Bargain Deals Forum - this bothers me

[SueDonJ]

I have not participated in this thread and certainly do not intend to do so --- other than to now openly suggest that perhaps it's time to just put it out of its' misery and just mercifully (if belatedly) close it.

While it may not be important to you it's pretty obvious that there are many TUGgers participating in this thread who use that forum and see a need to have this discussion. We all have the choice of reading and participating, or not.

 

[DeniseM]

I'm sorry but I just don't see that there's a need to parse the posts in this thread or moderate the forum in question as semantically-specific as you're making things.

Gotcha - you quoted my post, so I mistakenly thought you were responding to what I said.

As far as having experience with resales - it can be intimidating if you have never done it before. But really, it is no more difficult than buying from the developer.

With ALL timeshare purchases - you have to do your due diligence.

However, characterizing free timeshares as being far more dangerous than buying from the developer is inaccurate. Since developer sales people can be really dishonest - I have no more faith in them than in a reseller.

 

[SueDonJ]

Gotcha - you quoted my post, so I mistakenly thought you were responding to what I said.

As far as having experience with resales - it can be intimidating if you have never done it before. But really, it is no more difficult than buying from the developer.

With ALL timeshare purchases - you have to do your due diligence.

However, characterizing free timeshares as being far more dangerous than buying from the developer is inaccurate. Since developer sales people can be really dishonest - I have no more faith in them than in a reseller.

The reason I would stay away from free timeshares is because I would worry about the real possibility of being stuck leaving them to a non-performer when I'm done using them. I track the resale values of what I own and will sell them/give them away before they become zero-dollar-value intervals, knowing full well that I'll be on the losing end.

As far as buying on the resale market a few TUGgers have offered to help me if/when the time comes, with their commission being the difference between what I'll pay for what they find on the resale market and what I would pay buying from Marriott. Very generous of them, don't you think?

Honestly, if we were in the market for more timeshares I'd be looking at the resale market first. Of course, everyone should! The industry functions a whole lot differently now than when we first got into it.

 

[DeniseM]

I track the resale values of what I own and will sell them/give them away before they become zero-dollar-value intervals, knowing full well that I'll be on the losing end.

If that happens while you are still actively using them, will you still sell them at that point?

 

[SueDonJ]

If that happens while you are still actively using them, will you still sell them at that point?

I think so unless either of our kids will commit to eventually taking them, fully realizing that they'll be on the hook despite however low the value goes during their ownership.

 

[DeniseM]

That's interesting. If I was actively using a timeshare, I wouldn't care about the resale value. I'd keep using it until I didn't want it any more.

That includes my one developer purchase that we paid about $55K for. I literally don't care if they are all worth 0 dollars eventually. That doesn't factor in to my thought process at all.

In the last year, we gave away two 0 dollar timeshares, because I acquired a few new ones, and they no longer served their original purpose.

 

[davidvel]

Question for Sue and davidvel:

Have you ever bought on the resale market?

Yes, I did.

 

[SueDonJ]

That's interesting. If I was actively using a timeshare, I wouldn't care about the resale value. I'd keep using it until I didn't want it any more.

That includes my one developer purchase that we paid about $55K for. I literally don't care if they are all worth 0 dollars eventually. That doesn't factor in to my thought process at all.

In the last year, we gave away two 0 dollar timeshares, because I acquired a few new ones, and they no longer served their original purpose.

Understand, I'm not saying your way is wrong. But for some of us it's not a position we want to find ourselves in.

 

[DeniseM]

Understand, I'm not saying your way is wrong. But for some of us it's not a position we want to find ourselves in.

Reading between the lines, you would be selling it because you would be concerned that you couldn't give it away - not to get some money out of it?

So, question two - if you were 100% sure you could give it away, would you still sell it before it reached $0?

 

[Saintsfanfl]

Reading between the lines, you would be selling it because you would be concerned that you couldn't give it away - not to get some money out of it?

So, question two - if you were 100% sure you could give it away, would you still sell it before it reached $0?

I do this same analysis on anything I buy. I want to make sure it is not too difficult to unload. A decent value trader today might not be so good in 3-5 years. Or maybe a decent unit for owner usage is not being maintained or reserves accrued which could spell big trouble in 5-10 years.

 

[SueDonJ]

Reading between the lines, you would be selling it because you would be concerned that you couldn't give it away - not to get some money out of it?

So, question two - if you were 100% sure you could give it away, would you still sell it before it reached $0?

