# Marriott grabbed my week



## gmarine (Mar 25, 2008)

Had a Marriott Legends Edge platinum for $4400 and Marriott exercised ROFR. I was pretty sure they would take it but hoped it would squeak by. Oh well.


----------



## timeos2 (Mar 25, 2008)

*ROFR is NOT a good thing (unless you are the developer)*

So the seller gets the bargain basement "sale" (after doing the work to find a buyer) of $4400., you get nothing and Marriott gets a steal to resell to some sucker at $15,000+.  Tell me again how ROFR helps sellers?  I'm sure you are going to now run out and find a seller and immediately offer $15,000 to buy their week. No?  Tell me again how ROFR protects prices?  

At some point it is finally going to occur to those who think ROFR is a good thing that it is one of many rip-offs in timeshare that, like most others, only helps the developer.  Stay away from any resort/developer that has it or have it specifically waived in ypour contract. NEVER accept it or buy a contract/resort that has it unless you enjoy being taken.


----------



## saturn28 (Mar 25, 2008)

gmarine said:


> Had a Marriott Legends Edge platinum for $4400 and Marriott exercised ROFR. I was pretty sure they would take it but hoped it would squeak by. Oh well.


 
Is that the one that sold on Ebay a few weeks ago.


----------



## Steamboat Bill (Mar 25, 2008)

$4,400 seems cheap for a Marriott platinum week. Is it a 1 bedroom?

I am glad they ROFRed it as this obviously establishes a floor for prices and Marriott will never sell for $1 like many do on eBay.


----------



## hipslo (Mar 25, 2008)

Steamboat Bill said:


> I am glad they ROFRed it as this obviously establishes a floor for prices and Marriott will never sell for $1 like many do on eBay.



Agreed.  I continue to be a fan of rofr.


----------



## TheTimeTraveler (Mar 25, 2008)

*ROFR*

In my opinion, the ROFR is good for the developer and the buyer.   The seller really shouldn't care since they've bailed out (either to a new buyer or the developer via ROFR).   The buyer cares because they don't want their property value to erode below a certain "set" ceiling (set in the ROFR process).


----------



## AwayWeGo (Mar 25, 2008)

*Making Sure No Resale Owner Can Brag About Low Prices To A Full Freight Big Bux Owner*




timeos2 said:


> Tell me again how ROFR protects prices?


It doesn't. 

All ROFR does is make sure nobody but the timeshare company gets the bargains.  Sellers still sell for lowball prices, but regular walking-around people never get to buy lowball.  

Only the deck-stacking timeshare companies benefit from ROFR -- not timeshare sellers & not timeshare buyers. 





> At some point it is finally going to occur to those who think ROFR is a good thing that it is one of many rip-offs in timeshare that, like most others, only helps the developer.


Maybe, but the persistence with which this myth endures can only make 1 marvel at the power of wishful thinking. 

Some day, however -- perhaps far into the future -- the realization will eventually hit those who thought otherwise -- ROFR = ROFL. 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## timeos2 (Mar 25, 2008)

*Yup. Happy buyers are those who pay too much. What world are you in?*



TheTimeTraveler said:


> In my opinion, the ROFR is good for the developer and the buyer.   The seller really shouldn't care since they've bailed out (either to a new buyer or the developer via ROFR).   The buyer cares because they don't want their property value to erode below a certain "set" ceiling (set in the ROFR process).



Good for the BUYER? How? Because they get to pay too much?  Someday they too will be the seller and take it on the chin - they get the deeply discounted and closer to market value offer that they can scrape up - stolen from the willing buyer by ROFR - but had to pay the inflated and artificial price the developer wanted (and, through ROFR, make money on - as many times as they care to turn it over). 

Take off the rose colored glasses. ROFR is not a friend and all it does is feed the ego's of buyers ("I paid the same price they are asking now") who don't get the shock of reality until they find out no one will buy at those prices, it isn't a buy back and all they will get is the deep discounted rate they thought they were "protected" from.  Harsh reality indeed as those glasses get a much needed de-tinting.  ROFR is one of many smoke screens used to make buyers and owners feel good - don't worry about the sellers they are getting out anyway. Pretty short sighted view.


----------



## gmarine (Mar 25, 2008)

saturn28 said:


> Is that the one that sold on Ebay a few weeks ago.



Thats the one.


----------



## gmarine (Mar 25, 2008)

Steamboat Bill said:


> $4,400 seems cheap for a Marriott platinum week. Is it a 1 bedroom?
> 
> I am glad they ROFRed it as this obviously establishes a floor for prices and Marriott will never sell for $1 like many do on eBay.



It was a two bedroom platinum.


----------



## gmarine (Mar 25, 2008)

timeos2 said:


> So the seller gets the bargain basement "sale" (after doing the work to find a buyer) of $4400., you get nothing and Marriott gets a steal to resell to some sucker at $15,000+.  Tell me again how ROFR helps sellers?  I'm sure you are going to now run out and find a seller and immediately offer $15,000 to buy their week. No?  Tell me again how ROFR protects prices?
> 
> At some point it is finally going to occur to those who think ROFR is a good thing that it is one of many rip-offs in timeshare that, like most others, only helps the developer.  Stay away from any resort/developer that has it or have it specifically waived in ypour contract. NEVER accept it or buy a contract/resort that has it unless you enjoy being taken.



I now know that if I want that resort I have to pay more than $4400. Tell me how that doesnt help sellers?


----------



## timeos2 (Mar 25, 2008)

*Based on FACTS not wishes ROFR hurts all but the developer*



gmarine said:


> I now know that if I want that resort I have to pay more than $4400. Tell me how that doesnt help sellers?



Why do you think that?  The next offer should be $4300 or less - the buyer doesn't care and the seller gets screwed once the offer is verified.  No one in their right mind should pay MORE than the lowest ROFR as that is obviously the floor if even a developer who can double or triple the resale price won't pay it.  

