Kaanapali vote to offer 33 units as float

[WalnutBaron]

I agree, John. To me, ownership in Hawaii--like ski weeks in Colorado or California--are definitely not for trading, either within HRC or II, for that matter. Hawaii MF's are higher than just about anyplace else in the world, owing to high energy costs in Hawaii, high taxes, high costs of maintenance, and other costs which are borne by the owners through their MF's. When one buys in Hawaii, it's because they've decided they love Hawaii and want to go there every year. It's a commitment--and worth the higher cost as long as the units are used for Hawaii and not for trading to Florida or Arizona, for example.

 

[Kal]

My guess is there are all kinds of things going on behind the curtain, none of which would be good for the current owners or the buyers of those 33 units.

The resort is already a floating points system where you can use the point value of the owned week to stay in a different week, or days, in a different size unit. So why the change?? Buyers would have to fight for the "best weeks".

The first thing that comes to mind is to boost sales beyond the current 50% level for the resort. Then why 33 units? Maybe that's what you get when you add up units where the "floor groupings" show 50 continuous weeks of unsold units. Those units were held by the developer, so there would be no impact to current owners on availability.

Then I see the PPP coming into play where they want to do anything possible to include Maui in the portfolio. For this to work, these 33 units would be outside the HRC system.

And there's the issue of multi developers in the resort. Maybe one developer wanted to go into the PPP while the others wanted to stay in the HRC. Who knows???

For an owner to be fully informed, he/she would want to see ALL the fine print. This wasn't something that Hyatt thought up overnight. Open the curtain to see what's behind this offer. Based on past history, there will be very little supporting documentation, other than vote YES or NO.

 

[lizap]

Already difficult, but likely going to make it that much harder for other HRC owners to exchange into HKB. Sure glad we own a mandatory Westin.. Any way to encourage other owners to vote 'no' or is this a 'done 'deal?

 

[Kal]

Already difficult, but likely going to make it that much harder for other HRC owners to exchange into HKB. Sure glad we own a mandatory Westin.. Any way to encourage other owners to vote 'no' or is this a 'done 'deal?

I say this is a done deal. If less than 50% of the units are sold, that means >50% of the units are held by the developers. All they want is to sell units and get their capital back, so they will likely vote YES. Hyatt probably worked the deal with the developers in advance so as to avoid a negative outcome.

 

[lizap]

I say this is a done deal. If less than 50% of the units are sold, that means >50% of the units are held by the developers. All they want is to sell units and get their capital back, so they will likely vote YES. Hyatt probably worked the deal with the developers in advance so as to avoid a negative outcome.

Kal, if less than half of the units are sold, why is it so hard for existing HRC owners to book there? Do we not have access to this inventory?

 

[Kal]

Kal, if less than half of the units are sold, why is it so hard for existing HRC owners to book there? Do we not have access to this inventory?

HRC members only have access to HRC units which have been deposited into the Club. Other units are held by the developer and they can do anything they desire with those units. Renting would be preferable, but using them for sales development (i.e. low cost Hyatt 3-4 day stays) and of course they could turn them into the Club. In the later case, they might not get anything in return as the Club is a points transaction and not cash.

 

[lizap]

HRC members only have access to HRC units which have been deposited into the Club. Other units are held by the developer and they can do anything they desire with those units. Renting would be preferable, but using them for sales development (i.e. low cost Hyatt 3-4 day stays) and of course they could turn them into the Club. In the later case, they might not get anything in return as the Club is a points transaction and not cash.

Might be a good strategy for the developer to put more inventory in for HRC owners. If we can visit, we just might decide to buy there. Guess this is too logical...

 

[ocjohn]

I just received an email below regarding this... and from it it appears they have 33 units left ("our remaining..."). There are 131 units total per the sales brochure. Per the By Laws re Amendments (section 11), 67% of eligible votes must be obtained to amend the by-laws.

So, looks to me like there are 131 units * 52 weeks / year = 6,812 votes possible. 67% of that would be 4,564
and the developer has
33 units * 52 weeks = 1,716 votes

So if I'm right they can't "slam" this without existing owners actively voting for it.