Yes, you've got it. I would be concerned that upon reaching zero-dollar-value it might be difficult - or maybe more correctly, more difficult than I want to deal with - to even give it away at any point after that.

If I could be guaranteed that I would always be able to re-home it ethically* despite a zero dollar value on the resale market, I'd probably keep using it and make sure my kids understand that they'll never get a better timeshare deal than the one they could inherit. The only guarantee I'd be willing to think of as a 100% certainty, though, is one that Marriott would put in writing for me that they'll always be willing to take it back.

*Denise, like you I personally think ethics come into play with this aspect of timeshares (though certainly not all aspects) and it's my responsibility to do whatever I can to make sure that my timeshares don't end up with someone/a company who doesn't care if they eventually end up non-performing. But in my view "ethics" aren't an obligation that's legally-required of any timeshare owner, so I understand why some don't agree with the opinion you and I share. It's perfectly fine with me for others to disagree with us. I just want to make it clear that I understand the importance of why/how the Bargain Deals forum can either hurt or help the "ethics" angle, as well as why for some that's just not a concern.

 

[DeniseM]

That makes sense. I am confident that I can re-home any timeshare that I own to someone who actually wants it, and that is why I am not concerned about the resale value to begin with, or down the road.

I don't consider timeshares to be a financial investment, so the resale value itself, isn't a concern to me, if the timeshare still meets my needs.

However, I do realize that if my Hawaii resorts take a direct hit from a tsunami, that I will be in deep doo doo. But that is the trade off for owning at an ocean front resort in Hawaii.

Of course, I can't predict what will happen with special assessments, new management companies, or North Korea, but I still like the odds!

 

[SueDonJ]

That makes sense. I am confident that I can re-home any timeshare that I own to someone who actually wants it, and that is why I am not concerned about the resale value to begin with, or down the road.

I don't consider timeshares to be a financial investment, so the resale value itself, isn't a concern to me, if the timeshare still meets my needs.

However, I do realize that if my Hawaii resorts take a direct hit from a tsunami, that I will be in deep doo doo. But that is the trade off for owning at an ocean front resort in Hawaii.

Of course, I can't predict what will happen with special assessments, new management companies, or North Korea, but I still like the odds!

We're in perfect agreement that timeshares aren't a financial investment. I've never thought so, and have defended that position more times than can be counted here on TUG.

 

[TUGBrian]

Its been an eye opening discussion no doubt...however the fact remains...I dont feel at the current time there are any gross violations of rules (or even the spirit of the rules) in the bargain deals section, and trolling is for the most part looked down upon in all threads on TUG....and will be dealt with on a case by case basis by moderators and admin staff who tend to have their heads screwed on pretty well to act in what they feel is the best interest of the forum and its rules.

 

[Seadawg]

Timeshares are not a financial investment but they a an investment in you long term vacation planning.

I have reached a point where planning vacations and taking them more important than stuff. So for my situation resorts work. To each their own

 

[csxjohn]

"You are permitted to post your own timeshare ads, however if the price asked is not a "smoking deal" your ad is subject to removal!

Who will decide...well the members of course. While some "deals" will be painfully obvious, many others will fall to the fate of the people! If the masses say your post isnt a smoking deal...then OFF WITH ITS HEAD! :rofl:"

So, based on the existing forum rules I'd say that if somebody puts a price to a timeshare claiming it's a bargain, the members are free to add facts about the current resale market that either support or refute that claim. If it's supported, I wouldn't expect For Sale items to be moderated off of the forum.

I disagree, if you think the deal is not good enough to be in the Bargain Deals, then I think you should hit the triangle and report the post. If the mods get enough alerts they can determine the consensus then delete it if they want.

I know when I advertised the rings, the mods were alerted and Denise posted that the ad was allowed to stay. Had they complained that the price wasn't a smoking deal the outcome may have been different.

 

[SueDonJ]

I disagree, if you think the deal is not good enough to be in the Bargain Deals, then I think you should hit the triangle and report the post. If the mods get enough alerts they can determine the consensus then delete it if they want.

I know when I advertised the rings, the mods were alerted and Denise posted that the ad was allowed to stay. Had they complained that the price wasn't a smoking deal the outcome may have been different.

But the rules say that the members' opinions are what determine whether something's a bargain or not. As a moderator I wouldn't want the responsibility of making that determination for any- and everything that's offered on the forum, especially considering that some Members might report any negativity whether it's justified or not. And I think any TUG Members who are familiar with what's being offered should be able to have a healthy debate about it, which is I think what the rules say?

