New Guideline Changes - Regarding Guest Certificates

[ronparise]

Under the new Guidelines you can check into 1 unit, your SO (Co-owner) can check into 1 Unit, and then you will need Guest Certificates for the other 7 Rooms.

I don’t think the issue for Bill is the guest confirms. I think it’s a question of whether he can get all the reservations he wants

 

[geist1223]

But this just adds to the complexity. Because once he confirms a Guest Certificate that person has to show up or he is out of a room.

 

[CO skier]

Because once he confirms a Guest Certificate that person has to show up or he is out of a room.

That seems simple and straightforward to me.

Make a guest reservation and anyone shows up? I do not know of any hotel that allows that.

Most hotels have a policy of no show the first night, and the entire reservation is cancelled. I do not think WorldMark has reached that extreme.

 

[easyrider]

Under the new Guidelines you can check into 1 unit, your SO (Co-owner) can check into 1 Unit, and then you will need Guest Certificates for the other 7 Rooms.

I wonder , with one account, if I reserved a room for me and then reserved a room for my wife and then a guest certificate, would I be reserving within the rules ? Then with the other another accounts I do the same.

Or would I need to get eight guest certificates ?

Actually, it wouldn't matter anymore because there is no way that nine two bedroom deluxe at Seaside would be able to rent for August unless there was an effort on my part with multiple laptops making the reservations at 6 am which could net 3 units, one for each account .

Are guest certificate reservations non-cancel-able ?

Bill

 

[geist1223]

You can cancel the Guest Reservation but if you paid for the Guest Certificate you do not get the money back. I assume that if you used one of your "free" Guest Certificates it is not restored. I say "free" because we paid for it by buying in and by paying MF's.

WM pays Wyndham millions of dollars to manage our Club, which includes the VPC, OC, maintaining the resorts, housekeeping staff, Front Desk Staff, etc. Well at least the sales staff costs are not billed to WM or at least I do not think so. Plus Wyndham collects millions in profit from WM. But our BOD approved this larceny.

 

[geist1223]

That seems simple and straightforward to me.

Make a guest reservation and anyone shows up? I do not know of any hotel that allows that.

Most hotels have a policy of no show the first night, and the entire reservation is cancelled. I do not think WorldMark has reached that extreme.

So I am planning a family reunion. By luck I am able to get 4 3 Bedroom Units at Seaside in November. Each sleeps up to 8 people. My name is on one room, Patti's name is on another Room. The third Room has my Brother Mike's name because Mike would not miss a family get together if he was still breathing. In addition to the person's name on the Reservation there are 7 other family members staying in each room. On the way to the Airport Mike is in car accident and while not seriously injuried he can not travel.

So under the new Policy my family has lost a room, 7 people are on the street, I can't get my Guest Certificate fee back, and I lost my 13,000 Points.

How this worked in prior years is that the 3 Reservations would be in my name. Patti and I would check-in all 3 rooms. We would bring by each Guest to Register with the Front Desk. Isn't this one of the things WM was designed to do - support families and family vacations? Now it is becoming about more Corporate dollars into Wyndham's pocket and our BOD enthusiastically supports this Robbery.

 

[CO skier]

FWIW, I don't think I particularly felt pained by mega-renters. Likely because I was a power-user (for my own family's use). However, the following changes, perhaps in name of mega-renters, has made it increasingly difficult to enjoy WM with and for my family:

• Changes to Grouped Reservations rules (specifically the start date and the need for consistent season; we never rented out the throw-away nights so restricting the names on the reservation segments meant nothing to me)
• Restricting the transfer of housekeeping tokens when transferring credits across accounts.
• Changes to Guest Certs as it impacts my use of booking multiple units for family gatherings. I still want a large unit for the "gathering place" but as the kids grow up and marry ... we need multiple small units as well.

I've been enormously successful getting my WM reservations when/where I wanted. I didn't feel threatened by renters ... but do feel 'squished' by these rule changes. Sigh. Oh, well.

This is the difference. Individual owners look at the changes as to how it affects their personal situation. The Board must look at how changes affect all 225,000+ owners. The BOD is valuing owner occupancy over guest occupancy, as it should be considering the thousands, tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of dollar members paid to join WorldMark for their personal use.

The Grouped Reservation change prevented a few thousand owners from using a loophole to jump the 13-month booking window against the other 220,000+ owners. Result: WorldMark Hawaii rentals (and many other popular locations) disappeared from EBay. What is not fair about that? This is pro-family vacations for owners who save up two years worth of credits to reserve Hawaii for 12,000 credits, something that was not possible before the change.

