# Wyndham v. Worldmark - Something doesn't add up



## ocdb8r

We recently stayed at South Shore Tahoe and really enjoyed our stay.  Over the years reading many of the Wyndham posts I had the impression that reserving Wyndham resorts seemed to be generally easier than Worldmark (easier to get at shorter notice).  Anyhow, this prompted me to consider grabbing a Wyndham contract to double my chances of getting a reservation at South Shore as both Wyndham and Worldmark own units there.  However after doing some research, I don't see how the maintenance costs of Wyndham add up.  

It looks like the maintenance costs for Wyndham South Shore are $3.79/1K points.  Based on the points required a 3bdrm in peak seasons would range in maint. cost from $1364 to $1895.  In comparison, reserving a 3 bedroom with Worldmark in Red season costs 12000 points which would be less than $700 in maint. fee costs (depending on how many points you own).  What gives?  I don't get how the same resort could have such a wide discrepancy between the two systems.  

Given $3.79/1K points is considered pretty "good" in the Wyndham points world, I just don't get it...

On a similar note, one other option I considered was trying to find a fractional at South Shore...anyone know where I might find one of these?

Thanks in advance.

C.


----------



## LLW

ocdb8r said:


> We recently stayed at South Shore Tahoe and really enjoyed our stay.  Over the years reading many of the Wyndham posts I had the impression that reserving Wyndham resorts seemed to be generally easier than Worldmark (easier to get at shorter notice).  Anyhow, this prompted me to consider grabbing a Wyndham contract to double my chances of getting a reservation at South Shore as both Wyndham and Worldmark own units there.  However after doing some research, I don't see how the maintenance costs of Wyndham add up.
> 
> It looks like the maintenance costs for Wyndham South Shore are $3.79/1K points.  Based on the points required a 3bdrm in peak seasons would range in maint. cost from $1364 to $1895.  In comparison, reserving a 3 bedroom with Worldmark in Red season costs 12000 points which would be less than $700 in maint. fee costs (depending on how many points you own).  What gives?  I don't get how the same resort could have such a wide discrepancy between the two systems.
> 
> Given $3.79/1K points is considered pretty "good" in the Wyndham points world, I just don't get it...
> 
> On a similar note, one other option I considered was trying to find a fractional at South Shore...anyone know where I might find one of these?
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> C.



WM maintenance fee is low compared to most other timeshares. WM governing documents cap annual MF increase to 5%, and tie new resort credit values to old ones according to relative use values (that is gradually changing under Wyndham, vs Trendwest). 

Also, for each 10K credit-stay, a free cleaning is provided. Beyond that, if there are many short stays, there is a separate cleaning fee for each stay. I don't know if WVR has the same set up.

Is there a difference between unit furnishings and unit locations, i.e. are the Wyndham units more superior?


----------



## Rent_Share

Part of the difference in maintenance fees is reflected in the resale value

12000 WM points would cost considerably more than the equivalent number of WyndamN points to reserve the same size unit

I do recall a fractional on eBay this month,poorly listed with no mention of it's ability to deposit for WM Points

http://cgi.ebay.com/Wyndham-Nevada-...00498003221?pt=Timeshares&hash=item45f713a515

It closed with no bids


----------



## ocdb8r

LLW said:


> WM maintenance fee is low compared to most other timeshares. WM governing documents cap annual MF increase to 5%, and tie new resort credit values to old ones according to relative use values (that is gradually changing under Wyndham, vs Trendwest).
> 
> Also, for each 10K credit-stay, a free cleaning is provided. Beyond that, if there are many short stays, there is a separate cleaning fee for each stay. I don't know if WVR has the same set up.
> 
> Is there a difference between unit furnishings and unit locations, i.e. are the Wyndham units more superior?



Wyndham works similar as far as cleaning costs.

I don't know if the amenities are different or not.  I assumed the whole resort was run as one, with each program just having access to a certain percentage of units.  While I understand WM maint. fees are capped, how does Wyndham justify the amount they are charging if WM somehow gets by charging half?

I also understand the value of WM points is higher than Wyndham points, however the resort never sees that difference in value.  

Just seems that something is off here....


----------



## bnoble

If I recall correctly, WorldMark doesn't have a notion of a "home" resort; it's a club, where costs are averaged across all resorts.  In contrast, Wyndham deeds are tied to a particular resort, and so the fees might be higher (or lower) than average.