The seller only gets the low ball offer. THATS why it doesn't help sellers. In fact it hurts them as informed buyers will offer less or not make any offer thus leaving them to lower prices even more and get even less for ROFR. That doesn't help sellers it hurts them badly.  Wait until you are the seller and then tell me how well it worked. Until then you are buying into the smoke and mirrors and have nothing to back your position.  The actual transaction above - with the seller getting $4400 for what supporters of ROFR think should be a $12,000+ week - is fact.  The seller got hosed - again.  And Marriott laughs all the way to the bank. And other buyer/owners, who desperately want to think they have a week worth 3 or 4 times the actual value - try to support it. When you have an actual sale in hand THEN you can say it worked (or didn't).  So far the facts say it doesn't.


----------



## gmarine (Mar 25, 2008)

timeos2 said:


> Why do you think that?  The next offer should be $4300 or less - the buyer doesn't care and the seller gets screwed once the offer is verified.  No one in their right mind should pay MORE than the lowest ROFR as that is obviously the floor if even a developer who can double or triple the resale price won't pay it.
> 
> The seller only gets the low ball offer. THATS why it doesn't help sellers. In fact it hurts them as informed buyers will offer less or not make any offer thus leaving them to lower prices even more and get even less for ROFR. That doesn't help sellers it hurts them badly.  Wait until you are the seller and then tell me how well it worked. Until then you are buying into the smoke and mirrors and have nothing to back your position.  The actual transaction above - with the seller getting $4400 for what supporters of ROFR think should be a $12,000+ week - is fact.  The seller got hosed - again.  And Marriott laughs all the way to the bank. And other buyer/owners, who desperately want to think they have a week worth 3 or 4 times the actual value - try to support it. When you have an actual sale in hand THEN you can say it worked (or didn't).  So far the facts say it doesn't.




If Marriott is buying back at $4400 then logically they will buy back for less than that. So if I want that resort I know I have to up my offers. 

Marriott exercising ROFR is a big reason why 2 years ago you could buy Manor club platinum for around $7000 and now your lucky to get one at $9000. 

Take a look at resorts that have ROFR. Now compare to resale prices of similar quality resorts that dont.


----------



## hipslo (Mar 25, 2008)

timeos2 said:


> Why do you think that?  The next offer should be $4300 or less -



But it wont be - offers from informed buyers will be the same or higher.  That is the case whether you want it to be so or not.  Many on this forum will report that is the case from their own experience, including me.

On a prior post, I asked whether anyone had ever done what you suggested - keep making lower offers until finally rofr is not exercised and buyer gets the lower price.  No one stepped forward to indicate they had ever done this, or heard of anyone else who had ever done this.  You are getting lost in the theoretical, and ignoring how this actually works in reality.  

In any event, this point has already  been debated to death, I dont see the need to rehash it again here.  You can continue to believe that rofr hurts owners.  That's fine.  But they're not going away, and most of the best developers have them, so it is what it is, and its not going to change.  Whats the point of hoping to the contrary?


----------



## Mydogs2big (Mar 25, 2008)

Marriott is nice now. Time goes by, the resorts get older and MFs rise. Owners get tired of paying too much to contractors for upgrades and sometimes fire Marriott.

People get smart fast with the internet.  I learned immediately not to bid on a resale Marriott because of the ROFR.  We still stay at Marriotts, but we don't own there. 

I think ROFR gets a few people to bid high, but mostly sends would be buyers looking for something else to purchase.  It also ties up both the buyers and sellers money for too long and makes you equate Marriotts as not good for future resale, even if it's incorrect.  Just like the salesmen for Groupo Mayan leave an impression that the resort is a sham.  

Certainly not true, but it still leaves you with a bad taste and doesn't help you with equating the resort to "quality or desirability"


----------



## KathyPet (Mar 25, 2008)

It is still a buyer and seller market.  If the buyer chooses to accept a very low ball offer because they might be desparate to sell that is their right. No one shoved them into accepting that low a price. So if they are willing to go that low then why is Marriott so wrong to snatch it up at that price?Remember you need a "motivated" seller and obviously this seller was very motivated.  
The seller doesn't care who buys it at the price they have chosen to sell it at.  The buyer is mad because they thought they were getting a "real steal" and now they are having it snatched away.  Too bad!  So sad!
If the buyer really wants a week at that resort they will have to offer more and that puts money in the sellers pockets.  The buyer can come back to the table with a better offer if they really want the week that badly and perhaps Marriott will not exercise ROFR on a higher price.
If the buyer wants a "real steal" than perhaps they should only make offers on resorts that thre is no ROFR on but then they wouldn't be buying Marriott would they?  They want the quality of Marriott but at bargin basement prices.


----------



## TheTimeTraveler (Mar 25, 2008)

*Marriott's ROFR*

I know most of Marriott's Resorts do have the ROFR built into their contracts, however there are some older Marriott Resorts which do not.

Is there a TUG member out there that can accurately list those Marriott Resorts which do not require the ROFR process at time of resale?

Thanks!


----------



## vacationtime1 (Mar 25, 2008)

TheTimeTraveler said:


> I know most of Marriott's Resorts do have the ROFR built into their contracts, however there are some older Marriott Resorts which do not.
> 
> Is there a TUG member out there that can accurately list those Marriott Resorts which do not require the ROFR process at time of resale?
> 
> Thanks!



Check this sticky:

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13111


----------



## thinze3 (Mar 25, 2008)

Marriott offered me about $6,800 for my platinum EOY Legends Edge only two months ago. I was inquiring about uprading to another resort. They are selling them (EOY platinum) for a little over $12,000, but had no inventory.

But now they yours.


----------



## Beverley (Mar 25, 2008)

As a seller I would set my price for a price I wouldn't giving it back to Marriott at, since if it is too low Marriott will step in.  Also, as a seller it is easier to think about going through Marriott resales rather than a low ball outside offer.  

As a buyer, I would set my offer large enough that it is worth bothering with the deal.  Too low means I might not get the opportunity to get the deal.  While I have 8 timeshares, I do not seek to buy something I do not want at the time.  I would not be happy to lose the deal over a couple of thousand dollars.  

As for Marriott it gives them some way to stay in the game after a resort sells out.

Sorry .... I vote for ROFR

Beverley


----------



## Robert D (Mar 25, 2008)

Steamboat Bill said:


> $4,400 seems cheap for a Marriott platinum week. Is it a 1 bedroom?
> 
> I am glad they ROFRed it as this obviously establishes a floor for prices and Marriott will never sell for $1 like many do on eBay.