30,000,000 fewer credits were transferred in the six months after the rule change eliminating HK transfers and limiting credit transfers to 2X ownership. Megarenters were using huge block of rented credits to reserve units at 13 months. Result? More owners booking for their occupancy at 13 months, many rental operations fold. Good for 225,000+ owners, bad for the few thousand owners who regularly rent in more than 2X the size of their ownership.

As to the Guest Certificate, the bylaws make no distinction between Craigslist renter/guests and family renter/guests. It gets emotional when family is involved, but there is no distinction.

It is sad when something you enjoyed for so long is ruined by any segment of the population ... but it the way things go (down).

It is not right when a relatively few owners blame the WM Board of Directors for heeding other owners who complain about megarenters and instituting policies that put owner occupancy ahead of non-owner occupancy. Blame those who ruined the system.

I am sure that the feedback from the recent ownership survey will again focus on megarenters, and there will be more changes that increase owner usage and reduce guest usage.

 

[CO skier]

So I am planning a family reunion. By luck I am able to get 4 3 Bedroom Units at Seaside in November. Each sleeps up to 8 people. My name is on one room, Patti's name is on another Room. The third Room has my Brother Mike's name because Mike would not miss a family get together if he was still breathing. In addition to the person's name on the Reservation there are 7 other family members staying in each room. On the way to the Airport Mike is in car accident and while not seriously injuried he can not travel.

So under the new Policy my family has lost a room, 7 people are on the street, I can't get my Guest Certificate fee back, and I lost my 13,000 Points.

How this worked in prior years is that the 3 Reservations would be in my name. Patti and I would check-in all 3 rooms. We would bring by each Guest to Register with the Front Desk. Isn't this one of the things WM was designed to do - support families and family vacations? Now it is becoming about more Corporate dollars into Wyndham's pocket and our BOD enthusiastically supports this Robbery.

Oh, please. Owner care deals with medical emergency exceptions all the time.

And if it is not a medical emergency, and Mike just flaked out at the last minute (my relatives do it too frequently), pay the $99 to change the guest name, then tell Mike he owes you 99 bucks.

 

[geist1223]

Is the WM BOD simply heeding the crys of anguish from Members who think they should be able to get Summer in Hawaii or Seaside but don't get there act together until January. Before all these changes we never had a problem getting Seaside, Hawaii, or any other resort we wanted when we wanted it. We have never rented Points in. We have never rented Points out. We have never charged anyone (family or friend) when we made a Reservation in their name, except for TOT.

If I paid for the Points how is it different if I am in the Unit or my Son and his family are in the Unit. I paid for the Points and I am using them for the enjoyment of my family.

So if the WM BOD was interested in the average Owner and not in lining Wyndham's pocket they would allow us to submit a List of at least our siblings and children and they should be except from this ridiculous Guest Certificate.

With the large number of Gift Certificates we will receive each year we will never have to pay for one. But that is not the point. The Point is that once again the WM BOD is hurting the avarage owner and will not make much of a dent in Megarenters.

 

[CO skier]

Is the WM BOD simply heeding the crys of anguish from Members who think they should be able to get Summer in Hawaii or Seaside but don't get there act together until January. Before all these changes we never had a problem getting Seaside, Hawaii, or any other resort we wanted when we wanted it. We have never rented Points in. We have never rented Points out. We have never charged anyone (family or friend) when we made a Reservation in their name, except for TOT.

If I paid for the Points how is it different if I am in the Unit or my Son and his family are in the Unit. I paid for the Points and I am using them for the enjoyment of my family.

So if the WM BOD was interested in the average Owner and not in lining Wyndham's pocket they would allow us to submit a List of at least our siblings and children and they should be except from this ridiculous Guest Certificate.

With the large number of Gift Certificates we will receive each year we will never have to pay for one. But that is not the point. The Point is that once again the WM BOD is hurting the avarage owner and will not make much of a dent in Megarenters.

According to the statistics given, 70-80% of owners will not have to pay for any Guest Certificates. So, this does not hurt the super-majority of owners.

It may or may not hurt a majority of megarenters -- Wyndham might know the answer to that.

 

[tschwa2]

Oh, please. Owner care deals with medical emergency exceptions all the time.

And if it is not a medical emergency, and Mike just flaked out at the last minute (my relatives do it too frequently), pay the $99 to change the guest name, then tell Mike he owes you 99 bucks.

or likely Worldmark will start selling points insurance and stop offering medical emergency exceptions.

