# More WM Questions



## Elan (Nov 4, 2007)

Still contemplating WM ownership.  Wish I'd have gone WM instead of RCI Points a few years back.  Anyhow, I have some Worldmark questions that I need answered to help push me off the fence:

1) What is availability on the Oregon Coast in July/August?  In other words, how competitive is booking a week?  

2) What types of positive changes can an owner on the BOD (such as PA) affect immediately?

3) Conversely, what further negative developments are anticipated if the BOD remains as is?

  Credits have dropped from about .80 for a fully loaded account to about .65 currently.  What pricing do current owners foresee in the short term?  Are there any catalysts to further price erosion?

  Thanks for all help,

                           Jim


----------



## PerryM (Nov 4, 2007)

*WM is great, even with the present WM BOD...*

I am a very happy WM owner – hardly ever stay at WM resorts but I use WM all the time, mainly for II and RedWeek exchanges where 10,000 WM credits still get’s you to Marriotts and Westins and other top end timeshares (4,000 WM credits at the 59-day window).  *Falling WM credits simply means that you can take cheaper vacations.*

I don’t worry about who is on the WM BOD – I don’t think WM owners will make any difference at all; but that’s just my opinion.  Placing any hope for a miracle turn around on the outcome of elections held by Wyndham is like making plans to spend the winnings of the Powerball lottery.

I think in 2007 we will have used WM to get to 5 Marriotts and better resorts and NO WM resorts (II and RedWeek exchanges).  So as you see cheaper WM credits are good for me.  Then there is the matter of just renting unlimited WM credits from other WM owners for 6¢ each and not even have to bother with the 4.5¢ MF and 65¢ to buy them in the first place.

In 2007 we will use WM Midway for Dec 21 for 2 nites (That's the total of our WM resort usage for the year) – we leave St. Louis at 6 AM on the 22nd and will be checking into Midway about 11 AM and then spend the rest of the day snowboarding free at the Park City Mountain Resort (bring your boarding pass to ski the rest of the day for free).  We check into a 2BR Marriott MountainSide (ski in/out) the next day (50' from Payday; the main high speed 6-pack at the Mountain Resort).  So as you see WM allows us to stay at top notch resorts and occasionally I will use them for scrap usage.

Don’t worry about the WM BOD – it will have little impact on folks like me and others who know how to maximize the usage without actually staying at WM.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Nov 4, 2007)

Here's my answers.

WorldMark is still a fantastic Club that has a long way to go before the Board completely destroys it.  I wouldn't hesitate buying now to get into it.  The value is that great.

1) Oregon in July and August is very competitive.  To get what you want, you may need to book some extra throwaway days to get it.  I usually take multi-week vacations.  So, I don't need to throw away days myself.  I expect these resorts to be ever increasingly hard to get given how the developer is selling new credits.  There will be more demand for these resorts without any commensurate increase in supply.

2) If PA is elected to the board, he can have a profound impact.  If nothing else, he will be able to vocalize and communicate real information to owners.  It will become difficult for the board to ignore him.  It may be a few years before he gets elected.  By then, there may be 50 directors on the board if Wyndham keeps adding them.

3) The board's impact on the club will be the equivalent of boiling a frog.  It will take a long period of time, but benefits and value will erode continuously over time.   It will manifest itself in less bonus time, greater difficulty in booking reservations. Higher fees.  And, less responsive systems such as online reservations.

Take a 3-5 year view of your ownership.  Make sure you get 100% of your value out in that time period.  If you plan that way, you won't be disappointed even if you have to give it away after 5 years for $.10/credit.


----------



## cruisin (Nov 4, 2007)

Boca nailed it!!!    The club is still so good, that it can be abused by the BOD for many years and still be a good value. The flexibility is great, most resorts can still be booked at 13 months out, but usually not penthouses and ocean fronts!


----------



## PerryM (Nov 5, 2007)

cruisin said:


> Boca nailed it!!!    The club is still so good, that it can be abused by the BOD for many years and still be a good value. The flexibility is great, most resorts can still be booked at 13 months out, but usually not penthouses and ocean fronts!



I find NO problem booking ANYTHING in the entire WM system.  WM is unique in that you can simply outfox the dimmer WM owners by just renting WM credits for 5 - 6 cents each and add 1 day or maybe 2 in front of the week you want (throw away days).  

Ask a Marriott Maui Ocean Club owner how much fun it is to reserve a Christmas week - they are fighting tooth and nail with fellow Marriott owners to do so.  There they must buy a "Throw away" week at some other Marriott to do the same trick.

There are plenty of "work arounds" in WM to beat other, slower, WM owners to any unit and week you want.  These work arounds cost but a few bucks too.

WM/Wyndham is not unique when it comes to the developer doing what's best for the developer over the owners.


----------



## PA- (Nov 5, 2007)

BocaBum99 said:


> ...
> Take a 3-5 year view of your ownership.  Make sure you get 100% of your value out in that time period.  If you plan that way, you won't be disappointed even if you have to give it away after 5 years for $.10/credit.



This statement is true of ANY timeshare purchase.  You should NEVER consider anything outside 5 years; if you still have the same needs/desires 5 years from now, it's icing on the cake.  If you don't think you'll get your money's worth in 5 years, simply rent what you want when you want.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Nov 5, 2007)

PA- said:


> This statement is true of ANY timeshare purchase.  You should NEVER consider anything outside 5 years; if you still have the same needs/desires 5 years from now, it's icing on the cake.  If you don't think you'll get your money's worth in 5 years, simply rent what you want when you want.



I agree.....


----------



## PA- (Nov 5, 2007)

By the way, as part of your analysis, you can use salvage value.  I think it's reasonable to expect that 5 years from now, Worldmark will be worth 60cents per credit.  It's not certain, but you have to make an estimate, and I think a case can be made that prices will hold fairly steady.


----------



## skim118 (Nov 5, 2007)

PerryM said:


> I find NO problem booking ANYTHING in the entire WM system.  WM is unique in that you can simply outfox the dimmer WM owners by just renting WM credits for 5 - 6 cents each and add 1 day or maybe 2 in front of the week you want (throw away days).



I hate to agree with PerryM  with his statement since I like PA a lot more and I did give him my proxy.

Currently I have no problem booking in choice Worldmark  properties -- 3-bed rm in Maui & penthouse in Coral Baja using the current rules(throwaway days).


----------



## PA- (Nov 5, 2007)

skim118 said:


> I hate to agree with PerryM  with his statement since I like PA a lot more and I did give him my proxy.
> 
> Currently I have no problem booking in choice Worldmark  properties -- 3-bed rm in Maui & penthouse in Coral Baja using the current rules(throwaway days).



No need to apologize, I also agree with Perry on this issue.  You can get what you want if you are careful to call first thing 13 months out for high demand weeks.  THere are a few exceptions, such as Christmas/New Year's weeks in ski resorts.  Those tend to get taken before 13 months out by people willing to throw away credits booking Galena studio 13 months out and tacking on ski weeks more than 13 months out.

Try booking the lone 3bedroom condo in Steamboat during ski season.


----------



## acesneights (Nov 7, 2007)

What makes you think WM won't be down to 5 or 10 or 15 cents a credit?

Wyndham FSP points have fallen from 17.5 cents a point to under a penny.

Before WYN began stripping VIP benefits and raising GC fee, etc FSP points sold for 3 cents a point. So, since FF has been managed aggressively for the developer FSP has lost an additional 2/3 or more.

So WM 60 down to 20 or less seems a reasonable projection.

Perhaps if PA can get on the board, WM might retain some additional value but counting on 60 cents per credit resale remaining steady sound like a pipe dream.

Stan


----------



## Elan (Nov 7, 2007)

Thanks for everyone's input.  As usual, the WM "Big Guns" (Perry, Boca, PA) answered essentially all of my questions.

  But now I'm curious as to how one analyzes a WM ownership such that it makes sense over a 3-5 year timeframe assuming a depreciation of 50-80% over that period.  Are we talking a 5K account and renting/using >= 100K credits per year?  That's about the only way it makes sense to me.  Anyone want to offer up an analysis?

                                              Thanks,
                                                           Jim


----------



## PA- (Nov 7, 2007)

Elan said:


> Thanks for everyone's input.  As usual, the WM "Big Guns" (Perry, Boca, PA) answered essentially all of my questions.
> 
> But now I'm curious as to how one analyzes a WM ownership such that it makes sense over a 3-5 year timeframe assuming a depreciation of 50-80% over that period.  Are we talking a 5K account and renting/using >= 100K credits per year?  That's about the only way it makes sense to me.  Anyone want to offer up an analysis?
> 
> ...




# 1, no investment makes sense if you consider 50 - 80% depreciation.  Everybody has to use the information available and their own feelings to decide how to come up with salvage value.

# 2, Regardless of salvage value, from a financial standpoint it makes more sense to own small and rent credits.  Or own small, and use Direct Exchange or Exchange Plus to trade in for credits.  The payback period from owning big vs. renting credits is MANY years.  Some people prefer to own big, but not for financial reasons.

Aces, there is a lot of uncertainty as to the future of Worldmark.  Your guess of 5 or 10 cents is just as plausible as my guess of 60cents.  I could make an arguement for either.  Each person has to use their own crystal ball.  Let me tell you why I believe mine is more correct.

1)  The lawsuit has some probability of forcing Wyndham to alter the business practices they would otherwise pursue.  I believe that it has a HIGH probability.  Perhaps it won't accomplish everything, but I believe it will help.

2)  I believe there will be a criminal investigation of Wyndham AND the worldmark board that also has a chance to alter their business practices.

3)  I haven't yet even begun the last step of my plan to get on the board.  That will begin soon, should I not get elected this year.  I think there's a high probability that Wyndham will not retain their majority on the board over the long term.  I believe that an independent board could have a drastic, positive impact on credit values.


----------



## spatenfloot (Nov 7, 2007)

Elan said:


> But now I'm curious as to how one analyzes a WM ownership such that it makes sense over a 3-5 year timeframe assuming a depreciation of 50-80% over that period.  Are we talking a 5K account and renting/using >= 100K credits per year?  That's about the only way it makes sense to me.  Anyone want to offer up an analysis?



Just assume the resale value at the end of your timeframe is zero. That's the worst case scenario. Then compare the cost of renting the resorts/weeks you want to buying cost. I'd use at least 5 years as the timeframe. If you only want to use it for 3 years, there's not much point in buying it.


----------



## larry_WM (Nov 7, 2007)

acesneights said:


> Perhaps if PA can get on the board, WM might retain some additional value but counting on 60 cents per credit resale remaining steady sound like a pipe dream.
> 
> Stan



What are you smokking? A TS reseller on a BOD can't change anything.


----------



## larry_WM (Nov 7, 2007)

BocaBum99 said:


> Here's my answers.
> 
> WorldMark is still a fantastic Club that has a long way to go before the Board completely destroys it.  I wouldn't hesitate buying now to get into it.  The value is that great.
> .



Enjoy it when it's still good.



BocaBum99 said:


> Take a 3-5 year view of your ownership.  Make sure you get 100% of your value out in that time period.  If you plan that way, you won't be disappointed even if you have to give it away after 5 years for $.10/credit.




Be carefull what are you wishing for.


----------



## Elan (Nov 8, 2007)

PA- said:


> # 1, no investment makes sense if you consider 50 - 80% depreciation.  Everybody has to use the information available and their own feelings to decide how to come up with salvage value.
> 
> # 2, Regardless of salvage value, from a financial standpoint it makes more sense to own small and rent credits.  Or own small, and use Direct Exchange or Exchange Plus to trade in for credits.  The payback period from owning big vs. renting credits is MANY years.  Some people prefer to own big, but not for financial reasons.



  Yes, these are the same 2 conclusions I've reached via my analysis.    But some of the earlier posts seem to be contradictory to these conclusions -- unless one uses 70K or more credits per year -- thus spreading the credit depreciation over more vaction time.  I'm not in a position to, nor do I desire to,  spend 7 weeks a year timesharing.


----------



## PerryM (Nov 8, 2007)

*Quid Pro Quo*



Elan said:


> Yes, these are the same 2 conclusions I've reached via my analysis.    But some of the earlier posts seem to be contradictory to these conclusions -- unless one uses 70K or more credits per year -- thus spreading the credit depreciation over more vaction time.  I'm not in a position to, nor do I desire to,  spend 7 weeks a year timesharing.




*I can’t think of a single reason to own more than 5,000 WM credits PERIOD! * A No HouseKeeping(NHK)  account of 5,000 WM credits would be just the ideal.

The Einsteins who run Wyndham/TrendWest have decided to give WM owners the biggest Christmas present any timeshare owner has ever gotten – rent unlimited WM credits from other WM owners and never bother the Wyndham salesreps (they must nap most of the day).  Rent 10,000 WM credits for $500 instead of buying them for $1.98 (65¢ resale) and paying a MF of 4.5¢ each.

I know folks usually send me PMs that I should not talk about this too much but Wyndham knows of this and apparently wants to reward us resale owners too.  Thanks Wyndham for the gift.

For this ONE reason, WM credits should be in every timeshare owner’s portfolio.

*However, let me state the obvious - Wyndham can remove this goodie as fast as they gave it to us. * Folks can threaten Wyndham and the WM BOD and push a little to hard and this gift will be withdrawn – I don’t know if Wyndham needs to run a warning but consider this a notification from a fellow WM owner.

Screw around with the WM BOD and kiss this benefit goodbye -  you heard it hear first if it never occurred to you guys….  Mark this post and see if my prediction comes true.  This is an unbelievable gift that Wyndham has given every WM owner - spit in their eye and watch what happens.

This ONE gift makes up for all the credit dilution and other things that Wyndham has inflicted upon us or for years in the future.  I consider it quid pro quo.

Poke a tiger with a stick and you know what will happen - you will get mauled.

P.S.
When you change from an owner to a renter then you want falling prices and panic in the street – you make out like a bandit.  I personally have enough WM credits that I have never rented but we plan to completely change our usage of WM in 2008 – just too busy to do it at the end of this year.

I see ever falling WM resale credits and WM rental credits seem to be softening too – so what should someone do – be an owner or renter?  Wyndham as graciously allowed owners to decide that for our best usage of WM.


----------



## melschey (Nov 8, 2007)

PerryM said:


> *I can’t think of a single reason to own more than 5,000 WM credits PERIOD! * A No HouseKeeping(NHK)  account of 5,000 WM credits would be just the ideal.
> 
> The Einsteins who run Wyndham/TrendWest have decided to give WM owners the biggest Christmas present any timeshare owner has ever gotten – rent unlimited WM credits from other WM owners and never bother the Wyndham salesreps (they must nap most of the day).  Rent 10,000 WM credits for $500 instead of buying them for $1.98 (65¢ resale) and paying a MF of 4.5¢ each.
> 
> ...



I bet Wyndham is right now trying to come up with some way to teke away this gift. I have come to the conclusion that loose lips do sink ships. 

Do we really want to educate all WM owners how to do this?


----------



## Elan (Nov 8, 2007)

melschey said:


> I bet Wyndham is right now trying to come up with some way to teke away this gift. I have come to the conclusion that loose lips do sink ships.
> 
> Do we really want to educate all WM owners how to do this?



  Unless I'm missing something, I'm not sure I'd really consider this "inside" information.  Anyone who looks into WM can spreadsheet the cost per credit and determine that it's more cost effective to acquire them in certain ways over others.  Perhaps this is not what you're referring to?

  Unfortunately, the cards are in Wyndham's hands, so the landscape is constantly changing.  I would plan on leveraging my EC week into WM, but they could yank this benefit away as well, I presume.  These types of issues were what made me pose my initial questions regarding the impact of an owner on the BOD.


----------



## larry_WM (Nov 8, 2007)

Elan said:


> Unless I'm missing something, I'm not sure I'd really consider this "inside" information.  Anyone who looks into WM can spreadsheet the cost per credit and determine that it's more cost effective to acquire them in certain ways over others.  Perhaps this is not what you're referring to?
> 
> Unfortunately, the cards are in Wyndham's hands, so the landscape is constantly changing.  I would plan on leveraging my EC week into WM, but they could yank this benefit away as well, I presume.  These types of issues were what made me pose my initial questions regarding the impact of an owner on the BOD.




It's not cost effective to own small account. If you want to have just one week vacation a year, 5000 credits account is enough, but if you want to take 3,4 week vacation a year, 5000 credits account akes you nowhere. Renting credits is something that take you a lot of time and headache too. Renting credits price is going up and up. I know there are a lot of folks cutting coupons to shop for food, but our family love to shop in Cosco. There are more and more educated owners, so it's not easy to book good location resorts for the last minute, bonus time in high demand resort is almost impossible unless you spend 20 hours a day  browsing the WM website. Maybe you should start with 10000 credit first and buy more if  you need more.  Here is the cost per credit according to account size

7000	6.08
10,000	5.25
12,500	4.99
15,000	4.82
17,500	4.70
20,000	4.61
22,500	4.54
25,000	4.48
27,500	4.44
30,000	4.40

With 4.4 cents per credits and 8000 credits per 1 bdrm and a maximum 5% inrease of MF per year. Here is the cost of 1bdrm per week for future years

2009	388
2010	407
2011	428
2012	449
2013	471
2014	495
2015	520
2016	546
2017	573
2018	602
2019	632
2020	663

Even with the price of project 2020 $663 for one bdrm per week is still very cheap.. I have to pay $200 per night for a lousy hotel room lately.


----------



## larry_WM (Nov 8, 2007)

larry_WM said:


> With 4.4 cents per credits and 8000 credits per 1 bdrm and a maximum 5% inrease of MF per year. Here is the cost of 1bdrm per week for future years
> 
> 2009	388
> 2010	407
> ...



Oops, My number might not be valid if the ambitious reseller is on BOD and a lot of frivolous lawsuits.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Nov 8, 2007)

Larry,

I wish you would stop bashing PA.  Stop calling him something he's not.  He's explained what he's done quite clearly.  Are you a child or adolt?

You raise a good point about the 5% cap.  That is a very wise thing that the original BOD of WorldMark instituted when they created the club.  Had that not been done, I am quite sure that MF would be significantly higher than they are now.

However, what you do NOT mention is that this current BoD has allowed Wyndham to violate the relative use clause or whatever it is called which is creating points inflation.  So, if it used to be that all 2 bedroom units were 10000 credits and if they continued to be into the future.  Then, your analysis is correct.  However, since the average 2br unit is increasing in cost, then you need to multiply your cost factor by the credit inflation that Wyndham has created.

What PA and others who want an independent board are attempting to do (amongst other very good things) is to stop that credit inflation practice which only enables the developer to effectively increase our maintenance fees without our approval.  And, this diluation devalues and lowers the value of resale credits.