Obviously you haven't seen many of the sales at Marriott Streamside in Vail. You can buy offseason weeks and sometimes summer weeks for $1.00 up and down the street and Marriott won't ROFR them.  You can even find ski weeks for under $2,000.  Marriott doesn't seem to be motivated to maintain the price of this one.


----------



## JimIg23 (Mar 25, 2008)

Robert D said:


> Obviously you haven't seen many of the sales at Marriott Streamside in Vail. You can buy offseason weeks and sometimes summer weeks for $1.00 up and down the street and Marriott won't ROFR them.  You can even find ski weeks for under $2,000.  Marriott doesn't seem to be motivated to maintain the price of this one.



Per the Marriott sticky, Streamside does not seem to have an ROFR.  If that is the case, to me, it should be a positive of ROFR in keeping the prices at a certain level.  Many may not like ROFR, but it was a positive consideration for me in buying resale (in conjunction with the Marriott name) because if I need to sell, hopefully I wont have to sell for $1.   Now, if Marriott basically abandons a TS that has ROFR and does not pick up any on a ROFR, it just may go for $1.  Does anyone know if this has happened before?


----------



## TheTimeTraveler (Mar 25, 2008)

Marriott's bailed out of two of the five buildings at Streamside and I predict that it's just a matter of time before they unload the last three.    Why should they be bothered with ROFR given those circumstances?


----------



## timeos2 (Mar 25, 2008)

JimIg23 said:


> Per the Marriott sticky, Streamside does not seem to have an ROFR.  If that is the case, to me, it should be a positive of ROFR in keeping the prices at a certain level.  Many may not like ROFR, but it was a positive consideration for me in buying resale (in conjunction with the Marriott name) because if I need to sell, hopefully I wont have to sell for $1.   Now, if Marriott basically abandons a TS that has ROFR and does not pick up any on a ROFR, it just may go for $1.  Does anyone know if this has happened before?



Another piece of the puzzle. You have ZERO guarantee that Mother Marriott will be around tomorrow or in 5 years. In fact history says they will walk leaving no active ROFR, no Marriott name and a resort, if you played the game of ROFR, you paid 4 or 5 times above market value for that suddenly reverts to the much lower going price.  ROFR is one of the ultimate in cons yet otherwise smart people fall into the trap.  Just shows there really is one born every minute - you just have to know how to manipulate the "deal" so the marks think they win and others lose. People love to buy into that idea. That they are really the eventual losers is lost on them until its far too late. How do you think Wyndham makes a product 95% overvalued seem to be a "good buy"? Manipulation, play to the buyers/owners ego "You'll be Platinum VIP with secret bonus rights" and watch them line up to waste their money.  ROFR is a similar game but those who want to believe can't get the rose colored glasses off long enough to see it. And Marriott loves them all the way to the bank and as long as they can milk the resort for excessive fees. Then they walk and never ever look back. Has it - can it happen? You bet! Ask those who have seen it occur. It's no fantasy when they stop playing - its an owners nightmare. Don't get sucked in.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Mar 25, 2008)

*Still Trying To Understand Why Anobody Subscribes To The R. O. F. R. Myth.*




timeos2 said:


> Another piece of the puzzle. You have ZERO guarantee that Mother Marriott will be around tomorrow or in 5 years. In fact history says they will walk leaving no active ROFR, no Marriott name and a resort, if you played the game of ROFR, you paid 4 or 5 times above market value for that suddenly reverts to the much lower going price.  ROFR is one of the ultimate in cons yet otherwise smart people fall into the trap.  Just shows there really is one born every minute - you just have to know how to manipulate the "deal" so the marks think they win and others lose. People love to buy into that idea. That they are really the eventual losers is lost on them until its far too late. How do you think Wyndham makes a product 95% overvalued seem to be a "good buy"? Manipulation, play to the buyers/owners ego "You'll be Platinum VIP with secret bonus rights" and watch them line up to waste their money.  ROFR is a similar game but those who want to believe can't get the rose colored glasses off long enough to see it. And Marriott loves them all the way to the bank and as long as they can milk the resort for excessive fees. Then they walk and never ever look back. Has it - can it happen? You bet! Ask those who have seen it occur. It's no fantasy when they stop playing - its an owners nightmare. Don't get sucked in.


And that's just what a raw deal ROFR is after the timeshare company bails. 

It's also a raw deal _before_ the timeshare company bails, while the weasels in suits are still snarfing up those lowball resales that benefit nobody -- not the owners & not the buyers & not the sellers -- _nobody_ but the timeshare company. 

ROFR = ROFL. 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## MLC (Mar 25, 2008)

*Marriott ROFR*

To muddy up the water.  The terms of the ROFR is based upon the original purchase agreement and matching the terms of that agreement.  Most purchaser agreement will have, who the closing company will be( Marriott uses their own).  If they buy it back for $4,400 Marriott will send you a new purchaser agreement(not honoring the original agreement) and will increase the price to $4,800($400 more) and have you pay $400 for closing which was not in the original purchase agreement.  What this does is that it raises the cost basis  for Marriott so they will not have to pay as much in taxes.  If the original agreement says the closing will be in 59 days, Marriott will set their own closing date.  I do not understand how Marriott  gets away with it.  All these terms of the original purchase agreement are spelled out but Marriott does not go by those terms.

I wander if the buyer would put in the purchase agreement that if Marriott buys the timeshare back then the buyer will get a $1,000 for signing the contract.(Marriott will not buy the timeshare unless you have a signed the contract). 

 I do not know if that is illegal, so if there are any real estate attorneys out there I would like to know your comments on the legality of Marriott sending a new purchase agreement with different terms than the original.


----------



## jimf41 (Mar 26, 2008)

I tried to not post to this ridiculous debate but some of the claims are really off the wall.
John,
Do you really believe that if any TS company eliminated ROFR that you could then buy a unit at 20-25% of it's current selling price? That means an Ocean Point platinum week should sell for about $6000. I'll buy the whole year at platinum price. Let's see that would come to $312,000. The MF would be $57,000. But wait, that includes weekly made service, free electric, free climate control, free internet, free cable, free maintenance both inside and outside, a complete remodeling every 10 years and a partial one every 5 years. Did I leave anything out? Oh yes, concierge service, 24 hour security, free aerobic classes and free gym. One more thing, a GM that will bend over backwards trying to take care of every complaint I have no matter how trivial.