----------



## vacationhopeful

Just got a letter from my HOA at Wyndham Ocean Walk. Seems the people who OWN individual condos in the first of the 2 towers have a nice little old lawsuit going against Wyndham's management of the costs (and their distribution of costs to the fully owned condos) for upkeep, common areas, etc. And the Wyndham points owners are paying for defense lawyers with increase costs in MFs.

Maybe that explains more of why there is a big difference in the cost of MFs for Worldmark vs Wyndham...:ignore:

Ocean Walk also has Worldmark units.


----------



## Rent_Share

ocdb8r said:


> Wyndham works similar as far as cleaning costs.
> 
> I assumed the whole resort was run as one, with each program just having access to a certain percentage of units. While I understand WM maint. fees are capped, how does Wyndham justify the amount they are charging if WM somehow gets by charging half?


 

WM is the Maintenance costs for all 55 resorts divided by the total point to allocate, subject to an annual cap  WyndamN is resort specifc

IMHO the Franctionals, Wyndamn and WM units are unique -(There's a logo on the door)  I assume the WyndamN units are furnished nicer - WndamN has a "presidential" unit which is not available to WM owners


----------



## jjmanthei05

The other thing to consider is even though there is "cross over" between the 2 systems there is actually very little. Normally worldmark resorts may have between 2-5 units available total to Wyndham owners and the same is true for worldmark trading into Wyndham. I think this is more of a marketing tool than truly a benefit to the owners unless you are up at 7 am at 10 months out to snag one of those units. 

Jason


----------



## ocdb8r

Rent_Share said:


> IMHO the Franctionals, Wyndamn and WM units are unique -(There's a logo on the door)  I assume the WyndamN units are furnished nicer - WndamN has a "presidential" unit which is not available to WM owners



This may be a valid explanation.  I assumed all the units were the same, but if each program is able to somehow outfit them differently than there is SOME justification for the difference in cost.  However, I can't see what they would do to a "presidential" unit that would make it worth more than double the yearly maintenance fee in some cases.

Thanks all for the responses.  At the end of the day I think just sticking with WM and getting on the phone as early as possible will be the best bet for us.


----------



## ocdb8r

jjmanthei05 said:


> The other thing to consider is even though there is "cross over" between the 2 systems there is actually very little. Normally worldmark resorts may have between 2-5 units available total to Wyndham owners and the same is true for worldmark trading into Wyndham. I think this is more of a marketing tool than truly a benefit to the owners unless you are up at 7 am at 10 months out to snag one of those units.
> 
> Jason



I agree that this is generally the case, however there are a few resorts that were co-developed where each system owns a sizeable chunk.  That's why I found it particularly interesting when I did the comparison for South Shore which falls into this category.


----------



## LLW

jjmanthei05 said:


> The other thing to consider is even though there is "cross over" between the 2 systems there is actually very little. Normally worldmark resorts may have between 2-5 units available total to Wyndham owners and the same is true for worldmark trading into Wyndham. I think this is more of a marketing tool than truly a benefit to the owners unless you are up at 7 am at 10 months out to snag one of those units.
> 
> Jason



While that is true of most cross-over dots on the WM and Wyndham maps, that is not true of South Shore, nor Ocean Walk. In each of the 2 cases, both WM and Wyndham have a substantial number of units in each resort. 

I don't know how many Wyn has, but WM has 51 units at South Shore, and 28 at Ocean Walk.


----------



## GregT

Couldn't it also just be a function of different points values?

Worldmark has a fairly standardized points structure, whether it's for reservations at Tahoe South Shore or in Oklahoma (no disrespect intended to Oklahoma).

Wyndham has a much more diverse (in my opinion) points structure, where there is less consistency in what a 1BR or 2BR requires in terms of points, and it is most influenced by location and supply/demand (ie, how high can Wyndham drive it).  Accordingly, looking at the relatively higher points structure (at Tahoe) in Wyndham shows this difference of standardized point structure (Worldmark) versus supply/demand influenced point structure (Wyndham).

Another plus for Worldmark!    It's just very obvious here because they are physically in the same building.

Thoughts?


----------



## LLW

bnoble said:


> If I recall correctly, WorldMark doesn't have a notion of a "home" resort; it's a club, where costs are averaged across all resorts.  In contrast, Wyndham deeds are tied to a particular resort, and so the fees might be higher (or lower) than average.





