be it the person who deposited them into the FAX program where they were drawn from...or by the developer...who pays dues on the credits they hold (we assume).
> 
> You're entire premise that credits are being 'generated' and then 'given' away at WM's expense and to WM's financial detriment is flawed and inaccurate.  Those credits given out _already existed_ and they've already generated wm income in that their mf's _are_ paid for _some_where.  There are not new, unfunded, credits 'generated' from thin air to accomodate the credits paid out through the program.
> 
> As someone else mentioned...the only_ real _detriment to the exchange-plus system for Wm owners is that it puts more credits (with mf's paid) into the hands of _very_ knowledgeable people who will use them to their absolute fullest.
> 
> JMO



You are right, the developer does pay dues on the credits they own.  As do owners who use their credits to buy cruises, airfare, gift cards, etc., with those credits go into the FAX program.  The FAX credits are then used to fund the fractional and Exchange Plus deposits.  So in that sense you are right, dues are paid and my analogy is not quite right.  I’ll give it some more thought.

But who benefits?  As you pointed out, those credits often end up with the _very_ knowledgeable people who will use them to their absolute fullest.  It is also often true that the _fullest use_ is to the detriment of the other owners.  And it is those owners who are making that _fullest use_ who scream to highest heaven whenever any changes are implemented or even suggested which would limit the use of those credits.

So what do we do, teach all owners how to get that _fullest use_ to level the playing field?  That will result in more changes since the prime weeks will become even harder to book.  Do we keep quiet about all those tips and tricks that let you obtain that _fullest use_ so a few of us can enjoy their benefits at the expense of others?  I know most of those tricks, I’d benefit from that approach.  But that doesn’t seem right either.  

Or do we limit and restrict some of the special tricks?  That option might end up being of benefit to the most owners, although not to those taking advantage of those tricks.  There is no easy answer.  No matter what you do someone will benefit and someone else will lose.


----------



## ecwinch

cotraveller said:


> So what do we do, teach all owners how to get that _fullest use_ to level the playing field?  That will result in more changes since the prime weeks will become even harder to book.  *Do we keep quiet about all those tips and tricks that let you obtain that fullest use so a few of us can enjoy their benefits at the expense of others?*  I know most of those tricks, I’d benefit from that approach.  But that doesn’t seem right either.
> 
> No matter what you do someone will benefit and someone else will lose.



You make the information widely available, and those owners that wish to maximize their ownership will seek it out. You do so in the recognition that the tricks will change over-time in relation to their use, and when they do you recognize that it is natural order of things. You do not rant and rail about every change being only in the interest of the developer. Sometime they are, sometimes they are not.

To keep working my analogy, when they put up the 1 plate per diner sign, you do not threaten them with a class action lawsuit.

In regards to Worldmark, I would like to think that is what is being done over on the wmowners site.


----------



## Elan

I just want to know what one does who owns a 1/5th share EC fractional that has always exchanged a majority of their weeks for WM credits?  Seems like a double dose of bad news from their perspective.


----------



## ecwinch

Elan said:


> I just want to know what one does who owns a 1/5th share EC fractional that has always exchanged a majority of their weeks for WM credits?  Seems like a double dose of bad news from their perspective.



If WM exchange rights are the major benefit you derive from your EC ownership, then in the long term you probably look to sell. Even with the changes I think you might still have a slight advantage over direct pts ownerships - but that is without crunching the numbers.

So enjoy less profitable exchanges in the short term while looking to sell in the future if the changes have made it more cost-effective to own the points.

Or you start a boycott crusade to reduce the supply of weeks more than Wyndham anticipates. Then that group negotiates a legal agreement that protects your right. (yes this last course is more complicated and fraught with hazard - just brainstorming).

And everytime you see one of those e-bay sellers that caused Wyndham to change the program, you curse them.


----------



## ladycody

cotraveller said:


> There is no easy answer.  No matter what you do someone will benefit and someone else will lose.



I wasnt touting right or wrong...merely pointing out that the financial detriment to WM that you were intimating was completely off base.  