Do you believe that Wyndam could make a fair profit, or any profit, if it lowered it's prices by 95%?

Do you win a lot of Ebay auctions by bidding less than an item sold for in the past? Especially when you know there's someone out there that wants that item and they consistently bid at a certain price level?

What school of economics did you an Alan go to anyway?

I understand there are some folks that just don't like ROFR. That's fine but you shouldn't try to sell your point with made up and bizarre statistics.


----------



## AmyL4408 (Mar 26, 2008)

Beverley said:


> Sorry .... I vote for ROFR





Me too!    


Why exactly if the seller was willing to sell for $4400 to a person,  does it make it so awful that Marriott has a right to buy it for the same price?   As long as I get my $4400 I wanted, I don't really care who buys it.    

If a seller didn't want to sell for $4400, they shouldn't have offered it for that price to begin with.    Marriott is not stealing it, just paying what you asked.



It seems the only person being hurt in this scenario is the "Smart" resale buyer,  who will have to pay more if they actually want to buy.


----------



## m61376 (Mar 26, 2008)

I think ROFR helps sustain the market overall partially because of human nature. There will always be those sellers who, due to personal situations, will let a unit go for significantly less than market value. Whether they sell to their buyer or to Marriott, they still get the same $$'s. 

However, astute buyers, who follow the market, would otherwise perceive the desperation pricing as the fair market pricing; after all, if someone else got it for that price, I should be able to also, right? Effectively, that depresses the resale market and, ultimately, the value of my owned unit, whether I bought it resale or through the developer.

I know many argue to just let the free market determine value, and to let Marriott profit once again by nabbing all the great deals is just unfair. In reality it is only "unfair" to the buyer who looked to take advantage of someone else's desperation or stupidity; it doesn't harm the seller and it doesn't harm other owners. It actually protects other owners.


----------



## timeos2 (Mar 26, 2008)

*The sellers tell a different tale*



Mydogs2big said:


> Marriott is nice now. Time goes by, the resorts get older and MFs rise. Owners get tired of paying too much to contractors for upgrades and sometimes fire Marriott.
> 
> People get smart fast with the internet.  I learned immediately not to bid on a resale Marriott because of the ROFR.  We still stay at Marriotts, but we don't own there.
> 
> ...



This is exactly what an informed buyer would think. Don't waste your time and effort with a resort that has ROFR or pay extra for the Marriott (or Hilton or DVC, etc) name that may be gone tomorrow.  It is this buyer, the majority of resale buyers as they tend to be informed, that won't bid for a ROFR unit and therefore the poor ROFR seller gets no offers (Marriott won't buy until the seller gets a sucker to bid then they steal the week if they feel like it) thus there is no price protection but really a price depression (and lack of buyers) for a ROFR week.  That has been proven over and over again by actual sellers postings. 

Meanwhile we get the suckers - er, buyers, who play the game and think they "beat" ROFR by paying too much. Of course they believe it, it feeds the ego, until THEY are sellers. Then the cold facts hit home.  Dream on ROFR supporters, dream on.  I suppose you'd also think that a DVC week with 2 years left on the long term lease and two big annual fees left to pay before it reverts, for free, to Disney will still "hold it's value" for those buyers. Yeah, right.  People can be convinced of anything I guess.


----------



## KathyPet (Mar 26, 2008)

I notice that you do not have any Marriott's in your portfolio.  Is that perhaps because you are determined to purchase one at rock bottom bargin basement prices and have been unable to do so because Marriott keeps exercising ROFR for the weeks you want??  You will have a difficult row to hoe trying to convince a seller that ROFR ids a bad thing.  As far as Marriott going away dream on!  The sales of Marriott MVCI units continue to grow year after year and provide a solid source of income for the corporation.  They ain't going anywhere.  In the meantime I suggest that you consult the list of vacation clubs that do not exercise ROFR aand keep trying to pick one of those up for $4000 or under.  Good Luck!


----------



## thinze3 (Mar 26, 2008)

*Here's the bottom line.*

It is very likely that Marriott's ROFR helps some and hurts others. Yes, it may keep a potential buyer away, because they don't won't to deal with it. Yes it may make another potential buyer raise his price, because he too doesn't want to deal with it.

Truth of the matter is, if you want to get a 2BR unit at a nice Marriott resort in Hilton Head, Newport Coast, Park City, Hawaii, Aruba, etc.., during a prime season, *and you want to plan your vacation well in advance*, you will have to own a Marriott property to trade into these places. You most likely will even have to own a platinum week or a very good gold week at that. And, to get one of these weeks, *you will have to pay at least what Marriott is willing accept.*

No free ride in the Marriott system. 

............................................................................(except maybe for Perry) :hysterical:


.


----------



## gmarine (Mar 26, 2008)

timeos2 said:


> This is exactly what an informed buyer would think. Don't waste your time and effort with a resort that has ROFR or pay extra for the Marriott (or Hilton or DVC, etc) name that may be gone tomorrow.  It is this buyer, the majority of resale buyers as they tend to be informed, that won't bid for a ROFR unit and therefore the poor ROFR seller gets no offers (Marriott won't buy until the seller gets a sucker to bid then they steal the week if they feel like it) thus there is no price protection but really a price depression (and lack of buyers) for a ROFR week.  That has been proven over and over again by actual sellers postings.
> 
> Meanwhile we get the suckers - er, buyers, who play the game and think they "beat" ROFR by paying too much. Of course they believe it, it feeds the ego, until THEY are sellers. Then the cold facts hit home.  Dream on ROFR supporters, dream on.  I suppose you'd also think that a DVC week with 2 years left on the long term lease and two big annual fees left to pay before it reverts, for free, to Disney will still "hold it's value" for those buyers. Yeah, right.  People can be convinced of anything I guess.



Youve obviously never been involved in selling real estate or timeshares and dont understand basic supply and demand.

ROFR creates more competition regardless of whether Marriott buys it back or not. Resorts that have ROFR hold their value better than those that do not. Try disputing that. Find equal resorts, one with, one without and see which one is selling for more.

