# WorldMark - Relative Use Value



## ecwinch

This is a general question for all the WorldMark (WM) owners that frequent TUG and do not frequent sites where WorldMark issues are frequently discussed. And maybe even a broader opinion on the issue.

As most of you WM owners know, one of the key issues for some owners is the concept of Relative Use Value or RUV. Now this issue is very WorldMark centric, since I am not aware of another timeshare program that has something similar. Relative Use Value is a provision in the Governing Documents for WorldMark pertaining to the Developers right to set the credit allocation for new resorts that become part of WorldMark. Essentially the Developer transfers resort properties to WorldMark in exchange for a number of credits, which they in turn then sell as timeshare memberships. Now this is the provision of the declaration document that discusses Relative Use Value:

3.4(a) Allocation. Prior to recording or filing this
Declaration as to a Phase of the Property, Declarant shall allocate
to each Unit in that Phase the number of Vacation Credits required
for occupancy during different seasons of the year and on different
days of the week. *Such allocation shall be based on the relative
use-value of the new Resort compared to existing Resorts, in
Declarant's reasonable discretion.* Declarant shall notify Club in
writing of the schedule of Credits allocated to a Unit no later
than when the Unit is conveyed or transferred to the Club. The
total Vacation Credits allocated to each Unit is shown on Exhibit
"A" attached hereto. (emphasis added)

I am trying to figure out if this issue is as polarizing as I think it is. To some, this provision means that new resorts have to come into the system at the same credit allocation as existing resorts. So a brand-new resort should require the same number of credits per unit size and season as a resort built 10-12 years ago. Based on depositions from the Travelshare lawsuit, we know that the developer feels that "reasonable discretion" gives them the ability to set credit allocations based on the cost to build the resort. That if they cannot profitably build the resort, then it will not get built. Since real estate costs have increased faster than inflation, they need to charge more credits for a resort. Some are in the middle.

Just wanting to get a broader perspective. Would rather hear opinions on the issue rather than debating it. That gets done enough on other sites.

Thanks in advance....


----------



## GregT

Eric,

I am aware of the issue and do not disagree that there must be some adjustment to the credits required for newly-built units.  It is intuitive to me that it is more expensive to build now than it was 10-12 years ago, and that must be recognized in the form of some combination of higher cost per credit as well as more credits for booking comparable size units.

Where I think Wyndham is pushing the envelope is by:

1) substantial increase in the actual cost to purchase a new credit, coupled with the higher credit values needed to book units that the "older" owners may not want to visit.

2) Increased pressure for the "older" buildings from the new buyers of WM credits, due the greater volume of credits that exist due to the new properties

I understand that WM justified the increased unit cost initially for the Hawaii properties about 9 years ago and received no opposition due to the perceived desirability of having Hawaiian availability.  The trend has continued now with virtually every new resort, whether it's in a true premium location or not, and owners feel like the value of their ownership is being diluted.

It's tough stuff with no clear answer.  I don't know how there couldn't be credit inflation, it is just unfortunate that there is no trust that this credit inflation is being recognized by the developer as punitive to existing owners and that the developer takes every opportunity to ensure that the impact is minimized (versus the appearance of taking advantage of the possibility).

Good luck to all!

Greg


----------



## ecwinch

Well after over two days with only one response, I am trying to figure out what I have learned. Is the lesson, one or some of the following:

1) We only have two WorldMark members on TUG?
2) This issue to so inflammatory that no one wants to discuss it?
3) This issue is to complicated that no one wants to discuss it?
4) This really is not an issue?
5) WorldMark TUG members only want to enjoy their WM memberships and not worry about the underlying issues?
6) This thread is a trap. Eric is just waiting to someone to post something and then he is going to beat them up?
7) Why talk about it, when there is nothing we can do about it?
8) There is only one 1 WorldMark owner on TUG that does not frequent WorldMark related sites?

I only brought this question up here, since the WorldMark site does not allow questions of the nature, and I am trying to get a gauge of what other owners feel.

Greg - I appreciated you sharing your opinion with me. By and large I would agree with you. The pendulum is shifted too far to one side right at the moment. It is tough stuff. But is also tough to figure out if this a small or large issue with the majority of the WorldMark owners. And without some discussion on the issue, I think it becomes like a defacto approval of what is going on. That this is not an issue for most owners.


----------



## alwysonvac

Don't forget to add reason #8 which you stated at the beginning  


> "This is a general question for all the WorldMark (WM) owners that frequent TUG and *do not* frequent sites where WorldMark issues are frequently discussed.


----------



## Jya-Ning

I know 4 + years ago, there were several threads talk about this.  I believe at that time, the WM just add Galena?

I believe several old time WM owners was talked about it, if it is archived, you maybe able do a search.  I know PerryM was involved in it a few times.

Jya-Ning


----------



## ecwinch

alwysonvac said:


> Don't forget to add reason #8 which you stated at the beginning



Great point. I will modify my post.


----------



## melschey

ecwinch said:


> Well after over two days with only one response, I am trying to figure out what I have learned. Is the lesson, one or some of the following:




I don't think to many WM owners come here, I know that I seldom do because it seems to me that most people feel this is mainly for Wyndham(Formally Fairfield) owners. Anyway it seems to me that most of the people here are Wyndham(Fairfield) owners.


----------



## cotraveller

ecwinch said:


> Well after over two days with only one response, I am trying to figure out what I have learned. Is the lesson, one or some of the following:
> 
> 6) This thread is a trap. Eric is just waiting to someone to post something and then he is going to beat them up?



I think you got it!  

Someone reported a while back that there are around 100 people registered here who identify themselves as WorldMark owners.  A very tiny percentage of 270,000 WorldMark owners.  There are probably a few more WorldMark owners who read but are not registered and some others who do not identify themselves as WorldMark owners.

You find very few WorldMark issue discussions here any more.  When you do it often is WorldMark owners who frequent another WorldMark site and already know the issues talking among themselves.  Or a topic gets started here and is diverted to another site.  Whatever the reason, WorldMark threads here tend to die out rather quickly. Sometimes you will see something added to a WorldMark thread which looks like it was designed only to bump it up to the top.


----------



## ecwinch

cotraveller said:


> I think you got it!
> 
> Someone reported a while back that there are around 100 people registered here who identify themselves as WorldMark owners.  A very tiny percentage of 270,000 WorldMark owners.  There are probably a few more WorldMark owners who read but are not registered and some others who do not identify themselves as WorldMark owners.
> 
> You find very few WorldMark issue discussions here any more.  When you do it often is WorldMark owners who frequent another WorldMark site and already know the issues talking among themselves.  Or a topic gets started here and is diverted to another site.  Whatever the reason, WorldMark threads here tend to die out rather quickly. Sometimes you will see something added to a WorldMark thread which looks like it was designed only to bump it up to the top.



Fred,

I appreciate you making the point. We can disagree, but it seems like a WM owner has very few choices for owner to owner communication. Here, there, or the WM forum. Like I said in my original post, I not looking to debate the issue. Just looking to see what the general viewpoint is. I only put that option in there for comical relief.

Based on your experience with the Club, any suggestions on how to hear the opinions from a broader audience?


----------



## cotraveller

ecwinch said:


> Fred,
> 
> Based on your experience with the Club, any suggestions on how to hear the opinions from a broader audience?



Not based on any experience with WorldMark, but based on experience with forums.

If you look at the number of registered users on a forum and then look at the active posters, you will find that typically somewhere in the range of 1 to 2 percent of the registered users make 90 to 95 percent or higher of the posts.  That applies here and to every forum I have looked at.  So trying to get opinions from a broad owner/user base on a forum is not going to work.  

Forums are dominated by a few members.  Frequently those members share common viewpoints so discussions are one sided.  If an outsider steps in with different viewpoints they are made to feel unwelcome, either directly or indirectly.  Except for a few, those outsiders stay a while and then figure it is not worth the effort and dissappear.

I don't know but I suspect that the majority of WorldMark owners are not very interested in the issues or politics of the club.  They are interested in their vacations and little else.  Trying to engage them in a discussion of the issues is like trying to tell the backyard squirrel to stay away from your bird feeder.


----------



## ecwinch

cotraveller said:


> Not based on any experience with WorldMark, but based on experience with forums.
> 
> If you look at the number of registered users on a forum and then look at the active posters, you will find that typically somewhere in the range of 1 to 2 percent of the registered users make 90 to 95 percent or higher of the posts.  That applies here and to every forum I have looked at.  So trying to get opinions from a broad owner/user base on a forum is not going to work.
> 
> Forums are dominated by a few members.  Frequently those members share common viewpoints so discussions are one sided.  If an outsider steps in with different viewpoints they are made to feel unwelcome, either directly or indirectly.  Except for a few, those outsiders stay a while and then figure it is not worth the effort and dissappear.
> 
> I don't know but I suspect that the majority of WorldMark owners are not very interested in the issues or politics of the club.  They are interested in their vacations and little else.  Trying to engage them in a discussion of the issues is like trying to tell the backyard squirrel to stay away from your bird feeder.



I have one of those bird feeders that spins the base around when the squirrel puts weight on it. So the squirrel goes flying off like a frisbee. It is cheap entertainment until the squirrel learns to avoid our bird feeder.  

But I get your point. 