 

[rhonda]

or likely Worldmark will start selling points insurance and stop offering medical emergency exceptions.

Yep.

 

[easyrider]

or likely Worldmark will start selling points insurance and stop offering medical emergency exceptions.

This is what Vacation International does.They sell point protection for about $45 a reservation. When I cancel a reservation I loose the $45 + $20 booking fee. It does make some people sit on the fence regarding making their reservations. VI also implemented a commercial use amendment that keeps their inventory off limits to renting for profit.

If WM follows and implements the same policies then there would be a lot of inventory not rented at 6 am 13 months out.

Bill

 

[tschwa2]

I think the fees will stop some of low-mid level amateur rental folks but the semi pro high volume folks will find a way to work with the fees. And if that is the case so be it but the total fees collected will be fairly substantial. The fees should not simply line Wyndhams pockets. Wyndham should be entitled to 10% or less and the rest of the collected fees needs to be invested into the club in ways that truly benefit the membership as a whole.

 

[bizaro86]

I would be happier with it if I thought the extra fees would go to making this year's increase less than 5% (yeah right) or increasing the funding for reserves. Some of the buildings are going to start needing big structural items (windows, elevators, etc) which is going to be a big drain on reserves.

What I think will actually happen is an increased management fee.

 

[ronparise]

You can cancel the Guest Reservation but if you paid for the Guest Certificate you do not get the money back. I assume that if you used one of your "free" Guest Certificates it is not restored. I say "free" because we paid for it by buying in and by paying MF's.

WM pays Wyndham millions of dollars to manage our Club, which includes the VPC, OC, maintaining the resorts, housekeeping staff, Front Desk Staff, etc. Well at least the sales staff costs are not billed to WM or at least I do not think so. Plus Wyndham collects millions in profit from WM. But our BOD approved this larceny.

How is it that paying wyndham to maintain the resorts, to provide housekeeping staff, a front desk staff a reservations staff and all the other expenses of running a bunch of resorts for us owners is larceny

You wouldn’t have a club without paying for its management

By the way, the new guest certificate charge will be income to the club, not Wyndham

 

[ronparise]

I would be happier with it if I thought the extra fees would go to making this year's increase less than 5% (yeah right) or increasing the funding for reserves. Some of the buildings are going to start needing big structural items (windows, elevators, etc) which is going to be a big drain on reserves.

What I think will actually happen is an increased management fee.

That’s what the reserves are for. Ie replacing window and doors and furniture, roofs, etc etc.

Spending reserve money to replace items that need replacement or as you put it, “draining the reserves” is not a problem. It’s good management

 

[ronparise]

I think the fees will stop some of low-mid level amateur rental folks but the semi pro high volume folks will find a way to work with the fees. And if that is the case so be it but the total fees collected will be fairly substantial. The fees should not simply line Wyndhams pockets. Wyndham should be entitled to 10% or less and the rest of the collected fees needs to be invested into the club in ways that truly benefit the membership as a whole.

I believe wyndham is attacking the mega renters by squeezing their profits. Limiting owner to owner transfer of credits forces them to buy more credits at a significant cost. Now two thirds of a megarenters rentals will cost an additional housekeeping fee. Every speculative reservation made will cost an additional $198 for the two guest confirmation fees needed.

For routine reservations the difference between fair market rent and the cost for a reservation is getting close to zero. This will , I think drive the mega renters to the special events and other high value reservations. Like Mardi Gras, Coachella, Comic Con. Christmas at Disney, Etc and the in season reservations at the beach and ski resorts and of course Hawaii

The hard to get reservations will get harder to get

Wyndham knows that they can’t outlaw rentals so I see them attacking this thing on two fronts, one is as I’ve said. Squeeze profits and the other will be an. Effort to level the playing field, ie make it impossible for a big owner to have any advantage over a small owner when it comes to making a reservation

With that in mind, here’s my prediction. Watch for changes in the wait list. This is the feature of the Worldmark system that the megarenters with millions of credits and lots of accounts are using to get multiple reservations at the most profitable times and places

 

[bizaro86]

That’s what the reserves are for. Ie replacing window and doors and furniture, roofs, etc etc.

Spending reserve money to replace items that need replacement or as you put it, “draining the reserves” is not a problem. It’s good management

I'm a professional engineer, and I have done building reserve fund studies. I know how they work.

It is my considered (but not professional) opinion that worldmark does not have sufficient reserves in place to cover the costs they will face in the future.

I cite a couple pieces of evidence for that.