Think there is a reason why Marriott's hold their value? And again Manor Club has increased in price 20-25% in the last two years while other VA resorts are in the toilet.
You can try to spin it any way you want but you have nothing to back up the claim that ROFR doesnt help sellers.


----------



## seatrout (Mar 26, 2008)

gmarine said:


> Youve obviously never been involved in selling real estate or timeshares and dont understand basic supply and demand.
> 
> ROFR creates more competition regardless of whether Marriott buys it back or not. Resorts that have ROFR hold their value better than those that do not. Try disputing that. Find equal resorts, one with, one without and see which one is selling for more.
> 
> ...



Agreed.

The most expensive part of our vacation is getting everyone airfare and loss of potential income from work.  This is even more if you own your own business and the office essentially shut down when you are not there.  Thus when we go on vacation- we want certain standar of quality and brand name.
So given the same resort quality, I would pick a well know name than unknow at any location and pay what it cost to buy/rent there.

ROFR provide a floor on what you can buy/sell for.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Mar 26, 2008)

*Partly Correct.*




seatrout said:


> ROFR provide a floor on what you can buy/sell for.


People can & do sell below the floor.  All ROFR means is that regular walking around bottom feeding resale timeshare buyers can't buy below the floor.  Only the deck-stacking timeshare company gets to do that.  That & that alone is the purpose & function of ROFR.  

From the psychological perspective, 1 has to acknowledge that it is possibly better for people who overpay because of ROFR not to realize that they are overpaying & thus to feel that ROFR is a good thing.  Otherwise, the overpayers would soon catch on that they are being ripped off & might feel bad about it.  Therefore, who's to say that nobody but the timeshare company benefits from ROFR ? 

The timeshare company benefits financially. 

The timeshare buyers benefit psychologically. 

Is this a great country or what ? 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## Steamboat Bill (Mar 26, 2008)

AwayWeGo said:


> People can & do sell below the floor.  All ROFR means is that regular walking around bottom feeding resale timeshare buyers can't buy below the floor.  Only the deck-stacking timeshare company gets to do that.  That & that alone is the purpose & function of ROFR.




Shux...are you coining a new term for TUGers that want the best deal possible..."regular walking around bottom feeding resale timeshare buyers"?


----------



## hipslo (Mar 26, 2008)

AwayWeGo said:


> From the psychological perspective, 1 has to acknowledge that it is possibly better for people who overpay because of ROFR not to realize that they are overpaying & thus to feel that ROFR is a good thing.  Otherwise, the overpayers would soon catch on that they are being ripped off & might feel bad about it.



If people (plural) are "overpaying" as you put it due to rofr, by definition there is a market for the unit at the higher, "overpayment" price, therefore that price establishes market value.  Willing buyer, willing seller equals market value.  If there were no market at the higher, rofr supported price, there would be no resales, other than back to marriott under rofr, and we all know that is not the case.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Mar 26, 2008)

*Look At It Another Way.  (Knowledge Is Power.)*




hipslo said:


> If people (plural) are "overpaying" as you put it due to rofr, by definition there is a market for the unit at the higher, "overpayment" price, therefore that price establishes market value.  Willing buyer, willing seller equals market value.  If there were no market at the higher, rofr supported price, there would be no resales, other than back to marriott under rofr, and we all know that is not the case.


Well, shux, we also know that some people pay big bux for full freight timeshares "new" straight from the timeshare companies.  That shows there is a market out there for "new" timeshares at full retail prices. 

So -- would you say those full freight timeshare customers are overpaying ? 

Basically, the fact that people go along with ROFR doesn't undo the ROFR equation (i.e., ROFR = ROFL) . 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## hipslo (Mar 26, 2008)

AwayWeGo said:


> So -- would you say those full freight timeshare customers are overpaying ?



Compared to the other available alternative, resales, yes I would.  They are doing so because they are unaware of that other alternative, so they are not fully informed.  Resale buyers are fully informed and are paying what they are paying based on all available info (including the 40 to 50% or so discount they get off of developer pricing, even with rofr).


----------



## timeos2 (Mar 26, 2008)

*Why pay for the cow when you can buy just the milk?*



hipslo said:


> Compared to the other available alternative, resales, yes I would.  They are doing so because they are unaware of that other alternative, so they are not fully informed.  Resale buyers are fully informed and are paying what they are paying based on all available info (including the 40 to 50% or so discount they get off of developer pricing, even with rofr).



Well, this fully informed resale buyer looked at Marriott Manor House (one of my all time favorite resorts) seriously as both a resale and retail purchase. Why isn't it in my portfolio list? Because the retail price was, like all retail timeshares, too high as you are paying for the developer overhead.  Sorry, I don't do that.  So what about resale? Nope - artificially propped up by ROFR so despite the fact that owners WANT to get out and are willing to sell at a true market value (which is all they end up getting minus any fees, commissions, etc Marriott chooses to hit them with) as a buyer I get closed out as Marriott grabs the deals to make money for themselves and leaving the seller taking the low price (so, again, how were they "protected"?).  

The answer? Travel to the beautiful Marriott resorts without paying the much inflated and artificial price, the inflated fees charged to owners (managed by the Marriott group who tacks on overhead and requirements making them one of the top three highest fees in all of timesharing)  by buying good resorts that don't have manipulated resale prices and offer reasonable annual fees. It is an easy trade using II and the corporate priority offered when you aren't a paying II member (who gets snookered by the Corporate priority). In fact we get back "change" from our week as  reserving the Marriott(s) we desire doesn't even use up our annual points allotment in II.  All for no membership fee with II, no inflated ROFR price games and no Marriott inflated annual fees.  Play the ROFR game? I think not. I save thousands and stay at the same resorts by using the system rather than playing the loser game of ROFR.  And when Marriott drops a resort (as they do regularly) it just means I pay even less in points to get it and didn't lose my inflated and artificial purchase price for a Marriott that no longer is.  THAT is price protection and value for the purchase dollar. Not over paying to be an owner at a Marriott (note: a single Marriott - I get to choose from all the Marriotts as a corporate II user) and have zero hassles from management prices, fees or purchase costs.  So I repeat - don't play the ROFR game look for alternatives and enjoy deep discounts for the exact same resorts some wish to badly overpay for.  Thats the advantage to being a truly informed timeshare consumer. 

