# CIEL Club is changing focus



## Steamboat Bill (Dec 1, 2007)

CIEL Club is no longer actively seeking new members.

  Current members can resign with 100% refund of their membership deposit.

  The club will re-focus their members to serve as trustees for a conservation trust that will allow them to get access to large tracks of land/homes and also be able to take advantage of the tax benefits of owning a property with a conservation easement.

  Here are some links for more information

http://www.heliumreport.com/archive...ds-land-conservation-halts-member-acquisition

http://www.destinationclubforums.com/f2/ciel-club-changes-focus-become-conservation-238.html


----------



## Steamboat Bill (Dec 1, 2007)

Before anyone post that the DC sky is falling, CIEL is a very small and elite club.

CIEL started as an ultra luxury destination club with a portfolio of properties that average $10 million each, CIEL Club is limited to only 100 members.

They decided to change focus, not go bankrupt.


----------



## vivalour (Dec 1, 2007)

"large tracks of land"  -- I guess they mean tracts of land. How odd.


----------



## PerryM (Dec 1, 2007)

This sounds totally insane - was the DC too hard for them?

I can't put them in the "out of business category", perhaps we need a "Totally insane" column?


----------



## Steamboat Bill (Dec 1, 2007)

PerryM said:


> This sounds totally insane - was the DC too hard for them?
> 
> I can't put them in the "out of business category", perhaps we need a "Totally insane" column?



As much as I love the DC business, I personally think the top three ultra-expensive DCs (Yellowstone, CIEL, Solstice) are really private clubs for the wealthy owners that wants to share his homes with a few of his ultra-wealthy friends and have them kick in some cash vs being a freeloader.

In my mind, they are not really DCs at all....just on paper.


----------



## Tedpilot (Dec 1, 2007)

I think their new angle is such to attract members that are looking for a tax advantage.  I wonder how they are re-characterizing current memberships to a truly equity based model to accommodate such tax breaks?

Time will tell...


----------



## PerryM (Dec 1, 2007)

*Dude, ostrich, or chinchilla ranch?*



Steamboat Bill said:


> As much as I love the DC business, I personally think the top three ultra-expensive DCs (Yellowstone, CIEL, Solstice) are really private clubs for the wealthy owners that wants to share his homes with a few of his ultra-wealthy friends and have them kick in some cash vs being a freeloader.
> 
> In my mind, they are not really DCs at all....just on paper.



But this gets back to my fear of DCs - one weekend the founders of a DC could turn it into a dude/dud ranch and not necessarily offer any money back to the dudes who are members.


Or, maybe turn it into an ostrich ranch, salmon farm, or a chinchilla operation - who knows what this weekend might bring?

Just food for thought (or a fine coat)....


----------



## travelguy (Dec 2, 2007)

*A great investment move!*

Without getting into a discussion on the mechanics of the investment, calling the move to purchase land in a conservation trust a "tax advantage" is like calling the Sun a lukewarm rock.  This move is probably much less about the "green" intentions of the DC as the massive payola that the gov offers for a correctly structured conservation trust purchase of select types of land.  Commercial investors have been doing this for a few years and, for some reason, it's relatively undiscussed in investment circles.  Probably because it's not as flashy as the illusion of flipping a condo for 100% profit in 30 days!

I agree that it's odd that a high end DC would pursue this type of investment but it does make incredible sense from an investment viewpoint.  Collect mounds of cash incentives from the gov to purchase the land,  profit from the normal appreciation of land values, and use the land all at the same time.  Brilliant!

I'd jump at the chance to purchase a membership if High Country Club offered a Preferred Membership that offered the same type of investment opportunity (with the proper due diligence of course).

Just my thoughts.....


----------



## PerryM (Dec 2, 2007)

travelguy said:


> Without getting into a discussion on the mechanics of the investment, calling the move to purchase land in a conservation trust a "tax advantage" is like calling the Sun a lukewarm rock.  This move is probably much less about the "green" intentions of the DC as the massive payola that the gov offers for a correctly structured conservation trust purchase of select types of land.  Commercial investors have been doing this for a few years and, for some reason, it's relatively undiscussed in investment circles.  Probably because it's not as flashy as the illusion of flipping a condo for 100% profit in 30 days!
> 
> I agree that it's odd that a high end DC would pursue this type of investment but it does make incredible sense from an investment viewpoint.  Collect mounds of cash incentives from the gov to purchase the land,  profit from the normal appreciation of land values, and use the land all at the same time.  Brilliant!
> 
> ...




What’s to stop the DC///Conservation Trust to become some other harebrain scheme by the principals of the DC///Conservation Trust?  Why not decide to become a toxic land fill, or starve millions of humans to death by converting corn into ethanol for their fancy V12 cars?  There’s probably some tax gimmick there too.

This should send shivers up every DC member – who knows what your DC might morph into this weekend?  I've always thought that a devil-may-care attitude exists for both management and the members in the DC universe; this reinforces my hunch.