Thanks


----------



## BocaBum99

ecwinch said:


> Well after over two days with only one response, I am trying to figure out what I have learned. Is the lesson, one or some of the following:
> 
> 1) We only have two WorldMark members on TUG?
> 2) This issue to so inflammatory that no one wants to discuss it?
> 3) This issue is to complicated that no one wants to discuss it?
> 4) This really is not an issue?
> 5) WorldMark TUG members only want to enjoy their WM memberships and not worry about the underlying issues?
> 6) This thread is a trap. Eric is just waiting to someone to post something and then he is going to beat them up?
> 7) Why talk about it, when there is nothing we can do about it?
> 8) There is only one 1 WorldMark owner on TUG that does not frequent WorldMark related sites?
> 
> I only brought this question up here, since the WorldMark site does not allow questions of the nature, and I am trying to get a gauge of what other owners feel.
> 
> Greg - I appreciated you sharing your opinion with me. By and large I would agree with you. The pendulum is shifted too far to one side right at the moment. It is tough stuff. But is also tough to figure out if this a small or large issue with the majority of the WorldMark owners. And without some discussion on the issue, I think it becomes like a defacto approval of what is going on. That this is not an issue for most owners.



You may as well have gone to a party and asked everyone's opinion on the formation of quadratic curvature wavefront distortion surfaces. 

Actually, it worse than that.  You go to Coyote Ugly in New York City.  They give you the mike.  You ask everyone their opinion on quadratic curvature wavefront distortion surfaces, but you put the caveat that no scientists or engineers can answer the question.

What you hear?  Chirp, chirp, chirp, chirp......


----------



## stang99_tls

I'm still waiting for my one-time use credits.  Then I'll answer you.  

But I would say its a combination of #1-#8.


----------



## ecwinch

BocaBum99 said:


> You may as well have gone to a party and asked everyone's opinion on the formation of quadratic curvature wavefront distortion surfaces.
> 
> Actually, it worse than that.  You go to Coyote Ugly in New York City.  They give you the mike.  You ask everyone their opinion on quadratic curvature wavefront distortion surfaces, but you put the caveat that no scientists or engineers can answer the question.
> 
> What you hear?  Chirp, chirp, chirp, chirp......



Valid point. I withdraw my request that scientists and engineers not respond the question.


----------



## Born2Travel

OK, I'll add my 2 cents - I believe new properties should come in with the same credits as the older properties. The costs should be made up by charging more for new sales or they should not build in places the club cannot afford. I didn't see this topic until today - sorry.


----------



## robertr55

ecwinch said:


> As most of you WM owners know, one of the key issues for some owners is the concept of Relative Use Value or RUV. Now this issue is very WorldMark centric, since I am not aware of another timeshare program that has something similar. Relative Use Value is a provision in the Governing Documents for WorldMark pertaining to the Developers right to set the credit allocation for new resorts that become part of WorldMark. Essentially the Developer transfers resort properties to WorldMark in exchange for a number of credits, which they in turn then sell as timeshare memberships. Now this is the provision of the declaration document that discusses Relative Use Value:
> 
> 3.4(a) Allocation....
> 
> I am trying to figure out if this issue is as polarizing as I think it is. To some, this provision means that new resorts have to come into the system at the same credit allocation as existing resorts. So a brand-new resort should require the same number of credits per unit size and season as a resort built 10-12 years ago. Based on depositions from the Travelshare lawsuit, we know that the developer feels that "reasonable discretion" gives them the ability to set credit allocations based on the cost to build the resort. That if they cannot profitably build the resort, then it will not get built. Since real estate costs have increased faster than inflation, they need to charge more credits for a resort. Some are in the middle.



You'll have to take my opinion on this with a "bunch of grains of salt" since I'm not yet a WM owner (going thru escrow after months of research here on TUG), but I think the expectation of most owners would be that they would receive "equivalent value" for a stay in a similar size unit based on location and season, and some of the MF's would be used to keep all resorts within a somewhat similar range of "niceness". In other words, if WM were managing 2 resorts "side-by-side" and one was newly built, even though I'd prefer to stay in the newer one (under the assumption it's nicer ), as long as the older one wasn't shabby in comparison, I'd simply try to get a reservation in the newer one next time. I'd also expect the reservations at the older resort to drop off in favor of the new one, hopefully getting the older one refurbished more quickly.

Hilton has managed to separate out some of their newer resorts (NY & the 2 on Oahu & the Big Island) and make them worth "more points", but they're also selling for higher prices and set expectations that they're significantly higher-end places to stay.

Ideally I would think that WM should set some form of standard to make sure all of their units are relatively the same "niceness" across resorts (and I know I'm already off-base here since I don't think this is true ) and new ones coming into the system should either be allocated based on the same number of points, or else if they're allocated at a higher level, be able to demonstrate obvious reasons why they're worth more. (I think Hilton gets away with it on their 3 properties because of location mostly, but they're also reported to be very plush places). And once a resort falls below the "standard", it would be slated for an upgrade to bring it into compliance.

Having said all that...it seems like this process is fairly subjective and would be pretty difficult to codify in a written governing document.


----------



## mtribe

alwysonvac said:


> Don't forget to add reason #8 which you stated at the beginning



This was the reason I did not post.  



BocaBum99 said:


> You may as well have gone to a party and asked everyone's opinion on the formation of quadratic curvature wavefront distortion surfaces.
> 
> Actually, it worse than that.  You go to Coyote Ugly in New York City.  They give you the mike.  You ask everyone their opinion on quadratic curvature wavefront distortion surfaces, but you put the caveat that no scientists or engineers can answer the question.
> 
> What you hear?  Chirp, chirp, chirp, chirp......



Boca, that is fantastic. :rofl: :hysterical:  

It was very hard for me not to post because this is one of he the most important issues facing the club.  I see it as more of a symptom that an disease.   RUV is the primary place where the conflict of interest of a developer dominated BOD shows itself. RUV is probably the most complicated issue facing the club and has the widest divergence of opinion between existing owners and the developer.  In a points system RUV is the owners equivalent of a deeded week in terms of protecting owners interests and right to a vacation week.  Even among those that believe that RUV is intended as a protective mechanism for owners there is a divergence of opinion.  In our governing documents there is no definition of what RUV means.  The developer has interpreted it to mean everything is relative and that costs are an important factor.  They believe we can do what ever we need to do in order to develop a resort at a good profit.  Many owners believe that the key term is "use" and the usability and access to a new resort must be relative.  This is a link to a very thorough analysis of RUV.   It removes much of the hyperbole and tries to focus on facts.  http://marci4worldmark.yolasite.com/credit-values.php 

The developer has a very valid point that building resorts is EXPENSIVE and they need to find a way to facilitate growth.  

Here is how the developer sees it:

Building a new resort costs $XYZ.  X= number of weeks sold, Y= number of credits generated at a resort, Z= Cost per credit.  When a unit is built the dollar development cost is set so you have three variables to play with when allocating credits for the new resort.  If you need to get to $XYZ and $XYZ is a growing number then you have to adjust the three variables.   

X must remain fairly constant because there are only 52 weeks a year.  This number has risen a little, from 48 to 50 or 51 weeks per year, which is industry standard.  Not much room for change left here.  By moving from 48 to 50 weeks sold, it does reduce the amount of bonus time available and has a potential impact on maintenance and repairs. 

This leaves only two variables which can be increased in order to reach the desired goal.  It is easier to sell credits at the lowest price possible so the developer prefers to increase the number of credits generated.  This is what has happened over the past 5 years, the  cost per credit has risen slightly , (possibly not even keeping up with inflation) and the number of weeks sold has also grown slightly but these two increases are not enough  to equal $XYZ.  Hence the only way to make Z big enough is to raise the allocation of credits and then divide it among the entire resort.  


Commentary
Moving from 48 to 50 but this change is not an entirely unreasonable to generate extra credits and help defray the increasing cost of a new resort.  Bonus time is and always has been claimed to be a bonus and if we need to reduce that a little to get a new resort so be it.  Increasing the number of credits per unit has a far greater impact.   Many of the new owners coming in with the standard 6000 credit account size do not even own enough credits to reserve a unit for a week at the resort that generated those credits.  This puts a great deal of pressure on the resorts that were in the club before this new resort came into being.  This could actually be made palatable, though not great, *IF* the new resort were to be 100% booked with credits.  If enough existing owners love the new resort and it is booked up then there is no negative impact.  However each vacant night at one of these high cost resorts generates enough credits to book 2 nights at our standard resorts.  If too many resorts come in at higher and higher credit values then this problem is compounded and more and more expensive units sit empty or are rented not using credits while all of the credit utilization is directed toward the "less expensive" units.  

Owners Perspective
It is MUCH harder to nail down an owners perspective because there are so many variables.  But the "hard core" stance is that the club is a separate legal entity which exists and is comprised of its existing ownership base and existing resorts.  We have a BOD who has the responsibility to represent and protect our interests.  Many owners point to industry standard here as well.  When a new resort is built, say a Marriott, the cost of the new resort is paid for by the new owners.  If you buy a red season 2 bedroom at a new Marriott you probably paid MUCH more than someone who bough a 2 bedroom Marriott 15 years ago.  Moving between them is available if so the units are available.  It does not cost the more for the older Marriott owner to reserve the newer one if there is availability in the reservation system. They always get a full week and it is simply a cooperative exchange of units.  This should be no different for us.  While we do not have a specific 2br "deeded" to us we should always be able to get a 2br among any of the resorts in the club.  While we love new resorts and may even be willing to pay SLIGHTLY higher credits for extremely popular resorts it is very difficult to swallow the increasing difficulty many are experiencing and to witness the trend that is taking place.  