GregT said:


> Couldn't it also just be a function of different points values?
> 
> Worldmark has a fairly standardized points structure, whether it's for reservations at Tahoe South Shore or in Oklahoma (no disrespect intended to Oklahoma).
> 
> Wyndham has a much more diverse (in my opinion) points structure, where there is less consistency in what a 1BR or 2BR requires in terms of points, and it is most influenced by location and supply/demand (ie, how high can Wyndham drive it).  Accordingly, looking at the relatively higher points structure (at Tahoe) in Wyndham shows this difference of standardized point structure (Worldmark) versus supply/demand influenced point structure (Wyndham).
> 
> Another plus for Worldmark!    It's just very obvious here because they are physically in the same building.
> 
> Thoughts?



I agree with both. 

For WM, the currently proposed second settlement in the Wixon law suit will require Wyndham to cancel 22 million credits, to compensate WM owners and conform to the proper points structure set up in WM governing documents. It's just one example of how Wyndham has to adjust its course in the case of WM.

Settlement proposal:
http://www.wmowners.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=28414

Discussion:
http://www.wmowners.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=28415&postdays=0&postorder=asc&&start=0


----------



## ocdb8r

GregT said:


> Couldn't it also just be a function of different points values?
> 
> Worldmark has a fairly standardized points structure, whether it's for reservations at Tahoe South Shore or in Oklahoma (no disrespect intended to Oklahoma).
> 
> Wyndham has a much more diverse (in my opinion) points structure, where there is less consistency in what a 1BR or 2BR requires in terms of points, and it is most influenced by location and supply/demand (ie, how high can Wyndham drive it).  Accordingly, looking at the relatively higher points structure (at Tahoe) in Wyndham shows this difference of standardized point structure (Worldmark) versus supply/demand influenced point structure (Wyndham).
> 
> Another plus for Worldmark!    It's just very obvious here because they are physically in the same building.
> 
> Thoughts?



I get it, but point structure should have no bearing on maintenance fees that are supposed to be tied to the actual cost of running the resort.  In other words, Wyndham can say a week costs a billion points if they want...the maintenance cost of that week shouldn't change...all that would change is the maintenance cost per point.  

Bottom line, on the Wyndham side of South Shore Tahoe a week in a 3 bedroom collects on average more than double the maintenance fee than a 3 bedroom on the Worldmark side.  As has been pointed out, the rooms may be appointed differently, but I don't see how this alone can account for the cost.  Maybe the difference in appointment of the rooms, combined with the fact that Worldmark averages maintenance fees accross all resorts in their system (meaning the lower costs at some resorts could be subsidising higher costs at South Shore) makes up the difference.  It just seemed odd to me - and more importantly obvious that if South Shore is a resort of interest to me, I am MUCH better off booking it with Worldmark.

Does Worldmark break the budget down into costs for each resort?  If so it would be interesting to see what they report as costs for South Shore compared to the Wyndham budget for South Shore.


----------



## bnoble

> combined with the fact that Worldmark averages maintenance fees accross all resorts in their system (meaning the lower costs at some resorts could be subsidising higher costs at South Shore) makes up the difference.


This is my assumption.

It is also possible that there are actually two different HOAs at South Shore, each managing distinct collections of units.  If there are, it is possible for the two sets of units to have different costs.  I've seen this at many other resorts, and sometimes the differences can be substantial.


----------



## GregT

ocdb8r said:


> Does Worldmark break the budget down into costs for each resort?  If so it would be interesting to see what they report as costs for South Shore compared to the Wyndham budget for South Shore.



If they do, I've never seen it.  As part of the company guidelines/bylaws/rules/whatever, Worldmark's MFs are capped at maximum 5% increase per year.  

Accordingly, system wide, that's the most that can come in.  That may create "deferred maintenance" issues if there just isn't enough money available at certain resorts, but I've never seen a real problem with non repairs.

But definitely creates the possibility where Tahoe would be higher if it is a higher location to maintain and can't share the benefit with a lower cost to maintain property (like Smoky Mountains) to keep the overall MF flat.

You also see this phenomon in Hawaii, where you can book a 2BR on Maui for 12,000 credits, or $600 in MF costs in Worldmark.  Nowhere in the Wyndham system (that I'm aware of) can you book a 2BR for the equivalent of $600 in MFs.

Worldmark is a remarkable little system for a number of reasons -- very flexible and owner friendly booking system, good quality resorts in good locations, and a surprisingly powerful trading property in both RCI and II.

Best,

Greg


----------



## Rent_Share

ocdb8r said:


> Thanks all for the responses. At the end of the day I think just sticking with WM and getting on the phone as early as possible will be the best bet for us.


 
13 Months is the key- And with WM there is no home resortpriority needed 

I was able to book 4th of July Week two years in a row (be open to something besides a Saturday or Sunday checkIn . . . .)