----------



## cruisin (Nov 8, 2007)

larry_WM said:


> It's not cost effective to own small account. If you want to have just one week vacation a year, 5000 credits account is enough, but if you want to take 3,4 week vacation a year, 5000 credits account akes you nowhere. Renting credits is something that take you a lot of time and headache too. Renting credits price is going up and up. I know there are a lot of folks cutting coupons to shop for food, but our family love to shop in Cosco. There are more and more educated owners, so it's not easy to book good location resorts for the last minute, bonus time in high demand resort is almost impossible unless you spend 20 hours a day  browsing the WM website. Maybe you should start with 10000 credit first and buy more if  you need more.  Here is the cost per credit according to account size
> 
> 7000	6.08
> 10,000	5.25
> ...




I am very glad that you too have concluded that the current BOD will stick it to us the maximum 5% every year (because they can). With this WORST case scenario, It is hard not to want change on the BOD. Even with the unknown of what might happen, it would be hard for an independent BOD  to do WORSTER! :rofl:


----------



## larry_WM (Nov 8, 2007)

BocaBum99 said:


> Larry,
> 
> I wish you would stop bashing PA.  Stop calling him something he's not.  He's explained what he's done quite clearly.  Are you a child or adolt?
> 
> .



Well, If he is not a WM reseller, surely he is a TS reseller. Anything wrong if I call him a reseller?


----------



## Elan (Nov 8, 2007)

larry_WM said:


> Well, If he is not a WM reseller, surely he is a TS reseller. If you don't see that fact, you are blind.



  Ok Larry, you don't like PA.  We got that part.  Now can we please get back to our regularly scheduled programming?

                                                   Regards,
                                                                Jim


----------



## larry_WM (Nov 8, 2007)

BocaBum99 said:


> However, what you do NOT mention is that this current BoD has allowed Wyndham to violate the relative use clause or whatever it is called which is creating points inflation.  So, if it used to be that all 2 bedroom units were 10000 credits and if they continued to be into the future.  Then, your analysis is correct.  However, since the average 2br unit is increasing in cost, then you need to multiply your cost factor by the credit inflation that Wyndham has created.
> 
> .



When I bought in WM, I bought with the existed resorts, not the resorts would be built. Better resorts, better location, more points, i don't see any flaw in this logic


----------



## larry_WM (Nov 8, 2007)

cruisin said:


> I am very glad that you too have concluded that the current BOD will stick it to us the maximum 5% every year (because they can). With this WORST case scenario, It is hard not to want change on the BOD. Even with the unknown of what might happen, it would be hard for an independent BOD  to do WORSTER! :rofl:




If you ever own any other TS, you will recognize that MF have been steadily increasing  more than 5%. As mentioned above, I am not worrying about MF increased, I am worrying about the stupid lawsuits which will create a big special assessment. if this happen, i won't be surprise to see the resale price drop to 10 cents per credit.


----------



## somerville (Nov 8, 2007)

larry_WM said:


> ..., surely he is a TS reseller....



So what's wrong with that?  A lot of members of this board buy and sell timeshares.


----------



## PA- (Nov 8, 2007)

PerryM said:


> ...*However, let me state the obvious - Wyndham can remove this goodie as fast as they gave it to us. * Folks can threaten Wyndham and the WM BOD and push a little to hard and this gift will be withdrawn – I don’t know if Wyndham needs to run a warning but consider this a notification from a fellow WM owner.
> 
> Screw around with the WM BOD and kiss this benefit goodbye -  you heard it hear first if it never occurred to you guys….  Mark this post and see if my prediction comes true.  This is an unbelievable gift that Wyndham has given every WM owner - spit in their eye and watch what happens.
> ....




You're a bit behind the times, Perry.  The Worldmark board has already begun limiting trade credits.  Rentals are next if they aren't stopped.  Dave Herrick is paid on one goal, and one goal only.  Selling more credits.  Anything that gets in the way will be eliminated.  Within 1 - 2 years, your ability to trade in your fractional for Worldmark credits WILL be eliminated, unless you buy into TravelShare.  Not "MAY BE" eliminated.  WILL be eliminated!  The explanation is that TEN (The Exchange Network) is a benefit for TravelShare owners ONLY.  That TEN program includes trade credits, Fairfield usage, Worldmark South Pacific, etc.  To this point, they haven't enforced that aspect of TEN, but they will.  If you think that if we just leave Herrick alone, he'll continue to allow you the benefits you've had in the past, I've got a bridge to sell you.

In case you missed it, the TEN agreement was slipped into the TravelShare rollout.  It's supposed to be for TravelShare owners only, but to date hasn't been enforced.  The TEN program is an exchange company, wholly owned by Wyndham.  As the previous trade agreements (with people like Fairfield, WM South Pacific, etc.) expire, you will only get them if you're a TravelShare owner.  And to keep them, you'll periodically be forced to buy into another level of TravelShare.  It won't end with one buy-in.  And the trade agreement with the Residence Club is part of it.  

I think you have a basic misunderstanding of who the bad guys are.  If we leave Herrick in charge of Worldmark, you will be very sorry.  Of course, you can claim it was the fault of us owners, if you want.  But you'll be wrong.


----------



## larry_WM (Nov 8, 2007)

somerville said:


> So what's wrong with that?  A lot of members of this board buy and sell timeshares.



The wrong things: misleading the facts, behind the scene of frivolous lawsuits.


----------



## somerville (Nov 8, 2007)

larry_WM said:


> The wrong things: misleading the facts, behind the scene of frivolous lawsuits.


I haven't seen PA misleading the facts.  Quite frankly, if PA was interested in buying and selling Worldmark memberships, I would think the last thing he would want would be for Worldmark to be in litigation, as that would make buyers think twice about buying into Worldmark.  I applaud anyone for standing up to a bully.  While legal action should be the last resort, sometimes it is necessary for justice to be carried out.  You have your opinion that the lawsuit is frivolous, others don't.  By now, I think we all know where you stand.


----------



## melschey (Nov 8, 2007)

Elan said:


> Unless I'm missing something, I'm not sure I'd really consider this "inside" information.  Anyone who looks into WM can spreadsheet the cost per credit and determine that it's more cost effective to acquire them in certain ways over others.  Perhaps this is not what you're referring to?
> 
> Unfortunately, the cards are in Wyndham's hands, so the landscape is constantly changing.  I would plan on leveraging my EC week into WM, but they could yank this benefit away as well, I presume.  These types of issues were what made me pose my initial questions regarding the impact of an owner on the BOD.



I have found that very few WM owners know how to do what Perry is doing.


----------



## PerryM (Nov 8, 2007)

*Mommy, mommy....change the math*



melschey said:


> I bet Wyndham is right now trying to come up with some way to teke away this gift. I have come to the conclusion that loose lips do sink ships.
> 
> Do we really want to educate all WM owners how to do this?



Wyndham did away with the old rule of 2 times the number of credits owned and replaced it with unlimited credit renting - they are fully aware of this since they gave it to us in the first place.

I can not state strong enough that this was THE greatest gift a timeshare developer could ever give to their owners.  I love to educate timeshare folks about all kinds of tricks and techniques - I do it all the time.  I know that 95% of the folks won't do it or will just be too lazy to learn it but the 5% who do take my advice return the favor with hints and tricks that I can use.

I know that credit dilution is something that some folks are all bent out of shape - there is NO reason for this consternation.  Let me give you guys an example:

10,000 WM credits used to be the standard for a 2BR in Red week for 7 days usage.  Let’s say that Wyndham now demands 15,000.  That’s a 50% increase or a dilution of 50% since I need to get 5,000 WM credits more.

I can buy them resale for 65¢ with no problem and pay 4.5¢ in MF.  That means I need to pay $3,250 one time to buy the credits and 4.5¢ extra per year in MF or $225.

Or I can simply rent 5,000 WM credits for let’s say 7¢ each or $350 extra – total cost.  Wyndham has given me the ability to NOT pay their $1.98 sales price per credit or $9,900 but to give another WM owner $350 and Wyndham get’s nothing.

That to me seems to be a very fair deal.  I get access to a new 2BR worth 15,000 WM credits for just an extra $350 that goes into the wallet of another WM owner and Wyndham get’s not a single penny.

*The original model that Club Esprit set up is flawed – that’s the “relative usage clause”.*  It can’t be sustained and Wyndham is doing the best it can do for us owners – allowing us access to 15,000+ WM credit condos for just peanuts.

Why is the Relative Use Clause flawed?  It would mean that Wyndham must sell ALL 2BR Red weeks for 10,000 WM credits and that means Wyndham must sell a WM credit for at least $3.00 each, probably closer to $3.50.  The market won’t support that rate since the current rate is about $2.00 a WM credits retail.

Conclusion:
We can bitch and moan all we want about Relative Usage but it’s a broken system that Wyndham has abandoned and given us a great way to use these new expensive condos for just peanuts.  There is no reason to hope for the “good old days” – we will see ever higher number of WM credits required for a 2BR Red week – kiss 10,000 WM credits good bye.

Stomping our feet and yelling “Mommy, mommy” will NOT make the math work.


----------



## PA- (Nov 9, 2007)

PerryM said:


> ....
> 
> Why is the Relative Use Clause flawed?  It would mean that Wyndham must sell ALL 2BR Red weeks for 10,000 WM credits and that means Wyndham must sell a WM credit for at least $3.00 each, probably closer to $3.50.  The market won’t support that rate since the current rate is about $2.00 a WM credits retail.
> 
> ...



OK, let's look at the math.

10,000 Worldmark credits (If the board enforces relative use value) x $3 per credit = $30,000

15,000 Worldmark credits x $2 per credit = $30,000

Now explain why the market won't pay $3 per credit?  The market price is set by Wyndham and doesn't relate to anything in particular.  

Relative use value is an important protection in the declaration.  Whether Wyndham feels it's flawed or not, it requires a vote of the owners to change.

Wyndham didn't "give" you unlimited credit rentals; that was as a consequence of the change in computer systems that allowed them to track credit expiration dates for the first time ever.  The previous restriction to 2x credit values in your account wasn't ever supposed to be, but they had no way to track credit exp. dates.


----------



## PerryM (Nov 9, 2007)

*Relative Usage 101...*



PA- said:


> OK, let's look at the math.
> 
> 10,000 Worldmark credits (If the board enforces relative use value) x $3 per credit = $30,000
> 
> ...




Ideally, Relative Usage is the corner stone of WM – but it is severely flawed and has been abandoned – for good reason.  Let me explain why:

In a perfect world the developer, Wyndham today, would turn over a condo to WM, fully paid and get a maximum of 52 weeks * 10,000 = 520,000 WM credits that it would sell.  (All 52 weeks sold and all Red as the max).  This new condo reflects current real estate prices and may have cost Wyndham $300k to build.  With the normal 4 to 1 real estate to timeshare sales price, that condo must be sold for $1,200,000 in sales.  Divide that by 520,000 WM credits and Wyndham would have to sell each WM credit for $2.30.  Since most condos are NOT all Red the number of WM credits generated is much less.

Right now Wyndham seems to be able to squeeze out $1.98 per WM credit – they would immediately have to raise their price 16% - good luck.

Also Wyndham is NOT selling that condo, it is selling WM credits to 5,000 old condos that already exist and are NOT worth $300k each – they are worth something less – since the WM BOD has never ordered an appraisal of those 5,000 condos we must guess what they are worth.

So the fundamental flaw of Relative Usages is this:
The developer, Wyndham today, builds or acquires new condos but CAN NOT sell them – they must sell access to 5,000 older condos, some 20 years old by now.  The market isn’t about to fork out the cash to buy access to 20 year old condos and will pay much less – this is why Relative Usage was abandoned by Wyndham – and for excellent reasons.  It was a crazy idea to begin with - the ONLY way to make it work is for the developer to sell access to the NEW condo and give preference to those owners - like the old FairField - but FairField (Wyndham now) is based upon ownership of a specific unit and WM is not.


Wyndham could have modified IRIS (Their booking system they developed) to easily handle the 2 X owned credits but elected to allow WM owners unlimited rental credits in their account – this is and was a gift.  This gift can be instantly withdrawn any second - provoke them and they will do it - I would when someone spits in my face when I give them a gift.


----------



## larry_WM (Nov 9, 2007)

PA- said:


> Now explain why the market won't pay $3 per credit?  The market price is set by Wyndham and doesn't relate to anything in particular.
> .




The market won't pay $3 per credit because:
-People can buy resale at less than 80 cents per credit
-comparable 2bdrm timeshare sale around 20K


----------



## Cathyb (Nov 9, 2007)

perry: how would you handle/get an Oregon coastal WM with oceanview for a July or August week in 2009 if you were heading up to Canada later and needed some of your points for WM there?


----------



## larry_WM (Nov 9, 2007)

PerryM said:


> I don’t worry about who is on the WM BOD – I don’t think WM owners will make any difference at all; but that’s just my opinion.  Placing any hope for a miracle turn around on the outcome of elections held by Wyndham is like making plans to spend the winnings of the Powerball lottery.


Totally agree.A trouble-maker in a BOD team will make the situation worser



PerryM said:


> Then there is the matter of just renting unlimited WM credits from other WM owners for 6¢ each and not even have to bother with the 4.5¢ MF and 65¢ to buy them in the first place.



"renting unlimited WM credits from other WM owners for 6¢ each" is a challenge job (if not a dream). You get really lucky if you rent for 6¢. 8¢ is the norm, but unlimited is questionable.


----------



## Judy (Nov 9, 2007)

PerryM said:


> Right now Wyndham seems to be able to squeeze out $1.98 per WM credit – they would immediately have to raise their price 16% - good luck.
> 
> Also Wyndham is NOT selling that condo, it is selling WM credits to 5,000 old condos that already exist and are NOT worth $300k each – they are worth something less – since the WM BOD has never ordered an appraisal of those 5,000 condos we must guess what they are worth.


And this is good for us because?  
If the market won't support a higher per credit cost, it won't support the purchase of higher credit memberships, which would be required to stay in the new resorts.  Therefore, most new members, buying 6,000 - 10,000 credits will only be able to stay in the older resorts.  The desirable resorts in desirable seasons are already in such high demand that owners have to compete for space.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Nov 9, 2007)

Perry,

You are basically arguing that the resort developer business model does not work for WorldMark since the Club cannot add value that is worth 4 times the underlying value of the condo and the developer needs to sell at that price in order to pay the bills and make a profit.  I agree with that.   The whole timesharing industry is predicated on the Resort Developer selling quarters for a dollar.  This model needs to change.

Applying this principle to WorldMark, you are arguing that the only way the resort developer can keep the model going is by tapping the equity of current owners so that the new buyers are really NOT paying 4 times the underlying value of the condo.  It is possible that the new buyers only have to pay 3 times the underlying value of the condo when the developer dilutes ownerships since the rest is subdized by the current owners being robbed of their equity.

Your basic position is that you are fine with Wyndham raiding owner equity because it perpetuates a model that allows you to raid the system on the edges while the rest of the "dim" owners get hosed.

So, this entire thread boils down to this fundamental divide.

One side (Perry, Larry, Fairy and Mary) believes that it is fine that the developer steals owner equity as long as the rules allow them to partake in the pillaging.

The other side (everyone else in this thread) believes that the Club is theirs and they have the right to protect themselves against the developer from stealing their property.

There is a perfect analogy for the parties in this game.  Think Braveheart.

- Wyndham is King Edward Longshanks.

- PA is William Wallace.

- Perry is Robert the Bruce.

- Larry is a Scottish Noble.

Longshanks pillaged Scotland and paid off the Nobles like Robert the Bruce to 
maintain the status quo in the country so that the pillaging could endure.  William Wallace said that it wasn't right and took him on.  In the end, William Wallace was eviscerated.

Me, I'm not really on a side.  I am just the historian.  Calling it like it is.

My only question is what Larry is getting in return for posting like he is.  He is clearly a hack for Wyndham.


----------



## PA- (Nov 9, 2007)

PerryM said:


> Ideally, Relative Usage is the corner stone of WM – but it is severely flawed and has been abandoned – for good reason.  .....



We'll have to agree to disagree.  Real estate values rose precipiticely over about 15 years of worldmark prior to the cendant buyout.  The number of credits generated per condo remained very steady, the resale value was steady, Trendwest was highly profitable, and owners were generally happy with the product.

Since the Cendant buyout, the Worldmark model has been scrapped, the resale value has tanked, and owners in general seem to be on the rampage, due to increase credit values and declining customer service.

Further, Wyndham isn't at liberty to abandon something that's in the declarations.  It requires a vote of the owners to modify.  That's one of the complaints in the lawsuit, and I'm not clear on how they'll be able to get around that.  That's one of the reasons this is far from a frivolous lawsuit.


----------



## larry_WM (Nov 9, 2007)

Cathyb said:


> perry: how would you handle/get an Oregon coastal WM with oceanview for a July or August week in 2009 if you were heading up to Canada later and needed some of your points for WM there?


he has a South Shore RC which can be converted to 36000 credits  and he also owns a NKK account. As I mentioned above, you won't get anywhere with small account.


----------



## PA- (Nov 9, 2007)

Judy said:


> And this is good for us because?
> If the market won't support a higher per credit cost, it won't support the purchase of higher credit memberships, which would be required to stay in the new resorts.  ....



Wyndham doesn't sell the 15,000 credit 1bedroom condos; they sell the old 10,000 credit 2 bedroom condos.  This is where Perry's arguement falls apart.  He says Wyndham can't raise prices because of the old condos, but in reality, that's EXACTLY what they are selling.

"Look, you can buy New Year's week in Southshore for only $x.  Later in the presentation, they'll bring up Indio, San Diego, etc. as additional places you can go.  But you can be certain that they do NOT use the new resorts when they're discussing the financial aspects of the club.

So they sell the sizzle of the new combined with the financials of the old.  They are selling our equity for less than we paid (adjusted for inflation in real estate).


----------



## jbcoug (Nov 9, 2007)

Larry,

You can find credits to rent any day for 6-7 cents each. Make a request on wmowners.com and I bet you will be getting offers within 48 hours. I'm also certain that I could find a lot more credits to rent than I could possibly afford. Do a little homework.

John


----------



## larry_WM (Nov 9, 2007)

jbcoug said:


> Larry,
> 
> You can find credits to rent any day for 6-7 cents each. Make a request on wmowners.com and I bet you will be getting offers within 48 hours. I'm also certain that I could find a lot more credits to rent than I could possibly afford. Do a little homework.
> 
> John




I have been visiting that site for many year. Yes, there is some ad that sell for 6¢, bit it didn't last long, 7¢ is easier to get. But unlimited is a different story. Try to rent 100,000 credits for 8¢, I don't think you can finish the task in a week. I heard that someone here rent credit for 2¢, but it's once in the lifetime.


----------



## RichM (Nov 9, 2007)

PerryM said:


> Ideally, Relative Usage is the corner stone of WM – but it is severely flawed and has been abandoned – for good reason.  Let me explain why:
> 
> In a perfect world the developer, Wyndham today, would turn over a condo to WM, fully paid and get a maximum of 52 weeks * 10,000 = 520,000 WM credits that it would sell.  (All 52 weeks sold and all Red as the max).  This new condo reflects current real estate prices and may have cost Wyndham $300k to build.  *With the normal 4 to 1 real estate to timeshare sales price, that condo must be sold for $1,200,000 in sales.*  Divide that by 520,000 WM credits and Wyndham would have to sell each WM credit for $2.30.  Since most condos are NOT all Red the number of WM credits generated is much less.