SO- IF YOU DON'T LIKE THIS IDEA- DON'T VOTE FOR IT! (-:


Aloha Hyatt Residence Club Maui Owner,

You may have received in the mail already a proposed amendment to release our remaining 33 2-bedroom units as "floating" units (weeks 1 to 50). This amendment to the use plan requires approval from Maui owners. If you have not done so already, please complete the attached proxy and return it to me via email adam.alexander@hyattresidenceclub.com or fax to my attention 808-662-4701. Your response is greatly appreciated!

If you have any questions about the proposed amendment or anything else relating to your Maui ownership (such as upgrading or adding a 2-bedroom floating week to your portfolio), please don't hesitate to contact me. It's my pleasure to assist you.

Aloha,

Adam


-------------------------------
Adam Alexander
Sales Operations Manager
Ka'anapali Beach - A Hyatt Residence Club

 

[Kal]

Normally, only about 20-25% of the owners vote. As expected, there are few if any details on how this impacts current owners.

As of last March they had sold less than 60 units. So in the last 3 months they sold 40 units?

At least these word are coming from a timeshare sales person. For sure, 110% of it is absolutely TRUE. Would a huckster say something otherwise?

 

[lizap]

Any way to get the word out to current owners to vote "no"? Is there a list of owners somewhere?

I just received an email below regarding this... and from it it appears they have 33 units left ("our remaining..."). There are 131 units total per the sales brochure. Per the By Laws re Amendments (section 11), 67% of eligible votes must be obtained to amend the by-laws.

So, looks to me like there are 131 units * 52 weeks / year = 6,812 votes possible. 67% of that would be 4,564
and the developer has
33 units * 52 weeks = 1,716 votes

So if I'm right they can't "slam" this without existing owners actively voting for it.

SO- IF YOU DON'T LIKE THIS IDEA- DON'T VOTE FOR IT! (-:


Aloha Hyatt Residence Club Maui Owner,

You may have received in the mail already a proposed amendment to release our remaining 33 2-bedroom units as "floating" units (weeks 1 to 50). This amendment to the use plan requires approval from Maui owners. If you have not done so already, please complete the attached proxy and return it to me via email adam.alexander@hyattresidenceclub.com or fax to my attention 808-662-4701. Your response is greatly appreciated!

If you have any questions about the proposed amendment or anything else relating to your Maui ownership (such as upgrading or adding a 2-bedroom floating week to your portfolio), please don't hesitate to contact me. It's my pleasure to assist you.

Aloha,

Adam


-------------------------------
Adam Alexander
Sales Operations Manager
Ka'anapali Beach - A Hyatt Residence Club

 

[WalnutBaron]

Any way to get the word out to current owners to vote "no"? Is there a list of owners somewhere?

Unfortunately, the only owner's list that exists is in the possession of HRC, and there is no way in the world--at any price--they're going to release it. Honestly, that is one of the real downsides of owning a timeshare as part of one of the big development companies: they have, as Kal has intimated, pretty much complete control of how the property is run and managed. On very rare occasions, owners have been able to wrest control from the developer, but that usually only happens with smaller, independent resorts.

 

[Pathways]

The weeks they are looking to convert to float are 1-50 in the 33 units. So it isn't less desirable weeks. It looks to perhaps be units where they haven't sold a single week from yet. So they are unbroken units. They will sell weeks 51 and 52 at fixed. So they will have a season that is weeks 1-50 at these 33 units. It is quite possible that they will dump them in to the new Pure Points since that will just be a land based trust.

Edited to add: Thinking about this more. Hyatt doesn't need the weeks to be floating in order to dump them in to Pure Points. They could do that now with any week at any resort. Not sure the motive behind this. It is probably easier to sell a float week given how the industry has changed.

Since we are all speculating, I will go with the above and add:

To 'sell' the points program, reasonable availability must be there for most of the year. Marriott didn't have this problem because they had floating weeks. Just have one week available in each season, and voila! You can say there is availability any week you want!