Marriotts we have enjoyed (all in summer or holiday periods):

Manor House (original & sequel - 3 stays)
Grand Chateau - 2 stays
Custom House (1 stay)
Grand Vista (RCI - wasn't impressed with this resort by the way) 1 stay

Thats all we've ever asked for so owning may not even had made sense but we were tempted until we heard the cost of purchase & the cost of ownership.  Now we're happy we didn't fall for the trap as we are basically done with Marriott and seem to be able to get one at will if we do want to stay there.


----------



## thinze3 (Mar 26, 2008)

John,
I am sorry you are having to defend your opinion on the ROFR issue. As a Moderator, I am sure you have seen this topic come and go a hundred times. You definately have the right to see things the way you do.

Anyhow, have you ever been to Rayburn Country? If so, what did you think about it? We have considered doing the long weekend thing there.

I see you also have Kingsgate. We traded our 3BR CL for a 3BR cottage there a few years ago. It was a huge two story - had a great time!


----------



## timeos2 (Mar 26, 2008)

*Let me know what Rayburn is like*



thinze3 said:


> John,
> I am sorry you are having to defend your opinion on the ROFR issue. As a Moderator, I am sure you have seen this topic come and go a hundred times. You definately have the right to see things the way you do.
> 
> Anyhow, have you ever been to Rayburn Country? If so, what did you think about it? We have considered doing the long weekend thing there.
> ...



The only timeshare we own but have never seen is Rayburn Country. They recently got upgraded to Silver Crown so it can't be bad.  They seem to have figured out the way to make RCI Points work for them rather than against them so I have a lot of respect for that group. Other resorts should take notice and work to increase ownership and fees through RCI Points IMO.  

Kingsgate just went through a three year major renovation and a big special assessment to pay for it all.  I hope it has turned out nice, we always liked that resort but haven't stayed there since 2001.  We end up spending all pur FSP points elsewhere it seems.   

As for ROFR - well I doubt my mind will ever be changed about that. I don't see it as a positive and strongly suggest avoiding any resort that has it.


----------



## Steamboat Bill (Mar 26, 2008)

timeos2 said:


> As for ROFR - well I doubt my mind will ever be changed about that. I don't see it as a positive and strongly suggest avoiding any resort that has it.



I am not "pro" or "con" ROFR....it just seems that all my ownership weeks have ROFR and I like the resorts, so it is not a huge factor to me.

DVC - I love it and any resales are priced at 90% current developer prices. Because I have bought 7 contracts since 2001, I am WAY into the profit on every contract that I bought directly from Disney. Let's not get started on RUT as I probably will not be alive when that date arrives.

Marriott - No problems here as I can sell my MMC for what I paid or slight profit. Either way, it is a good trader for me.

Westgate - Don't know if it is ROFR or not, but you can't buy any ski week here for under $25k and developer prices are 50-60K or more.

HCC - this is a destination club and I love it, but I can't sell on the open market and will only get 80% returned to me. But my buy-in price was low and this is my favorite vacation club that I own. This would be the last one I sell (besides holding a small DVC contract forever)


----------



## timeos2 (Mar 26, 2008)

*We can't make money - stop the buying!*



Steamboat Bill said:


> Marriott - No problems here as I can sell my MMC for what I paid or slight profit. Either way, it is a good trader for me.



Bill - how do you know that?  Just because you put your week(s) up for sale at slightly over what you think the ROFR price is doesn't mean they will sell for that or even anything close to it.  History says they won't sell and to find a buyer the price has to be cut to the point that Marriott steps in and takes it - not at what they would be willing to pay on ROFR but at whatever low price you had to cut the selling price to in attracting an offer. Thats the problem - it's not an offer to buy at $XX but a method to make you do the work and then to have Marriott step in and take the week(s) at the lower price. Everyone except Marriott loses.  If you are happy owning it and don't think you'll sell anytime soon then there's no problem. But thinking that somehow ROFR is going to get you more if you DO decide to sell is dreaming. Thats why it's best avoided.  

Same with DVC. While they can make money they prop up the price. The minute they know the money is strictly in annual fees bye bye ROFR and the price on resale will plummet.  Anytime you have an artificial hand in the mix eventually they will tire of the game and let things go to market value. If you bought when the props were in place and have to sell when they are gone you will lose.  Don't take the risk.  It's a game to them and its real money to us.


----------



## hipslo (Mar 26, 2008)

timeos2 said:


> The minute they know the money is strictly in annual fees bye bye ROFR and the price on resale will plummet.



 you actually seem to acknowledge that rofr keeps resale prices higher, per above....


----------



## timeos2 (Mar 26, 2008)

*ROFR great for developers Buyers - Sellers beware!*



hipslo said:


> you actually seem to acknowledge that rofr keeps resale prices higher, per above....



Only for the developer. The seller gets the low ball amount that the willing buyer offers NOT the amount the ROFR could be. Thats what supporters seem to miss about ROFR. It's not a floor price - its a guaranteed profit mark for the developer. They hope you don't sell and simply keep paying the fees.  They use ROFR to discourage potential resale buyers thus hurting resale prices and sellers. The seller we talked to didn't get the inflated price from us as it was inflated not market rate. They ended up selling for LESS than we offered (already well below any ROFR nonsense) that they originally turned down but, surprise, Marriott grabbed it not the buyer they actually got to make the offer. It's really very easy if you follow the bouncing ball and ignore the cheerleaders who hope they didn't overpay for their time and want to believe they are somehow "protected".  Read the posts from those who actually try to SELL not the posts of those who want to be believers in the myth that they can get anything close to the inflated prices they paid. Reality hurts.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Mar 26, 2008)

*R. O. F. R. = R. O. F. L.*




hipslo said:


> you actually seem to acknowledge that rofr keeps resale prices higher, per above....


With ROFR in the picture we don't know that the resale prices are high, only that the timeshare company snaps up all the low-price resales. 

Just because I have to pay big bux for a ROFR resale in no way means that the timeshare company has to pay big bux or that the resale sellers all receive big bux.