Actually, the flaw, IMO, is not with relative use value. The flaw is with the bold section above - the 4:1 ratio that the antiquated, predatory sales tactics require.

Besides, regardless of the trend in real estate prices and credit values for new WM resorts, WorldMark owners can still make 10K trades for red season 2BR's via RCI and II and some of those trades are most likely into resorts just as new as some of the inflated WM resorts.   So, in terms of a currency value for credits, 10K WM credits still equates to a red season 2BR throughout RCI and II.  It's just the sales method being used to sell retail credits that's the problem.


___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -      
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




      - www.wmowners.com


----------



## larry_WM (Nov 9, 2007)

PA- said:


> We'll have to agree to disagree.  Real estate values rose precipiticely over about 15 years of worldmark prior to the cendant buyout.  The number of credits generated per condo remained very steady, the resale value was steady, Trendwest was highly profitable, and owners were generally happy with the product.[



If you have short memory, consult the history book


PA- said:


> Since the Cendant buyout, the Worldmark model has been scrapped, the resale value has tanked, and owners in general seem to be on the rampage, due to increase credit values and declining customer service.


When resale value start to tank?( just about in a year because of the economy situation and it happened with other TS too). When is "increase credit values" happening?
What customer service are you talking about? You are talking like a parrot !


----------



## melschey (Nov 9, 2007)

larry_WM said:


> If you have short memory, consult the history book
> 
> When resale value start to tank?( just about in a year because of the economy situation and it happened with other TS too). When is "increase credit values" happening?
> What customer service are you talking about? You are talking like a parrot !




How long have you been an owner?

I have been an owner since 1993 and in my opinion customer service declined considerable starting shortly after Cendant puechased TrendWest.


----------



## melschey (Nov 9, 2007)

larry_WM said:


> If you have short memory, consult the history book
> 
> When resale value start to tank?( just about in a year because of the economy situation and it happened with other TS too). When is "increase credit values" happening?
> What customer service are you talking about? You are talking like a parrot !



And you are starting to sound like a broken record.


----------



## larry_WM (Nov 9, 2007)

melschey said:


> How long have you been an owner?
> 
> I have been an owner since 1993 and in my opinion customer service declined considerable starting shortly after Cendant puechased TrendWest.




Since 1991. What customer service are you talking about? You can't compare a booking system with 1000 members to 250,000 members. In 2000 there was less than 500 members log on Delphi System BBS. I don't know how many owners used computer to book a vacation at that time. Now, I think almost everyone use computer to plan for their vacation,  if someone doesn't they will put the account on sale soon.


----------



## cruisin (Nov 9, 2007)

I do not want to put words into melschey's mouth, but I think she meant the kind where the customer is served.


----------



## larry_WM (Nov 9, 2007)

cruisin said:


> I do not want to put words into melschey's mouth, but I think she meant the kind where the customer is served.




it's too vague. Compare before and after Cendent taking over, what's the  difference?


----------



## melschey (Nov 9, 2007)

larry_WM said:


> it's too vague. Compare before and after Cendent taking over, what's the  difference?




I asked how long you have been an owner. 

It apears you haven't been an owner very long or you wouldn't have to ask. Problems per-Cendant used to be solved with one phone call now it seems they sometimes they never get fixed. Charges come out of nowhere and and often they can't even explain them. IRIS has been a disaster.


----------



## SleepinIn (Nov 9, 2007)

larry_WM said:


> it's too vague. Compare before and after Cendent taking over, what's the  difference?


How about things like the "Book it" button disappearing with no warning?  In one case that I know of, the owner actually had a credit balance (in case you don't know what that is, Wyndham owed HIM money, not the other way around) and his button disappeared.

In another case, Wyndham failed to withdraw the funds from an automatic payment setup, and again, penalized the owner.

Some who have combined accounts have had credits taken back almost a year later, after 3 weeks of audits on the accounts during the combine.

I have the previous owner's name on my account and have attempted to have it removed 5 TIMES over the last year.  I have also had money stolen from me via their reservation system.  It failed to charge me for housekeeping for some reason, and when I made a bonus time reservation, they added the housekeeping amount to that reservation.  Later, I canceled those reservations and they never refunded over $ 300 of fees!

None of these things should be happening.  Pre-Cendant, they would be resolved.  Under Wyndham, they may never be resolved.  If it doesn't increase their bottom line, they just don't care.

As far as PA goes, nobody wants to listen to you any more.  We all get that you don't like him, don't trust him, whatever.  WE DON'T CARE!


----------



## larry_WM (Nov 9, 2007)

SleepinIn said:


> How about things like the "Book it" button disappearing with no warning?  In one case that I know of, the owner actually had a credit balance (in case you don't know what that is, Wyndham owed HIM money, not the other way around) and his button disappeared.
> 
> In another case, Wyndham failed to withdraw the funds from an automatic payment setup, and again, penalized the owner.
> 
> ...



Yes, I read all above accusations before from wmowners.com
http://www.wmowners.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11548
http://www.wmowners.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13467
I wonder if they are true or not. It never happens to me.  Some accusation in that BBS is very ridiculous too. Such as a doctor who left  his baby with a nany at the resort and don't know how to call her then he blame on the Wyndham . A big company with 250,000 members can't satisfy everyone. Those few dozen owners are the loudest whinner I'd ever experienced. No opinion, now I know you just echoing the other BBS, nothing new in your post indeed.


----------



## PerryM (Nov 9, 2007)

*Just what is the definition of Relative Use?*

Relative Usage 201

One of the major problems with Relative Usage is that it is NOT defined in the founding documents of WM – I mean down to the last nut and bolt of how it should work.  I don’t have the definition in front of me but I remember it to be 1 or 2 sentences long – the devil is always in the details.

Relative Usage is basically this:
I bought a condo 10 years ago for $100k and rent it out to folks.  Now my neighbor decides he wants to buy a condo and we exchange usage – I use a week at his place and he uses a week at my place.  His new condo cost him $125k.

Is this a good deal for me?

Well there is NO way to determine if it is a good deal from the information above – we need to do something that no one at WM has ever asked for – an appraisal of the 2 units.  Let’s say that my condo now appraises for $155k and his appraises out to $120k.

It’s a bad deal for me.

This is so easy to determine IF we know the appraised value of BOTH units.  Since WorldMark has never bothered to find out what the average WM condo is worth then Wyndham can guess any price it wants.  This is NOT the fault of Wyndham but the WM BOD.  Incidentally NO WM BOD candidate has asked for this appraisal as far as I know.  (I mean as a campaign pledge that it will be done if elected)

Without this simple piece of information (average appraised WM condo) it is a waste of time arguing about Relative Usage – we are all guessing.

Since Wyndham has no idea what to shoot for they just made the assumption that their unit, the brand new one, is worth a whole lot more than the 20 year old WM units out there.  With this assumption they started to ask for 12,000 WM credits to 18,000+ for a 2BR Red week.  This is a perfectly acceptable way to handle this problem of new condos being built yet selling a basket of old old condos to the public.

Conclusion:
Relative Use in WM has never been defined to the point it can withstand a court challenge – 10 folks can read those 2 sentences and come up with 10 different definitions.  Wyndham is perfectly correct to then use it’s own definition and continue business.

And when you look at the problem of “New condo sold in basket of 5,000 old condos” the only solution is to ask more then 10,000 WM credits per Red week for a 2BR.  Wyndham is offering a "Work around" by allowing owners to rent usage from other owners in unlimited quantities.

As a Marriott owner I'd die for the ability to rent usage from another Marriott owner and get their week in my account - I can't do that.  In Marriott I must buy a week from them or resale but can't rent usage.

I restate my argument - Relative Usage is not defined sufficiently for the developer, Wyndham today, to run their business with and the interpretation we commonly use is all wrong for how WM functions now.




Cathyb said:


> perry: how would you handle/get an Oregon coastal WM with oceanview for a July or August week in 2009 if you were heading up to Canada later and needed some of your points for WM there?




I'm sorry I just can't answer that quesiton.


----------



## ladycody (Nov 10, 2007)

Just pointing out that it's "relative _use_ value"...not relative value.


----------



## PerryM (Nov 10, 2007)

ladycody said:


> Just pointing out that it's "relative _use_ value"...not relative value.




It still boils down to value (Money) - is a $300k new condo worth more than the average WM condo (5,000 of them)?  We don't have a clue.

The appraised value of a condo is ALL the information needed to determine if two condos are close to being equal in usage by their price.

If not money as a yard stick - what?


----------



## SleepinIn (Nov 10, 2007)

larry_WM said:


> Yes, I read all above accusations before from wmowners.com
> http://www.wmowners.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11548
> http://www.wmowners.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13467
> I wonder if they are true or not. It never happens to me.  Some accusation in that BBS is very ridiculous too. Such as a doctor who left  his baby with a nany at the resort and don't know how to call her then he blame on the Wyndham . A big company with 250,000 members can't satisfy everyone. Those few dozen owners are the loudest whinner I'd ever experienced. No opinion, now I know you just echoing the other BBS, nothing new in your post indeed.


So are you calling me a liar?  Some of this happened to ME.  If you say it isn't so, then you're calling me a liar.


----------



## SleepinIn (Nov 10, 2007)

PerryM said:


> . . .Relative Usage is basically this:
> I bought a condo 10 years ago for $100k and rent it out to folks.  Now my neighbor decides he wants to buy a condo and we exchange usage – I use a week at his place and he uses a week at my place.  His new condo cost him $125k.
> 
> Is this a good deal for me?
> ...


Let's look at it another way.  Similar situation, but I bought my house for $ 500,000 10 years ago, my friend in another state bought his for $ 1,000,000 just last month.  Both houses appraise for $ 1,000,000.  Let's say we decide to exchange usage.  It would be fair to exchange at a 1-1 rate, right?  Both houses are *worth* the same.  But, my friend thinks that because he paid twice as much he should get 2-1 in the exchange.  Sure doesn't seem fair, does it?  This is exactly what Wyndham is doing.

Let's also look at Marriott.  If I bought a Platinum week at Marriott Summit Ridge in 1997 for $ 20,000 is it worth any less than a current $ 40,000 Platinum week at the same resort?  No.  How does Marriott make their money when the cost of real estate and building keeps going up?  They *charge* more.  Duh.  Just what Wyndham isn't doing.

I know that you know this, but for others, it may be a fresh look.


----------



## FLYNZ4 (Nov 10, 2007)

larry_WM said:


> Yes, I read all above accusations before from wmowners.com
> http://www.wmowners.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11548
> http://www.wmowners.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13467
> I wonder if they are true or not.


Call Wyndham's "Voice of the Customer" department and ask for Summerfield Horner.  His direct line is 702-227-3264.   He will be back in the office on Tuesday.   He as been assigned by Wyn Directors and Vice Presidents to personally fix my account.

Ask him to verify if I lost my "book-it" button when I actually had money due to me.   Then ask him to verify if I also lost my "book-it" button when WYN failed to charge an automatic payment.   Finally... ask him to verify if I am simply trying to get my own account fixed, or if I am additionally acting as an owner advocate by escalating this issue to executive management in multiple Wyn departments and divisions... with the express purpose of preventing other Worldmark owners from experiencing this same mis-treatment.

I do not appreciate you challenging my impeccable credibility.   

/Jim


----------



## larry_WM (Nov 10, 2007)

SleepinIn said:


> So are you calling me a liar?  Some of this happened to ME.  If you say it isn't so, then you're calling me a liar.



Noone is calling you a liar. I just said it never happens to me. If it happens to someone there should be a reason, I don't know. It's not my problem. I have been WM owner for 17years I I haven't have any serious problem. I have a telephone and I computer, I would email or call them if i have problem.


----------



## larry_WM (Nov 10, 2007)

FLYNZ4 said:


> Call Wyndham's "Voice of the Customer" department and ask for Summerfield Horner.  His direct line is 702-227-3264.   He will be back in the office on Tuesday.   He as been assigned by Wyn Directors and Vice Presidents to personally fix my account.
> 
> Ask him to verify if I lost my "book-it" button when I actually had money due to me.   Then ask him to verify if I also lost my "book-it" button when WYN failed to charge an automatic payment.   Finally... ask him to verify if I am simply trying to get my own account fixed, or if I am additionally acting as an owner advocate by escalating this issue to executive management in multiple Wyn departments and divisions... with the express purpose of preventing other Worldmark owners from experiencing this same mis-treatment.
> 
> ...



I know you have problem, I don't. Problems happen to everyone even to The President of USA. Did wyndham try to fix them? Yes. I don't think they dare to ignore a value customer like you who have the biggest account I'd ever know. I don't think they dare to ignore someone who has the ability to call any BOD anytime. I wonder if out of 250,000 members, how many owners have that problem and have such attention to have someone  "assigned by Wyn Directors and Vice Presidents to personally fix" your account. I would say that a dream customer service !


----------



## PerryM (Nov 10, 2007)

*The real Relative Usage defined....*



SleepinIn said:


> Let's look at it another way.  Similar situation, but I bought my house for $ 500,000 10 years ago, my friend in another state bought his for $ 1,000,000 just last month.  Both houses appraise for $ 1,000,000.  Let's say we decide to exchange usage.  It would be fair to exchange at a 1-1 rate, right?  Both houses are *worth* the same.  But, my friend thinks that because he paid twice as much he should get 2-1 in the exchange.  Sure doesn't seem fair, does it?  This is exactly what Wyndham is doing.
> 
> Let's also look at Marriott.  If I bought a Platinum week at Marriott Summit Ridge in 1997 for $ 20,000 is it worth any less than a current $ 40,000 Platinum week at the same resort?  No.  How does Marriott make their money when the cost of real estate and building keeps going up?  They *charge* more.  Duh.  Just what Wyndham isn't doing.
> 
> I know that you know this, but for others, it may be a fresh look.




Relative Usage demands that the NEW condo be worth EXACTLY the same as the AVERAGE of the existing 5,000 condos - that's very hard to do.  What then?

(I'm going to make up numbers since no audits have ever been done at WM.  This has math in it and I will summarize my findings at the end)

The average WM 2BR condo appraises out to $225k and Wyndham builds/buys a condo in an area that a comparable condo costs $300k - what to do?

We need more information -  the average $225k WM 2BR condo generates 350,000 WM credits during the year and the new condo generates 300,000 WM credits - how do we compare this?  Simple:

We must break down the above to cost per WM credit generated:

Existing average 2BR WM condo:
$225,000/350,000 WM credits = 64¢ per WM credit
Basically the 10,000 WM credits needed in a Red week appraise out to $6,400.

New Wyndham condo:
$300,000/300,000 = $1.00 per WM credit
10,000 WM credits in a Red Week appraise out to $10,000.

The new condo is worth a lot more than the average WM condo so we now simply adjust the number of WM credits needed to stay 1 week in Red season.  Instead of 10,000 WM credits per 2BR Red week Wyndham is demanding $10,000/$6,400 * 10,000 = 15,625 WM credits or round to 16,000.

*Conclusion:*
In the above example Wyndham is going to demand that 16,000 WM credits be spent by WM owners to stay 1 week at the new 2BR Red week unit.  *This IS the very definition of Relative Usage and Wyndham is correct to demand more credits.*

All this is so simple if we just demand appraisals of existing WM condos – something only I have proposed over the years.  Without this information we must defer to Wyndham’s answer.

You can't have it both ways guys - demand 10,000 WM credits when you have NO evidence that this is the correct answer - it's not.

P.S.
This is the kind of detail that the founders of WM left out of the documents – what the heck Relative Usage is and how the heck to calculate it.  Without this fundamental definition Wyndham is correct to leave you guys in the dust and use their own.  Our founders were a bunch of window salesmen - and this is exactly the mess one would expect from them.

This is the FIRST piece of business the WM BOD must address – get the definitions of WM in writing - down to the very math.

Anyone running around crying “Relative Use” violation have nothing to base your claims on – nothing.

And of course a WM CEO and a management team should be doing all of this and not 5 BOD members who meet once in a while and who’s toughest decision is “Chicken or beef for lunch?”.


----------



## Judy (Nov 10, 2007)

RichM said:


> Besides, regardless of the trend in real estate prices and credit values for new WM resorts, WorldMark owners can still make 10K trades for red season 2BR's via RCI and II and some of those trades are most likely into resorts just as new as some of the inflated WM resorts.   So, in terms of a currency value for credits, 10K WM credits still equates to a red season 2BR throughout RCI and II.


How long do you think that's going to last?  As the average credit values needed to book Worldmark resorts rises, the credit values needed to exchange through RCI and II will rise also.  The cost of flexchange already went up.
II should not raise the cost of exchanges, since they're not getting the new resorts, but I think Worldmark would not want to give owners a more favorable exchange contract with II than with their sister company RCI.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Nov 10, 2007)

larry_WM said:


> I know you have problem, I don't. Problems happen to everyone even to The President of USA. Did wyndham try to fix them? Yes. I don't think they dare to ignore a value customer like you who have the biggest account I'd ever know. I don't think they dare to ignore someone who has the ability to call any BOD anytime. I wonder if out of 250,000 members, how many owners have that problem and have such attention to have someone  "assigned by Wyn Directors and Vice Presidents to personally fix" your account. I would say that a dream customer service !




Larry,

You are hearby banned from my world.

In one minute, you will be "iggied"

Whenever you post, this is what I'll see:

This message is hidden because larry_WM is on your ignore list.

Goodbye and good riddance.


----------



## SleepinIn (Nov 10, 2007)

larry_WM said:


> I know you have problem, I don't. Problems happen to everyone even to The President of USA. Did wyndham try to fix them? Yes. I don't think they dare to ignore a value customer like you who have the biggest account I'd ever know. I don't think they dare to ignore someone who has the ability to call any BOD anytime. I wonder if out of 250,000 members, how many owners have that problem and have such attention to have someone  "assigned by Wyn Directors and Vice Presidents to personally fix" your account. *I would say that a dream customer service !*


Dream?  More like a nightmare.  The problems aren't fixed, are they?  Book-it buttons are still disappearing over real or imagined amounts owed to Wyndham, oftentimes amounts that can't be explained.  No, hardly "dream customer service."


----------



## PerryM (Nov 10, 2007)

Judy said:


> How long do you think that's going to last?  As the average credit values needed to book Worldmark resorts rises, the credit values needed to exchange through RCI and II will rise also.  The cost of flexchange already went up.
> II should not raise the cost of exchanges, since they're not getting the new resorts, but I think Worldmark would not want to give owners a more favorable exchange contract with II than with their sister company RCI.