The first is that the auditors report says their goal is 40% funding of reserves, and that they intend to increase reserve payments to get there. That implies the current level of the reserve fund is insufficient, although not enough information is provided in the auditors report to judge that with certainty.

The second is the fact they have been out spending reserves the last two years. So the reserve fund balance is actually declining. That is concerning to me (as a WM owner). The existing resorts are getting older by definition. Expensive structural repairs (4 month new elevator in San Francisco in 2019) are going to get more frequent. Plus, they add new resorts every year, and the reserves have to cover them as well.

So every year the appropriate size of the reserve fund is getting larger, while the actual fund gets smaller. That is not sustainable. I'm young enough that a special assessment will be within my lifetime.

 

[JohnPaul]

This is what Vacation International does.They sell point protection for about $45 a reservation. When I cancel a reservation I loose the $45 + $20 booking fee. It does make some people sit on the fence regarding making their reservations. VI also implemented a commercial use amendment that keeps their inventory off limits to renting for profit.

If WM follows and implements the same policies then there would be a lot of inventory not rented at 6 am 13 months out.

Bill

It is important to note that the $20 booking fee took the place of housekeeping fees for VI.

 

[geist1223]

Whose pocket would the trip insurance end up in?

 

[ronparise]

Sorr

I'm a professional engineer, and I have done building reserve fund studies. I know how they work.

It is my considered (but not professional) opinion that worldmark does not have sufficient reserves in place to cover the costs they will face in the future.

I cite a couple pieces of evidence for that.

The first is that the auditors report says their goal is 40% funding of reserves, and that they intend to increase reserve payments to get there. That implies the current level of the reserve fund is insufficient, although not enough information is provided in the auditors report to judge that with certainty.

The second is the fact they have been out spending reserves the last two years. So the reserve fund balance is actually declining. That is concerning to me (as a WM owner). The existing resorts are getting older by definition. Expensive structural repairs (4 month new elevator in San Francisco in 2019) are going to get more frequent. Plus, they add new resorts every year, and the reserves have to cover them as well.

So every year the appropriate size of the reserve fund is getting larger, while the actual fund gets smaller. That is not sustainable. I'm young enough that a special assessment will be within my lifetime.

you are exactly right. I misread your post. I still had in mind someone’s post that referred to maintenance fees as larceny

I think wyndham is hamstrung by the 5% limit in mf increases. As long as reserves are funded by maintenance fees the reserves will be short changed

 

[bizaro86]

Sorr

you are exactly right. I misread your post. I still had in mind someone’s post that referred to maintenance fees as larceny

I think wyndham is hamstrung by the 5% limit in mf increases. As long as reserves are funded by maintenance fees the reserves will be short changed

I agree with that somewhat. If these extra fees end up adding money to the reserve I'll be on board, even though I'll probably pay more fees for exactly the same usage.

If they decide to add a bunch of fees and leave the reserve fund contributions the same, then the long term future of the club won't be any healthier but Wyndham will get a higher management fee. That doesn't excite me too much.

 

[CO skier]

For routine reservations the difference between fair market rent and the cost for a reservation is getting close to zero. This will , I think drive the mega renters to the special events and other high value reservations. Like Mardi Gras, Coachella, Comic Con. Christmas at Disney, Etc and the in season reservations at the beach and ski resorts and of course Hawaii

The hard to get reservations will get harder to get

I am sure the hard to get reservations is a saturated market; megas get whatever they can and owners get whatever they can, both at 6 a.m. PT every morning. These reservations cannot get any harder to get.

There is no room for marginal renters to move up in the market; if there was, they would already be reserving these higher profit reservations. Result: Marginal reservations are no longer profitable with $198 added on to speculative reservations booked just under 13 months in advance. Owners reserve and move (with their families) into these second tier, but highly desirable reservations, because their cost is only credits and an HK versus a renter's cost of credits plus HK plus profit margin plus $198 Guest Certificate fees.

 

[bizaro86]

Marginal renters might move. Lots of reasons someone might not be competing for the very best reservations.

Two I can think of: they don't want to wait for 13 months to get something rented out, might not want to deal with Hawaii taxes.

Also, I suspect the 70-80% of people not affected will change year by year. I held a 90th birthday party at Canmore awhile ago. We had 7-8 rooms for a long weekend. So I'm probably in the 20-30% of people who would have paid, as even with my 2 accounts I'd be over.

On the other hand, next year I think it'll just be San Diego/Canmore for me/wife/kids, as I'm well into my "to borrow" credits...