Root cause of the problem:  If the people developing a plan are the ones who approve it, it leaves room for the perception of being self serving and not looking at or protecting owners interests.  If a group of "independent" owners served on the BOD and after thoughtful analysis and discussion,  negotiated a middle point then perhaps some flexibility could be acceptable, though perhaps disappointing.  As it is with, no oversight or even the desire to ask those questions many owners feel they are subsidizing the acquisition of new resorts and new owners with the end result of increased competition for the resorts they have always lovedc


----------



## cotraveller

mtribe said:


> If the people developing a plan are the ones who approve it, it leaves room for the perception of being self serving and not looking at or protecting owners interests.  If a group of "independent" owners served on the BOD and after thoughtful analysis and discussion,  negotiated a middle point then perhaps some flexibility could be acceptable, though perhaps disappointing.



In other words, you do not necessarily object to higher credit value resorts, you object to those who are setting the values.

The 10,000 credit red season two bedroom week should have been set as the floor or base value.  A resort such as Depoe Bay, a stunning setting on the Oregon coast which came into the system in 1998, should have come into the system at a 20 to 50 percent premium.  That would have fit the model.  The booking pattern shows that the owners think the resort is a higher value resort relative to the others, it is one of the first to fill every year.  But for whatever reason it was not the way things were done and it is almost impossible to change the resort credit values after the fact.

A premium would balance out the supply and demand.  Those who wanted the premium location would pay the higher price for it.  Those who wanted other locations would pay less.  Would everyone be happy then?  Of course not, you can't please all of the people all of the time.  Some people are happy with the newer resorts.  Some are not.  C'est la vie.


----------



## stang99_tls

cotraveller said:


> In other words, you do not necessarily object to higher credit value resorts, you object to those who are setting the values.
> 
> The 10,000 credit red season two bedroom week should have been set as the floor or base value.  A resort such as Depoe Bay, a stunning setting on the Oregon coast which came into the system in 1998, should have come into the system at a 20 to 50 percent premium.  That would have fit the model.  The booking pattern shows that the owners think the resort is a higher value resort relative to the others, it is one of the first to fill every year.  But for whatever reason it was not the way things were done and it is almost impossible to change the resort credit values after the fact.
> 
> A premium would balance out the supply and demand.  Those who wanted the premium location would pay the higher price for it.  Those who wanted other locations would pay less.  Would everyone be happy then?  Of course not, you can't please all of the people all of the time.  Some people are happy with the newer resorts.  Some are not.  C'est la vie.





The reason that DB did not come in at higher credit values is because the original developer (Trendwest) understood that all units were to be equal and that only exotic resorts were to have higher credit values.    If the club was originally built on the "premium" model, that would have been fine too, but it wasnt.  So you cant go and change the rules because you cant make as much money as you used too.


----------



## ecwinch

cotraveller said:


> A premium would balance out the supply and demand.  Those who wanted the premium location would pay the higher price for it.  Those who wanted other locations would pay less.  Would everyone be happy then?  Of course not, you can't please all of the people all of the time.  Some people are happy with the newer resorts.  Some are not.  C'est la vie.



Fred,

I just want to add that based on the Travelshare deposition of Scott Grey, VP of Business Development, your comment is one he offers on the current credit valuation strategy:

_"we want to price it high enough that the people that really want to go there can get in there. Not too low that you're going to get people -- we've got a lot of resorts that are getting used only because they can get in there."_ 

Basically that credit pricing is used as a tool to moderate demand. Just FYI


----------



## ecwinch

stang99_tls said:


> The reason that DB did not come in at higher credit values is because the original developer (Trendwest) understood that all units were to be equal and that only exotic resorts were to have higher credit values.    If the club was originally built on the "premium" model, that would have been fine too, but it wasnt.  So you cant go and change the rules because you cant make as much money as you used too.



An alternate opinion might be that they were a door and window manufacturer and did not understand the timeshare industry. Resulting in them building an uneconomically sustainable model. Compared to the margins in their core business, that was fine when WorldMark used an opportunitisic model for adding resorts. But when Trendwest was forced to start building resorts from the ground up due to the size of the club, the "vulture" model broke down. 

Ground-up development requires more capital, and capital naturally flows to the highest rate of return between similar risk levels.


----------



## cruisin

ecwinch said:


> Fred,
> 
> I just want to add that based on the Travelshare deposition of Scott Grey, VP of Business Development, your comment is one he offers on the current credit valuation strategy:
> 
> _"we want to price it high enough that the people that really want to go there can get in there. Not too low that you're going to get people -- we've got a lot of resorts that are getting used only because they can get in there."_
> 
> Basically that credit pricing is used as a tool to moderate demand. Just FYI[/QUO
> 
> In Worldmark, Wyndham found the perfect mate to WVO, If it is nice and we can actually sell deeds to people willing to actually purchase this property, call it WVO, If we could never sell the resort on its own merits, call it Worldmark and sell the credits at resorts that do sell on their own merits. Anaheim may be the exception, but not sure if that was already in the pipeline before Cendant came along. I would love to see Tropicana turned over to WVO and have their sales people sell weeks there for $30,000 a pop.
> 
> It seems like RUV was put there to stop Worldmark from being a pyramid/Ponzi scheme?


----------



## ecwinch

cruisin said:


> ecwinch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fred,
> 
> I just want to add that based on the Travelshare deposition of Scott Grey, VP of Business Development, your comment is one he offers on the current credit valuation strategy:
> 
> _"we want to price it high enough that the people that really want to go there can get in there. Not too low that you're going to get people -- we've got a lot of resorts that are getting used only because they can get in there."_
> 
> Basically that credit pricing is used as a tool to moderate demand. Just FYI[/QUO
> 
> In Worldmark, Wyndham found the perfect mate to WVO, If it is nice and we can actually sell deeds to people willing to actually purchase this property, call it WVO, If we could never sell the resort on its own merits, call it Worldmark and sell the credits at resorts that do sell on their own merits. Anaheim may be the exception, but not sure if that was already in the pipeline before Cendant came along. I would love to see Tropicana turned over to WVO and have their sales people sell weeks there for $30,000 a pop.
> 
> It seems like RUV was put there to stop Worldmark from being a pyramid/Ponzi scheme?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah - Worldmark is Natural Light, and WVO is Heineken. But some people prefer Natty Light.
Click to expand...


----------



## PerryM

*Foggy founding documents...*



ecwinch said:


> An alternate opinion might be that they were *a door and window manufacturer and did not understand the timeshare industry*. Resulting in them building an uneconomically sustainable model. Compared to the margins in their core business, that was fine when WorldMark used an opportunitisic model for adding resorts. But when Trendwest was forced to start building resorts from the ground up due to the size of the club, the "vulture" model broke down.
> 
> Ground-up development requires more capital, and capital naturally flows to the highest rate of return between similar risk levels.



This is exactly correct - the window salesreps that cooked up WM did a horrible job building a timeshare system that actually works - it is riddled with bugs.

The developer, Wyndham right now, has to make this work and 98% of the WM owners probably know a lot more about on the formation of quadratic curvature wavefront distortion surfaces (fog on a window) than how WM's operating rules are missing key components.

It's amazing WM has hung together this long without completely falling apart.

P.S.
I've tried explaining this to folks on various chat rooms - I can't compete with the lynch mob yelling "Wyndham sucks" - that seems to be the preferred way to deal with this topic.


----------



## cruisin

PerryM said:


> I've tried explaining this to folks on various chat rooms - I can't compete with the lynch mob yelling "Wyndham sucks" - that seems to be the preferred way to deal with this topic.



Actually wyndham sucks so hard it creates a tornado, gotta get pretty loud to be heard over that!

or 

Wyndham is sucking the life out of WVO and WM 

or

..............


----------



## Cathyb

Eric: I'll jump in here   We own 10,000 WM credits, bought thru Redseason about 4-5 years ago.  We found using the 10K every other year gives us ample usage since we also own other non-WM timeshares incl 3 wks in Maui/Kauai.  I am opposed to the high credit assignments to the new resorts; but actually our favorites are the old ones (Depoe Bay, Camlin, Victoria) therefore we don't get real upset -- so far.  In our last trip we got a letter as we checked out of Seaside that came strictly from Wyndham, no mention of Worldmark on the letterhead -- now that makes me uncomfortable!!!  Why did they not mention Worldmark -- is this a sign of the future???

To me it seems most Worldmark owners use the WMowners website much more than here.  I have been on TUG since it started, so I use it more.  IMHO WMowners like to be folksy and down-to-earth -- not controversial or with strong opinions  -- so they can have all of that at WMowners site.


----------



## ecwinch

Cathyb said:


> *I am opposed to the high credit assignments to the new resorts; but actually our favorites are the old ones (Depoe Bay, Camlin, Victoria) therefore we don't get real upset -- so far. *



Cathy,

Thanks for sharing that opinion. I am often accused of "picking" other peoples posts apart, so please forgive the following question, for I am just trying to understand your position better.