Don't forget RedWeek - I got a President's Week (Week 7) Marriott Maui Ocean Club 1BR by generating RedWeek Points with a WM exchange.  I get to lock in a juicy week and I get do deposit that week into RedWeek for my usage.  This is different than II or RCI where they get a basket of reservations and few are prime time.

From what I've seen there is a maximum usage of WM credits by simply finding out what RedWeek likes by submitting many bid requests.


----------



## LLW (Nov 10, 2007)

Judy said:


> How long do you think that's going to last?  As the average credit values needed to book Worldmark resorts rises, the credit values needed to exchange through RCI and II will rise also.  The cost of flexchange already went up.
> *II should not raise the cost of exchanges*, since they're not getting the new resorts, but I think Worldmark would not want to give owners a more favorable exchange contract with II than with their sister company RCI.



In fact, there is a report that the cost of Flexchange is going back down to 3000 credits January 1:

http://www.wmowners.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13817


----------



## spatenfloot (Nov 10, 2007)

PerryM said:


> Existing average 2BR WM condo:
> $225,000/350,000 WM credits = 64¢ per WM credit
> Basically the 10,000 WM credits needed in a Red week appraise out to $6,400.
> 
> ...


Maybe you are using faulty assumptions.  Would you say a hotel type unit in a bad neighborhood of San Diego with few amenities is worth more than an oceanfront 2BR top floor unit on the Oregon coast? By your logic, because the first unit is newer to WM and cost more credits, it must be much more valuable.


----------



## larry_WM (Nov 10, 2007)

BocaBum99 said:


> Larry,
> 
> You are hearby banned from my world.
> 
> ...



Same here. I will do the same to your posts.


----------



## larry_WM (Nov 10, 2007)

cruisin said:


> I am very glad that you too have concluded that the current BOD will stick it to us the maximum 5% every year (because they can). With this WORST case scenario, It is hard not to want change on the BOD. Even with the unknown of what might happen, it would be hard for an independent BOD  to do WORSTER! :rofl:



For those who complain about 5% increase MF every year, read this Marriott thread 

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56948


----------



## FLYNZ4 (Nov 10, 2007)

larry_WM said:


> I know you have problem, I don't. Problems happen to everyone even to The President of USA.


In your note that I originally quoted... you did NOT say that you knew that I had a problem.  In fact... you said the exact opposite... you said that you wondered if the reports were true or not. 



larry_WM said:


> I wonder if out of 250,000 members, how many owners have that problem and have such attention to have someone  "assigned by Wyn Directors and Vice Presidents to personally fix" your account. I would say that a dream customer service !


I ran a poll on wmowners.   It appears that 50% of owners have lost their book it button.   Consider yourself lucky that you you won the coin toss.    I have no idea what the margin of error is on my poll... but for sake of argument... it appears that somewhere in the order of 125,000 owners would have had this problem... without ever being notified until they are locked out of their account.   I would not call that exceptional customer service

/Jim


----------



## PA- (Nov 10, 2007)

BocaBum99 said:


> Larry,
> 
> You are hearby banned from my world.
> 
> ...




How do I join you?  And does it work, even if the person you iggie uses a different user id?  What is Iggie?


----------



## PA- (Nov 10, 2007)

Perry,

Relative use is a relative term, and somewhat ambiguous, I'll agree with you there.  However, the board of directors has ADMITTED that they no longer will adhere to it.  Once they admit they are violating that term in the declarations, it becomes unnecessary to agree on the meaning of that term in the declarations.  

Otherwise, I'm sure your post would be correct.  I only read the first sentence or two, it was too long.


----------



## PA- (Nov 10, 2007)

FLYNZ4 said:


> In your note that I originally quoted... you did NOT say that you knew that I had a problem.  In fact... you said the exact opposite... you said that you wondered if the reports were true or not.
> 
> 
> I ran a poll on wmowners.   It appears that 50% of owners have lost their book it button.   Consider yourself lucky that you you won the coin toss.    I have no idea what the margin of error is on my poll... but for sake of argument... it appears that somewhere in the order of 125,000 owners would have had this problem... without ever being notified until they are locked out of their account.   I would not call that exceptional customer service
> ...



Don't feel lonely, Jim, the guy has been posting absolutely preposterous things.  For example, he said that you would have been a better choice for the board than me, then when I pointed out that you had endorsed my candidacy, he said, "Of course, he knows you'll get burned".  It's hard to argue with brilliant logic like that.  You can try to engage him in intelligent conversation if you wish, good luck.


----------



## PerryM (Nov 10, 2007)

spatenfloot said:


> Maybe you are using faulty assumptions.  Would you say a hotel type unit in a bad neighborhood of San Diego with few amenities is worth more than an oceanfront 2BR top floor unit on the Oregon coast? By your logic, because the first unit is newer to WM and cost more credits, it must be much more valuable.



Common sense...common sense...try it you'll like it....


----------



## LLW (Nov 10, 2007)

BocaBum99 said:


> Perry,
> 
> You are basically arguing that the resort developer business model does not work for WorldMark since the Club cannot add value that is worth 4 times the underlying value of the condo and the developer needs to sell at that price in order to pay the bills and make a profit.  I agree with that.   The whole timesharing industry is predicated on the Resort Developer selling quarters for a dollar.  This model needs to change.
> 
> ...



Good insight, Boca. 

What Larry, Perry and Dairy don't want to acknowledge is that no matter how much they want to maintain the status quo, changes are going to happen. Whether they are happy using 2 WM weeks to trade for one high end Marriott, relying on WM for a living and wanting to get on Wyndham's good side (I don't think Larry works for them, as he does not know the difference between the Guidelines and the Bylaws), or are Wyndham stockholders, Wyndham is going to change the WM landscape in their pursuit for MORE profit. Changes will be caused by Wyndham, no matter how much one does not want them.

As to the people on the other side of the divide, most of them are some of the best users of WM. They are going to benefit much more than the average WM user from their WM, and actually much more than the average timeshare owner from their timeshare. (Thus Larry's claim that _WMOwners has some of the best users of WM yet they are the biggest whiners_.) Changes caused by Wyndham are going to hurt them some, but not much, on an individual level, because they know how to best use WM, and are sharing the techniques and information on WMO. So why are they into the fight in spite of the potential evisceration? Probably because:

1. When Wyndham pillaging can hurt them on a personal level, it would be too late. Complacency doesn't pay. Making a difference for the common good does.

2. Personal benefit from participation in the pillaging is not as important and valuable as the continuous well-being of the Club and the community. 

3. Not only is it the right thing to do, it is a good thing to do - the journey is quite fun and comparable with a week at the Four Seasons Aviara, at least.  And our GOOs (Gathering of Owners) are the best. 

JMHO.


----------



## PerryM (Nov 11, 2007)

*I have met the enemy and ...you know the rest...*

I consider the insanity of the current “Wyndham is evil” to be that of a lynch mob screaming for revenge.

However the lynch mob is much worse than the supposed criminal they want to punish.  

I see the current WM BOD doing many things wrong – I see the candidates statements simply a slight restatement of what’s going on – it will make little difference after the “WorldMark for owners” bumper stickers fade into oblivion.

I will restate what has to be done:
1)	A WorldMark CEO, management team, and 100+ employees need to be hired
2)	Concrete definitions of “Relative use” must be added to the governing documents
3)	Real estate audits must be done once on ALL 5,000 WM condos and then an intelligence method used for each year to get an approximate worth of WM credits

I don’t see anyone else asking for this and this tells me that emotion is running that lynch mob and not intelligence.

Time will prove me correct – it will take 5 – 10 years and resale WM credits falling to below 40¢ or less before the above will be tried.  Even if you replaced the current 5 BOD members with 5 new candidates running the outcome will be the same.  Those new candidates offer no solutions - just posturing.

This is why I left the lynch mob – I met the enemy it I was part of it…


Until the WM owners ask for the correct remedies I’ll stick with the status quo – I know their rules and exploit them for my own vacations – I am a Capitalist and proud of it.


----------



## LLW (Nov 11, 2007)

PerryM said:


> I consider the insanity of the current “Wyndham is evil” to be that of a lynch mob screaming for revenge.
> 
> However the lynch mob is much worse than the supposed criminal they want to punish.
> 
> ...




Why don't you, a WM owner, ask for it? Have you presented it to them? Do you think the Wyndham WM board will not approve it?

Some of us have never called Wyndham evil (we are just not emotional enough to use the words that you use   ). They are just trying to make as much money for themselves as they can by stealing from our equity while trying to minimize resale value.  Stealing is not allowed under capitalism. Don't give capitalism a bad name.


----------



## PerryM (Nov 11, 2007)

*The real problems....*



LLW said:


> Why don't you, a WM owner, ask for it? Have you presented it to them? Do you think the Wyndham WM board will not approve it?
> 
> Some of us have never called Wyndham evil (we are just not emotional enough to use the words that you use   ). They are just trying to make as much money for themselves as they can by stealing from our equity while trying to minimize resale value.  Stealing is not allowed under capitalism. Don't give capitalism a bad name.



Like I've said in another post - I will personally use WM resorts for 2 days in 2007 - I find that my usage is independent of the WM BOD or any candidates making promises.  (I will use 5 weeks of II exchanges and 1 RedWeek exchange with WM credits).


"Stealing" is criminal and if you can point me in the direction of links to criminal cases going on against Wyndham I'll read them.

One of my main points is that Wyndham has given us a "Work around" that no other timeshare developer has ever given their owners - renting unlimited WM credits for peanuts and Wyndham doesn't get a penny.

Most if not ALL the problems we have with Wyndham are conceptually wrong and are NOT Wyndham's doing - its our own damn fault.  I don't see any new members to the WM BOD fixing this problem either - they don't have the correct solutions.

But it does feel good to shout "Wyndham sucks"...I must admit that.

P.S.
I will predict that Wyndham will be found not guilty of any charges in the area of "Credit Dilution" or "Relative Use".  They haven't done anything illegal or against the WM rules - as vague as they are in these areas.

For me to say they are guilty would require me to have concrete examples of wrong doing - I personally don't and I've never seen any published - just wild rumors like alligators in the sewers.


----------



## LLW (Nov 11, 2007)

PerryM said:


> I will personally use WM resorts for 2 days in 2007 - I find that my usage is independent of the WM BOD or any candidates making promises. (I will use 5 weeks of II exchanges and 1 RedWeek exchange with WM credits).........
> 
> One of my main points is that Wyndham has given us a "Work around" that no other timeshare developer has ever given their owners - renting unlimited WM credits for peanuts and Wyndham doesn't get a penny.




How Wyndham's WM Board could impact you under your current usage pattern:

1. To get people to buy more WM credits from Wyndham, they will try to interfere with the trading in of other timeshares for trade credits. The Residence Clubs, which you have, are probably safer, but not risk-free. And they can put up roadblocks when you call the Exchange department to trade, just like they do now when you call to deposit into II.

2. To get more owner credits for TravelShare, they will try to get first dip from owners who are renting out credits because of delinquent bills (via Loan Servicing and Owner Services), and also come up with more attractive Adventure Club programs. Rental prices will be higher, and already have gone from about 5 cents to above 7 cents.

3. To enhance the appeal of Fun Time, they have planned the removal of the FAX program. The plan by itself has led to higher rental prices, which will go higher when it is actually implemented. (FAX is now providing a cap on rental prices.)

4. To help RCI, a Wyndham company, they will put in features with II that hurt WM's trade power there. But Marriott, which you like, is available only through II.

5. When you get ready to sell your WM, resale price will be much lower than what you paid, because the current board aims to enrich Wyndham, not WM owners - they will do whatever it takes to enhance developer credits and disable resale credits.

6. Credit dilution: The credits needed for exchange will go up when enough properties have higher credit values. Your exchanges will cost you more. If you need to rent credits, they will also cost you more.


How's that for a customized Perry Impact Statement? 

The only reason Wyndham hasn't done the above is because they are not competent enough as capitalists yet. But they will get there if not stopped before. And it is not because they are evil (or suck), but because the WM board puts Wyndham first, and WM second, because they are paid by Wyndham. See the logic?

The only remedy is to remove the conflict of interest. Then the board will get to make decisions needed to protect WM owners.


----------



## larry_WM (Nov 11, 2007)

FLYNZ4 said:


> In your note that I originally quoted... you did NOT say that you knew that I had a problem.  In fact... you said the exact opposite... you said that you wondered if the reports were true or not.
> /Jim


You just misunderstood what i said. I knew you have problem with that book it bottom. What I said is the fact that people complaining about customer service and other thing is exaggerated. Surely You know that a small amounts posters at that BBS ( about less than 100) are geared at Wyndham bashing.  I feel that it's ridiculous to blame on wyndham on on able to call the nanny ( why not bring the phone number with him?). Or something like Wyndham stole owners' credit etc...



FLYNZ4 said:


> I ran a poll on wmowners.   It appears that 50% of owners have lost their book it button.   Consider yourself lucky that you you won the coin toss.    I have no idea what the margin of error is on my poll... but for sake of argument... it appears that somewhere in the order of 125,000 owners would have had this problem... without ever being notified until they are locked out of their account.   I would not call that exceptional customer service
> 
> /Jim



You can't extrapolate the result of the poll to the whole WM population because of the following reason.
- Active wmowners poster love to bash Wyndham
- Their specific technique of booking methods ( I won't elaborate this, it's was mentioned a lot on that BBS).
If you go to a hardcored Republican meeting and run a poll on how many percent of the voters support Bush, the result will be very high !


----------



## larry_WM (Nov 11, 2007)

PA- said:


> Don't feel lonely, Jim, the guy has been posting absolutely preposterous things.  For example, he said that you would have been a better choice for the board than me, then when I pointed out that you had endorsed my candidacy, he said, "Of course, he knows you'll get burned".  It's hard to argue with brilliant logic like that.  You can try to engage him in intelligent conversation if you wish, good luck.



To tell the truth I have some sympathy with my fellow Wm owners, but they are fighting a war with a wromg army and a wrong leader. They never win with such a leader !


----------



## PerryM (Nov 11, 2007)

*It's not bad enough yet...*



LLW said:


> How Wyndham's WM Board could impact you under your current usage pattern:
> 
> 1. To get people to buy more WM credits from Wyndham, they will try to interfere with the trading in of other timeshares for trade credits. The Residence Clubs, which you have, are probably safer, but not risk-free. And they can put up roadblocks when you call the Exchange department to trade, just like they do now when you call to deposit into II.
> 
> ...




Would of, could of, should of…sounds like a bad SI-FI movie.

Wyndham is not perfect, neither is the WM system – both have flaws.  The goal is to present rational arguments that result in improved conditions.

Wyndham is the developer, like Marriott, and they will do things that advance their addenda and sometimes we get hurt in the process.  The relationship of WM to the developer is always going to be there and it will always be a challenge – nothing earthshaking about that.

The ONE thing we can do that will allow WM owners to compete against the Billion dollar developer is to grow up.  Right now 5 fellow WM owners run a $1 Billion real estate entity with an annual operating budget of $180,000,000+ and 5,000 condos.  This is lunacy and the reason we are in the mess we current are in.

Replacing those 5 WM owners with a new crop is not going to solve the underlying problem – we need WM employees to run our club.  This seems to be beyond the current crop of folks on the WM BOD or running for office.

Therefore why let folks hell bent on straining the current relations between Wyndham and WM onto the WM BOD – it will just make Wyndham do more stressful things to hurt the WM owners.

To believe that 5 folks, scattered over the country, can run the day to day operations of WM is just wrong but seems to be the current mindset.  Me; I know when to move on to the next opportunity and will revisit this when things get so bad that WM owners finally say “Any other ideas out there?”.

There is a simple barometer for all of this - watch resale WM credits and find out how well the battle is going.  Right now the battle is headed for the basement....

P.S.
It takes but 3 out of the 5 WM BOD members to order a CEO, management team and hundreds of WM employees be put on OUR payroll.  We pay for them now - we give the money to Wyndham to do this - it's insanity...


----------



## FLYNZ4 (Nov 11, 2007)

PerryM said:


> There is a simple barometer for all of this - watch resale WM credits and find out how well the battle is going.  Right now the battle is headed for the basement....


Perry,

This same barometer can also be used for the impact of not having an independent BOD.

Personally... I think your "professional management team" proposal, and the "independent BOD" others are arguing, are more alike than different.  In both cases... the proponents are arguing for a competent team who's primary job is to drive financial health, and quality of WM.

/Jim


----------



## cruisin (Nov 11, 2007)

FLYNZ4 said:


> Perry,
> 
> This same barometer can also be used for the impact of not having an independent BOD.
> 
> ...



We  will not have a professional management team without an independent BOD.


----------



## FLYNZ4 (Nov 11, 2007)

larry_WM said:


> I feel that it's ridiculous to blame on wyndham on on able to call the nanny ( why not bring the phone number with him?). Or something like Wyndham stole owners' credit etc...



I would have to go back to that post... but I don't remember Jon complaining that WYN prevented him from contacting his Nanny.   What I do remember is Jon complaining that they changed the phone directory listing from Worldmark the Club (it's proper name)... to Wyndham Resorts or some such thing.   In other words... Our property, which was deeded over from the developer to us... was renamed to the developer's name.   This would be the same as your phone number directory being changed from "larry_WM" to "Great Homes Developer"... because they originally built your house.   Per my recollection... the mention of the "Nanny"... was simply the example which caused him to realize that the name was changed.

Regarding the "WYN Stole My Credits" issue.   I can easily understand why this is a problem.   It seems that when WYN performs a combination of two accounts, or a split/combine operation... their accounting process will often assign too many credits to the account.   Some time later (months or years)... the computer system will discover the overpayment... and then owners see their available credits disappear.   If you remember the situation described by the OP on that topic... I worked with her to perform an individual audit of her account.   I identified how during her combine, she was awarded an excess of credits... and how sometime later, the WYN computer corrected their original error.   The problem is both real and perceived.    The poor perception is because people are led to believe that the split/combine happens properly... and then are surprised later on.    The "real" part of the problem is because this problem should not occur in the first place.   This does not seem to be an isolated case or two.  Instead, WYN seems to have a systemic problem of improperly processing split/combine transactions.



larry_WM said:


> You can't extrapolate the result of the poll to the whole WM population because of the following reason.
> - Active wmowners poster love to bash Wyndham
> - Their specific technique of booking methods ( I won't elaborate this, it's was mentioned a lot on that BBS).
> If you go to a hardcored Republican meeting and run a poll on how many percent of the voters support Bush, the result will be very high !


That is why I put in the disclaimer that I was not smart enough to know the statistical margin of error of my poll.  I do not think that any of us are.  If I could run a poll on the Worldmark website (like we used to be able to do), I would be happy to do that... but WYN prohibits open conversation there.   They do not seem to value the open exchange of ideas that could lead to an improvement in operation of WM.

