New Guideline Changes - Regarding Guest Certificates

[FLYNZ4]

Boo ... I [Dislike] until I'm convinced otherwise??

EDIT: FWIW, I don't see myself having to pay for a Guest Cert often given the formula for complimentary Certs. Still ... it just bugs me as "family unfriendly."

Rhonda,

Like you, I do not think this rule change will affect me personally... especially since I only use my credits for personal or family use. The number of free GC will impact very few owners irrespective of account size if they use it for primarily personal use with some family use included.

I know that WM has stated the GC fee is not a move against Mega-renters, but I do think it is. Like Ron has stated in this thread... the (up to) extra $198 per reservation does impact rental reservations, especially small reservations. The rental market is competitive, and taking this off the profit line makes WM rentals less attractive to rent.

Regarding Mega-renting... most who follow other forums (particularly WMowners) know I am not a fan of Mega-renting. I hold no bad feelings against those that are mega-renters, especially if they follow the rules. However, I believe that it is not in the best interests of the club, especially when raised to commercial levels.

I believe that most of the rule changes implemented to combat mega-renting have been ineffective. In fact, I believe they have caused more issues for the average owner rather than curtailing renting. This change will have a minor impact... but by itself will certainly not stop renting.

I've looked at how to curtail renting for some time now, and quite frankly, only Eric's suggestions seem to have enough teeth to significantly solve the problem. If I was to summarize them (with my own interpretation & additions):

1) Require a guest name at time of reservation, with no modifications, just cancellations.
2) Strict enforcement against a cancel/rebook (even across multiple controlled accounts)
3) Limit the waitlist for owner occupancy only
4) Strict enforcement (at the resort level) of the "man on the street" check-in.
5) Violations of above result in cancellation of all reservations in the account (or set of controlled accounts)

This would indeed cause impact to normal owners. It can be debated if it would be a net positive or negative for the club. However, the current state of bandaid on bandaid certainly does not work, and certainly makes the club less useful to ordinary owners. If implemented, most (or all) of the current bandaids could be removed.

/Jim

PS: I invite Eric to modify the above since I credited him

 

[roadsister]

Rhonda... you stole my welcome.

Welcome back Roadsister.

/Jim

Hi Jim, I’ve been gone a long time! I read the newsletter and never dig farther. Now have to learn to maneuver around.

 

[roadsister]

Rhonda,

Like you, I do not think this rule change will affect me personally... especially since I only use my credits for personal or family use. The number of free GC will impact very few owners irrespective of account size if they use it for primarily personal use with some family use included.

I know that WM has stated the GC fee is not a move against Mega-renters, but I do think it is. Like Ron has stated in this thread... the (up to) extra $198 per reservation does impact rental reservations, especially small reservations. The rental market is competitive, and taking this off the profit line makes WM rentals less attractive to rent.

Regarding Mega-renting... most who follow other forums (particularly WMowners) know I am not a fan of Mega-renting. I hold no bad feelings against those that are mega-renters, especially if they follow the rules. However, I believe that it is not in the best interests of the club, especially when raised to commercial levels.

I believe that most of the rule changes implemented to combat mega-renting have been ineffective. In fact, I believe they have caused more issues for the average owner rather than curtailing renting. This change will have a minor impact... but by itself will certainly not stop renting.

I've looked at how to curtail renting for some time now, and quite frankly, only Eric's suggestions seem to have enough teeth to significantly solve the problem. If I was to summarize them (with my own interpretation):

1) Require a quest name at time of reservation, with no modifications, just cancellations.
2) Strict enforcement against a cancel/rebook (even across multiple controlled accounts)
3) Limit the waitlist for owner occupancy only
4) Strict enforcement (at the resort level) of the "man on the street" check-in.
5) Violations of above result in cancellation of all reservations in the account (or set of controlled accounts)

This would indeed cause impact to normal owners. It can be debated if it would be a net positive or negative for the club. However, the current state of bandaid on bandaid certainly does not work, and certainly makes the club less useful to ordinary owners. If implemented, all of the current bandaids could be removed.

/Jim

PS: I invite Eric to modify the above since I credited him

Jim, is that Etic from Red season??

 

[FLYNZ4]

Hi Jim, I’ve been gone a long time! I read the newsletter and never dig farther. Now have to learn to maneuver around.

Well, welcome back. I don't usually post here... but gave it a whirl myself today.

/Jim

 

[FLYNZ4]

Jim, is that Etic from Red season??