You mention that  you are opposed to the high credit assignments to the new resorts, but the Camlin has a higher credit assignment than the standard "10k" that some have come to expect. How do you view the credit assignment for the Camlin as it pertains to this topic?

Thanks


----------



## Cathyb

ecwinch said:


> Cathy,
> 
> Thanks for sharing that opinion. I am often accused of "picking" other peoples posts apart, so please forgive the following question, for I am just trying to understand your position better.
> 
> You mention that  you are opposed to the high credit assignments to the new resorts, but the Camlin has a higher credit assignment than the standard "10k" that some have come to expect. How do you view the credit assignment for the Camlin as it pertains to this topic?
> 
> Thanks


Gosh, Eric -- I guess when I was planning our Worldmark trip (Victoria, Vancouver, Camlin, Seaside, Depoe Bay) in a linking mode to have a better chance to get into Depoe Bay in August -- it was more important to get that location since we were driving, than it was to notice the higher credits.  My DH and I did spend a few days working out different scenarios with credits to get the most; i.e., staying on weekends in the lesser credit places if possible.


----------



## mtribe

cotraveller said:


> In other words, you do not necessarily object to higher credit value resorts, you object to those who are setting the values.
> .


  Not exactly, I am opposed to the people approving the values being the same people as those setting the values.  I believe that there should be some oversight from people who do not have a profit interest in the establishment of the credit values.  I am not even opposed to the developer having a place on the BOD just not domination.  If there were three Bob Morrison like directors  and two developer directors and the developer representatives could convince the others that the pricing was good for the club I would accept it.  But the self dealing and lack of transparency is just too much for me to believe they are even considering owners interests.



ecwinch said:


> Fred,
> 
> I just want to add that based on the Travelshare deposition of Scott Grey, VP of Business Development, your comment is one he offers on the current credit valuation strategy:
> 
> _"we want to price it high enough that the people that really want to go there can get in there. Not too low that you're going to get people -- we've got a lot of resorts that are getting used only because they can get in there."_
> 
> Basically that credit pricing is used as a tool to moderate demand. Just FYI



Yeah right it is based on demand.  That is why Taos and Red River and the Canmore ........  basically every one since Cendant/Wyndham came on board , all came in higher.  The only thing it has to do with demand is Wyndham demanding more profit and more demand being placed on existing resorts to the detriment of existing owners.  Scott Grey acknowledges that owners are choosing to go to cheaper resorts because they are cheaper.  Oceanside and Sandiego are perfect examples.  Ocean side fills up first because it is cheaper and SD fills as a last resort because if you want to go to so cal it is all that is left and you have to pay a premium for an inferior resort.  This testimony does not jive with itself and the actual practices they have been using to set credit values.


----------



## PerryM

*We have found the enemy and it's staring us in the mirror*

Let me try to point out some of the Herculaneum tasks the developer of WM faces:

•	Founding documents that don’t shed any light on how new villas enter the system
•	Developer is NOT selling new villas – they are selling 20 year old resorts stuck away in the forest for the most part and new villas all at once
•	A Credit Calendar that makes little sense but is the guideline for new resorts

When Wyndham invites Ma and Pa into a new resort they are NOT selling that resort – they are selling a club in which plywood condos with bad windows started the club off.  If the developer wants to build modern concrete core buildings the cost is much more than old plywood.  The developer has stopped asking for 10,000 WM credits per 2 BR Red weeks and gone to 15,000 – 20,000+ expect this to get higher with each new building.

Some folks can't understand this and the booing of Wyndham is the solution apparently.

The credit calendar was originally cooked up by window salesmen sitting at a bar doodling on a cocktail napkin.  Christmas week costs the same as any other Red week there and thus the current over saturating of reservations by buying multiple days before the holiday week is the result.  *We have diluted credits all by ourselves without the developers meddling.*

I can go on and on and demonstrate that all the hatred aimed at the developer is really not the developer’s fault at all.  What is needed is a fundamental re-writing of the operating documents.  I’ve not heard any person running for the WM BOD state this but simply “Wyndham sucks”.

I will agree that the developer, Wyndham, is insane with its viewing of resales – Wyndham owners are so hated by Wyndham that resales are but 5 cents on the dollar.  WM is about 25 cents on the dollar and heading lower.  This is worthy of action – Wyndham’s antagonistic view of the WM owners.

But on just about any other topic Wyndham is an easy scapegoat when the problem is the WM operating documents and theories – the WM BOD should be tackling those problems but not a single board member or candidate seems to care.

Oh well, Wyndham sucks; I feel so much better.


----------



## ecwinch

PerryM said:


> Let me try to point out some of the Herculaneum tasks the developer of WM faces:
> 
> •	Founding documents that don’t shed any light on how new villas enter the system
> •	Developer is NOT selling new villas – they are selling 20 year old resorts stuck away in the forest for the most part and new villas all at once
> •	A Credit Calendar that makes little sense but is the guideline for new resorts
> 
> When Wyndham invites Ma and Pa into a new resort they are NOT selling that resort – they are selling a club in which plywood condos with bad windows started the club off.  If the developer wants to build modern concrete core buildings the cost is much more than old plywood.  The developer has stopped asking for 10,000 WM credits per 2 BR Red weeks and gone to 15,000 – 20,000+ expect this to get higher with each new building.
> 
> Some folks can't understand this and the booing of Wyndham is the solution apparently.
> 
> The credit calendar was originally cooked up by window salesmen sitting at a bar doodling on a cocktail napkin.  Christmas week costs the same as any other Red week there and thus the current over saturating of reservations by buying multiple days before the holiday week is the result.  *We have diluted credits all by ourselves without the developers meddling.*
> 
> I can go on and on and demonstrate that all the hatred aimed at the developer is really not the developer’s fault at all.  What is needed is a fundamental re-writing of the operating documents.  I’ve not heard any person running for the WM BOD state this but simply “Wyndham sucks”.
> 
> I will agree that the developer, Wyndham, is insane with its viewing of resales – Wyndham owners are so hated by Wyndham that resales are but 5 cents on the dollar.  WM is about 25 cents on the dollar and heading lower.  This is worthy of action – Wyndham’s antagonistic view of the WM owners.
> 
> But on just about any other topic Wyndham is an easy scapegoat when the problem is the WM operating documents and theories – the WM BOD should be tackling those problems but not a single board member or candidate seems to care.
> 
> Oh well, Wyndham sucks; I feel so much better.



Perry, I generally find your posts to be enlightening and entertaining. But just like a good movie, playing a little fast and lose with the facts.

You know that the effort it would take to implement your suggestions would be almost insurmountable. It would require a 66% vote of the membership. 

You also know that the governing documents, while flawed, are not completely out of line with the trends in the timeshare industry 20 years ago.

On some other points we agree.

Thanks


----------



## PerryM

ecwinch said:


> Perry, I generally find your posts to be enlightening and entertaining. But just like a good movie, playing a little fast and lose with the facts.
> 
> You know that the effort it would take to implement your suggestions would be almost insurmountable. It would require a 66% vote of the membership.
> 
> You also know that the governing documents, while flawed, are not completely out of line with the trends in the timeshare industry 20 years ago.
> 
> On some other points we agree.
> 
> Thanks



My point is that you are absolutely correct - WM is not going to be changed at the core level and we must live with the existing rules - since many of them make little sense we must defer to the developer.

What's the alternative?  Defer to rank amateurs who know nothing about WMs problems and that many can not be fixed?

That's why it makes little difference who sits on the WM BOD - I've said that for years now - folks get worked up over things they can't change.  Better to have a money grubbing corporation running WM than amateurs who can only make things worse.

But this is old and I'm not going to change anyone's mind and they certainly won't change mine.  Fear not, however, the attempt to take over the WM BOD will fail as it has for the past 5+ years.

The idea is to learn the rules and exploit them to your advantage - everyone else seems to want to change the rules in the middle of the game...


----------



## ecwinch

PerryM said:


> My point is that you are absolutely correct - WM is not going to be changed at the core level and we must live with the existing rules - since many of them make little sense we must defer to the developer.
> 
> What's the alternative?  Defer to rank amateurs who know nothing about WMs problems and that many can not be fixed?
> 
> That's why it makes little difference who sits on the WM BOD - I've said that for years now - folks get worked up over things they can't change.  Better to have a money grubbing corporation running WM than amateurs who can only make things worse.
> 
> But this is old and I'm not going to change anyone's mind and they certainly won't change mine.  Fear not, however, the attempt to take over the WM BOD will fail as it has for the past 5+ years.
> 
> The idea is to learn the rules and exploit them to your advantage - everyone else seems to want to change the rules in the middle of the game...



Perry,

I have learned a lot from you, and I know you are an intelligent person. 

But you know that there are plenty of solutions to the current situation beyond the binary options that you seem to suggest. For the instance the concept of the Club self-funding new resort development by existing owners subscribing for new credits, thus avoiding a good portion of the huge sales markup. I first heard a similar idea from you.  

So there are options. But we will never see those type of innovative solutions with the current leadership. And that is problem with WorldMark right now - it is the leadership of the board and not their composition. If they were providing effective leadership, few would care if they were Wyndham employees or gun toting beer pong players. 