I agree that the poll probably overstates the problem.   I do not think the reasons are the items you mentioned.   In fact, I suspect that people answered that question quite honestly.   The reason that I think the results are overstated is because the members of WMowners use their accounts much more than the general population.    My guess is that the majority of  owners book one, or even fewer than 1 reservation per year on average.  By contrast, WMowners has a population that use WM very extensively.    They are also much more likely to perform split combine operations... especially on the resale market.    My experience tells me that the "book-it" button problem manifests itself much more with high usage... or with split/combine of accounts... which is why I believe the poll is likely to be skewed toward indicating a larger problem than reality.   Still... it is the only data point that we have... and until WYN allows open communication... it is about the best we can get. 

/Jim


----------



## larry_WM (Nov 11, 2007)

FLYNZ4 said:


> I would have to go back to that post... but I don't remember Jon complaining that WYN prevented him from contacting his Nanny.   What I do remember is Jon complaining that they changed the phone directory listing from Worldmark the Club (it's proper name)... to Wyndham Resorts or some such thing.   In other words... Our property, which was deeded over from the developer to us... was renamed to the developer's name.   This would be the same as your phone number directory being changed from "larry_WM" to "Great Homes Developer"... because they originally built your house.   Per my recollection... the mention of the "Nanny"... was simply the example which caused him to realize that the name was changed.
> 
> Regarding the "WYN Stole My Credits" issue.   I can easily understand why this is a problem.   It seems that when WYN performs a combination of two accounts, or a split/combine operation... their accounting process will often assign too many credits to the account.   Some time later (months or years)... the computer system will discover the overpayment... and then owners see their available credits disappear.   If you remember the situation described by the OP on that topic... I worked with her to perform an individual audit of her account.   I identified how during her combine, she was awarded an excess of credits... and how sometime later, the WYN computer corrected their original error.   The problem is both real and perceived.    The poor perception is because people are led to believe that the split/combine happens properly... and then are surprised later on.    The "real" part of the problem is because this problem should not occur in the first place.   This does not seem to be an isolated case or two.  Instead, WYN seems to have a systemic problem of improperly processing split/combine transactions.
> 
> ...




Jim, I have a lot of respect to you. If you run for BOD, you get my vote. I don't want to argue with you with the detail but here is my point:
-Most accusation in wmowners BBS are ridiculous and gear to Wyndham bashing which I have no longer sympathy with them
-They said Customer service drop significantly after Cendant took over. I don't see that's important much for me. I bought my membership longtime ago, at the time there was only few thousand members. Everytime I make reservation, i have a chance to talk almost 15 minute to the Vacation Advisor and i receive aconfirm letter on the mail after that, sometime i receive a courtesy call. But now with more than a quarter million member i don't expect such thing happening. 
Hey, I am support a independent non-Wyndham Paid Worldmark Board too, but give me the right candidate.


----------



## LLW (Nov 11, 2007)

PerryM said:


> Wyndham is not perfect, neither is the WM system – both have flaws.  The goal is to present rational arguments that result in improved conditions.
> 
> Wyndham is the developer, like Marriott, and they will do things that advance their addenda and sometimes we get hurt in the process.  The relationship of WM to the developer is always going to be there and it will always be a challenge – nothing earthshaking about that.
> 
> ...




Did you know that a few years ago - in 2002 or 2003 - we had a few thousand employees on WM payroll? It was probably before you became a WM owner. The board changed that such that all are Wyndham employees now. A different board can change it back or make more changes.

Your P.S. explains why we need a non-Wyndham board.


----------



## LLW (Nov 11, 2007)

FLYNZ4 said:


> I would have to go back to that post... but I don't remember Jon complaining that WYN prevented him from contacting his Nanny.   *What I do remember is Jon complaining that they changed the phone directory listing from Worldmark the Club (it's proper name)... to Wyndham Resorts or some such thing.*   In other words... Our property, which was deeded over from the developer to us... was renamed to the developer's name.   This would be the same as your phone number directory being changed from "larry_WM" to "Great Homes Developer"... because they originally built your house.   Per my recollection... the mention of the "Nanny"... was simply the example which caused him to realize that the name was changed.



And the line goes to the sales office, where nobody answered the phone, because no sales people were there at that time. They wanted any potential sales calls to easily find their way to the Sales department - that's why they changed the directory. That's true at a lot of other WM resorts. You can't find the resort front desk phone number from external directories, if you are lost, or want to let the resort know that you are going to be late, etc.


----------



## PerryM (Nov 11, 2007)

LLW said:


> Did you know that a few years ago - in 2002 or 2003 - we had a few thousand employees on WM payroll? It was probably before you became a WM owner. The board changed that such that all are Wyndham employees now. A different board can change it back or make more changes.
> 
> Your P.S. explains why we need a non-Wyndham board.



This is the first I've ever heard of this.

Did we have a management team complete with CEO or toilet bowl scrubbers?

I don't want to hire toilet bowl scrubbers but managers to contract out those services.


----------



## LLW (Nov 12, 2007)

PerryM said:


> This is the first I've ever heard of this.
> 
> Did we have a management team complete with CEO or toilet bowl scrubbers?
> 
> I don't want to hire toilet bowl scrubbers but managers to contract out those services.




Top management was Trendwest, as they had the contract to do management. The rest was WM: everybody at the resorts, and Vacation Planning Center. Not sure about Owner Services and the rest of the administrative departments. This was per the forum host at that time. 

Per the financial statements (which come every year in the Destinations), 2001 wages reimbursed to Trendwest was $1.8 million, 2002 $2.6 million, 2003 $32.3 million, 2004 $39.7 million, and 2005 $48.9 million. For 2006 they combined wages with other expenses and just reported one lump sum reimbursement. :annoyed: Total reimbursement went from $51.3 million in 2005 to $56.5 million in 2006. In addition, management fee went from $6.2 million in 2005 to $6.8 million in 2006.

So the change did happen in 2002/2003.

We are using and paying for top management, it's just that their loyalty goes to Wyndham, not WM. And these same people occupy our board seats.


----------



## PerryM (Nov 12, 2007)

LLW said:


> Top management was Trendwest, as they had the contract to do management. The rest was WM: everybody at the resorts, and Vacation Planning Center. Not sure about Owner Services and the rest of the administrative departments. This was per the forum host at that time.
> 
> Per the financial statements (which come every year in the Destinations), 2001 wages reimbursed to Trendwest was $1.8 million, 2002 $2.6 million, 2003 $32.3 million, 2004 $39.7 million, and 2005 $48.9 million. For 2006 they combined wages with other expenses and just reported one lump sum reimbursement. :annoyed: Total reimbursement went from $51.3 million in 2005 to $56.5 million in 2006. In addition, management fee went from $6.2 million in 2005 to $6.8 million in 2006.
> 
> ...



They had it bass ackwards....


----------



## PA- (Nov 12, 2007)

LLW said:


> Did you know that a few years ago - in 2002 or 2003 - we had a few thousand employees on WM payroll? It was probably before you became a WM owner. The board changed that such that all are Wyndham employees now. A different board can change it back or make more changes.
> 
> Your P.S. explains why we need a non-Wyndham board.



Actually, there was a minor accounting change in 02 or 03, to stop reporting resort salaries seperately from other expenses.  However, the resort employees were not employees of Worldmark, they were Trendwest employees.  That's why we had to reimburse Trendwest for their salaries, because they worked for Trendwest.

That's beside the point.  The point is, virtually ALL HOAs in the world, including timeshare HOAs are professionally managed, not self managed.  Perry has yet to even attempt at answer at these 2 questions:

1)  Can you name any other timeshare HOAs (or for that matter, ANY HOA) that is self-managed?

2)  Can you tell us why it matters whether the Board selects an independent, professional management company (say Marriott, for example) that reports to the board (not wyndham), or whether they hire employees themselves and manages it?


----------



## LLW (Nov 12, 2007)

PA- said:


> Actually, there was a minor accounting change in 02 or 03, to stop reporting resort salaries seperately from other expenses.  However, the resort employees were not employees of Worldmark, they were Trendwest employees.  That's why we had to reimburse Trendwest for their salaries, because they worked for Trendwest.



No, Philip, read the financial statement numbers:

2002 reimbursed wages was $2.6 million. 2003 reimbursed wages was $32.3 million. That means in 2002 we only had to reimburse TW $2.6 million, because most of the employees were on WM payroll and already paid by WM. In 2003 those employees were moved to TW payroll, TW paid them, therefore WM had to reimburse TW $32.3 million that year.

"minor accounting changes", "stop reporting resort salaries separately from other expenses"..... may be how the board minutes read and how the TW WM board presented it. 

It is correct that since those WM employees were reporting to TW executives, their loyalty also went to TW. But the point is the board can and have changed personnel reporting structures.  A Wyndham-paid board would do the best they can for Wyndham. An independent, conflict-of-interest-free board would do otherwise. But I am preaching to the choir.


----------



## PerryM (Nov 12, 2007)

*Thinking outside the box....it's a good thing*



PA- said:


> Actually, there was a minor accounting change in 02 or 03, to stop reporting resort salaries seperately from other expenses.  However, the resort employees were not employees of Worldmark, they were Trendwest employees.  That's why we had to reimburse Trendwest for their salaries, because they worked for Trendwest.
> 
> That's beside the point.  The point is, virtually ALL HOAs in the world, including timeshare HOAs are professionally managed, not self managed.  Perry has yet to even attempt at answer at these 2 questions:
> 
> ...



Think outside the box....

We already pay for a CEO, management team, hundreds of employees - we give the money to Wyndham (without a bid by the way) and they own those employees.

Why do you endorse the status quo - no bids on $180 M in maintenance fees.

This is why there is no hope for "like minded" WM owners getting on the WM BOD - its the same old...same old...


----------



## PA- (Nov 13, 2007)

PerryM said:


> Think outside the box....
> 
> We already pay for a CEO, management team, hundreds of employees - we give the money to Wyndham (without a bid by the way) and they own those employees.
> 
> ...



I don't endorse the status quo, and I don't agree with no bids on the management contract.

Why do you not want to answer the questions?  You strongly advocate self management, so why can't you give the rationale?  The questions, if you missed them are:

1)  Name an HOA that is self managed (particularly timeshares)

2)  Can you tell us why it matters whether the Board selects an independent, professional management company (say Marriott, for example) that reports to the board (not wyndham), or whether they hire employees themselves and manage the HOA?


----------



## BocaBum99 (Nov 13, 2007)

PA- said:


> How do I join you?  And does it work, even if the person you iggie uses a different user id?  What is Iggie?



It works very well.  You just can't block messages that someone else quotes from that person.

Here are the steps for ignoring someone:

1) click on the username of the person you would like to ignore.  It is the link in the upper right hand corner of one of their posts.

2) click on "view public profile" link.

3) click on the "add xxx to your ignore list"

Then, add them.

It works like a charm.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Nov 13, 2007)

PerryM said:


> Think outside the box....
> 
> We already pay for a CEO, management team, hundreds of employees - we give the money to Wyndham (without a bid by the way) and they own those employees.
> 
> ...



Have you ever been an officer of a company or on a board of directors of a major enterprise?  They are two very distinct functions with completely different accountabilities.  You don't need to have a CEO on the payroll in order to completely control the company.  Even small business owners without boards know the wisdom of outsourcing everything from temporary help to accountants and lawyers.  Just the headache of managing a payroll and collecting payroll tax is a heavy pain in the tail.  Then, you need a VP of HR to protect against spurious employee lawsuits.  It's  waste of time if you don't need to do it.

There is absolutely no need to hire your own CEO if a competent management company can be hired.  

Your idea of hiring our own CEO to build out a management and resort developer amounts to building a bakery to make bread when you can go to the grocery store to buy a loaf for a few bucks.  It doesn't make sense to build the bakery unless you can make money in the bakery business.  You don't build the bakery because you believe you are overpaying for bread by a quarter a loaf.

To make the decision to hire you own CEO and build out an organization would make sense if and only if you believed you could do it better and cheaper than the alternatives of outsourcing or you believe you can make money in the management business yourself or you want to become a resort developer that competes with Marriott.  In order to be better or cheaper, you'd have to believe you have some type of sustainable competitive advantage for creating such an enterprise since the shareholders will want a competitive risk adjust return on their investment.  I don't think anyone here has any of those aspirations.  I believe they just want their board of directors to watch out for THEIR interests and not someone else's.

When corporate raiders take over companies, they insert their own board.  That board either inserts a CEO and CFO into the company or it hires a firm that is loyal to it to run it on their behalf.


----------



## drguy (Nov 13, 2007)

PA- said:


> I...1)  Name an HOA that is self managed (particularly timeshares)...QUOTE]
> 
> Philip-
> Can you name any $178+ million corporations that rely soley on a volunteer BOD and outsources all functions?
> ...


----------



## PA- (Nov 13, 2007)

drguy said:


> ...I am not privy to any information that may or may not exist.




How much info you need?  You want a band of 5 part time volunteers to build a management company, when there are HUNDREDS of professional management companies we can hire?  Sheez man, let's just get them to stop stealing from us first, ok?   

Is there something in the water around here?  For crying out loud, we have enough problems on our hands without John walker hiring and managing 5000 employees.  You want the club to have the liability of sexual harrassment lawsuits, or wrongful termination, or age discrimination?  That all comes with the territory of running a large corporation.  There's NOTHING wrong with the club the way that it's set up, people. We just need a Board that isn't working for the management company.  It's supposed to work the other way around.


----------



## PerryM (Nov 13, 2007)

*"WorldMark for Wyndham stockholders?"*

As long as 5 folks on the WM BOD decide to have ZERO WM employees and hand over $180 M to Wyndham there will be no “WorldMark for WorldMark owners” there will just be “WorldMark for Wyndham stockholders”

I don’t know how bad it’s going to have to get before the WM BOD decides that we need to keep all that money for ourselves and build our fortune instead of Wyndham's.

I maybe the only WM owner who can see this – seems everyone else likes to have Wyndham running the show.  So what's all the bitching about?


----------



## PA- (Nov 13, 2007)

PerryM said:


> As long as 5 folks on the WM BOD decide to have ZERO WM employees and hand over $180 M to Wyndham there will be no “WorldMark for WorldMark owners” there will just be “WorldMark for Wyndham stockholders”
> 
> I don’t know how bad it’s going to have to get before the WM BOD decides that we need to keep all that money for ourselves and build our fortune instead of Wyndham's.
> 
> I maybe the only WM owner who can see this – seems everyone else likes to have Wyndham running the show.  So what's all the bitching about?



They don't hand over the money to wyndham.  Wyndham is the management company, they write the checks as per the board's direction.  That's how things work in corporations and in HOAs.  

Until you provide any answers or rationale, I'm going to assume this is more blustering with no logic behind it.  It's obvious to me you have no answers.


----------



## PA- (Nov 13, 2007)

PerryM said:


> ...the WM BOD decides that we need to keep all that money for ourselves ...



Have you ever run a business?  Do you have any idea how silly this sounds?  Of the 180M$, over $170M is for expenses.  We don't get to keep that money, no matter who manages our HOA.  What you're talking about is the few mill we spend on management fee.  We're going to pay that money no matter who does it.  Honestly Perry, you sound like you misunderstand the entire concept of business.


----------



## PerryM (Nov 13, 2007)

PA- said:


> Have you ever run a business?  Do you have any idea how silly this sounds?  Of the 180M$, over $170M is for expenses.  We don't get to keep that money, no matter who manages our HOA.  What you're talking about is the few mill we spend on management fee.  We're going to pay that money no matter who does it.  Honestly Perry, you sound like you misunderstand the entire concept of business.



PA your position of handing over $180 M to a firm that has NO competition is shared by many folks running for the WM BOD - there will be NO significant changes in the next year if you do get on the BOD - my opinion.

Insult me all you want - I imagine your people skills will result in you being totally ineffective on the WM BOD - I guess someone has to run out and get the sandwiches.


----------



## PA- (Nov 14, 2007)

Hey, maybe we can team up.  My people skills, and your business acumen and logical reasoning.


----------



## PA- (Nov 14, 2007)

PerryM said:


> ...I imagine your people skills will result in you being totally ineffective on the WM BOD - I guess someone has to run out and get the sandwiches.



Understand one thing, if you misunderstand all else.  I don't care if I'm popular.  I don't need to be Dave Herrick's buddy, or Gene Hensley's pal.  I don't need to "go along to get along".  That has been the biggest rap against me for 3 years.  People like Rhonda Harris, Norm Bailey, etc hate my style, and would like to see a gentler, kinder PA reach out to the board.  Well guess what, they've not been able to stop the theivery while "working from inside the system", as they call it.  And Rhonda was even appointed to the board for a year. 

Wyndham isn't your friend.  The people on the worldmark board are ruthless businessmen out to maximize Wyndham's profits at any cost.  I'll have a greater impact than any other independent board member ever has (I know, that isn't saying much).  I vow to hold them accountable to the owners for their actions, and I vow to communicate with the owners through every means available to any other board members, including destinations, the owner's meeting, etc.  

My people skills aren't what's important in this election.  heck, my business skills aren't even that much of an issue at this point in our club's life.  What we need is one honest man on the board willing to fight for the owner's interests.  That will have a profound impact on our existing board.  Evil hates the light.  Lies hate the light.  We just need someone to shine a light, and not stop until they do.


----------



## PerryM (Nov 14, 2007)

PA- said:


> Understand one thing, if you misunderstand all else.  I don't care if I'm popular.  I don't need to be Dave Herrick's buddy, or Gene Hensley's pal.  I don't need to "go along to get along".  That has been the biggest rap against me for 3 years.  People like Rhonda Harris, Norm Bailey, etc hate my style, and would like to see a gentler, kinder PA reach out to the board.  Well guess what, they've not been able to stop the theivery while "working from inside the system", as they call it.  And Rhonda was even appointed to the board for a year.
> 
> Wyndham isn't your friend.  The people on the worldmark board are ruthless businessmen out to maximize Wyndham's profits at any cost.  I'll have a greater impact than any other independent board member ever has (I know, that isn't saying much).  I vow to hold them accountable to the owners for their actions, and I vow to communicate with the owners through every means available to any other board members, including destinations, the owner's meeting, etc.
> 
> My people skills aren't what's important in this election.  heck, my business skills aren't even that much of an issue at this point in our club's life.  What we need is one honest man on the board willing to fight for the owner's interests.  That will have a profound impact on our existing board.  Evil hates the light.  Lies hate the light.  We just need someone to shine a light, and not stop until they do.



PA, think all you want that your need to belittle folks means nothing when representing 250,000 WM owners - it has a profound impact and a negative one.

I stand by my prediction - if you are elected to the WM BOD you will be ineffective since the folks there can read your treatment of fellow WM owners over the years.


----------



## PA- (Nov 14, 2007)

PerryM said:


> PA, think all you want that your need to belittle folks means nothing when representing 250,000 WM owners - it has a profound impact and a negative one.
> 
> I stand by my prediction - if you are elected to the WM BOD you will be ineffective since the folks there can read your treatment of fellow WM owners over the years.




Not sure what you're thinking of, but I'm pretty sure you won't answer any direct questions, so I won't bother asking.