No, I haven't seen or heard from Erick Clark in ages. I was talking about Eric Winch.

/Jim

 

[Larry M]

I've heard of people renting multiples and doing the VRBO/ABNB thing....wonder if this was aimed at that?

Why is that a problem for the association or the management company? They are getting their maintenance fee and also getting some exposure. The renter might want to buy a timeshare after having a good week as a renter.

How is this different from an investor who buys four or five year-round condominiums and sub-lets them?

 

[samara64]

I would like to add:

6) Make the waitlist not go in the future so last day of the waitlist cannot be more then 13 month from the day it is set.

This will help a lot of owners book at 13 month out. Megas do a trick that allow them to book at 13 month even if there is no availability in the system by trimming an existing reservation and catching the last days via the waitlist to start a new reservation. That is why Yellowstone 3BR is never available.

That what the owner services told me when I asked how comes there was availability in the morning at 6:10AM for 13 month + 1 day and it is gone by 8:30AM.

 

[ecwinch]

I would like to add:

6) Make the waitlist not go in the future so last day of the waitlist cannot be more then 13 month from the day it is set.

This will help a lot of owners book at 13 month out. Megas do a trick that allow them to book at 13 month even if there is no availability in the system by trimming an existing reservation and catching the last days via the waitlist to start a new reservation. That is why Yellowstone 3BR is never available.

That what the owner services told me when I asked how comes there was availability in the morning at 6:10AM for 13 month + 1 day and it is gone by 8:30AM.

Here is impact of that rule (if it was implemented):

So 13 months out I get up to book my 3BR West Yellowstone unit at 6:00am. They are all gone, and the next available check-in is 13 months 6 days out. So I put in my waitlist for 1 day.

Then I have to repeat this process six more times, expanding my reservation one day each time.

And even with this change, they still could manipulate the wait list - since they control the event that is "triggering" the waitlist match. They just have to be first person to call in and add the wait list request at 8:30am. This suggestion would make a little less likely they could manipulate it, but not prevent it.

More effective IMHO would be prevent waitlist reservations from adding-on extra days that are outside the 13 month booking window.

 

[CO skier]

I believe that most of the rule changes implemented to combat mega-renting have been ineffective. In fact, I believe they have caused more issues for the average owner rather than curtailing renting. This change will have a minor impact... but by itself will certainly not stop renting.

The change requiring all segments of a Grouped Reservation to be only Red Season was two steps backward. It forced throwaway days to be Red Season. Forcing some Red Season days to sit empty hurt prime availability for all owners. This change also eliminated using summer White and Blue Season days in the Desert Southwest as part of Grouped Reservations. The modest cost increase to megarenters for using Red Season throwaway days instead of White or Blue Season days was easily absorbed.

The change requiring the first day of all segments of a Grouped Reservation to be within 13 months succeeded where the previous change failed, by eliminating lead-in throwaway days, altogether. The improvement in 13-month availability was immediately observable and can easily be seen today in the 13-month availability for Marina Dunes and the Hawaii resorts, as examples. There will always be rentals, but the scale of renting was significantly reduced by this change, because megarenters could not reserve multiple units more than 13 months in advance. They might get one or two at the most popular resorts at the most popular times at 13 months. All WorldMark Owners benefited from the increased 13-month availability; not all owners, of course, reserve their vacations at 13 months, but the availability is there now where it was not before.

The change limiting credits and housekeeping transfers reduced credit transfers by 60,000,000 credits per year. Megarenters would transfer credits into their accounts in bulk. At 10,000 credits per reservation that would be 6,000 reservations. Not all reservations are for full weeks, and many reservations are for only 2-3 days, so it is hard to calculate, but easy to think that 8,000 fewer rental reservations are made each year as a result of the credit transfer limit of 2 times annual allotment. That is 8,000 prime reservation for owners to reserve for their own vacations each year that were not available before the change.

The Guest Certificate will reduce megarenter reservations incrementally, but nothing like the scale of limiting Grouped Reservations to 13 months and credit/HK transfer limits. But it is another step in putting more owners and fewer renters in WorldMark units, and that benefits every WorldMark Owner, except those who use their ownership primarily as a business.

Nothing will ever eliminate renting in WorldMark. There are many resorts where the credits costs are so low versus comparable rental rates that only extraordinary guest usage fees would equalize. The Guideline changes over the last three years do show how WorldMark may be modified to increase owner usage while reducing guest usage.

