# Didn't pass



## Zac495 (Nov 18, 2009)

My 1880 point EOY Coconut plantation for 3200 didn't pass. Too good to be true. Oh well.


----------



## Kal (Nov 18, 2009)

The owner's sale to Hyatt was an incredible deal for Hyatt at $3,200.  They'll add it to their inventory and sell it themselves.


----------



## dmbrand (Nov 18, 2009)

How disappointing for you, Ellen. You seemed so excited about it in the beginning.   Are you going to try for another?


----------



## AwayWeGo (Nov 18, 2009)

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




Kal said:


> The owner's sale to Hyatt was an incredible deal for Hyatt at $3,200.  They'll add it to their inventory and sell it themselves.


Yeh -- 1 more instance of ROFR springing into action to keep the resale price from "going too low." 

I'm sure the seller was glad for that. 

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


----------



## timeos2 (Nov 18, 2009)

*Help support your local developer! They need your help!*



AwayWeGo said:


> Yeh -- 1 more instance of ROFR springing into action to keep the resale price from "going too low."
> 
> I'm sure the seller was glad for that.
> 
> -- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​



Yup - the seller got the $3200 and the real buyer got shafted. That sure helped prop up the price, no? Hope the owners are happy helping the developer make even more money off of them.  I sure feel better knowing they can screw over owners even after they took them for outrageous purchase and ongoing fee expenses. Makes the whole system look real good to potential buyers....


----------



## dougp26364 (Nov 18, 2009)

timeos2 said:


> Yup - the seller got the $3200 and the real buyer got shafted. That sure helped prop up the price, no? Hope the owners are happy helping the developer make even more money off of them.  I sure feel better knowing they can screw over owners even after they took them for outrageous purchase and ongoing fee expenses. Makes the whole system look real good to potential buyers....



If I was selling, it wouldn't matter to me who paid the premium. All that would matter is that I got paid. 

I sure wish my Polo Towers units had ROFR. If they did, I'd have sold them to the highest bidder a couple of years ago. As it is now I'd be lucky to get a couple of hundred dollars for them.

As a buyer, ROFR isn't a great thing. As an owner looking to sell it's seems pretty darn good to me. ROFR is good or bad depending upon which side of the coin you're looking at.


----------



## Steve (Nov 18, 2009)

It's NOT necessary to turn this thread into another battle over the merits...or lack thereof...of Right of First Refusal.  I don't believe that was Ellen's intent in her original post.  That topic has been debated in dozens of threads. If you want to argue it out again...and you know who you are...please either add to one of the existing threads or start a new one.  Please stop the hi-jacking of this one.

Steve
TUG Moderator


----------



## timeos2 (Nov 18, 2009)

*They don't find a buyer - you have to. Then they aren't allowed to buy! Not good plan*



dougp26364 said:


> If I was selling, it wouldn't matter to me who paid the premium. All that would matter is that I got paid.
> 
> I sure wish my Polo Towers units had ROFR. If they did, I'd have sold them to the highest bidder a couple of years ago. As it is now I'd be lucky to get a couple of hundred dollars for them.
> 
> As a buyer, ROFR isn't a great thing. As an owner looking to sell it's seems pretty darn good to me. ROFR is good or bad depending upon which side of the coin you're looking at.



But Doug it would still be up to YOU to find the buyer even if ROFR existed. And it's tough when the potential buyer knows they will be shafted so why offer anything but a tiny amount? If it goes great - if not then you get that few hundred anyway - just the same price you would have got without ROFR. So how is it helping you? In fact the case studies say you would have done better if the ROFR wasn't hanging over the buyer as they would bid more if they actually thought they would be buying the week(s) for that. 

ROFR is not a friend to any buyer or seller and only further muddies an already cloudy resale water.  If a week is virtually worthless on resale it is worthless with or without ROFR. But most likely worth even slightly less if ROFR is involved.