Get it ? 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## janapur (Mar 26, 2008)

gmarine said:


> Youve obviously never been involved in selling real estate or timeshares and dont understand basic supply and demand.
> 
> ROFR creates more competition regardless of whether Marriott buys it back or not. Resorts that have ROFR hold their value better than those that do not. Try disputing that. Find equal resorts, one with, one without and see which one is selling for more.
> 
> ...




Regarding your "obvious" observation; I _am_ involved in buying and selling real estate (and ts just for fun) and I will respectfully disagree.

Comparable to real estate auctions which are very common these days, ROFR is much like an auction with an unknown reserve. I can attest that absolute auctions have always sold for more than those with with a reserve. Investors such as myself have been debating the reason for this phenomenon for years.

Why doesn't every seller agree to an absolute sale? The risk of being an exception to this theory.

Jana


----------



## timeos2 (Mar 26, 2008)

*Would you pay near retail because Wastegate gets it everyday? Of course not.*

Ok, I just thought of another way to put it. 

When we see a resale offer for a resort based on the "current developer price" what is the reaction? After we get done laughing and shaking our heads over the gullibility of the seller we move on to the next ad.  

So why would having the chance of getting an accepted offer for a reasonable price (what is after all the market price - a willing seller and willing buyer agree to it thus it is the market value)  stolen by the developer under the guise of ROFR make me offer more? It STILL isn't a good value anymore than the retail asking price is. It just means I should move on to the next resort / seller - not up the offer. To do anything else is not using your head  - its falling for the "its the only car/resort for me" price trap. Read any wise consumer based tip publication to find out why that is the wrong approach - and one every sales person hopes you'll fall into.  Move on and get your deal - don't fall for the game.  Let the poor seller find out the hard way that what they are going to get is the market price - far below what the developer sells for and they paid if they fell into the trap.  It's not our worry as informed  buyers.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Mar 26, 2008)

*Keeping It Simple -- & Straightforward.*




janapur said:


> RROFR is much like an auction with an unknown reserve. I can attest that absolute auctions have always sold for more than those with with a reserve. Investors such as myself have been debating the reason for this phenomenon for years.


Some years ago I put a beautiful antique Couesnon (Paris) long-model shepherd's-crook satin-finish silver-plated cornet on eBay -- with a lowball opening bid amount & a reserve amount that was unknown to prospective bidders.  (They knew there was a reserve,  but they didn't know what that reserve price was.) 

The item got some bids but the e-auction ended without a sale because none of the bids reached the hidden reserve amount. 

So I put the nice old cornet back on eBay with a somewhat higher opening bid amount & no reserve.  At the end of the 2nd 7-day e-auction, the antique instrument sold for a higher price than the reserve amount which had been hidden from bidders when I tried it the 1st time.  

Live & learn, eh? 





> Why doesn't every seller agree to an absolute sale?


I don't know.  Too simple, maybe. 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## thinze3 (Mar 26, 2008)

I think there is some kind of mentality that if I reach the seller's reserve than maybe I'm paying to much. The mentality changes of course on an absolute auction. I do understand John's opinion that ome buyers will stay away from Marriott's "reserve not met" system.


I bought 4 season tickets this year to all 20 concerts at the Houston Livestock Show & Rodeo. To help on the cost, I sold about half of them on eBay. I also gave a few away. I learned quickly that many buyers wanted the "no reserve" tickets, and many others wanted "buy it now", but very few liked the "reserve not met" auctions.

I had such good luck with it that I bought partial season tickets to the Astros.  I plan to go to many games this year FREE after selling many others.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Mar 26, 2008)

*Credit Where Credit Is Due.*




Steamboat Bill said:


> Shux...are you coining a new term for TUGers that want the best deal possible..."regular walking around bottom feeding resale timeshare buyers"?


Shux, Steamer, the best I can do is reflect some of the wisdom I absorb from you & my other role models here on TUG-BBS. 

In fact, I think I picked up the very apt bottom feeder designation from 1 of your entries. 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## Steamboat Bill (Mar 26, 2008)

AwayWeGo said:


> In fact, I think I picked up the very apt bottom feeder designation from 1 of your entries.




You have a very good memory....

My old quote is this:
"Too many TUGers make a big deal about ROFR, but those are usually the bottom feeders and low ballers. Thanks to ROFR, those people get weeded out of from buying."


----------



## AwayWeGo (Mar 26, 2008)

*You Give Me Too Much Credit.*




Steamboat Bill said:


> You have a very good memory....


_Naaaaaaah._ 

I just know how to use the _search_ feature on TUG-BBS. 

So it goes. 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## Beverley (Mar 26, 2008)

jimf41 said:


> I tried to not post to this ridiculous debate but some of the claims are really off the wall.
> John,
> Do you really believe that if any TS company eliminated ROFR that you could then buy a unit at 20-25% of it's current selling price? That means an Ocean Point platinum week should sell for about $6000. I'll buy the whole year at platinum price. Let's see that would come to $312,000. The MF would be $57,000. But wait, that includes weekly made service, free electric, free climate control, free internet, free cable, free maintenance both inside and outside, a complete remodeling every 10 years and a partial one every 5 years. Did I leave anything out? Oh yes, concierge service, 24 hour security, free aerobic classes and free gym. One more thing, a GM that will bend over backwards trying to take care of every complaint I have no matter how trivial.
> 
> ...




I like your example.  Not to start trouble but... did you know that there were a couple of owners that bought 52 weeks at Newport Coast.  It works out to be much less than the cost of purchasing a condo in that area.... and that was at developer prices (preconstruction) not resale.  I think Ocean Point would be similar. The point of maid service and replacement cost for anything that doesn't work ... redecorating etc... they didn't feel it was a bad deal at all.

Beverley


----------



## Beverley (Mar 26, 2008)

AmyL4408 said:


> Me too!
> 
> 
> Why exactly if the seller was willing to sell for $4400 to a person,  does it make it so awful that Marriott has a right to buy it for the same price?   As long as I get my $4400 I wanted, I don't really care who buys it.
> ...



Tooche...