Hyatt can't do this in their current resort portfolio, so must buy up weeks throughout the year. Imagine how much that would cost at Ka'anapali Beach. If they could change it to floating, they would theoretically need only one week and they could add Hawaii to the points program.

Thoughts?

 

[WalnutBaron]

Theoretically, you're right. But would ILG/Hyatt really want to risk creating a Wyndham-like fiasco at HKB by selling points in a system where--realistically--points owners cannot ever seem to get a reservation confirmed at one of the most desirable locations in the HRP system? I doubt it. ILG needs to make sure HRP works, and that happy HRP owners are passing the word along. If a groundswell of discontent is expressed on these boards or on TripAdvisor or other social media, that will not be good for ILG.

 

[dioxide45]

Theoretically, you're right. But would ILG/Hyatt really want to risk creating a Wyndham-like fiasco at HKB by selling points in a system where--realistically--points owners cannot ever seem to get a reservation confirmed at one of the most desirable locations in the HRP system? I doubt it. ILG needs to make sure HRP works, and that happy HRP owners are passing the word along. If a groundswell of discontent is expressed on these boards or on TripAdvisor or other social media, that will not be good for ILG.

This isn't any different from any other points overlay or trust based points program. DRI started adding mainland resorts to the Hawaii trust so they could sell more cheap to develop points with access to Hawaii. Marriott has the same problem in a lot of their South Carolina properties. Vistana sells properties with having the ability to reserve Hawaii, St John and the Bahamas. St John is especially difficult to get with StarOptions, but it doesn't stop them from touting it as an available reservation with StarOptions from your Vistana Villages week in Orlando.

Having about a quarter of the units at Ka'anapali in the trust is actually pretty good considering that many of Marriott's properties are less than 15%. I would see no issue with them having 33 units available for Pure Points reservations. I don't see why Hyatt/ILG would want to do this differently. Having the ability to tell potential customers that they can reserve Hawaii with their pure points is a HUGE selling point, even if the prospect of actually getting it is small. Still though, with 33 available units, the prospects may actually be fairly good.

 

[Pathways]

• Agree totally!....but then, the "fiasco" at Wyndham, (other than the new website) hasn't slowed sales one bit, and their stock just keeps on rolling!
• As far as the 33 units, I don't see where they would even need all of them. They could still sell a lot of them conventionally

 

[dioxide45]

I just received an email below regarding this... and from it it appears they have 33 units left ("our remaining..."). There are 131 units total per the sales brochure. Per the By Laws re Amendments (section 11), 67% of eligible votes must be obtained to amend the by-laws.

So, looks to me like there are 131 units * 52 weeks / year = 6,812 votes possible. 67% of that would be 4,564
and the developer has
33 units * 52 weeks = 1,716 votes

So if I'm right they can't "slam" this without existing owners actively voting for it.

SO- IF YOU DON'T LIKE THIS IDEA- DON'T VOTE FOR IT! (-:


Aloha Hyatt Residence Club Maui Owner,

You may have received in the mail already a proposed amendment to release our remaining 33 2-bedroom units as "floating" units (weeks 1 to 50). This amendment to the use plan requires approval from Maui owners. If you have not done so already, please complete the attached proxy and return it to me via email adam.alexander@hyattresidenceclub.com or fax to my attention 808-662-4701. Your response is greatly appreciated!

If you have any questions about the proposed amendment or anything else relating to your Maui ownership (such as upgrading or adding a 2-bedroom floating week to your portfolio), please don't hesitate to contact me. It's my pleasure to assist you.

Aloha,

Adam


-------------------------------
Adam Alexander
Sales Operations Manager
Ka'anapali Beach - A Hyatt Residence Club

Normally, only about 20-25% of the owners vote. As expected, there are few if any details on how this impacts current owners.

As of last March they had sold less than 60 units. So in the last 3 months they sold 40 units?

At least these word are coming from a timeshare sales person. For sure, 110% of it is absolutely TRUE. Would a huckster say something otherwise?