----------



## GregT

Rent_Share said:


> 13 Months is the key- And with WM there is no home resortpriority needed
> 
> I was able to book 4th of July Week two years in a row (be open to something besides a Saturday or Sunday checkIn . . . .)




Also consider "throw-away" days -- we booked 3BR's for several years in a row at Kihei.    Because there aren't many of them, we would call 13 months + 3 days in advance (or so) and book 3 days in a Palm Springs Studio (cheapest intro we could find) and then bolted on the desired 3BR Kihei reservation.

It adds to the credit cost, of course, but it helps you to get the reservation that you want.   I've had to add as many as 5 throw away days, when I saw the "Available Units" number decreasing.  Most times 1-3 throw away days worked.

Good luck!

Greg


----------



## Shon_t

I think the argument that the MFs are spread out evenly among all properties makes the most sense.

I am very happy with my WM ownership.


----------



## Rent_Share

and it makes sense too


----------



## Shon_t

Rent_Share said:


> and it makes sense too



Oops...thanks.:rofl:


----------



## LLW

Shon_t said:


> I am very happy with my WM ownership.



I think most WM owners who know the best ways to use the system are happy. The more features they know how to use (and do use), the happier they become.   Great vacations at bargain prices can do that to you.  

Because of the flexibility, it has quite a learning curve. But the information is all there, on both the Club web site, and www.wmowners.com, where newbies can ask additional questions. :whoopie:


----------



## cotraveller

LLW said:


> Is there a difference between unit furnishings and unit locations, i.e. are the Wyndham units more superior?



We've stayed at over 20 of the WorldMark resorts and 3 or 4 of the WYndham ones.  In general, I'd say that the Wyndham units are somewhat upscale compared to WorldMark.  It's not a huge difference though.  

One of the more obvious things I notice is that the WorldMark units have blinds on the windows and the Wyndham units have drapes.  That may not seem like a big deal, but it is one of the more common complaints about WorldMark.  The blinds don't do a good job of keeping outside light out of the unit.  That can be a problem if there is bright nighttime outside lighting or in the morning.  As one WorldMark owner told me, I don't need to be a part of sunrise when I'm on vacation.


----------



## mtribe

double post


----------



## mtribe

LLW said:


> WM maintenance fee is low compared to most other timeshares. WM governing documents cap annual MF increase to 5%, and tie new resort credit values to old ones according to relative use values (that is gradually changing under Wyndham, vs Trendwest). .....






Rent_Share said:


> WM is the Maintenance costs for all 55 resorts divided by the total point to allocate, subject to an annual cap  WyndamN is resort specifc......



Fred, I am very surprised that you of all people have asked this question.  

These are the two key responses to the initial question and the primary reason why new resorts created by Wyndham are coming in with higher credit values.  It is also why Wyndham is fighting so hard to win the relative use argument.  Wyndham will argue that development costs are higher but that is only a diversion and is not relevant. There are other ways to address development costs.  

I believe that this is one of the main reasons Cendant (now spun off to Wyndham) purchased Trendwest in the first place.  They saw that MF were far below market and said we can "correct this" and make a tidy profit.  The Low MF are one of the great benefits of Worldmark.  Wyndham is trying to "convert/transform" Worldmark into its model of timeshare.

Maintenance fees are the true reason behind the increased credit values.  The prime example is San Diego.  They charge 15000 credits for a studio week (maybe it is a 1 bedroom).  There are no amenities or grounds to maintain, no pool, much smaller units, limited kitchens, no two bedroom units so very few families with kids, etc.  Wyndham can take all the surplus maintenance fees collected as a result of the dues on the huge volume of credits generated by the creation of this resort and use it to increase their maintenance profits errrr subsidize the costs of maintaining the other resorts.  Inflation has not risen over 5% annually they should be able continue to cover the operation costs with that restriction but their profits would not be as high.  They even talk about it in the Annual owners meeting.  They constantly complain that they are far below industry standards and have talked about the importance of getting there as if it is a good thing.  I really do not care if they make an industry average profit, not if it comes at the expense of violating the governing documents and damaging the club which I believe higher credit value resorts does.


----------



## cotraveller

mtribe said:


> Fred, I am very surprised that you of all people have asked this question.



Well - - - I didn't ask any questions so I have no idea what you are referring to by addressing your post to me.  (I didn't see any other Freds in this topic although I will admit I don't know the real names that go with most of the screen names).

It's 2 nights before Christmas, the stocking are hung by the chimney with care, I'm not biting on this one. Maybe next year.

*Merry Christmas Mike and all!*


----------