Beverley


----------



## Steamboat Bill (Mar 26, 2008)

Beverley said:


> I like your example.  Not to start trouble but... did you know that there were a couple of owners that bought 52 weeks at Newport Coast.  It works out to be much less than the cost of purchasing a condo in that area.... and that was at developer prices (preconstruction) not resale.  I think Ocean Point would be similar. The point of maid service and replacement cost for anything that doesn't work ... redecorating etc... they didn't feel it was a bad deal at all.
> 
> Beverley



This could be pulled off for BeachPlace and is something I would consider as the resale price is $12k per week = $624,000 for a 2 bedroom beach condo. With annual dues of $52k this is definately cheaper than buying a condo there.

My question is can you reserve the same unit 52 weeks or do you have to get a reservation each week and switch units?


----------



## Beverley (Mar 26, 2008)

Steamboat Bill said:


> My question is can you reserve the same unit 52 weeks or do you have to get a reservation each week and switch units?



Would you want concurrent :rofl: that would be sommmme beach party!

Would think that you could call 13months out ....

Actually, I was told (can't say for sure as I didn't speak directly with the owner) that you could assure the same unit.  

Beverley


----------



## timeos2 (Mar 26, 2008)

Steamboat Bill said:


> This could be pulled off for BeachPlace and is something I would consider as the resale price is $12k per week = $624,000 for a 2 bedroom beach condo. With annual dues of $52k this is definately cheaper than buying a condo there.
> 
> My question is can you reserve the same unit 52 weeks or do you have to get a reservation each week and switch units?



Not a bad deal for the summer weeks but WAY too much for the off season. Sort of kills the idea of only paying for what you plan to use.  If you're going to pay that type of money buy a whole ownership condo. it will be cheaper in the long run and have true real estate value not some bogus ROFR number and the hassles of trying to sell 52 weeks of timeshare (talk about a nightmare!)


----------



## hipslo (Mar 26, 2008)

Beverley said:


> I like your example.  Not to start trouble but... did you know that there were a couple of owners that bought 52 weeks at Newport Coast.  It works out to be much less than the cost of purchasing a condo in that area.... and that was at developer prices (preconstruction) not resale.  I think Ocean Point would be similar. The point of maid service and replacement cost for anything that doesn't work ... redecorating etc... they didn't feel it was a bad deal at all.
> 
> Beverley



The same holds true for buying the entire ski season at mountainside or summit watch (resale) - its a screaming buy compared to a comparable condo.


----------



## thinze3 (Mar 26, 2008)

Steamboat Bill said:


> This could be pulled off for BeachPlace and is something I would consider as the resale price is $12k per week = $624,000 for a 2 bedroom beach condo. With annual dues of $52k this is definately cheaper than buying a condo there....




Considering the fact that the dues include all furnishings, maintenance, taxes, utilities, etc.., and a facelift every 4-6 years, this does sound rather reasonable.

Meeting two new next door neighbors every week might get a little old, however.


----------



## Steamboat Bill (Mar 27, 2008)

thinze3 said:


> Considering the fact that the dues include all furnishings, maintenance, taxes, utilities, etc.., and a facelift every 4-6 years, this does sound rather reasonable.
> 
> Meeting two new next door neighbors every week might get a little old, however.



can you say "penthouse corner suite please....for 52 weeks in a row."


----------



## laxmom (Mar 27, 2008)

Funny!  After DH and I bought our last ts, I jokingly told him that we only had 50 more weeks to go!  I didn't realize that there were people who actually did this!

We just had Marriott ROFR a silver Barony week.  We knew going in that it probably wouldn't pass.  We offered asking price-agent thought it would pass.  I had serious doubts because of TUG.  We aren't upset that Marriott bought it because we knew it was possible going in.  What we are upset about is that they took the full 30 days they are allowed to do it.  We actually found out on day 31.  They didn't realize that they had our presentation; we had documentation that they had it.  We are more concerned, as current owners, in the way they handled the situation.  Hope  the other departments are on top of their work more than these guys!


----------



## scifireader08 (Jun 17, 2008)

*Marriott let this sale go through*

I am now in the process of closing on a Marriott Horizons platinum week. The sale price was $3500.00 with buyer paying closing costs. I'm so new my buyer had to educate me about ROFR, but the deal went through. I hope to duplicate that ROFR experience one more time. Thanks to all the Tuggers who contribute to the BBS. I'm learning a lot!


----------



## Bill4728 (Jun 17, 2008)

One of the responses voices my biggest concern about ROFR.

Since many of us say to get an idea of how much to pay for a TS by using Ebay completed auction service. We would see a completed auction with the selling price of $4400 and have no way of knowing if Marriott used their ROFR to grab the week or not. So buyers can know how much they can bargain without ROFR taking the TS.


----------



## Fredm (Jun 18, 2008)

janapur said:


> Regarding your "obvious" observation; I _am_ involved in buying and selling real estate (and ts just for fun) and I will respectfully disagree.
> 
> Comparable to real estate auctions which are very common these days, ROFR is much like an auction with an unknown reserve. I can attest that absolute auctions have always sold for more than those with with a reserve. Investors such as myself have been debating the reason for this phenomenon for years.
> 
> ...



Ah! Good one.

Realizing that no one is about to change their view based on information that conflicts with their first hand experience, I will add to what Jana has said.

Jana's auction analogy is supported by the few serious economic studies on the subject.

All of them arrive at the same conclusion. 
Among other disincentives, the "transaction costs" of pursuing a negotiation where the outcome can be influenced by others, acts as a deterrent to potential buyers. Most importantly to the seller, it discourages precisely the interest that is beneficial to the sellers price; competitive bidding. 

It is the very same dynamic at work with the blind reserve Jena refers to. 
Potential buyers quickly assess the "transaction cost" of an uncertain outcome, and choose to not invest their time. 

It is not easily evident that the existence of a preemption right has a negative
influence on price. The research is, by necessity, theoretical. 
Meanwhile, many of those who believe otherwise will, with vigor, reference plain old common sense to support their opinion. Theoretical abstractions are one thing; the real world behaves differently. 
Maybe. It sure is hard to not believe what conforms to our own experience.
Problem is "the market" is also made up of those that choose to not play because a preemption right exists.

I did not have a firmly held position in this debate. I initially thought that an ROFR could not have a negative influence on price. That made no sense to me. 
The theoretical arguments are compelling. So much so, they have changed my mind. 

Have a read (1 of several serious abstracts):

http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/papers/261_walker.php


----------