And I doubt that they are seeking to change the rules in the middle of the game as you suggest. Wyndham has already done that.


----------



## PerryM

*Einstein beagles said it best...*



ecwinch said:


> Perry,
> 
> I have learned a lot from you, and I know you are an intelligent person.
> 
> But you know that there are plenty of solutions to the current situation beyond the binary options that you seem to suggest. For the instance the concept of the Club self-funding new resort development by existing owners subscribing for new credits, thus avoiding a good portion of the huge sales markup. I first heard a similar idea from you.
> 
> So there are options. But we will never see those type of innovative solutions with the current leadership. And that is problem with WorldMark right now - it is the leadership of the board and not their composition. If they were providing effective leadership, few would care if they were Wyndham employees or gun toting beer pong players.
> 
> And I doubt that they are seeking to change the rules in the middle of the game as you suggest. Wyndham has already done that.



Debate is great - the more the WM owners learn the better for all of us.

Replacing one WM BOD member with another, more "owner friendly" just isn't the solution.  So many here and elsewhere think that WM will magically transform into something wonderful - that one BOD member will be an outcast and won't impact any votes.  3 or more would be needed to get anything rolling and I just don't see the candidates focusing on the foundations of the club which need to be changed.

If we think we have it bad now just wait until Wyndham declares a war against the owners and the BOD - this is a war we can't win.  For this reason I chime in once in a while and point out Einstein's definition of insanity:

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.

Too many owners seem to get entertainment out of the hatred of the developer instead of just using what we have and enjoying WM as it stands.

The old saw "It can't get worse" has been proven to be wrong so many times - I fear it applies to WM too.


----------



## ecwinch

PerryM said:


> Debate is great - the more the WM owners learn the better for all of us.
> 
> Replacing one WM BOD member with another, more "owner friendly" just isn't the solution.  So many here and elsewhere think that WM will magically transform into something wonderful - that one BOD member will be an outcast and won't impact any votes.  3 or more would be needed to get anything rolling and I just don't see the candidates focusing on the foundations of the club which need to be changed.
> 
> If we think we have it bad now just wait until Wyndham declares a war against the owners and the BOD - this is a war we can't win.  For this reason I chime in once in a while and point out Einstein's definition of insanity:
> 
> “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.
> 
> Too many owners seem to get entertainment out of the hatred of the developer instead of just using what we have and enjoying WM as it stands.
> 
> The old saw "It can't get worse" has been proven to be wrong so many times - I fear it applies to WM too.



Perry,

In the interest of full disclosure, I think it would be more appropriate to state that you like to pop into wmowners.com and use this quote to rub their face in their previous failures. 

And that quote is thought by some to be one of the dumbest things ever said by a smart person. For it ignores the factors of inertia, fatigue, experimentation, and practice. For how do you break a big rock into little rocks? You keep hitting it with a big sledge-hammer until fatigue is introduced, and the rock finally breaks. How do you become a better free throw shooter? By practice. By that definition, only insane people try something more than once. They should accept the initial results and then move on. 

But you are correct. One independent BoD member is not the silver bullet, because there already is an independent BoD member.

Thanks


----------



## cotraveller

ecwinch said:


> You know that the effort it would take to implement your suggestions would be almost insurmountable. It would require a 66% vote of the membership.





ecwinch said:


> But you know that there are plenty of solutions to the current situation beyond the binary options that you seem to suggest. For the instance the concept of the Club self-funding new resort development by existing owners subscribing for new credits, thus avoiding a good portion of the huge sales markup. I first heard a similar idea from you.



In spite of what the documents say, and in spite of the difficulity in changing those documents, you propose a mode of operation that is in complete violation of the governing documents.

Like it or not, the governing documents give Wyndham exclusive right to develop new resorts for WorldMark.  Like it or not, those same documents give Wyndham exclusive right to market the credits generated by those new resorts.  So we'll just ignore those legal requirements and have WorldMark self-fund a new resort by selling credits.  Then we will go out and find a contractor to build that resort?

Not to mention putting the club in debt to finance the up front development costs to do the planning for the new resort to reach a point where credits could be sold. No problem, I'm sure that changing the debt-free WorldMark model would go over well with the owners.


----------



## mtribe

PerryM said:


> My point is that you are absolutely correct - WM is not going to be changed at the core level and we must live with the existing rules - since many of them make little sense we must defer to the developer.
> 
> What's the alternative?  Defer to rank amateurs who know nothing about WMs problems and that many can not be fixed?
> 
> That's why it makes little difference who sits on the WM BOD - I've said that for years now - folks get worked up over things they can't change.  Better to have a money grubbing corporation running WM than amateurs who can only make things worse.
> 
> But this is old and I'm not going to change anyone's mind and they certainly won't change mine.  Fear not, however, the attempt to take over the WM BOD will fail as it has for the past 5+ years.
> 
> The idea is to learn the rules and exploit them to your advantage - everyone else seems to want to change the rules in the middle of the game...



I really like Eric's comment that there is more to it than the binary proposals you have made.  One single independent BOD member probably will not immediately shift the balance back to the good old days.  It is a very long process amd that is the perspective most are taking.  There is not going to be a miracle cure, you have invented that straw man.  

One BOD member CAN ask questions that are not currently being asked.  Provide transparency that does not currently exist. demand communication taht is lacking.   Provide an real owner perspective not currently represented in the BOD meetings.  Each of these things will change the tone.  IF Marci and Bob Morrison were both elected it would be a very significant shift.  A strong BOD member would have an impact, not a revolutionary all at once impact, but things would change if only perceptually.


----------



## PerryM

mtribe said:


> I really like Eric's comment that there is more to it than the binary proposals you have made.  One single independent BOD member probably will not immediately shift the balance back to the good old days.  It is a very long process amd that is the perspective most are taking.  There is not going to be a miracle cure, you have invented that straw man.
> 
> One BOD member CAN ask questions that are not currently being asked.  Provide transparency that does not currently exist. demand communication taht is lacking.   Provide an real owner perspective not currently represented in the BOD meetings.  Each of these things will change the tone.  IF Marci and Bob Morrison were both elected it would be a very significant shift.  A strong BOD member would have an impact, not a revolutionary all at once impact, but things would change if only perceptually.



Show me a WM BOD candidate that understands the fundamental problems with the club and wants to work with the developer in fixing them and they have my vote.

But the candidates I keep seeing from the websites just deal with "Wyndham sucks" - no understanding that we MUST live with a developer and try to work with the developer in addressing "relative use" - I'd bet the developer want's a better set of rules too.

But folks, I'm going to win the Powerball lottery before the above happens..


----------



## ecwinch

cotraveller said:


> In spite of what the documents say, and in spite of the difficulity in changing those documents, you propose a mode of operation that is in complete violation of the governing documents.
> 
> Like it or not, the governing documents give Wyndham exclusive right to develop new resorts for WorldMark.  Like it or not, those same documents give Wyndham exclusive right to market the credits generated by those new resorts.  So we'll just ignore those legal requirements and have WorldMark self-fund a new resort by selling credits.  Then we will go out and find a contractor to build that resort?



First the exclusive right provisions are not in the governing documents. They are in the Vacation Program Agreement that is a contract between the Club and the Developer. It can and has been amended by mutual consent. 

And I did not say that Wyndham could not build the resort or even sell the credits. If the WM BoD came to Wyndham and said "here are 20,000 owners that have committed to purchasing 3,000 credits a 75 cents a credit in order to expand the Depoe Bay property. Would you please take our $45 million dollars and build that for us?". Given the current climate, do you think Wyndham would refuse that offer? 

And Fred, what do you propose to do if Wyndham decides to stop building for WorldMark? If they reach the conclusion that Club Wyndham is a better use of their limited capital in today's credit markets.

And this is just one suggestion. Proactive Board leadership could easily develop other options. For instance, selling one of the frontier locations and reinvesting the proceeds in another resort. 

And there is precedent in this case. Look at how Depoe Bay came into the WM system. The Club leased the property and Trendwest later purchased it.  

Here is the entry:

_DEPOE BAY Gene Hensley presented to the Board a proposal to have the Club enter into a lease of 84 condominium-quality units under construction on the Oregon coast at Depoe Bay. Construction is expected to be completed by September. The property consists of two and three bedrooms on the ocean, and has indoor and outdoor swimming pools and a recreation building. The property would fill a much-needed demand for resort units on the Oregon coast; however, Trendwest has too much inventory to purchase the property at this time. Because the property will not likely be available when Trendwest is able to purchase it, Trendwest proposes entering into an option to purchase the property in April 1999 with the Club leasing the property from the seller until then. The Club would operate the property and make it available to Club members for Bonus Time. The Bonus Time income would cover the $92,500 per month lease payments and return a nominal profit to the Club. The Board thereafter discussed the proposal.
Upon a MOTION TO HAVE THE CLUB ENTER INTO A
LEASE OF 84 UNITS AT DEPOE BAY, OREGON FOR
SIX MONTHS AT A MONTHLY LEASE PAYMENT OF
$92,500, duly made by Don Williams and seconded by John
Henley, the motion was unanimously approved._



> Not to mention putting the club in debt to finance the up front development costs to do the planning for the new resort to reach a point where credits could be sold. No problem, I'm sure that changing the debt-free WorldMark model would go over well with the owners.