----------



## PA- (Nov 14, 2007)

PerryM said:


> ...
> 
> I stand by my prediction - if you are elected to the WM BOD you will be ineffective ....



You may be right, but for the sake of all of us, I hope you aren't.  In any case, we'd be no worse or better in that case.


----------



## larry_WM (Nov 14, 2007)

PA- said:


> Hey, maybe we can team up.  My people skills, and your business acumen and logical reasoning.


Interesting !


----------



## larry_WM (Nov 14, 2007)

PerryM said:


> PA, think all you want that your need to belittle folks means nothing when representing 250,000 WM owners - it has a profound impact and a negative one.
> 
> I stand by my prediction - if you are elected to the WM BOD you will be ineffective since the folks there can read your treatment of fellow WM owners over the years.



I hate to be agree with you that your prediction of 25 cents per credit would be true then.


----------



## larry_WM (Nov 14, 2007)

PA- said:


> You may be right, but for the sake of all of us, I hope you aren't.  In any case, we'd be no worse or better in that case.




Of course, it's no worse for you because you already sold most of your account. you are just keeping a minimum number of credits to run  for BOD. What are you fighting for when you don't put the money where your mouth said.


----------



## PerryM (Nov 14, 2007)

PA- said:


> Not sure what you're thinking of, but I'm pretty sure you won't answer any direct questions, so I won't bother asking.



On this one thread you've impugned my intelligence and belittled me and now demand that I answer your questions - PA this is exactly why, if elected, you will declare war on Wyndham and we, the WM owners, will be the casualties of this unnecessary war. 

I'm ashamed to admit that it gives me some pleasure to not answer your questions - I know, this is a character flaw but it feels good.




PA- said:


> You may be right, but for the sake of all of us, I hope you aren't.  In any case, we'd be no worse or better in that case.



We will see if a war with Wyndham does us any good.  

I restate my position - concentrating power in 5 part time volunteers on the WM BOD is NOT our solution - we need a President/CEO a management team and a hundred or so employees who wear the WM name tag and then we can start to take on Wyndham.

Just like companies buy insurance from insurance companies they grow in size and may eventually self-insure.  WM reached the critical mass of having our own management team 5 years ago at least.  To get out of the mess we are in does not require 5 part time folks on the WM BOD.  We need folks working on our solutions 24/7 and paychecks and bonuses tied to their performance.

P.S.
The reason you and the others that have tried to take on the developer fail is simple - you are NOT the answer - a CEO is.


----------



## ladycody (Nov 14, 2007)

PA said:
			
		

> 1) Can you name any other timeshare HOAs (or for that matter, ANY HOA) that is self-managed?
> 
> 2) Can you tell us why it matters whether the Board selects an independent, professional management company (say Marriott, for example) that reports to the board (not wyndham), or whether they hire employees themselves and manages it?



Just pointing out that these questions seem reasonable and dont understand why they havent been answered.   Saying "we need XYZ" is one thing...but there's been no conceptual action plan about how XYZ would be accomplished in a reasonable manner.  

As our documents stand right now...the BOD would have to make the decision to implement changes in the running of our resorts...including the utilization of a CEO and WM employees.  

The "we need a CEO" thing is a bit like saying (in a tantrumy voice I might add )  "I _want_ a phone line for my house...and I _dont _want to use the existing lines...I want _my very own _wires run...and _why_ is no one arranging it for me!"    I think there are those that are waiting for you to show them that your idea isnt over the top...because frankly that's how it appears.

I'm just saying that if you really believe this is the answer...ya might want to back it up with some rational thought processes.  

JMO


----------



## PerryM (Nov 14, 2007)

*It's hard to argue with insanity....*



ladycody said:


> Just pointing out that these questions seem reasonable and dont understand why they havent been answered.   Saying "we need XYZ" is one thing...but there's been no conceptual action plan about how XYZ would be accomplished in a reasonable manner.
> 
> As our documents stand right now...the BOD would have to make the decision to implement changes in the running of our resorts...including the utilization of a CEO and WM employees.
> 
> ...



Ok LadyCody, WorldMark is unique in the timeshare world.  To demand that 250,000 members, who own 5,000 condos in 60+ resorts around the world, should be handled like a 60 condo timeshare is insanity to me.

We already pay for a CEO, Vice Presidents, Managers and workers now – however they belong to Wyndham.  We give Wyndham $180 M to hire those employees for Wyndham’s usage.  This is insanity.

Then to top it off, there is NO bid soliciting to spend that $180 M – why not 2 more firms?  You guys seem hell bent on forcing $180 M onto Wyndham and then complain about Wyndham.  This is insanity.

I think Einstein said:
*“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.*

WM is demonstrating insanity and apparently I’m the only WM owner asking for a different and non-insane approach.

There are millions of organizations out there who don't off load their responsibilities to a third party - we need to do the same.

I don't want 5 kings/queens of WM - I want a corporation that works for me, the WM owner; I'm already paying for this.

*WM has been doing the same thing over and over again and you guys expect different results - this is the definition of insanity.*


----------



## Jya-Ning (Nov 14, 2007)

PA- said:


> 1)  Can you name any other timeshare HOAs (or for that matter, ANY HOA) that is self-managed?




Maybe not a validate example, since I have no idea what kind structure it is.  How about old ORE?  I believe it now sold itself to VRI.

Jya-Ning


----------



## ladycody (Nov 14, 2007)

> There are millions of organizations out there who don't off load their responsibilities to a third party - we need to do the same.



A change such as the one you are suggesting (accepting bids and potentially changing mgt structure etc) would need to be overseen by the BOD.  In the event that they (or heck, _any_one) found a proven and "better way"...we still couldnt simply end our contract with Wyndham at the end of the year.  The mgr's _current_ contract renews _automatically_ each year and that automatic renewal can only be prevented by a vote or the written assent of a _majority of total voting power _(other than declarant).  Not the majority of a quorum...a majority of _total _voting power residing in members.  (The exception to this would be termination for cause...and it would need to be proven that there was an actual breach or default on their part and they still get 30 days to correct said breach/default.)

Given the above..._how would you recommend actually accomplishing what you believe needs to be accomplished?_


----------



## cruisin (Nov 14, 2007)

larry_WM said:


> I hate to be agree with you that your prediction of 25 cents per credit would be true then.



What is our BOD doing now to protect the resell value of our memberships?


----------



## jbcoug (Nov 14, 2007)

Perry, you are one of a kind. Thank Goodness. 

You make me laugh, you make me cry, sometimes I just want to throw up.

I especially enjoyed your comments about PA "impunged my intelligence and belittled me", that was a hoot!

No one on this forum or any other timeshare forum I have viewed has impunged the intelligence, belittled, ridiculed, insulted or otherwise abused fellow readers as YOU have. This appears to be your highest skill. You are very talented at it. 

PA didn't even come close to crossing the line that you cross almost daily. I hope you aren't one of those that loves to dish it out, but can't take it. 

Your taking offense because someone "asks you for an answer" is also outrageous. I politely asked you a while back to explain how we could hire our own employees without making a change in the BOD first, since they are the only ones that could take that action (and I'd still like to know how we could do that). All I got in return was your repeated rants about how we needed employees, which you haven't convinced me of, and not a word about how to make that happen. The same thing happens everytime someone else asks as well. As the old saying goes, "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem". Well Perry, you are part of the problem. You have not suggested one legitimate step to take toward your stated goal. You only have time to bitch, moan and complain about others.

Everyone knows you are a knowledgable timesharer. The problem is that our respect for that is rapidly disappearing as you lose credibility. You used to walk the talk, now all you do is talk, talk talk. Even your talk isn't consistent. You change your position as often as the tides change, and expect us to just go with this erratic flow. If you want to be taken seriously, how about actually throwing out an original idea once in awhile that can be supported by facts or enacted. All we have gotten recently is the same old blah, blah blah with an occaisional whine thrown in for good measure. 

Please, either come forward with workable ideas with a plan for implementation, or at least stop throwing up roadblocks in front of anyone who tries to make a positive impact. 

I can't count how many times you have sworn off of various threads and forums, only to come back and stir things up again. All of us can make a concious decision to try to help or to stay out of the way. I wish you would decide. Like they say "You need to either s_ _t or get off the pot."

John


----------



## PerryM (Nov 14, 2007)

ladycody said:


> A change such as the one you are suggesting (accepting bids and potentially changing mgt structure etc) would need to be overseen by the BOD.  In the event that they (or heck, _any_one) found a proven and "better way"...we still couldnt simply end our contract with Wyndham at the end of the year.  The mgr's _current_ contract renews _automatically_ each year and that automatic renewal can only be prevented by a vote or the written assent of a _majority of total voting power _(other than declarant).  Not the majority of a quorum...a majority of _total _voting power residing in members.  (The exception to this would be termination for cause...and it would need to be proven that there was an actual breach or default on their part and they still get 30 days to correct said breach/default.)
> 
> Given the above..._how would you recommend actually accomplishing what you believe needs to be accomplished?_



We are doomed - it's that simple.

I am the only person asking for WM to make the metamorphosis from a hick timeshare to a Billion dollar world wide timeshare club.  No candidate want's to stray from what's been done for 20 years and I don't see a change in that.

Look for falling WM resale credits as more and more owners abandon WM while we go to war with Wyndham and things go from bad to worse.

Me, I personally will use a WM condo for 2 days in 2007 so I have little at stake.  My exchanges into much better resorts will not be affected by WM owners attacking windmills.

WM has reached insanity and I don’t see anything getting better but much worse.  We have not hit bottom yet then owners will start to question doing the same old thing for the past 20 years.

I'm more convinced than ever that WM as we know it is doomed to a tortuous future.


----------



## drguy (Nov 14, 2007)

PA- said:


> How much info you need?  You want a band of 5 part time volunteers to build a management company, when there are HUNDREDS of professional management companies we can hire?  Sheez man, let's just get them to stop stealing from us first, ok?
> 
> Is there something in the water around here?  For crying out loud, we have enough problems on our hands without John walker hiring and managing 5000 employees.  You want the club to have the liability of sexual harrassment lawsuits, or wrongful termination, or age discrimination?  That all comes with the territory of running a large corporation.  There's NOTHING wrong with the club the way that it's set up, people. We just need a Board that isn't working for the management company.  It's supposed to work the other way around.



OK PA-
How do you know how best to structure our Club without studying the matter?  I admit that I don't have the answer, but believe that we can make improvements if we get an honest, independent recommendation presented to the BOD.  I'm not omniscient, so I need help from experts.  I'm willing to look at all options, including keeping the current arrangement.  A BOD member is to offer vision, not micromanage.
Thanks.
Guy


----------



## PA- (Nov 15, 2007)

drguy said:


> OK PA-
> How do you know how best to structure our Club without studying the matter?  I admit that I don't have the answer, but believe that we can make improvements if we get an honest, independent recommendation presented to the BOD.  I'm not omniscient, so I need help from experts.  I'm willing to look at all options, including keeping the current arrangement.  A BOD member is to offer vision, not micromanage.
> Thanks.
> Guy



Without studying the matter??? I've been living and breathing this stuff for years.  The board engaging in self-management is micromanaging, not the opposite.  If you need help from experts, go to www.wmowners.com and read up, there's 3 years worth of posts on the subject.

Presenting an honest, independent recommendation to our existing wyndham controlled board has been tried.  The problem is not with the recommendations, it's with the board.


----------



## ladycody (Nov 15, 2007)

Dang it, Perry...can ya just answer the questions presented and tell _how_ what _you_ want could logistically be accomplished?   I_ get _what you've _wanted_...I get that you _still want _it....and that you think everyone else is an idiot for not attempting to change things to get it done...but how?!?!?!?!  If you really wanted what you _claim_ to want...and if it was feasible...you'd put it out here, if for no other reason than to help others do your work for you and take affirmative action.  

If you cant, at least, put some succinct ideas/poa down...how in heaven's name do you expect anyone to take your opinions seriously? 

I need to invest in a brick wall for these moments.


----------



## PerryM (Nov 15, 2007)

*Cliff Notes...*



ladycody said:


> Dang it, Perry...can ya just answer the questions presented and tell _how_ what _you_ want could logistically be accomplished?   I_ get _what you've _wanted_...I get that you _still want _it....and that you think everyone else is an idiot for not attempting to change things to get it done...but how?!?!?!?!  If you really wanted what you _claim_ to want...and if it was feasible...you'd put it out here, if for no other reason than to help others do your work for you and take affirmative action.
> 
> If you cant, at least, put some succinct ideas/poa down...how in heaven's name do you expect anyone to take your opinions seriously?
> 
> I need to invest in a brick wall for these moments.



Ok, if you want my vision of what needs to happen:

*3 of the 5 WM BOD members do the following:*
1) Form a committee to hire 1 CEO
2) Find CEO - hire him
3) Open bidding on that $180 M we blindly hand over to Wyndham and hold back 10% to start the transformation process

*The CEO does:*
1) CEO hires management team
2) Management team hires 60+ managers to run each resort
3) Those managers contract out services needed to run each resort
4) A computer booking service is bought/developed

This is business 101 and I didn't think folks needed Cliff notes, but OK there they are.

It only takes 3 people to start the above.  Now I guess I could draw up plans on how to do that but I'm not running for that office and PA, I'm sure, has the answers.

I can get into "Global Warming" too if you'd like.

P.S.
Getting 3 folks to start the above requires more than just me proposing that we need to do the above.  WM owners themselves are their own worst enemy in this battle.  They seem to believe in insanity - do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result.

No, those 3 folks will be almost impossible to get when a Billion dollar corporation is spending 24/7 trying to keep those 3 folks in the "Insane Column" on the WM BOD.  And the best part is Wyndham is using our own money to do it - ain't that a kick in the head.

P.P.S.
You know I can use the same trick - show me, in detail, the secret plan to take over the WM BOD and rule the world.

This I got to see.  I will even sign a NDA to keep that secret plan from Wyndham's prying eyes.

And please, something beyond the bumper sticker "WM for WM owners" - that's all worn out and needs something to replace it.  I've been saying for quite a while now that replacing one BOD member with someone else will result in no change and even an all out war - I hope war is not the secret plan to take over the WM BOD.


----------



## PerryM (Nov 15, 2007)

*Have a nice day...*



jbcoug said:


> Perry, you are one of a kind. Thank Goodness.
> 
> You make me laugh, you make me cry, sometimes I just want to throw up.
> 
> ...




Venting is an important part of good mental health – at least that’s what the 4 shrinks who are my students say.

Hopefully I’ve helped in this case – you’re welcome.

I will bypass my normal consulting fee in this case (what a guy) and suggest that you might feel even better and perhaps think about sending a donation to my favorite charity, Toys For Tots.  

But I don’t want to put any pressure on you; have a nice day.

Happy thoughts from St. Louis.


----------



## larry_WM (Nov 15, 2007)

PerryM said:


> Venting is an important part of good mental health – at least that’s what the 4 shrinks who are my students say.
> 
> Hopefully I’ve helped in this case – you’re welcome.
> 
> ...




Nice answer ! I am not always agree with your idea , but some of them are very interesting and useful. Have a nice Thankgiving week.


----------



## FLYNZ4 (Nov 16, 2007)

PerryM said:


> Ok, if you want my vision of what needs to happen:
> 
> *3 of the 5 WM BOD members do the following:*
> 1) Form a committee to hire 1 CEO
> 2) Find CEO - hire him.


Perry,

It seems to me like step #1 is the big problem.   Do you really think that the current BOD, which is controlled by WYN, is going hand over power to a 3rd party?

Assuming that your proposal of hiring a CEO is good (and I am not saying that it isn't)... I do not understand how you get there without an independent BOD first.

/Jim


----------



## ladycody (Nov 16, 2007)

What Jim said... (although I'm still not convinced we need a new manager...but putting that aside....)
...you then _still_ need to factor in the fact that you'd have to get an affirmative majority vote of voting power to_ hire _that CEO (by ending automatic renewal of the current mgt contract) as well....even if the board agrees to pursue it.

_I'm _not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone.  I simply wanted it pointed out (which you basically did yourself, Perry)...that there _isnt _a _simple_ solution to what you've suggested (WM having it's own employees)...and it's kinda been presented by you that way ...(as though it could be easily initiated)  The reality is that it's not anywhere_ near _easy...and there would be a TON of steps involved....and the step_ you _listed first (and sorta rant about...which is hiring a CEO) would _not _be the first step required to fulfil your wishes.


----------



## PerryM (Nov 16, 2007)

*Windmills...*



FLYNZ4 said:


> Perry,
> 
> It seems to me like step #1 is the big problem.   Do you really think that the current BOD, which is controlled by WYN, is going hand over power to a 3rd party?
> 
> ...





ladycody said:


> What Jim said... (although I'm still not convinced we need a new manager...but putting that aside....)
> ...you then _still_ need to factor in the fact that you'd have to get an affirmative majority vote of voting power to_ hire _that CEO (by ending automatic renewal of the current mgt contract) as well....even if the board agrees to pursue it.
> 
> _I'm _not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone.  I simply wanted it pointed out (which you basically did yourself, Perry)...that there _isnt _a _simple_ solution to what you've suggested (WM having it's own employees)...and it's kinda been presented by you that way ...(as though it could be easily initiated)  The reality is that it's not anywhere_ near _easy...and there would be a TON of steps involved....and the step_ you _listed first (and sorta rant about...which is hiring a CEO) would _not _be the first step required to fulfil your wishes.




In a free society, with elections, the people ALWAYS get what they want.

The WM owners keep telling everyone that they are perfectly happy with the status quo – even if a vocal minority is not.

This is why what I propose, WM the Corporation, is not likely to happen soon, if ever – the WM owners love the status quo.  In this case it’s the developer, Wyndham, calling the shots and running WM the way it wants to.

WM owners have 3 simple options:

1)	Enjoy it and use it the way it is (That’s me)

2)	Transform their participation to consumer activism and try to take over WM (Like many on WMowners.com)

3)	Sell their membership


Let’s see what the WM owners want – I’m guessing the status quo is just fine with them, it is fine with me.


The key point here is to ask a simple question:
“Why did I buy WM ownership – to go on vacation or fight a Billion dollar company?”

Sadly, some WM owners have lost their way and are fighting windmills.

P.S.
Consumer activism of trying to take over the WM BOD is declaring war against a ruthless Billion dollar corporation – we will lose no matter what and the fight will hurt 250,000 other families. 

As a general rule I despise Do-gooders – I see them everyday.  While waiting for a long traffic light the do-gooder ahead of me feels better by letting some guy in line who just pulled up on a cross street.  I’ve been behind that guy 5 minutes and the do-gooder decided to make me wait even longer while he makes himself feel better.

We have a lot of WM do-gooders who are ready to do the same to the rest of us – they feel better while we get screwed.


----------



## larry_WM (Nov 16, 2007)

PerryM said:


> WM owners have 3 simple options:
> 
> 1)	Enjoy it and use it the way it is (That’s me)
> 
> ...