The above quote is _entirely _correct and is how _every_ flexible timeshare is designed.  In a fixed week system, the owners know _exactly_ what they are getting...the flexible systems...all of them... necessitate that there are _no _gaurantees because the off season weeks at the most undesired resorts are _still _factored into the usage grid and _someone_ must therefore either use that time (whether it's what they want or not)_ or_ they must go without using their time at all.  All flexible systems require that you learn as much as possible to get the time you want...and even then it's going to be a crapshoot as to whether or not you're able to get it.  

There's no way to eliminate the possibility that someone will get the short end of the stick...because the stick _has_ a short end and someone _has_ to get it.  Does that mean that I have a problem with what they're doing now...or that I had a problem with the way things were before?...no on both counts.  At least not on the face of it.  How Wyn is choosing to use credits is another story...but putting _that_ aside...I simply understand that it will always be a game and that _all _avenues (straight usage and exchange systems) have tricks that will give some advantages over others.  

I understand the desire to make the concept as much about fair-play as possible without restricting owner rights...but the only way to _truly_ level the playing field in any such system is for the system to reabsorb time (in our case remove credits from the club total) and increase fees to cover the subsequent reduction of owners within the system.  Not gonna happen....nor am I sure I could afford it if it did.


----------



## ladycody

Elan said:


> I just want to know what one does who owns a 1/5th share EC fractional that has always exchanged a majority of their weeks for WM credits?  Seems like a double dose of bad news from their perspective.


Yep...I'd agree...but as Tuggers have always touted...you should buy based on what you know you can utilize and be happy with...not based on trade power or developer programs because those things most often come with no gaurantees.


----------



## BocaBum99

cotraveller said:


> The following two quotes are related so I’ll respond to both.
> 
> 
> 
> It is not the dollar amount, it is who gets the money.  Fractional dues are paid to the developer, not to WorldMark.  Dues on deposits through the Exchange Plus program are paid to the deposited timeshare, not to WorldMark.  On an incremental 10,000 credits added to an existing account that is approximately $415 per year.
> 
> Do part of the dues the fractional owners pay at resorts that have both WorldMark and fractional units go to WorldMark for use of the common amenities.  I don’t know, but I certainly hope so.
> 
> 
> 
> You are right, the developer does pay dues on the credits they own.  As do owners who use their credits to buy cruises, airfare, gift cards, etc., with those credits go into the FAX program.  The FAX credits are then used to fund the fractional and Exchange Plus deposits.  So in that sense you are right, dues are paid and my analogy is not quite right.  I’ll give it some more thought.
> 
> But who benefits?  As you pointed out, those credits often end up with the _very_ knowledgeable people who will use them to their absolute fullest.  It is also often true that the _fullest use_ is to the detriment of the other owners.  And it is those owners who are making that _fullest use_ who scream to highest heaven whenever any changes are implemented or even suggested which would limit the use of those credits.
> 
> So what do we do, teach all owners how to get that _fullest use_ to level the playing field?  That will result in more changes since the prime weeks will become even harder to book.  Do we keep quiet about all those tips and tricks that let you obtain that _fullest use_ so a few of us can enjoy their benefits at the expense of others?  I know most of those tricks, I’d benefit from that approach.  But that doesn’t seem right either.
> 
> Or do we limit and restrict some of the special tricks?  That option might end up being of benefit to the most owners, although not to those taking advantage of those tricks.  There is no easy answer.  No matter what you do someone will benefit and someone else will lose.



In a shared system like WorldMark, there will always be some people who use the system to the fullest and others who don't.  In fact, timesharing is actually dominated by people who don't use it at all.  So, in essence, on average, a point system managed fairly by the resort developer gives the "average" user more usage than they have bought given breakage.

Many people on these forums tend to be those who use all the features of the program.  Good for them.  It's only a small fraction of the owners.  When a few get out of line, then the developer should reel in the detrimental practices on behalf of the greater good of the community by modifying policies.  That's healthy.  I am against targeting those who do take advantage of the system to its fullest by claiming unfairness.  There are easy ways to ensure overall fairness while allowing owners who invest more time and energy to master a system to do so freely.


----------



## BocaBum99

Elan said:


> I just want to know what one does who owns a 1/5th share EC fractional that has always exchanged a majority of their weeks for WM credits?  Seems like a double dose of bad news from their perspective.