There is no "debt free" provisions in the governing documents. That provision says that WM can only borrow with the consent of Wyndham.


----------



## mtribe

I do not think one should base their opinion on the website that says "Wyndham sucks".  Which I do not believe is the official stance of the website.  I believe the official stance is that developer domination of the WorldMark the Club BOD is inappropriate and presents a conflict of interest.   Base your opinion on the Candidate.  Candidate get endorsements from all kinds of sources.  www.marci4worldmark.com clearly lays out the positions.   Read the candidate's statements not generalizations from thousands of varying posts.

If you go there and to the official worldmark site you will see that "understanding that we MUST live with a developer and try to work with the developer in addressing "relative use" " is exactly what she stands for.  Marci believes that wyndham has a right to do business and to make a profit but that there must be a collaberative relationship between Wyndham and worldmark not an incestuous one.


----------



## ecwinch

PerryM said:


> Show me a WM BOD candidate that understands the fundamental problems with the club and wants to work with the developer in fixing them and they have my vote.
> 
> But the candidates I keep seeing from the websites just deal with "Wyndham sucks" - no understanding that we MUST live with a developer and try to work with the developer in addressing "relative use" - I'd bet the developer want's a better set of rules too.
> 
> But folks, I'm going to win the Powerball lottery before the above happens..



Perhaps you should invest some time in some interaction with the candidates before you reach that conclusion, and not just rely on dated memories.

In terms of wmowners.com, of course there are some that think "Wyndham sucks". Just like there are here on TUG. Forums naturally attract a range of opinions, and at the edge of the range, some will be extreme.

But you should not characterize an entire group of people based on the fact that they allow free speech, and characterize them only based on the extreme opinions they permit on their site.


----------



## PerryM

*Is that a black helicopter?*



ecwinch said:


> ...
> And I did not say that Wyndham could not build the resort or even sell the credits. If the WM BoD came to Wyndham and said "here are 20,000 owners that have committed to purchasing 3,000 credits a 75 cents a credit in order to expand the Depoe Bay property. Would you please take our $45 million dollars and build that for us?". Given the current climate, do you think Wyndham would refuse that offer?
> ...



The salesreps would not stand for this - Wyndham is a sales oriented company (what company isn't).

Better to just start a co-op and do it ourselves.

Really the WM owners stand a better chance of success building a co-op that would be built correctly.  That co-op is easy to design - I've already designed it and made it public.



mtribe said:


> I do not think one should base their opinion on the website that says "Wyndham sucks".  Which I do not believe is the official stance of the website.  I believe the official stance is that developer domination of the WorldMark the Club BOD is inappropriate and presents a conflict of interest.   Base your opinion on the Candidate.  Candidate get endorsements from all kinds of sources.  www.marci4worldmark.com clearly lays out the positions.   Read the candidate's statements not generalizations from thousands of varying posts.
> 
> If you go there and to the official worldmark site you will see that "understanding that we MUST live with a developer and try to work with the developer in addressing "relative use" " is exactly what she stands for.  Marci believes that wyndham has a right to do business and to make a profit but that there must be a collaberative relationship between Wyndham and worldmark not an incestuous one.



Just read the website and it sounds like the typical Wyndham conspiracy website - old news.

As I've posted many times THE core problem with WM is that WM does not have 1 (one, uno) employee - think of that, a real estate organization with 5,000+ condos worth $1+ Billion and not 1 employee works there.

WM collects about $200 M each year that it then hands over to Wyndham to run everything - until we decide that we need our own CEO and employees we are whistling in the wind...

Replacing 1 WM BOD for conspiracy reasons is the reason this endeavor has failed for 5 years or so now.  WM candidates needs to stop looking for black helicopters and start educating the WM owners that we need to have our own CEO and employees instead of paying a contractor to do the same for themselves.

The focus must change from getting 1 (one) WM owner replaced with another WM owner and hire 200+ employees to run our club.  But I don't see one candidate pressing this just getting themselves on the BOD and then something magical is supposed to happen.


----------



## ecwinch

PerryM said:


> The salesreps would not stand for this - Wyndham is a sales oriented company (what company isn't).
> 
> Better to just start a co-op and do it ourselves.
> 
> Really the WM owners stand a better chance of success building a co-op that would be built correctly.  That co-op is easy to design - I've already designed it and made it public.
> 
> 
> 
> Just read the website and it sounds like the typical Wyndham conspiracy website - old news.
> 
> As I've posted many times THE core problem with WM is that WM does not have 1 (one, uno) employee - think of that, a real estate organization with 5,000+ condos worth $1+ Billion and not 1 employee works there.
> 
> WM collects about $200 M each year that it then hands over to Wyndham to run everything - until we decide that we need our own CEO and employees we are whistling in the wind...
> 
> Replacing 1 WM BOD for conspiracy reasons is the reason this endeavor has failed for 5 years or so now.  WM candidates needs to stop looking for black helicopters and start educating the WM owners that we need to have our own CEO and employees instead of paying a contractor to do the same for themselves.
> 
> The focus must change from getting 1 (one) WM owner replaced with another WM owner and hire 200+ employees to run our club.  But I don't see one candidate pressing this just getting themselves on the BOD and then something magical is supposed to happen.



Why not just hire a full-time employee and keep the current sub-contractor relationship. Or even just one employee to manage and monitor contract compliance. That person could even be a contractor.


----------



## PerryM

ecwinch said:


> Why not just hire a full-time employee and keep the current sub-contractor relationship. Or even just one employee to manage and monitor contract compliance. That person could even be a contractor.



It's not that we don't get the money each year, we take in about $200 M in MFs each year to run WM.

WM then turns that $200 M over to Wyndham and folks whine and moan about Wyndham - this is insanity.

But for some reason folks love this arrangement - the collecting $200 M, turning it over to Wyndham, then sniveling about Wyndham.

I've given up trying to convince anyone that this is bass ackwards - I've come to the conclusion that this drama is just a side benefit of being a WM owner and that nothing will ever get done.

In 3+ years of making this forecast I've been proven correct each year - will this be year #4?  I think so - Wyndham will win all WM BOD seats again.


----------



## ecwinch

PerryM said:


> It's not that we don't get the money each year, we take in about $200 M in MFs each year to run WM.
> 
> WM then turns that $200 M over to Wyndham and folks whine and moan about Wyndham - this is insanity.
> 
> But for some reason folks love this arrangement - the collecting $200 M, turning it over to Wyndham, then sniveling about Wyndham.
> 
> I've given up trying to convince anyone that this is bass ackwards - I've come to the conclusion that this drama is just a side benefit of being a WM owner and that nothing will ever get done.
> 
> In 3+ years of making this forecast I've been proven correct each year - will this be year #4?  I think so - Wyndham will win all WM BOD seats again.



You make me chuckle. I have yet to run across the person who "loves" that arrangement. I think it would be more appropriate to state that it represents the lesser of two evils. There is a distinction. 

For there are many pitfalls to your suggestion, though it makes a great sound bite. The only advantage it would bring is an approximate 4% cost savings. For the additional headache and employer liability, I do not think that meets the cost/benefit analysis.

And the bulk of the complaints are in regard to the developer, and not the management function. That solution would do very little to address the developer concerns. 

And obviously it represents a Catch-22. For it to be a possiblity, you have to have an independent board.


----------



## Rent_Share

PerryM said:


> As I've posted many times THE core problem with WM is that WM does not have 1 (one, uno) employee - think of that, a real estate organization with 5,000+ condos worth $1+ Billion and not 1 employee works there.
> 
> WM collects about $200 M each year that it then hands over to Wyndham to run everything - until we decide that we need our own CEO and employees we are whistling in the wind...
> 
> Replacing 1 WM BOD for conspiracy reasons is the reason this endeavor has failed for 5 years or so now. WM candidates needs to stop looking for black helicopters and start educating the WM owners that we need to have our own CEO and employees instead of paying a contractor to do the same for themselves.
> 
> The focus must change from getting 1 (one) WM owner replaced with another WM owner and hire 200+ employees to run our club. But I don't see one candidate pressing this just getting themselves on the BOD and then something magical is supposed to happen.


 
How would you propose this change take place since the BOD of Worldmark the Club determines whether to hire or contract club management and choses to contract with the firm they draw their paycheck from (Wyndham)

To make matters worse they have craftly worded an amendment with the "privacy" buzzword in it making it virtually impossible to communicate any dissenting opinion. A couple of years ago they added a pet amendment which had the effect of canceling any previous proxies granted to an independent.

Please enlighten me


----------



## mtribe

Man you must have the powers of Nostradomus.  Predicting that the BOD will win.  Don't go out on a limb.  Independents have increased their showing every year.  They are still a ways off and in all likelyhood won't win this year but more and more owners are being educated and once they learn will likely stay independent.  

How about this for a prediction.  Gene Hensley will win re election and then retire before his term is up.  This way Wyndham can appoint his replacement and then run as an incumbent.  Gene has publicly stated that his just now ending term would be his last and that he was looking forward to retirement.  He is tired of the friction from owners and that it did not used to be that way.  Then all of a sudden he is running again.  How interesting......