There is someone with a tiny account but fighting a Billion dollar company because of his political ambition !


----------



## jbcoug (Nov 16, 2007)

Don't worry Perry, No one will ever confuse you with a do-gooder.

John


----------



## ctjuan (Nov 22, 2007)

Gee...I starting reading this thread in the hope of learning something about WM, and whether it was a good option.  I learned some things, but most of all that it is better to wait for WM prices to fall as disillusioned members bail out of the Club.

Having been a party to a discrimination suit in federal court years ago agaisnt my former employer-I can tell you it takes alot of venom to go to war in a court room.  The gloves come off, honesty and integrity go out the door, and the one with the biggest bankroll and stick usually wins.  I almost lost my hide in the fight...and only now realize that it was better to just thank them for the years of employment and move onto something new. 

The parties in this thread surely must have a whole lot more at stake than I'm able to figure out.  I just wonder if less venom and more reasoning will lead to a more productive discussion, even if you don't come to an agreement on the main issues.  We're talking TS here folks, not the spread of nuclear weapons!


----------



## cruisin (Nov 23, 2007)

PerryM said:


> In a free society, with elections, the people ALWAYS get what they want.
> 
> The WM owners keep telling everyone that they are perfectly happy with the status quo – even if a vocal minority is not.
> 
> ...


----------



## PerryM (Nov 23, 2007)

*Bare knuckle fights in the sandbox....*



cruisin said:


> PerryM said:
> In a free society, with elections, the people ALWAYS get what they want.
> 
> The WM owners keep telling everyone that they are perfectly happy with the status quo – even if a vocal minority is not.
> ...



(This is not directed to any one WM owner):

My suggestion to those livid WM owners who are upset with the politics of the WM BOD/HOA is to grow up – you are playing bare knuckle politics against a Billion $ corporation that plays hard ball and fights bare knuckle all the time.  You are out of your league and did anyone expect Wyndham to really play fair?

Stomping your feet and throwing hissy fits might work for toddlers but this is the major leagues and if you think Wyndham is going to play fair in the sandbox you have a lot of disappointments ahead of you.

Wyndham strong-armed the election results just enough to NOT show how it could have steamrollered the election results much much more.  They didn’t want to make to so obvious as to attract unwanted attention.  The election results were deceptively close on purpose guys.  If it were realy close, then I'd expect negative articles about the candidates to appear in news outlets.  (Private investigators who specialize in sleazy smearing of folks would be the new consultants Wyndham would hire in a round about way-these guys are well know in politics)  This is how I would expect Wyndham to play bare knuckle politics with rank amateurs.

The 5 folks on the WM BOD can greatly hurt Wyndham - they will do anything in their power to keep control - anything just within the law.

Which gets me back to what I’ve been shouting loudly for a year now – are you a consumer or an activest?  Voting for the WM BOD (Notice it’s not HOA, but a corporate BOD – a corporation structure) is all we should be doing as consumers, if you want to get into politics, as the WMowners.com folks have gotten into, that’s a different type of entertainment.

I still think the WMowners.com folks should start a new web site, IhateWyndham.com, and move the politics over there - just a suggestion.

Me, I've been using WM for 5 great vacations in 2007 and have plans for even more in 2008; thanks WM and Wyndham.

P.S.
I expect the same outcome with the Wyndham/WM BOD lawsuits - Wyndham wins WM owners lose.  Then to boot we WM owners get to pay for all of this in cash (Higher  MFs) and other ways (More rule changes that will favor Wyndham).  Wyndham is the sole supplier of management services to WM - no bids are ever solicited - we simply hand them $180,000,000 and they run our club.  Do you expect them to act in our best interests here too?

They are simply acting in their best interests and hopefully they realize that killing the Golden Goose doesn't do the farmer or goose any good.

P.P.S.
All this fighting has certainly contributed to falling WM resale credit prices.  There is NO reason to buy but 5,000 WM credits and take advantage of Wyndham's generous offer (or stupid, depends on how you look at it) and rent unlimited WM credits for 7 cents instead of buying them.

There are plenty of work arounds for WM owners to make WM ownership well worth the trouble and I still highly recommend folks buy 5k WM credits and learn how to maximize their usage.  If other WM owners are consumed with hatred you can take advantage of their obsession.  

Are WM resale credits at 65 cents too expensive?  I view them as I do my laptop - they both get cheaper but I get to use them for my benefit now and that's all I can do as a consumer.  Waiting for cheaper prices tomorrow doesn't get my family on a fantastic vacation today.


----------



## larry_WM (Nov 23, 2007)

cruisin said:


> PerryM said:
> 
> 
> > In a free society, with elections, the people ALWAYS get what they want.
> ...


----------



## cruisin (Nov 23, 2007)

larry_WM said:


> cruisin said:
> 
> 
> > You have a disillusion by reading "that BBS", the louder whining doesn't meant PA will get more vote. Think! How many member of that board 5000, how many in here 100. Remember there are more than a quarter of million owners.And remember not all member here and there support PA. I have a group of dozen friend here didn't not vote for VA. Get real !
> ...


----------



## larry_WM (Nov 23, 2007)

cruisin said:


> larry_WM said:
> 
> 
> > It does not get any more REAL than the fact that more owners voted for PA than any other candidate. REALLY!!
> ...


----------



## PerryM (Nov 23, 2007)

*WM owners want the status quo - they just said so...*

The WM owners have spoken via the election – they want the 3 winning candidates with the highest votes.  Many WM owners gave their proxy to WM, to PA, and to others I guess.  Those proxies represent the votes of the WM owners.  I’m assuming the holders of those proxies used them according to any criteria they wanted to convert them into votes for any candidate they wanted.

To say that the WM owners did not get their way is folly.  I hope we aren’t headed down a legal challenge which will just cause more consternation and a weaker WM resale price.

Again, the WM owners have spoken their will and *it’s the status quo *they want.  I’m perfectly happy with it and do just fine with our usage, their is no reason every WM owner can't do the same.

Is Wyndham /WM perfect?  What is?

Sadly, I fear the drums are beating for another round of fighting Wyndham - this time I would not be surprised to see a more aggressive Wyndham take on the do-gooders.  I don't see them cowering in their offices, I would not be surprised to see legal challenges to those who are driving a wedge between WM and Wyndham.


----------



## cruisin (Nov 23, 2007)

Does anybody have past vote totals?

Did PA have the most owners votes ever given to a single candidate in the history of Worldmark? Would that make him the most popular candidate to ever run! 

Larry, you may have taken over the mantle as the leader of the new vocal minority!


----------



## PA- (Nov 23, 2007)

If you discount the votes cast by Wyndham, representing unsold credits, I got more votes from owners than any other candidate this year, including Gene and Peggy.

Wyndham corp. is not a worldmark member; there's a bylaw that forbids corporate ownershp of a worldmark account.  Wyndham is entitled to vote their unsold credits.  They've never chosen to do so, but they are entitled to do so, and this year for the first time, they chose to do so.  I'm not at all unhappy that they did, I'm not whining nor complaining.  In fact, I predicted they would years ago, as soon as they felt it would be necessary to do so to maintain their stranglehold on our club.  It's the logical thing for them to do, from their perspective.

So while I lost the election this year, the owners did NOT get the directors that they voted for.  They got the directors chosen by Wyndham.

1)  There is some question as to whether they voted the proper number of votes.  We're checking into whether they improperly deeded over properties that aren't ready for occupancy.  It appears they did.

2)  I've always known, and predicted, that the would vote their developer votes as soon as they needed to.  If anyone thinks for one moment that this changes anything, you're wrong.  That allowed them to win this year's election.  I got 4 times more owners voting for me this year than last year, and will get 4 times more voting for me next year, etc.  The independent owners votes will grow geometrically, Wyndham's will not.


----------



## cruisin (Nov 23, 2007)

Glad to hear you are running next year PA.


----------



## cruisin (Nov 24, 2007)

PerryM said:


> The WM owners have spoken via the election – they want the 3 winning candidates with the highest votes.  Many WM owners gave their proxy to WM, to PA, and to others I guess.  Those proxies represent the votes of the WM owners.  I’m assuming the holders of those proxies used them according to any criteria they wanted to convert them into votes for any candidate they wanted.
> 
> To say that the WM owners did not get their way is folly.  I hope we aren’t headed down a legal challenge which will just cause more consternation and a weaker WM resale price.
> 
> ...



In my statements, I have always included the proxies given to the BOD as the will of the owners. All 90,000 plus proxies voted to the wyndham slate are owner votes, and thus the will of the owners.


----------



## PerryM (Nov 24, 2007)

*Let's start a pool...*



cruisin said:


> In my statements, I have always included the proxies given to the BOD as the will of the owners. All 90,000 plus proxies voted to the wyndham slate are owner votes, and thus the will of the owners.



My prediction is that Wyndham will spend lot's of our money during the next year trying to double that 90k of proxies - let's see if my prediction is correct.  Of course, we will pay for all the postage, mailings, and other expenses (DVDs?) Which show a concerned WM BOD wanting the members more involved.

Whatever we do, they will match and, of course, we pay for all of this...

Maybe someone could start a pool - closest person to guessing the number of proxies Wyndham/WM will get.  My guess is 25% more or 112,500 proxies; that should easily be a goal reached.

Will this solve some of WM's problems?  CEO and management team (my problem it seems), dilution of WM credits, developer programs which weaken WM resale credits.  No the next year will be focused on getting more proxies and everything else will fall by the wayside.  Proxies that Wyndham will use "in the best interests of the WM owners".

So the status quo seems to be assured for the next 12 months - this is fantastic news to me and hopefully to others who just want to use WM to take fantastic vacations.


P.S.
Did I forget to mention higher MFs as we pay for all of this?  Each mailing costs 250,000 * 41 cents = $102,500 just in postage.  Throw in the paper and printing and it's probably closer to $1 or $250,000 each mailing.  Expect a lot of urgent mailings over the crisis of low WM owner participation.  Expect changes with new members - the proxy statement is a necessary document now for closing or resales.  Expect a lot of new creative programs.

Poke a hibernating bear with a stick and it will eventually awaken….

And, finally, let's not forget Einstein's definition of insanity: "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."  So, who's up for another proxy fight?


----------



## ctjuan (Nov 24, 2007)

*WM vs. RCI Points?*

As a novice-since I've only been reading about WM for a week, what makes WM better than RCI and II?  Don't they all have flaws?  Is DAE or any other exchange company better?  Is WM better because it allows more flexibility by renting credits cheaply and using them on the front end of a greatly desired reservation?


----------



## PerryM (Nov 24, 2007)

ctjuan said:


> As a novice-since I've only been reading about WM for a week, what makes WM better than RCI and II?  Don't they all have flaws?  Is DAE or any other exchange company better?  Is WM better because it allows more flexibility by renting credits cheaply and using them on the front end of a greatly desired reservation?




WM is a timeshare, II and RCI are exchange companies – they act as a broker for one timeshare owner to exchange their week with another owner.  WM has 60+ resorts and is basically a mini-exchange company too.

WM, to me, is the pinnacle of timeshare flexibility.  Their resorts are minimum 5 star (by design) and I personally don’t like them.  So why do I recommend WM to just about everyone?  It’s all the other stuff:

Minimum ownership:
The minimum WM account is 5,000 WM credits that you can buy for less than 70 cents each, or $3,500.

Rent WM credits from other WM owners:
WM is unique in the fact that the developer, Wyndham, allows a WM owner to rent unlimited WM credits from other WM owners and you never have to pay the up-front expense of buying the credits for 70 cents.  Rent as many credits for about 7 cents and go on as many vacations as you want.  (4.5 cents of the 7 cents is Maintenance Fees - you pay 2.5 cents for the actual rental)

WM owners aren't limited to Saturday check-ins for 7 days.  Reservations can be 1 - 100+ days long if you want.  There are tricks to getting just weekends if you want.  Want to stay Christmas and New Years at a WM resort for 10 days - no problem.

You don't own a fixed size unit - need a studio and a 3BR for the family - no problem (assuming availability).

II and RCI heavyweight for exchanges:

II and RCI work on the principle of Trading Power (TP), a secret formula know to a hand full of programmers.  WM has a TP as powerful as the most expensive Marriotts and Westins – WM owners routinely exchange into them.  How can this be?  WM is a step below the high end timeshares so how come they snag them for exchanges.  Simple – very few WM owners actually exchange their credits for II/RCI units and thus the supply is very small.  

Additionally, WM does NOT allow 50 WM owners to dump the same hot holiday week into II/RCI the same day and drive TP down the toilet – WM gives II/RCI a basket of studio, 1BR, 2BR, and 3BR units for various weeks during the year – no glut and thus low supply resulting in high TP.

WM allows owners to make reservations 13 months ahead and cancel them 30 days before check-in:

I book a WM resort 13 months out and have no intention of staying there – I hope to get II exchanges into much better timeshares and then cancel the WM reservation and roll those credits into the II exchange.

WM owners don’t need to back up an on-going search with WM credits until a match found.

While other owners must commit an owned week to an exchange (or have one available) WM owners don’t need 1 WM credit to put 10+ searches out and only need the credits if an exchange happens.  And then you simply rent the credits from other WM owners – no need to actually own any credits beyond the 5,000 minimum account.

59-Day II exchanges/45-day RCI

WM struck a deal with II and RCI that 59-days before an II exchange we only need to pay 4,000 credits and 45-days for RCI.  This is a fantastic capability that other timeshares just don't have.

Conclusion:
WM is a fantastic vehicle for II and RCI exchanges and belongs in everyone's timeshare portfolio.


Hope this helps…


----------



## ctjuan (Nov 25, 2007)

Thank you, Perry for your response.  Yes it did help to understand WM. 

Living near the east coast, it will be difficult to take advantage of WM resorts on a frequent basis.  Is the advantage of owning and depositing WM credits into RCI or II the fact that they have greater trading power thus I will be a ble to make exchanges than I wouln't otherwise?  Also, in making those deposit/search w/ RCI/II, can I borrow credits from WM as needed at .07 each in order to have enough credits for the exchange?

I have tons of more questions, but that's all for today!
Thanks,
Juan


----------



## spatenfloot (Nov 25, 2007)

ctjuan said:


> Also, in making those deposit/search w/ RCI/II, can I borrow credits from WM as needed at .07 each in order to have enough credits for the exchange?



No, you can RENT them from other owners for about that price.  Or you can borrow the next year's use points for free.


----------



## PA- (Nov 25, 2007)

PerryM said:


> My prediction is that Wyndham will spend lot's of our money during the next year trying to double that 90k of proxies - let's see if my prediction is correct.  Of course, we will pay for all the postage, mailings, and other expenses (DVDs?) Which show a concerned WM BOD wanting the members more involved.
> 
> Whatever we do, they will match and, of course, we pay for all of this.......



Wrong again, Perry.  Worldmark cannot pay for proxy requests unless they have reason to believe they'll be unable to get a quorum for the owner's meeting.  If they did, they could be forced to pay to send a letter of MY choosing to the owners (or other candidates), and they're aware of it.  That's why the proxy request they sent a few months ago was paid for entirely by Wyndham.  While that was an improper use of the worldmark mailing list, they were hoping it wouldn't be challenged.  They miscalculated.

If you're going to be so free to share your opinions, you might want to spend a little more time making sure they're grounded in facts.  Wyndham is bold, but there's no way they could get away with paying for their legal defense with worldmark maintenance fees.  You're using misinformation and scare tactics, and I'm not sure why.


----------



## PerryM (Nov 26, 2007)

*Bouncy bouncy WM...*



ctjuan said:


> Thank you, Perry for your response.  Yes it did help to understand WM.
> 
> Living near the east coast, it will be difficult to take advantage of WM resorts on a frequent basis.  Is the advantage of owning and depositing WM credits into RCI or II the fact that they have greater trading power thus I will be a ble to make exchanges than I wouln't otherwise?  Also, in making those deposit/search w/ RCI/II, can I borrow credits from WM as needed at .07 each in order to have enough credits for the exchange?
> 
> ...



As I've said in many posts, WM is THE II/RCI trader for many reasons that have nothing to do with the actual units.  I find the WM units to be bouncy wood construction and as someone walks by in the hallway your unit shakes - I buy WM to exchange into units that are 10 times as nice for 1/10 the cost of the folks who actually buy there.


----------



## PerryM (Nov 26, 2007)

*Try it again for the 3rd time, maybe the outcome will be different...*



PA- said:


> Wrong again, Perry.  Worldmark cannot pay for proxy requests unless they have reason to believe they'll be unable to get a quorum for the owner's meeting.  If they did, they could be forced to pay to send a letter of MY choosing to the owners (or other candidates), and they're aware of it.  That's why the proxy request they sent a few months ago was paid for entirely by Wyndham.  While that was an improper use of the worldmark mailing list, they were hoping it wouldn't be challenged.  They miscalculated.
> 
> If you're going to be so free to share your opinions, you might want to spend a little more time making sure they're grounded in facts.  Wyndham is bold, but *there's no way they could get away with paying for their legal defense with worldmark maintenance fees*.  You're using misinformation and scare tactics, and I'm not sure why.



Good grief PA, Wyndham is not a Neanderthal and knows how to play the rules.  They just proved that in the last election.  Anything the WM owners talk about is reported and a counter move is easily provided.

But, if the WM owners want to try the same proxy fight for the, what the 3rd time, and hope for a different outcome I'm sure Wyndham will oblige.

Maybe insanity is the way to deal with WM/Wyndham; me, I'll just stay with the status quo and enjoy WM the way it is.

P.S.
And just when did WM do an audit of the way Wyndham spends our money?  A Neanderthal would list "Pay for lawsuit", Wyndham would be a lot more creative..."Legal bills for IRIS compliance with 50 states and 50 countries" would be something more creative.  How creative can Wyndham be?  Let's see...  Well, on the other hand, we probably will never figure this out.  I am confident that Wyndham stockholders won't pay for it.


----------



## PA- (Nov 26, 2007)

PerryM said:


> ...
> But, if the WM owners want to try the same proxy fight for the, what the 3rd time, and hope for a different outcome I'm sure Wyndham will oblige.
> 
> ....



I'm not sure what outcome you expected, but the results have been nothing short of unbelievable.  

The number of votes for independent candidates out-numbered the votes for the incumbents in the 2006 election for the first time ever.  However, they were split among many candidates.

In 2007, I got more owner votes than any other candidate, including incumbents.  There has NEVER been a case in history of that happening.  And that INCLUDED the proxies assigned to the incumbents by the board.  Now consider the effort Wyndham made to get more proxies, and that becomes astounding.  Of course, Wyndham voted their unsold credits for the first time ever, as I predicted they would do.  But the point is, we've barely begun, while they've used all their quivers.  

I'm not sure why you would downplay that sort of progress.  The support for the incumbents is weakening dramatically, despite everything they do.  That shows that the problems are being noticed by the normal owners, not just the few involved owners that frequent the chat rooms.