With Hyatt able to vote in block all of those 33 units, plus any other units that they still happen to own, I suspect it will be pretty easy to pass given how few owners actually vote. If all they have lefts is the 33 units and less than 15% of the other owners vote and all voted no, this will still go through. I suspect that they have other weeks, just that some of them are already broken with some of the prime weeks sold and they can't include those in those they convert to float.

 

[Pathways]

I just received an email below regarding this... and from it it appears they have 33 units left ("our remaining..."). There are 131 units total per the sales brochure. Per the By Laws re Amendments (section 11), 67% of eligible votes must be obtained to amend the by-laws.

Just curious - Is this By Law 67% of the votes available, or cast?

Ie: If you don't vote, does that lower the threshold needed to pass the amendment?

Sorry, typing while you pretty much answered this

 

[Kal]

This proposal really doesn't pass the sniff test. If passed, there will be two classes of owners. Those with a fixed week and those with floating weeks. Hyatt would have to set aside those floating weeks to accommodate the float owners. Sounds kinda like a "portfolio"? This should prevent the HRC fixed week people from getting access to the floating weeks, and vice-versa the floater people should not access the HRC points usage weeks. If not, the HRC people will be at a distinct disadvantage.

Yes, Hyatt is clearly up to something evil.

 

[ocjohn]

Hey everyone. My better half is a lawyer, and I finally got him to look into this.
What I was looking at before are bylaws. The proposal is to amend the CC&Rs. Different Rules.

In order to amend the CC&Rs, a special meeting of the owners must be called. In order for the special meeting to be valid, it must have a quorum. A quorum means at 50% of the owners (including the developer as owners of the unsold units) attend or give proxies to Hyatt to vote. Once a quorum is reached, then the amendment to the CC&Rs can pass so long as at least 50% of the attendees approve.

So, here's the math. There are 131 units x 52 weeks = 6,812 owners. In order for a quorum to exist to run the special meeting, 3,406 owners must attend or give proxies. We suspect the developer owns the remaining 33 unsold units which they want to convert to floating. So, 33 units x 52 weeks = 1,716 "owners" are the developer. Since we know the developer will attend, that means they need another 1,690 owners to attend or submit proxies.

Let's assume exactly 1,690 other owners attend or give proxies. Now, a quorum exists. So, in order for the amendment to pass, 50% of the attendees (3,406 owners x 50%) or 1,703 owners must approve of it. Given that the developer already has 1,716 votes, the amendment passes.

So, the bottom line is this: if you don't want this to happen, you cannot submit anything. This prevents the developer from getting a quorum. If the developer gets a quorum, game over. This is most important: you can't even vote No. Once you vote No, you are helping the developer get a quorum. The only way your No vote helps is if almost everyone submits a No vote so that it overwhelms the developer's Yes votes.

 

[dioxide45]

This proposal really doesn't pass the sniff test. If passed, there will be two classes of owners. Those with a fixed week and those with floating weeks. Hyatt would have to set aside those floating weeks to accommodate the float owners. Sounds kinda like a "portfolio"? This should prevent the HRC fixed week people from getting access to the floating weeks, and vice-versa the floater people should not access the HRC points usage weeks. If not, the HRC people will be at a distinct disadvantage.

Yes, Hyatt is clearly up to something evil.

Aren't fixed owners tied to their week and unit already? Aren't they fixed week fixed units? So the 33 units being float really has no impact on existing fixed owners. If Hyatt decides to sell these as float instead of points, then there is still no impact since those float owners would be reserving in to one of the 33 units. If a float owner books inside the club using the points assigned to their float week to stay at another property, then that float week opens up to others using points in the club. No? I don't really see how there is any impact on other owners at Ka'anapali. If they put the float weeks in to Pure Points, then I can see an impact to owners at other properties trying to use points to book in to Ka'anapali since they will effectively be locked out of these units unless an owner of these units book in to another week through the club.

I just don't see how there can be any impact to current owners that own fixed weeks.