----------



## PerryM

ecwinch said:


> You make me chuckle. I have yet to run across the person who "loves" that arrangement. I think it would be more appropriate to state that it represents the lesser of two evils. There is a distinction.
> 
> For there are many pitfalls to your suggestion, though it makes a great sound bite. The only advantage it would bring is an approximate 4% cost savings. For the additional headache and employer liability, I do not think that meets the cost/benefit analysis.
> 
> And the bulk of the complaints are in regard to the developer, and not the management function. That solution would do very little to address the developer concerns.
> 
> And obviously it represents a Catch-22. For it to be a possiblity, you have to have an independent board.



The problem that apparently will never be solved is the fact that WM outgrew the HOA model 20 years ago.  The HOA, run by owners on a part time basis, is fine for a single timeshare resort or condo - the HOA runs everything and meeting once every 6 months is just fine.

WM needs about 200 folks to run 5,000+ condos spread around the world.  We pay for those 200 folks now but they have no allegiance to WM but to Wyndham the company that writes their checks.

WM will get nowhere until it signs their paychecks - that's how the world works folks.



Rent_Share said:


> How would you propose this change take place since the BOD of Worldmark the Club determines whether to hire or contract club management and choses to contract with the firm they draw their paycheck from (Wyndham)
> 
> To make matters worse they have craftly worded an amendment with the "privacy" buzzword in it making it virtually impossible to communicate any dissenting opinion. A couple of years ago they added a pet amendment which had the effect of canceling any previous proxies granted to an independent.
> 
> Please enlighten me



I don't see anything EVER changing with WM - the systemic problems are so deep that they will never be fixed in reality.  Replacing even all 5 BOD members will mean little - I can't convince anyone that WM needs employees who are loyal to us versus a contractor who is loyal to their stockholders.

That's why I'm not upset with what Wyndham does to the operations of WM - there is no alternative that the owners will agree to.

Just go on vacation folks or sell your WM credits and do something else with the money.  But fighting them is a total waste of time - the outcome will be no different.

P.S.

Here is my description of a Destination Club, the natural successor to timeshares, that can be implemented by members and works 100 times better than WM - if you guys really want something different then do it for yourselves.

But expect no change, whatsoever, from Wyndham no matter who gets on that WM BOD.  The focus should NOT be on replacing 1 of 5 part time advisers but of replacing Wyndham employees with WM employees.

I've done all the leg work for you guys - I don't sit around squawking, I find solutions.

In my definition of a Destination Club you will see the many components missing from WM's founding documents and realize that WM is stuck where it is and will never evolve.


----------



## PerryM

mtribe said:


> Man you must have the powers of Nostradomus.  Predicting that the BOD will win.  Don't go out on a limb.  Independents have increased their showing every year.  They are still a ways off and in all likelyhood won't win this year but more and more owners are being educated and once they learn will likely stay independent.
> 
> How about this for a prediction.  Gene Hensley will win re election and then retire before his term is up.  This way Wyndham can appoint his replacement and then run as an incumbent.  Gene has publicly stated that his just now ending term would be his last and that he was looking forward to retirement.  He is tired of the friction from owners and that it did not used to be that way.  Then all of a sudden he is running again.  How interesting......



Control over the WM BOD is THE most critical item Wyndham has when it runs WM (yes it runs WM).  They will do ANYTHING to keep control - we have only seen but a trick or two - wait until they really feel threatened and you will see lawyers and investigators digging into the past of the person challenging them.  Oh you won't ever see it in the daylight but it will be done.

Replacing 1 of the 5 WM BOD members is just a quirky thing we owners are up to but to Wyndham its a grave matter.

To suggest that we are close to winning a position ignores just how desperate Wyndham will get if it truly feels it is being threatened by a bunch of amateurs wanting to run their company through the WM BOD.

Count on it - we are not even close to scaring them this year or next year.  Most of the WM owners are just scared bringing home a steady paycheck for them to be concerned with a mundane matter of who's running for the WM BOD.


----------



## mtribe

I will not argue with you on this, Wyndham will do anything in their power to prevent losing control.   I do not argue that we are close to winning this year, I would be shocked if we did but that is no reason not to try.   

However I think they are more scared than you might think.  They can see unfettered control slipping through their fingers.  If the proposed By-law fails and the appeal is upheld owners will be able to communicate for the first time in the history of the club.  What will happen with an informed owners base is anyones guess.

And the "amatures do not want to "run their company" (wyndmah) they want to oversee the impact of their company (wyndham) on worldmark the club (a seperate legal organization).  It may make it more difficult for them to run their own company and may create more work for them but we will not be running their company nor do we have any business in doing so.


----------



## mtribe

Perry, I have asked several times about your employee proposal but do not recall ever seeing an implementation plan.  You have talked about the lunacy of trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a diffrent result but assuming that this is the best course of action how exactly would worldmark get to that point?  Seems to me an inquisitive and analytical BOD, seeking out the best interests of existing owners and maximizing their benefite is the ONLY way for that process to be considered.


----------



## PerryM

mtribe said:


> I will not argue with you on this, Wyndham will do anything in their power to prevent losing control.   I do not argue that we are close to winning this year, I would be shocked if we did but that is no reason not to try.
> 
> However I think they are more scared than you might think.  They can see unfettered control slipping through their fingers.  If the proposed By-law fails and the appeal is upheld owners will be able to communicate for the first time in the history of the club.  What will happen with an informed owners base is anyones guess.
> 
> And the "amatures do not want to "run their company" (wyndmah) they want to oversee the impact of their company (wyndham) on worldmark the club (a seperate legal organization).  It may make it more difficult for them to run their own company and may create more work for them but we will not be running their company nor do we have any business in doing so.



The WM BOD can kick Wyndham out as the contractor - that's a loss of $200,000,000 per year to Wyndham.  There is nothing Wyndham won't do to prevent that from ever happening.

The illusion that WM owners are close to gaining one of those 5 positions is well crafted - we are far away from doing so.  Wyndham will simply pull out trick after trick to ensure they control that BOD.

I'd bet 80% of all WM owners have little interest in all of this - they are either happy with what they have or are ambivalent about the whole thing.

I'll say it again - until the WM owners want WM employees working for them instead of a contractor's we will never get anywhere.  We need our own CEO, VPs, and management working for WM owners - they need to see that we sign their checks.

This should be the #1 item to address and not fighting black helicopters.


----------



## PerryM

mtribe said:


> Perry, I have asked several times about your employee proposal but do not recall ever seeing an implementation plan.  You have talked about the lunacy of trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a diffrent result but assuming that this is the best course of action how exactly would worldmark get to that point?  Seems to me an inquisitive and analytical BOD, seeking out the best interests of existing owners and maximizing their benefite is the ONLY way for that process to be considered.



I'm not running for any position at WM and I'm not the one to put together a plan.

If folks don't understand the simple principle of who signs the employees paychecks is where their loyalty lays then they deserve all the tumult that we have now and it will continue for decades.

But honestly I've given up in this quest - WM owners just don't understand this simple principle and the status quo will continue forever.  Really, it doesn't matter who is on that WM BOD we are doomed to the faulty operating instructions that the founders left behind as they sold the company.

Those 5 WM BOD have no business running a billion dollar company - a CEO, and a management team is supposed to do this - not a hired contractor.  We need to take control of our destiny and not the lowest bidder.


----------



## IndigoGypsy

PerryM said:


> I've tried explaining this to folks on various chat rooms - I can't compete with the lynch mob yelling "Wyndham sucks" - that seems to be the preferred way to deal with this topic.



Which is why I quit posting about WM issues a long time ago. . . .

But we've decided our money is best spent with Marriott from now on. Just our opinion and not a reflection on anyone.


----------



## ecwinch

IndigoGypsy said:


> Which is why I quit posting about WM issues a long time ago. . . .
> 
> But we've decided our money is best spent with Marriott from now on. Just our opinion and not a reflection on anyone.



Completely understandable and I am sure that many have made a similar decision. I have only been an owner less than a year, and I have the same feelings from time to time.

The decision to vote with your feet, stay and just enjoy the vacations, or to try to make some change are all completely acceptable and understandable options for members.


----------



## ecwinch

PerryM said:


> The problem that apparently will never be solved is the fact that WM outgrew the HOA model 20 years ago.  The HOA, run by owners on a part time basis, is fine for a single timeshare resort or condo - the HOA runs everything and meeting once every 6 months is just fine.
> 
> WM needs about 200 folks to run 5,000+ condos spread around the world.  We pay for those 200 folks now but they have no allegiance to WM but to Wyndham the company that writes their checks.
> 
> WM will get nowhere until it signs their paychecks - that's how the world works folks.
> 
> *I've done all the leg work for you guys - I don't sit around squawking, I find solutions.
> *
> In my definition of a Destination Club you will see the many components missing from WM's founding documents and realize that WM is stuck where it is and will never evolve.



Perry, I always love it when someone quotes me, and then just repeats their previous post that I was responding to. Repetition is the key to good comedy, but can be tiresome in debate. 

So we turn to the "resistance is futile" logic, because the task is so large, the playing field is so unbalanced, and the enemy is so formidable. Well unfortunately there are numerous examples where success in similar situations  has occurred. But when you fail to try your probability of success will always be 0% with no chance of improving.