According to at least one person, that person is abusing the system.  I disagree.  They actually got hosed.


----------



## ecwinch

BocaBum99 said:


> According to at least one person, that person is abusing the system.  I disagree.  They actually got hosed.



On a personal level, I empathize with the owner that this happens to.

I do not think I said they were abusing the system. They were using their property to the fullest extent possible. They were receiving greater value in return then what they provided, creating an imbalance.

I do not know why we would argue that Wyndham as a business should reinstate the program, even though they are getting more weeks then they need? 

Why?


----------



## Elan

BocaBum99 said:


> According to at least one person, that person is abusing the system.  I disagree.  They actually got hosed.



  I wouldn't say that they're abusing the system.  But I would say that being over zealous in exploiting a system's weakness(es) is the surest way to get that weakness quickly addressed.   

  I wouldn't say they got hosed, either.  They should have been perceptive enough in their grand scheme to derive enough benefit in one or two years of exchanges that they came out ahead.  Everything beyond that should've been gravy.

  JMHO, Jim


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

Elan said:


> But I would say that being over zealous in exploiting a system's weakness(es) is the surest way to get that weakness quickly addressed.



Not unlike South African timeshares (remember when South Africa had it's very own forum here at TUG?) or the year-round tiger trading status that So Cal coastal resorts used to have.


----------



## BocaBum99

Elan said:


> I wouldn't say that they're abusing the system.  But I would say that being over zealous in exploiting a system's weakness(es) is the surest way to get that weakness quickly addressed.
> 
> I wouldn't say they got hosed, either.  They should have been perceptive enough in their grand scheme to derive enough benefit in one or two years of exchanges that they came out ahead.  Everything beyond that should've been gravy.
> 
> JMHO, Jim



Elan, I know it's just your opinion.  If it were me who bought it, then I would agree that I got what I had coming to me because I would have bought it with my eyes wide open.

However, I believe that many fractional owners bought specifically to do what you describe with statements that suggested it would be there.  I believe such a person got "hosed."


----------



## cotraveller

BocaBum99 said:


> According to at least one person, that person is abusing the system.  I disagree.  They actually got hosed.



That comment may be directed my way so I will clarify.  The fractional owners have always been in the system and have peacefully coexisted with WorldMark owners.  If they have been depositing their fractional weeks into WorldMark in exchange for WorldMark credits they are themselves WorldMark owners since you need to have a WorldMark account to deposit into.

It is not the fractional owners who caused this change.  The changes came about because many additional weeks have come into the system outside of the fractionals.  Weeks that were never intended to be part of the deposit program.

It might have been better if the change for Eagle Crest and Schooner Landing had been implented in a manner that did not change the fractional owners participation in the deposit program.  That would mean that the change only applied to weeks purchased outside of the fractional program.  But then those that own the individual weeks would cry discrimination.  Things change.  Some win, some lose.  That's the way it always is.


----------



## easyrider

I bought Eagle Crest for very little to exchange into WM 10,000 points. We like Eagle Crest enough to go every year but try to use bonus time. We have bonus time available through the home owners association and through WM. 

I called RCI and don't fell confident that our Eagle Crest will trade very well. Our WM trades very well. 

My question is what kind of RCI exchanges can I expect with a Eagle Crest 2 bed unit ?


----------



## LLW

easyrider said:


> I bought Eagle Crest for very little to exchange into WM 10,000 points. We like Eagle Crest enough to go every year but try to use bonus time. We have bonus time available through the home owners association and through WM.
> 
> *I called RCI and don't fell confident that our Eagle Crest will trade very well. *Our WM trades very well.
> 
> My question is what kind of RCI exchanges can I expect with a Eagle Crest 2 bed unit ?




I was told that EC trades very well in II. Others may chime in later.


----------



## drguy

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> Not unlike South African timeshares (remember when South Africa had it's very own forum here at TUG?)



It's still there.  At least it was 5 minutes ago.


----------



## cruisin

Whatever the reason for this decision was, we can only deduce one thing, somehow this benefits the developer, it had nothing to do with the the owners of Worldmark. If it helps the owners, it was just a lucky break, if it hurts the owners, just bad luck. But whatever scientific formula was used to make this decision, the owners were never in the equation.