 

[dioxide45]

The forum was originally started to sell anything (not just timeshares) that is a "smoking deal". It evolved into a giveaway timeshare forum.

By the very definition of the posting rules almost all of the listings are in violation of the posting rules. There is a fair deal for a free timeshare but that by no means makes it a "smoking deal".

I love the forum and not saying it should be re-purposed but the posting rules should probably be updated.

A few months ago there was a Bargain Deal post with a number of mandatory Starwood weeks. They all had a purchase price well north of closing costs and buyer was responsible for closing costs as well as repaying current year fees. I did consider them and ran the numbers. They weren't a smoking deal for me, but they may have been for someone using them as an add on to existing Starwood ownership. Should these weeks have been advertised in the Bargain Deals for free, or should they have actually have been posted to the Marketplace?

I am not sure if the rules need to be updated. This is a pretty long thread for something that doesn't seem to be an overly big problem. Perhaps it should only allow $1 timeshares?

 

[Pathways]

On the original subject, I too have noticed there are some bargain ads that are posted and not long after, people who have no interest whatsoever in the item feel a need to interject negative comments. I always feel bad the OP and wonder if they will have the courage to ever list another item.

Ron - I think if you ran a hamburger stand there are a few here who would stand in the parking lot telling all who ventured near that the place down the street sells their burgers for $1.00 less.

There are a number of posters here who from all appearances have one goal in mind: to increase their total number of posts. The lack of any sort of proofreading from some (I'm not talking about simple spelling or grammar, but words that change the entire meaning of a sentence) makes me wonder if they are driving and posting at the same time.

On another thread started today, by maybe the fourth post the reply made it clear the poster had not taken even two minutes to read the posts they were replying to. They were just in a hurry to 'get their two cents in'

 

[csxjohn]

But the rules say that the members' opinions are what determine whether something's a bargain or not. As a moderator I wouldn't want the responsibility of making that determination for any- and everything that's offered on the forum, especially considering that some Members might report any negativity whether it's justified or not. And I think any TUG Members who are familiar with what's being offered should be able to have a healthy debate about it, which is I think what the rules say?

I'm not saying the mods need to week through the comments for negativity. I'm saying that if someone thinks it's not a smoking deal they should report it as such, not say it in the thread itself.

If enough peeps report it then the mod have to think, hey, maybe this doesn't belong.

 

[MSchleicher]

I'm not saying the mods need to week through the comments for negativity. I'm saying that if someone thinks it's not a smoking deal they should report it as such, not say it in the thread itself.

If nobody believes it is a bargain, why not just let the thread fall behind in the pages due to inactivity? In the event that somebody finds it to be a bargain, they will reply or PM the owner. By reporting the thread and having it removed, TUG members that may find it to be a bargain for them will not be able to pursue it.

 

[dioxide45]

On the original subject, I too have noticed there are some bargain ads that are posted and not long after, people who have no interest whatsoever in the item feel a need to interject negative comments. I always feel bad the OP and wonder if they will have the courage to ever list another item.

Ron - I think if you ran a hamburger stand there are a few here who would stand in the parking lot telling all who ventured near that the place down the street sells their burgers for $1.00 less.

There are a number of posters here who from all appearances have one goal in mind: to increase their total number of posts. The lack of any sort of proofreading from some (I'm not talking about simple spelling or grammar, but words that change the entire meaning of a sentence) makes me wonder if they are driving and posting at the same time.

On another thread started today, by maybe the fourth post the reply made it clear the poster had not taken even two minutes to read the posts they were replying to. They were just in a hurry to 'get their two cents in'

Do tell, we want to see said examples...

 

[Talent312]

[P]eople who have no interest whatsoever... feel a need to interject negative comments....

Too many negative waves all around...

From "Kelly's Heros" (1970) --

Oddball (Donald Sutherland): Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?

Moriarty (Gavin MacLeod): Crap!

Oddball: Always with the negative waves, Moriarty. Always with the negative waves.

.

 

[comicbookman]

Do tell, we want to see said examples...

Do we really need to call people out in this thread? I can think of several that fit the description you are referring to, but do not feel the need to put other members on the spot.

 

[dioxide45]

Do we really need to call people out in this thread? I can think of several that fit the description you are referring to, but do not feel the need to put other members on the spot.

I just thought the overall post was odd. Why bring attention to it at all? It seemed rather out of place. Perhaps I don't nit pick at details and can determine what people meant instead of concerning myself with their grammar or spelling. We aren't writing literature here.