 

[Pathways]

Aren't fixed owners tied to their week and unit already? Aren't they fixed week fixed units? So the 33 units being float really has no impact on existing fixed owners. If Hyatt decides to sell these as float instead of points, then there is still no impact since those float owners would be reserving in to one of the 33 units. If a float owner books inside the club using the points assigned to their float week to stay at another property, then that float week opens up to others using points in the club. No? I don't really see how there is any impact on other owners at Ka'anapali. If they put the float weeks in to Pure Points, then I can see an impact to owners at other properties trying to use points to book in to Ka'anapali since they will effectively be locked out of these units unless an owner of these units book in to another week through the club.

I just don't see how there can be any impact to current owners that own fixed weeks.

I tend to agree.

Future state holds the possibility that the more FW/FU's sold, eventually more of those owners may want a 'different' week or want to trade to another Hyatt or RCI, opening up more units to non Ka'anapali Beach owners. If these go into a points program, the current state will remain.

 

[lizap]

This isn't any different from any other points overlay or trust based points program. DRI started adding mainland resorts to the Hawaii trust so they could sell more cheap to develop points with access to Hawaii. Marriott has the same problem in a lot of their South Carolina properties. Vistana sells properties with having the ability to reserve Hawaii, St John and the Bahamas. St John is especially difficult to get with StarOptions, but it doesn't stop them from touting it as an available reservation with StarOptions from your Vistana Villages week in Orlando.

Having about a quarter of the units at Ka'anapali in the trust is actually pretty good considering that many of Marriott's properties are less than 15%. I would see no issue with them having 33 units available for Pure Points reservations. I don't see why Hyatt/ILG would want to do this differently. Having the ability to tell potential customers that they can reserve Hawaii with their pure points is a HUGE selling point, even if the prospect of actually getting it is small. Still though, with 33 available units, the prospects may actually be fairly good.

We're speculating they are going to put these units in PPP. HKB was not intended to be part of PPP (at least that was the original plan). Could be they're doing this to make the weeks easier to sell and plan to keep them in HRC..

 

[ocjohn]

Dioxide the only reason it would matter is- if you every HAD to give up your week (death in the family, something comes up)- and you didn't have time to rent your week- you'd release your week and search for any other date. I checked yesterday- there's nothing available in Ka'anapali for a year right now, so it's already hard. If 33 units get split off in a separate pool, our resort will have just gotten 25% smaller and it would just make trading if you ever had to impossible.

And I see your point pathways- but wouldn't you prefer being in a larger pool than a smaller one? Increases possibilities I'd think?

So, again, you don't want this to happen? Don't vote yes, don't vote no, don't do anything (-:

 

[lizap]

Dioxide the only reason it would matter is- if you every HAD to give up your week (death in the family, something comes up)- and you didn't have time to rent your week- you'd release your week and search for any other date. I checked yesterday- there's nothing available in Ka'anapali for a year right now, so it's already hard. If 33 units get split off in a separate pool, our resort will have just gotten 25% smaller and it would just make trading if you ever had to impossible. So, again, you don't want this to happen? Don't vote yes, don't vote no, don't do anything (-:

Your're unlikely to see units until 6 months out. I recently saw units available in December (for less than a week). I suspect HRC owners are putting in requests. Would like to know if any HRC owners at other resorts have gotten a week there using points.

 

[lizap]

Dioxide the only reason it would matter is- if you every HAD to give up your week (death in the family, something comes up)- and you didn't have time to rent your week- you'd release your week and search for any other date. I checked yesterday- there's nothing available in Ka'anapali for a year right now, so it's already hard. If 33 units get split off in a separate pool, our resort will have just gotten 25% smaller and it would just make trading if you ever had to impossible.

And I see your point pathways- but wouldn't you prefer being in a larger pool than a smaller one? Increases possibilities I'd think?

So, again, you don't want this to happen? Don't vote yes, don't vote no, don't do anything (-:

In essence, if a HKB owner gave up his week, he would be competing with the rest of us (who don't own there). I suspect they are doing this to make the units easier to sell (and not to put them in PPP), but there does need to be more disclosure to current HKB owners before they vote. In HRC, there would be a huge difference between a buying a floating and fixed week. I might buy a floating week at HKB, but would never buy a fixed week, as the week we could travel might change from one year to the next. At the price I would be paying, the flexibility would be a critical part of my decision to buy.