Personally, I think a porno-flick investment sure would be something to liven up the conversation at the next party for all these rich folks…


----------



## travelguy (Dec 3, 2007)

PerryM said:


> What’s to stop the DC///Conservation Trust to become some other harebrain scheme by the principals of the DC///Conservation Trust?  Why not decide to become a toxic land fill, or starve millions of humans to death by converting corn into ethanol for their fancy V12 cars?  There’s probably some tax gimmick there too.
> 
> This should send shivers up every DC member – who knows what your DC might morph into this weekend?  I've always thought that a devil-may-care attitude exists for both management and the members in the DC universe; this reinforces my hunch.
> 
> Personally, I think a porno-flick investment sure would be something to liven up the conversation at the next party for all these rich folks…



Perry,

The content of your post points to a disturbing prejudice of "rich folks".  Personally, I'm all for the "rich folks" who own my DC making brilliant investments that strengthen the DC and make the balance sheet stronger.   If I wanted to be involved in the investment decisions, I wouldn't be in the DC to begin with.  

I don't want to be put in the position of defending Ceil since I know very little about them.  But, it appears that the change in investment focus still meets their fiduciary responsibility of property investment and provision of luxury vacation accommodations.  Looks like win/win.  And they are offering 100% refund to any member thats not happy with the change.

Then again, in your fantasy world where Trump starts a DC, what do you think he's going to do with the proceeds?  Treasury bonds?  I don't think so!  Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's "insane".


----------



## PerryM (Dec 3, 2007)

*Child's play...*



travelguy said:


> Perry,
> 
> The content of your post points to a disturbing prejudice of "rich folks".  Personally, I'm all for the "rich folks" who own my DC making brilliant investments that strengthen the DC and make the balance sheet stronger.   If I wanted to be involved in the investment decisions, I wouldn't be in the DC to begin with.
> 
> ...



Don't get me wrong, I love rich folks (Rich Folks definition: anyone that makes $1 more per year than me; Poor Folks: anyone who makes $1 less than me).

I just find it weird that a DC couldn't make it as a DC and instead decided to get into something else - the tax write off/sheltering business.  I know that investing money the old fashioned way of buying stocks and holding a year is boring but maybe buying a DC and watching what it morphs into is a lot more exciting.

When I was a kid we threw a large ball into a bin that had 4 shoots - you never knew where it would come out - I guess DCs are the adult version of the game?

If this is what DC folks find comforting than my concerns are baseless.


----------



## hipslo (Dec 3, 2007)

travelguy said:


> Collect mounds of cash incentives from the gov to purchase the land,  profit from the normal appreciation of land values, and use the land all at the same time.  Brilliant!



Not exactly.  Placing a conservation easement on the land means it can no longer be developed, so profiting from normal appreciation of land values is no longer part of the picture (other than on the portion of the land that is not subject to the easement).  The tax deduction, after all, is for, and in the amount of, the diminution in value that occurs with respect to the land when it is made subject to the easement.  I dont know, to me, taking a tax deduction with a value of, say 40% of the loss in land value, and paying full value for the land, doesnt strike me as the best "investment" play I have ever heard of.  There must be something else going on here, its just not exactly clear what that "something" is.  The "rich folks" we're talking about use this strategy when they've got so much money that they dont care about giving up the future value of the land, and they are willing to take a current tax deduction perhaps because they want the family estate to always stay in the family and never have the land be subdivided and developed.  Maybe there is some way to graft that concept onto the DC model, but it isnt immediately apparent to me.


----------



## travelguy (Dec 4, 2007)

hipslo said:


> Not exactly.  Placing a conservation easement on the land means it can no longer be developed, so profiting from normal appreciation of land values is no longer part of the picture (other than on the portion of the land that is not subject to the easement).  The tax deduction, after all, is for, and in the amount of, the diminution in value that occurs with respect to the land when it is made subject to the easement.  I dont know, to me, taking a tax deduction with a value of, say 40% of the loss in land value, and paying full value for the land, doesnt strike me as the best "investment" play I have ever heard of.  There must be something else going on here, its just not exactly clear what that "something" is.  The "rich folks" we're talking about use this strategy when they've got so much money that they dont care about giving up the future value of the land, and they are willing to take a current tax deduction perhaps because they want the family estate to always stay in the family and never have the land be subdivided and developed.  Maybe there is some way to graft that concept onto the DC model, but it isnt immediately apparent to me.



Hipslo,

You're probably correct with your assessment of the conservation easement and the tax advantages (I'm not an accountant so I have no idea).  This was not the investment vehicle that I am semi-familiar with and was thinking that Ceil may be using.  The investment that I've seen executed is more like a gov grant involving cash toward the purchase of designated land parcels in addition to the tax advantages,etc.  I know people who have done this recently but I don't know the intimate details.

As I said before, I know nothing about Ceil or what their strategy may be and don't want to defend their actions or strategy.  Also, the purchase of land/property for conversation use is well outside my expertise of commercial real estate development and investment.  I may actually be an anti-conservation developer.


----------