----------



## PerryM (Nov 26, 2007)

PA- said:


> I'm not sure what outcome you expected, but the results have been nothing short of unbelievable.
> 
> The number of votes for independent candidates out-numbered the votes for the incumbents in the 2006 election for the first time ever.  However, they were split among many candidates.
> 
> ...



As the Walgreen's commercial says "In a perfect world...".

Still lost PA, and I'm confident the same will happen next year.  But, that's just the opinion of ONE WM owner.  You should not fear me...  However, my prediction of Wyndham winning was correct and the WM owners hell bent on overthrow lost again.

P.S.
My whole point for the past year is to get WM owners focused on using their memberships the way the CURRENT rules are written - stop wasting time in fighting for new things.

However, if folks like this combat, then by all means, attack those windmills.

P.P.S.
And this goes for those WM owners hoping that the US court system can run WM better with those lawsuits - Wyndham will prevail and you can be assured that the 250,000+ WM owners will pay for this in various ways.  Another prediction that I'm sure will prove correct....

Of course the sad part of this war with Wyndham is the resulting falling resale price of WM credits - there are many WM owners paying dearly for this fight daily...

You can't have a web site like www.WMowners.com dedicated to the destruction of Wyndham, our developer and management company, and not say that they don't play some part in the free fall of WM resale credits - I do at least.  I place some of the reasons WM owners are dumping the credits on the doorstep of WMowners.com - they are agitating the relationship with developer and owner and it has terrible consequences.  All of this for what?  What the hell has been accomplished?


----------



## larry_WM (Nov 26, 2007)

PA- said:


> The number of votes for independent candidates out-numbered the votes for the incumbents in the 2006 election for the first time ever.  However, they were split among many candidates.
> 
> In 2007, I got more owner votes than any other candidate, including incumbents.  .



You are still shy about 24,755 vote to be a winner! Thanks Lord !


----------



## PA- (Nov 26, 2007)

Perry, you were predicting the free fall of worldmark pricing years ago, long before any of this began.  In fact, if I recall correctly, you predicted 15cents per credit or less.  Back then, you based your logic on Fairfield's pricing, and the fact that you believed the worldmark board would allow cendant (now wyndham) to implement a program similar to Fairshare. They have now introduced such a program, and you're seeing falling prices.  Whether the 2 are related is subject to debate.  

I believe you change your predictions and logic to somehow "prove" that you are the smartest guy in the room, as if that's of critical importance.  If you were the smartest guy in the room, it wouldn't be important to prove it to others, or to denigrate other's intelligence to prove yours.  Your value isn't based on you having to be right on every issue.  You've been wrong many times before, and will be many more times in the future.  Welcome to the human race.


----------



## larry_WM (Nov 26, 2007)

PA- said:


> In 2007, I got more owner votes than any other candidate, including incumbents.  There has NEVER been a case in history of that happening.  And that INCLUDED the proxies assigned to the incumbents by the board.  Now consider the effort Wyndham made to get more proxies, and that becomes astounding.  Of course, Wyndham voted their unsold credits for the first time ever, as I predicted they would do.  But the point is, we've barely begun, while they've used all their quivers.




I don't see any truth in this statement. You get less vote than Bob Morrison. I have hard time following your post.
I consider this is a winning for WM owner, at leat we get one independent BOD.


----------



## PerryM (Nov 26, 2007)

*M.A.D. rush to lower WM resale prices...*



PA- said:


> Perry, you were predicting the free fall of worldmark pricing years ago, long before any of this began.  In fact, if I recall correctly, you predicted 15cents per credit or less.  Back then, you based your logic on Fairfield's pricing, and the fact that you believed the worldmark board would allow cendant (now wyndham) to implement a program similar to Fairshare. They have now introduced such a program, and you're seeing falling prices.  Whether the 2 are related is subject to debate.
> 
> I believe you change your predictions and logic to somehow "prove" that you are the smartest guy in the room, as if that's of critical importance.  If you were the smartest guy in the room, it wouldn't be important to prove it to others, or to denigrate other's intelligence to prove yours.  Your value isn't based on you having to be right on every issue.  You've been wrong many times before, and will be many more times in the future.  Welcome to the human race.




My original prediction of 38¢ for resale WM credits was a straight correlation of FF to WM back then.  i.e. WM would eventually follow the FF (Wyndham now) path.  The lowest price so far has been 54¢ (using my 3 year old methodology to determine a resale price).  I don’t believe I ever predicted 15¢, but that might have been an answer to some other question.  I’ll stick with the 38¢ from 3 or so years ago.  

During that time Wyndham (TrendWest) raised their price from $1.55 to $1.98 while WM credits have fallen from 80¢ to 54¢ with my pricing methodology.  That means when I bought our *first purchase of WM credits for 80¢ that was 52% of the developer’s price*.  Now, *that 54¢ is 27% of the developer’s current price.*

Wyndham is simply following FF’s insane logic which makes each of the 250,000 WM owners a competitor to it and thus Wyndham has no interest in shoring up the resale price of its own creation.  Marriott has the right idea, shore up that resale market and it’s good for everyone.

WM owners, however, are now participating in this insane rush to meet my prediction of 38¢ - this I never envisioned.  The war that WMowners.com is waging against the WM BOD and Wyndham is affecting the resale prices along with Wyndham – a *M*utual *A*ssured *D*estruction seems to be going on now.

With WMowners and Wyndham both negatively affecting resale prices I have confidence my prediction will be met.  With friends like that who needs enemies?


----------



## colleencs (Nov 27, 2007)

larry_WM said:


> I don't see any truth in this statement. You get less vote than Bob Morrison. I have hard time following your post.
> I consider this is a winning for WM owner, at leat we get one independent BOD.



Larry - The reason that PA states that he has more owner votes is because of the way Wyndham voted this year. They voted their developer credits and included those numbers in the owner vote tally. If you look at www.wmowners.com, you will see all the specifics of how many developer credits they used to vote.  Unfortunately, I can't remember all the specifics but it was enough to change the popular vote of the election.  If you take out the proxy vote and the developer credit vote, you will see that PA had the most votes of any candidate.  Of course, Wyndham has not specificied how the developer vote was broken down (they have confirmed they did vote their developer credits) but it is safe to assume that they voted it similar to the proxy vote. Thus, changing the popular vote and outcome of the election to meet their needs.


----------



## spatenfloot (Nov 27, 2007)

PerryM said:


> The lowest price so far has been 54¢ (using my 3 year old mythology to determine a resale price).



Mythology is right!   I think you'd get better results using methodology.


----------



## larry_WM (Nov 27, 2007)

colleencs said:


> Larry - The reason that PA states that he has more owner votes is because of the way Wyndham voted this year. They voted their developer credits and included those numbers in the owner vote tally. If you look at www.wmowners.com, you will see all the specifics of how many developer credits they used to vote.  Unfortunately, I can't remember all the specifics but it was enough to change the popular vote of the election.  If you take out the proxy vote and the developer credit vote, you will see that PA had the most votes of any candidate.  Of course, Wyndham has not specificied how the developer vote was broken down (they have confirmed they did vote their developer credits) but it is safe to assume that they voted it similar to the proxy vote. Thus, changing the popular vote and outcome of the election to meet their needs.


Not even true either:


Gene Hensley   62,571       21,822    84,393 
Peggy Fry        61,118      30,613     91,731 
Gil Bellamy       12,643       -            12,643 
Guy Hanson       5,312       -             5,312 
Dick Hanson     10,332       -            10,332 
Elice  Swanson 14,390      -             14,390 
Michael Delzotti  3,895     -               3,895 
Steve Kranker   16,714     -             16,714 
Ken Roberts      10,247         12       10,259 
Philip Abdouch   48,764     10,875      59,639 
Bob Morrison    55,203      34,894      90,097


----------



## LLW (Nov 27, 2007)

larry_WM said:


> Not even true either:
> 
> 
> Gene Hensley   *62,571       *21,822    84,393
> ...



Wyndham has confirmed that they voted the developer's unsold credits, for the first time in history. Those numbers are included in the first column, which they titled "Owner Votes" (the second column is "proxies" and the third column "total"), in the 3 numbers highlighted. A better-formatted table is on http://www.wmowners.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=147892#147892 .

If we exclude the developer's votes (of which there is an estimate based on their numbers) from those, each of the 3 announced winners probably got fewer real owner votes than PA. They have lost the owners' confidence. This was a HUGE NO CONFIDENCE VOTE by Worldmark owners on the developer and the board that they currently control!


----------



## LLW (Nov 27, 2007)

P.S. 
What is amazing is the % of owners at the Annual Meeting in October who challenged Wyndham in the Question & Answer period who are not www.wmowners.com regulars! Also worthy of note is the fact that the major law suit currently happening in California against Wyndham for Worldmark is brought on by owner plaintiffs not associated with wmowners.com.


----------



## PerryM (Nov 27, 2007)

*My 38¢ WM resale meltdown has almost been met!*

What was I thinking; another of my predictions has almost come true:

*History of 38¢ prediction (to the best of my recollection):*

At the time (4 years ago now) FairField (Wyndham now) was selling developer Points for 14¢ and those same Points were selling for about 3.5¢ on eBay.  That is an immediate loss of 75% of the new owner’s money.

TrendWest (Wyndham now) was selling WM credits for $1.55 and the lowest price from resellers was 80¢ (our first purchase price).  


*Methodology I used:*

My 38¢ prediction of WM resale credits was simply taking the .035/.14 * $1.55 = 38¢.

FF and WM were run by the same guy who had been decimating FF resale prices on a daily bases with all kinds of developer gimmicks.  I figured that the same guy would pull the same stuff with WM.


*Current update:*
My prediction of 38¢ was really the *25% resale to developer ratio for FF*.  That was hard to say in a prediction so I used the 38¢.

Today, Wyndham is selling WM credits for $1.98 and 25% of that is 50¢.  The lowest resale price my methodology supports is 54¢.  I am just 4¢ away from victory!

To become victorious the following must happen:

Wyndham to raise their developer price to $2.16 and applying the 25% resale value comes to 54¢.

Or, if the lowest resale price becomes 50¢ that too results in 25% of the current $1.98 Wyndham price.

So close….

Am I happy about this?  Well we own 35,000 WM credits that were bought at an average cost of 70¢ or so and if resale prices drop to 54¢ that means a loss of 16¢ each or $5,600.

Luckily we bought a NHK account 2+ years ago and when we sell our account we should, hopefully, break even with WM.  I don’t know about a profit.


Not to worry, I will keep track of which is hit first - 1) 50¢ resale credits or 2) Wyndham charging $2.16.  Either way there will be celebration in St. Louis that night.

*What to do:*

To those folks following WM should you buy now or wait for my prediction?  My recommendation is that if you buy a minimum 5k or 6k account and rent the rest you will come out ahead over time.  Don’t wait for my prediction to come true – buy now and start to exploit WM to your advantage.


----------



## PerryM (Nov 27, 2007)

*A pair of dice is better.....*



LLW said:


> Wyndham has confirmed that they voted the developer's unsold credits, for the first time in history. Those numbers are included in the first column, which they titled "Owner Votes" (the second column is "proxies" and the third column "total"), in the 3 numbers highlighted. A better-formatted table is on http://www.wmowners.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=147892#147892 .
> 
> If we exclude the developer's votes (of which there is an estimate based on their numbers) from those, each of the 3 announced winners probably got fewer real owner votes than PA. They have lost the owners' confidence. This was a HUGE NO CONFIDENCE VOTE by Worldmark owners on the developer and the board that they currently control!





LLW said:


> P.S.
> What is amazing is the % of owners at the Annual Meeting in October who challenged Wyndham in the Question & Answer period who are not www.wmowners.com regulars! Also worthy of note is the fact that the major law suit currently happening in California against Wyndham for Worldmark is brought on by owner plaintiffs not associated with wmowners.com.




We were in Vegas over Thanksgiving and each day I swiped my player card at the $2 M slot machine at Planet Hollywood (ph).  On Friday all 3 symbols of the slot machine showed "ph", well except one was half a symbol away.  I won a pair of ph dice instead.  I almost won $2 M - it made my day for about 5 seconds.

This sounds like what PA did in his pull of the lever - almost won.  But at least I won a pair of dice.

Making assumptions on the next pull of that lever may keep some in high spirits but I know the odds are with the house....

P.S.
Let me restate past posts - Wyndham will do anything, anything to keep those 5 WM BOD members loyal to Wyndham.  I'm assuming they will obey the letter of their laws, even if they need to amend those laws.

WM is a cash cow that they milk for $180,000,000 a year in MFs and then developer sales to boot.  Not giving up just 1 seat is something that has the highest of priorities at Wyndham and my bet is that they will succeed to keep all 5 in their camp for a long long time.

Of course my view of a WM owner replacing on of the 5 cronies is that the same old, same old will prevail anyway.  It's like replacing one bureaucrat with a twin.

On the positive side: Mizzou did win Saturday and I made 100% profit on my bet in Vegas.  Go Mizzou....


----------



## PA- (Nov 27, 2007)

There's no human trait more attractive than humility.  

Perry, everything you learned about the raping of worldmark by Cendant (now Trendwest) was from those who came before you, such as Thaichef, hatrack and myself on the old Worldmark forum, and ladycody, lynnc and many others on the wmowners forum and some on TUG.  If not for the countless hours of research into wyndham's hidden, back room insider dealings, you might still be buying directly from the developer, and oblivious to what's going on.

You weren't close to being the first to sound the alarm of potential erosion to the resale prices caused by wyndham, that credit goes to those that tried to educate you.

While you gleefully chuckle about "your" predictions of falling values and take full credit for other's ideas, just remember that those fractionals you purchased directly from the developer (Trendwest then, now Wyndham) stand to collapse as well.  While you assume that independents gaining control of the board will make it worse, that's an assumption only.  What's more certain is that if owners DON'T take control of the board, Wyndham's actions will erode the value of your residence club holdings.

As I and Hatrack tried to tell you during your rescinsion period, fractional timeshares have a horrible track record of maintaining their value, even worse than normal 1 week timeshares.  The only possible chance you have of not taking a bath on them is the ability to trade them in for Worldmark credits, and the ability of Worldmark credits to have value.  Otherwise, those fractionals will be worth little.  

If owners control the board, it's likely that perk will continue.  More importantly, it's possible that independent owners will be able to thwart Wyndham's intention of destroying the resale value of worldmark credits.

If Wyndham maintains control of the board, it's likely that the ability to exchange will be available only to TravelShare owners (through the TEN program), and will require a periodic buyin to TravelShare.  It's also likely that as future resorts take more credits to reserve, the value of your fractionals will be impacted negatively.  Your fractional exchange value is fixed (10,000 per red week).  If it takes 20,000 credits to reserve a week, the value of your fractional becomes half what it was.


----------



## PerryM (Nov 27, 2007)

PA- said:


> There's no human trait more attractive than humility.
> 
> Perry, everything you learned about the raping of worldmark by Cendant (now Trendwest) was from those who came before you, such as Thaichef, hatrack and myself on the old Worldmark forum, and ladycody, lynnc and many others on the wmowners forum and some on TUG.  If not for the countless hours of research into wyndham's hidden, back room insider dealings, you might still be buying directly from the developer, and oblivious to what's going on.
> 
> ...



PA,

I am one happy WM owner.  Fear mongering is practiced everyday by the Drive-By Media - many fall victim to it.

Sadly, it seems that fellow WM owners practice the same techniques and contribute to falling WM resale prices.  In fact, an entire chat room, WMowners.com is dedicated to destroying our fragile balance we currently enjoy.

If this is the cure what on earth are we fighting for - even lower WM resale prices?

This is exactly why I'm staying out of this fight and encourage others to read the rules and play the game to the best of their abilities.  

I do worry with the "Good intentions" of other WM owers who would change the rules and the game.


----------



## PA- (Nov 27, 2007)

You aren't staying out of the fight.  You're simply choosing a different side, which is your prerogative.  You advocate leaving the Wyndham incumbents on the Worldmark board, thinking that will best serve the needs of Worldmark owners.  A majority of owners disagree.


----------



## PerryM (Nov 27, 2007)

*War has collateral damage...it's inevitable*



PA- said:


> You aren't staying out of the fight.  You're simply choosing a different side, which is your prerogative.  You advocate leaving the Wyndham incumbents on the Worldmark board, thinking that will best serve the needs of Worldmark owners.  A majority of owners disagree.




Ok, I'm on the third side (side one: Wyndham's best interests, side two: PA's best interests): Perry's best interests.

I've learned the WM rules and the "work arounds" that nullify Wyndham's meddling so I simply want to continue with the current rules.  I see no reason why 249,999 other WM owners can't do the same.

As someone who just spent 4 days pulling slot machine levers/buttons I know that changing the status quo is a crap shoot.  I greatly fear WM owners, with the best of intentions, making the situation worse.  This is a very likely scenario.

I'm just one WM owner voicing my opinion, I have no vendetta, no agenda, no cause, no following, nothing but keeping the rules the way they are - I like them.

To the rest of the WM owners - are you sure things can't get worse?  You know they can.  War has collateral damages - don't be part of it.


----------



## larry_WM (Nov 27, 2007)

PerryM said:


> Ok, I'm on the third side (side one: Wyndham's best interests, side two: PA's best interests): Perry's best interests.
> 
> I've learned the WM rules and the "work arounds" that nullify Wyndham's meddling so I simply want to continue with the current rules.  I see no reason why 249,999 other WM owners can't do the same.
> 
> ...



Perry,
I know you care much about WM because you hold a big position in the club:
35,000 WM credits  + SS Residence Club. There is someone just own less than 10,000 credits and make a big whining and a lot of trouble. I am sure that he doesn't care much if the resale value go down to zero. That really make me sick ! 
 War has collateral damages  to most people, but some war mongers get rich. A lot of people still don't recognize that


----------



## PA- (Nov 27, 2007)

OK, I give, you win.

Merry Christmas, ya big lug.  Let's get together in Park City.  You're going New Year's week, aren't you?



PerryM said:


> Ok, I'm on the third side (side one: Wyndham's best interests, side two: PA's best interests): Perry's best interests.
> 
> I've learned the WM rules and the "work arounds" that nullify Wyndham's meddling so I simply want to continue with the current rules.  I see no reason why 249,999 other WM owners can't do the same.
> 
> ...


----------



## PerryM (Nov 27, 2007)

PA- said:


> OK, I give, you win.
> 
> Merry Christmas, ya big lug.  Let's get together in Park City.  You're going New Year's week, aren't you?



We will be there Dec 22-29, next year the calendar looks good for New Years week.  We will be at the Marriott MountainSide, 75' from the main lift PayDay.  Can't wait.


----------



## PA- (Nov 27, 2007)

We'll overlap one day, email if you want to get together.


----------



## PA- (Nov 27, 2007)

And leave Larry at home.  Friend of yours?


----------



## larry_WM (Nov 28, 2007)

PA- said:


> And leave Larry at home.  Friend of yours?




I let you guy  alone , hope you can convince Perry to side with you. You never can with me


----------