And your Destination Club "solution" is not a solution for WorldMark. A solution is complete from end to end. This is only an end-state concept. It fails to outline how to execute a path to that solution. If you want to play Moses and led your people to the promised land, you need to outline the path to the promised land. I used to work with someone who offered similar high-level solutions. I would always say "that might look good from 50,000 ft up, but I need a solution that will would work from 5"8 ft up."

While it might be a good alternative, it is not a solution to the current problem. But it is a good opportunity for self-promotion.


----------



## ecwinch

PerryM said:


> I'll say it again - until the WM owners want WM employees working for them instead of a contractor's we will never get anywhere.  We need our own CEO, VPs, and management working for WM owners - they need to see that we sign their checks.



The fallacy in your thesis is the assertion that the person signing paychecks has to be in the same organization. It is an oversimplification. So I offer:

1) in general, employees are responsive to those who control their employment (it is more than just a paycheck), i.e. the management team
2) a contracted work force can be just as responsive as a hired workforce (maybe even more so)
3) a management team works for the CEO
4) The CEO works for the Board
5) The Board works for the owners

Every step of the chain is accountable and responsible to the next, and their employment status should be predicated on their effectiveness, and not their lack of independence. The current model breaks down because 4 & 5 are missing, not because everyone is not a WM employee as you suggest. 

And your model is not well supported by how other business operates. A Board of Directors sets policy for the operation of Club, they do not run the Club. That is the responsibility of the mgt team (CEO, COO, CFO, etc). The Board provides oversight to ensure the policy and strategic direction they have set is being executed. Execution is the responsibility of mgt. I agree that it probably is preferable that we have our own mgt team, but you previously dismissed that as an option.

And there are so many other ways to align the goals of a contracted workforce with the goals of the Club. Your model ignores all other possibilities like bonuses, performance options, and sharing of cost savings, etc.



PerryM said:


> Those 5 WM BOD have no business running a billion dollar company - a CEO, and a management team is supposed to do this - not a hired contractor.  We need to take control of our destiny and not the lowest bidder.



You are right. Boards do not run a company, mgt does. So again, your approach is too simplistic. Though you now are seemingly agreeing with my earlier post. I just fail to understand why we need 200+ direct employees for this to work. 



PerryM said:


> Control over the WM BOD is THE most critical item Wyndham has when it runs WM (yes it runs WM).  They will do ANYTHING to keep control - we have only seen but a trick or two - wait until they really feel threatened and you will see lawyers and investigators digging into the past of the person challenging them.  Oh you won't ever see it in the daylight but it will be done.



I do not disagree. Those with the most too lose will always fight the hardest when the alternative is their potential elimination.



PerryM said:


> I'd bet 80% of all WM owners have little interest in all of this - they are either happy with what they have or are ambivalent about the whole thing.



Again I will agree. Vote apathy is the biggest hurdle to overcome. We can only do that through effective communication, and unfortunately the Board is now taking steps to greatly inhibit owner comminication. 

But none of the above are reasons not to try. Or to not keep trying until progress is made. For even if we would just get some meaningful reform regarding ethics, then this problem is far easier to overcome.


----------



## ecwinch

PerryM said:


> Here is my description of a Destination Club, the natural successor to timeshares,



Perry - your model has some significant holes, as I am sure others have pointed out. Just to highlight a few the jumped out at me:

Your estimated selling expense is artificially low, and assumes demand creates itself. Timeshares are a supply driven product. For timeshares - supply creates demand, not the other way around. It is the primary problem with the timeshare industry today. The cost to create that demand is too large, and results in immediate depreciation. 

So in your model of $14 credits, and a 50 cent sales expense, you SG&A would be approximately 3.5%, vs 25% in almost any sales industry, and the 40% standard in the timeshare industry. You claim a 26% SG&A, you calculate a 3.5%

_"Therefore each Point sold results in $14.00 - 25¢ - 25¢ or $13.50 per Point goes to the seller."_

And that ignores any related sales overhead (phones, office space, T&E, furnishings, etc).

The second major challenge is that your model is not scalable. It assumes away any operational costs at the resorts, since you only own condo's and not running any resorts. Actually except for the concept of how to form, that aspect is very similar to the Bill Peare WorldMark model. And the lack of scalability is what is creating system stress that WM is enduring now.

Third, I think your model might not be allowable in most states under timeshare laws. Most states do not allow you to sell something that has not been built, so I do not see how regulators would permit "construction points". Early abuses in the industry eliminated that option. And even where developers do something similar today, they sell existing properties with the option to convert into the new property on completion. They do not allow "blue sky" sales.

Some of your other ideas are innovative and interesting. But I think the issues above out-weigh them, with scalability being the biggest issue.


----------



## PerryM

Well I could go on and on but what's the use?  WM owners want Wyndham to run the place, no WM employees, and want to bellyache - I sure can't change their minds.

Check back in 5 years and you will see my predictions are true - status quo and some WM owners enjoying themselves by hating Wyndham.  I'm sure I won't be able to convince anyone then that a *WM without WM employees is nothing more than Wyndham with employees*.

I'm bowing out of this since no one is going to change their minds.

If anyone has questions on my Destination Club plan you can join there and enter the debate since it has nothing to do with Wyndham.

Until this topic is brought up again in a few days....

If anyone has specific questions just PM on this matter - I'm off to another chat room and something more lively.


----------



## mtribe

ecwinch said:


> The fallacy in your thesis is the assertion that the person signing paychecks has to be in the same organization. It is an oversimplification. So I offer:
> 
> 1) in general, employees are responsive to those who control their employment (it is more than just a paycheck), i.e. the management team
> 2) a contracted work force can be just as responsive as a hired workforce (maybe even more so)
> 3) a management team works for the CEO
> 4) The CEO works for the Board
> 5) The Board works for the owners
> 
> Every step of the chain is accountable and responsible to the next, and their employment status should be predicated on their effectiveness, and not their lack of independence. The current model breaks down because 4 & 5 are missing, not because everyone is not a WM employee as you suggest.
> 
> And your model is not well supported by how other business operates. A Board of Directors sets policy for the operation of Club, they do not run the Club. That is the responsibility of the mgt team (CEO, COO, CFO, etc). The Board provides oversight to ensure the policy and strategic direction they have set is being executed. Execution is the responsibility of mgt. I agree that it probably is preferable that we have our own mgt team, but you previously dismissed that as an option.
> 
> And there are so many other ways to align the goals of a contracted workforce with the goals of the Club. Your model ignores all other possibilities like bonuses, performance options, and sharing of cost savings, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> You are right. Boards do not run a company, mgt does. So again, your approach is too simplistic. Though you now are seemingly agreeing with my earlier post. I just fail to understand why we need 200+ direct employees for this to work.
> 
> 
> 
> I do not disagree. Those with the most the lose will always fight the hardest when the alternative is their potential elimination.
> 
> 
> 
> Again I will agree. Vote apathy is the biggest hurdle to overcome. We can only do that through effective communication, and unfortunately the Board is now taking steps to greatly inhibit owner comminication.
> 
> But none of the above are reasons not to try. Or to not keep trying until progress is made. For even if we would just get some meaningful reform regarding ethics, then this problem is far easier to overcome.



Fantastic post Eric


----------



## mtribe

PerryM said:


> Well I could go on and on but what's the use?  WM owners want Wyndham to run the place, no WM employees, and want to bellyache - I sure can't change their minds.
> 
> Check back in 5 years and you will see my predictions are true - status quo and some WM owners enjoying themselves by hating Wyndham.  I'm sure I won't be able to convince anyone then that a *WM without WM employees is nothing more than Wyndham with employees*.
> 
> I'm bowing out of this since no one is going to change their minds.
> 
> If anyone has questions on my Destination Club plan you can join there and enter the debate since it has nothing to do with Wyndham.
> 
> Until this topic is brought up again in a few days....
> 
> If anyone has specific questions just PM on this matter - I'm off to another chat room and something more lively.



You are missing your own point 80% of owners are unaware or apathetic.  If there were a way to communicate I bet the number would be far more balanced.


----------



## ecwinch

PerryM said:


> Well I could go on and on but what's the use?  WM owners want Wyndham to run the place, no WM employees, and want to bellyache - I sure can't change their minds.
> 
> Check back in 5 years and you will see my predictions are true - status quo and some WM owners enjoying themselves by hating Wyndham.  I'm sure I won't be able to convince anyone then that a *WM without WM employees is nothing more than Wyndham with employees*.
> 
> I'm bowing out of this since no one is going to change their minds.
> 
> If anyone has questions on my Destination Club plan you can join there and enter the debate since it has nothing to do with Wyndham.
> 
> Until this topic is brought up again in a few days....
> 
> If anyone has specific questions just PM on this matter - I'm off to another chat room and something more lively.



You are right, there is no sense in going on when you only want to respond at posters, and not address the points they make. You did fail to change my mind, but only because you failed to address the holes in your thesis I outlined. I am influenced by facts and objective evidence, not 15 minute sound bites, or ideas that are a mile wide and an inch deep. But I appreciate you trying.

And I do appreciate you sticking around for a few posts, and not doing a drive by post. I always learn something and your posting style is entertaining. You make some good points, and I hope your 5 year prediction is incorrect. It is a 100% certainity if we fail to try.


----------