----------



## Kal (Nov 18, 2009)

Back to the original issue. Ellen, this transaction could help define what Hyatt considers as "bargain give-aways". Now you know your offer price needs to be higher if you are to be successful. This is one of the first ROFR losses I have seen for some time so it's clear that Hyatt is staying out of the resale side EXCEPT for certain cases.

* Bargain give-aways

* The marketing dept has a list of buyers waiting for a specific unit/week

In this case the Marketing Dept may very likely have looked at the deal then contacted someone who they had talked to and wanted a call-back if something game up.

Hyatt currently is not trying to enhance their inventory of unsold units as once the unit is in their inventory it has to be sold at the Hyatt "scheduled price list". You can believe this unit will NOT be sold at 2x or 3x the price Hyatt paid for it. However, since Hyatt's book value of the unit is so very low, the only impact on cash flow is to current owners IF it stays in inventory and is not sold. Accordingly, the resort operating budget will not receive the annual maintenance fee for that unit.


----------



## timeos2 (Nov 18, 2009)

*They own it - they pay*



Kal said:


> Hyatt currently is not trying to enhance their inventory of unsold units as once the unit is in their inventory it has to be sold at the Hyatt "scheduled price list". You can believe this unit will NOT be sold at 2x or 3x the price Hyatt paid for it. However, since Hyatt's book value of the unit is so very low, the only impact on cash flow is to current owners IF it stays in inventory and is not sold. Accordingly, the resort operating budget will not receive the annual maintenance fee for that unit.



What? No way! If it remained unsold when fees are due you had better believe Hyatt owes the full annual fee as THEY OWN IT.  There is no reason they could claim they don't owe it as the week was sold and paying, they stole it back so it is not a new week for sale with any abatement on fees but just another week with an owner (Hyatt) that owes the fee.  Not that they wouldn't try to weasel out of payment I'm sure but its up to the  Association Board and owners to be sure that type of trick is not happening. Another reason ROFR is not a friend to anyone but the Developer and why it's doubly important to watch every move they make.


----------



## Kal (Nov 18, 2009)

timeos2 said:


> What? No way! If it remained unsold when fees are due you had better believe Hyatt owes the full annual fee as THEY OWN IT...


 
In a theoretical world.  Do you have factual information to support that notion?


----------



## timeos2 (Nov 18, 2009)

*It isn't virgin unsold time anymore, they owe the fees*



Kal said:


> In a theoretical world.  Do you have factual information to support that notion?



Yes. Who owns the week now? It can't be the Association as they don't buy weeks (do they?).  It isn't the original buyer as they lost it to a grab by ROFR. It isn't the new willing buyer as they lost it to ROFR grab by, guess who, the NEW owner - Hyatt! 

Does Hyatt pay for unsold weeks they still have at the resort? They should be but it is possible that they wrote a sweetheart deal for themselves that somehow says they don't have to pay for unsold weeks or only pay under certain circumstances such as use for marketing or rental, etc. But that wouldn't apply to a week that was sold, deeded out of the unsold inventory but then repurchased through ROFR.  Those weeks are not unsold inventory anymore but repurchased inventory now owned outright by Hyatt.  No exemptions would apply to those. They owe the full fee. 

We fought that battle with a couple of developers at different resorts. Despite their claims that exemptions applied to any inventory they held that proved to be wrong. Once it is sold they cannot unring the bell by buying it back and claiming it as original, unsold inventory.  They owe the fees. If they don't want to pay them then they shouldn't buy the time or use ROFR to steal it.


----------



## pianodinosaur (Nov 18, 2009)

Zac495 said:


> My 1880 point EOY Coconut plantation for 3200 didn't pass. Too good to be true. Oh well.



ZAC495: 

I am sorry that you Coconut plantation purchase did not work out.  Since Hyatt is to some extent a point based system, you might be able to purchase a unit at a less popular Hyatt destination with the same number of points for the same amount.


----------



## ScoopKona (Nov 18, 2009)

Kal said:


> In a theoretical world.  Do you have factual information to support that notion?