----------



## LLW

ecwinch said:


> You make the information widely available, and those owners that wish to maximize their ownership will seek it out. You do so in the recognition that the tricks will change over-time in relation to their use, and when they do you recognize that it is natural order of things. *You do not rant and rail about every change being only in the interest of the developer. Sometime they are, sometimes they are not.*
> 
> To keep working my analogy, when they put up the 1 plate per diner sign, you do not threaten them with a class action lawsuit.
> 
> *In regards to Worldmark, I would like to think that is what is being done over on the wmowners site*.



Actually, I think there is more ranting and railing on this change here on TUG more than there is over on the wmowners site. This is the equivalent thread over on WMO:

http://www.wmowners.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=21529&postdays=0&postorder=asc&&start=0


I hope you agree that this TUG thread is more negative towards this particular change. But the reason is due to human nature: there are more owners here in this thread who exchange EC for WM credits than in the WMO thread. We humans look at things from our perspective, no matter how hard we try, don't we? And I don't blame them, you, us. It IS a big negative change for some.   

To be honest, I don't think Wyn did as much analysis on this change as some of the posters here in this thread have.  They may have wanted to consolidate this lone exchange program into Exchange Plus to be more efficient; they may have thought $129 is better than $35, or 8000 credits better than 10000 credits; they may have wanted people to upgrade and buy more WM credits instead of using EC to exchange. In fact, I think the consolidation and efficiency reason was given. But you guys are so sophisticated in your analyses.

JMHO.


----------



## ecwinch

LLW said:


> To be honest, I don't think Wyn did as much analysis on this change as some of the posters here in this thread have.  They may have wanted to consolidate this lone exchange program into Exchange Plus to be more efficient; they may have thought $129 is better than $35, or 8000 credits better than 10000 credits; they may have wanted people to upgrade and buy more WM credits instead of using EC to exchange. But you guys are so sophisticated in your analyses.
> 
> JMHO.



In reflection, I think you are dead on. 

And to be honest, I think all of the above were given as justification for this change. Plus some of the supporting factors outlined here. 

They had this program where they were paying more for the same asset. They standardized the program and the cost of acquisition as there was no valid reason for paying a premium in this market.


----------



## ecwinch

*WM Special Meeting BoD minutes*

In regard this thread, here is what was reported in a June 5, 2009 BoD meeting:

2. INTERNAL EXCHANGE
Dave Herrick reported that the Internal Exchange program was discontinued because it no longer served its original purpose as an internal exchange program, it was being subsidized by WorldMark, and it was being abused by a small group of WorldMark Owners. The Internal Exchange program was not an inherent benefit of WorldMark ownership but a program first offered by the developer years ago. All documents related to the program clearly stated the program could be modified or eliminated at any time. The Internal Exchange program allowed WorldMark Owners who owned non-WorldMark timeshare
interests, at resorts where WorldMark owns units, the ability to exchange their other timeshare interest for WorldMark Trade Credits. By completing an application and submitting a $35 fee, the exchanged inventory was deposited into WorldMark general availability for all Owners to use and Trade Credits equal to the values set for that week in WorldMark were deposited into the Owner's account.

WorldMark Owners can still exchange their other timeshare interests for WorldMark Trade Credits, but with some limitations. Weeks can be exchanged through another existing program called Exchange Plus which is open to all Owners and requires the Owner to deposit any RCI or Interval International qualified timeshare interest with RCI or Interval International (rather than WorldMark), and pay a $129/week fee. There is a maximum of four Exchange Plus transactions per year and fewer Trade Credits are awarded. This eliminates the subsidy and opportunity of abuse. 

The Board discussed the matter and expressed the point that it would have preferred to have been informed before the program was discontinued, but agreed that it was the right thing to do; therefore, the following motion to ratify Management's action was made:

UPON A MOTION TO RATIFY THE ACTION TAKEN BY MANAGEMENT TO
DISCONTINUE THE INTERNAL EXCHANGE PROGRAM, duly made by Bob
Morrison and seconded by John Henley, the motion was unanimously approved.


----------