I know for a fact that Hyatt Vacation Marketing is paying the maintenance fee. (Well, I know for a fact they did three years ago when I was working there.) They're using that unit for their Mini-Vac program, and getting four potential buyers each year in front of a salesman because of it. They're also renting the prime weeks out. 

It's a bargain for Hyatt any way you look at it.

Also, ROFR helps Hyatt's sales line make more sales by being able to show that Hyatt actually exercises it once in a while.

When I was selling for Hyatt, they exercised it more than they seem to now. I had a customer who got booted three times by ROFR and finally paid developer price because nobody was selling the week he wanted.


----------



## tombo (Nov 19, 2009)

ScoopLV said:


> When I was selling for Hyatt, they exercised it more than they seem to now. I had a customer who got booted three times by ROFR and finally paid developer price because nobody was selling the week he wanted.



Don't you know that poor soul wishes that he had waited. They are currently ROFR'ing what one out of every 1000, 5,000, 10,000 resales? If he had just kept trying he would have owned a cheap resale that he could sell without too much monetary loss rather than a purchase which is worth 20% or less of what he paid.

Never raise your price to beat ROFR!!!! Buy a week resale as cheap as you can. If the resort steals it from you using ROFR simply repeat the process until you actually own a week (if you feel like you just have to own a week at that resort). However I am one of the many who will never buy again at any resort that has ROFR in the contract. It isn't worth the grief you go through as a buyer or as a seller, and I have been on both sides in the past. You offer the seller more than anyone else will offer him for his week (including the developer who won't offer a penny) and then when you agree on the purchase the resort gets to steal it from you if they think you bought it for a really good price. Then when I wanted to sell did the developer offer me $1 for my week or help me find a buyer? Not a chance. I advertised for months and had several potential buyers tell me that they would like to buy my week for a price I would have taken but that it wasn't worth it because they had had one or more weeks stolen from them in the past by ROFR, so they wouldn't make me a formal offer to submit to ROFR. I finally on my own found a buyer who would take my week off of my hands for a price that was acceptable to me and him, and the man who finally got me out of that high MF week didn't get to own the week because it was stolen from him. I didn't get a penny more from the developer than he offered, so he should have been the rightful owner. If he hadn't made me an offer I mght still own the week. He said he will never make an offer on a week with that developer again, so ROFR turned yet another potential owner into a person who never will be an owner.

All I can say is never again will I personally buy  weeks/points at an ROFR resort, even in these times when the weeks are cheap and the resorts are rarely if ever ROFR'ing, because eventually I will want to sell the week and ROFR makes that hard to do by reducing the number of potential buyers. If I own a week I should be able to sell it to anyone I want for any price I want. Would you buy a house or car where the builder or manufacturer said that they had first right to buy it back for any price you could sell it for? No of course not. If you want to sell your car to your friend for a cheap price you can do it because you paid for it so YOU OWN IT!! You don't have to ask Ford's permission to sell your car you paid for in full, and that you have paid annually to maintain. Only timeshare developers feel that even though you have paid them in full to buy your week that they still can tell you who you can sell it to and for what price. Just say no to any resort who has ROFR.


----------



## Zac495 (Nov 19, 2009)

Steve said:


> It's NOT necessary to turn this thread into another battle over the merits...or lack thereof...of Right of First Refusal.  I don't believe that was Ellen's intent in her original post.  That topic has been debated in dozens of threads. If you want to argue it out again...and you know who you are...please either add to one of the existing threads or start a new one.  Please stop the hi-jacking of this one.
> 
> Steve
> TUG Moderator



No - that  certainly wasn't my intent. I was just letting you all know since I figured you'd be interested. The agent said she thinks because it was an odd year, the resort was happy to sit on it. she's going to try to find an even year for a similar price. Until then, I'll rent. 

Oh - and I'm not raising my offer. I'll try again - same price (within a hundred bucks). If it doesn't work, oh well.


----------