 

[FLYNZ4]

Nothing will ever eliminate renting in WorldMark. There are many resorts where the credits costs are so low versus comparable rental rates that only extraordinary guest usage fees would equalize. The Guideline changes over the last three years do show how WorldMark may be modified to increase owner usage while reducing guest usage.

Rentals should not be eliminated. If an owner cannot use their credits, there is nothing wrong in renting out their reservation to recoup their fees. However, when rentals become the fuel for a business, that is when it becomes harmful to the club as a whole.

We still have rampant renting going on, despite the steps mentioned in your reply. I am not intimate with every mechanism being used, but from what I understand... some have automated programs running and scoop up every bit of bonus time available at certain resorts... only to be dropped at 48 hours if a renter is not found. Also, reservations are being made in non-red seasons using $0.08 FAX credits... only to be dropped when unable to rent. Both of these two examples require zero credits to deploy. There are many other things that happen, some technical, some with multiple coordinated simultaneous users, computers or servers automatically scavenging the inventory and booking speculative rentals. Others are using social engineering to confuse VPCs, or have VPCs on the inside doing work for them. Like I have said... I do not know every technique being used, and I have only heard 2nd or 3rd hand about the above type of activities. It is clear to me that the most aggressive renters are barely impacted by any of the rules so far.

The examples listed in the post #76 above address the issue more directly than the current examples. By requiring a guest name at the time of reservation... that allows regular owners to book units for themselves, and their family at the 13 month mark. Mega-renters generally do not have many customers at 13 months, so it is futile to book early, unless they plan to cancel and rebook through coordinated activities across multiple users, or accounts. That is where item #2 comes into play. WM can and should enforce the 48 hour rebooking rule... and they should deploy electronic methods to detect and group various logins to create "account sets" that are know to be in play to circumvent those rules. When such coordinated activity is identified, the resulting reservations should be canceled.. even retroactively.

Taking these type of actions are my (heavily influenced by Eric Winch) best estimates of how to thwart the excessive rental activity ... if in fact, it is a big enough problem for the club. I think these steps would be more effective (by far) than what has been implemented so far... which has been barely a speed bump in the road for those in the know.

/Jim

 

[ecwinch]

Jim - thanks for dropping into this conversation.

I absolutely agree with you that renting should not be eliminated. But all things in moderation.

And 100% agreement on system measures to prohibit using multiple accounts to pass reservations. As much as I would like to see the named guest rule implemented, preventing reservation passing is far more important.

 

[ronparise]

Why is that a problem for the association or the management company? They are getting their maintenance fee and also getting some exposure. The renter might want to buy a timeshare after having a good week as a renter.

How is this different from an investor who buys four or five year-round condominiums and sub-lets them?

There are two issues as I see it. The management company is obligated to manage the club for the benefit of all the owners and they have gotten complaints that certain owners seem to have an advantage over other owners when making the "hard to get" reservations. They(management) has taken on the task of leveling the playing field, when it comes to making reservations. They want to be able to assure the pwners that every owner has an equal chance to make every reservation. The second issue (and this is just my opinion) is that rentals hurt sales.and Wyndham is all about sales. Imagine two guys on vacation sharing the hot tub at the end of the day, and the subject of ownership comes up...One guy owns his credits and has just decided to upgrade by buying another 10000 credits this trip, so he can take another weeks vacation each year. He wrote Wyndham a $20000 check this week for those new credits. The other guy says he dosent own, rather he rents his worldmatk vacations from Ron for just a little more than maintenance fees. The first guy does a quick calculation in his head and figures even if he saves $500 each vacation (maintenance fees vs Ron's rental rate) his break even point is 40 years down the road. He decides he would rather keep his $20000 in the bank and to rescind his purchase the next day

 

[ronparise]

The change requiring all segments of a Grouped Reservation to be only Red Season was two steps backward. It forced throwaway days to be Red Season. Forcing some Red Season days to sit empty hurt prime availability for all owners. This change also eliminated using summer White and Blue Season days in the Desert Southwest as part of Grouped Reservations. The modest cost increase to megarenters for using Red Season throwaway days instead of White or Blue Season days was easily absorbed.

The change requiring the first day of all segments of a Grouped Reservation to be within 13 months succeeded where the previous change failed, by eliminating lead-in throwaway days, altogether. The improvement in 13-month availability was immediately observable and can easily be seen today in the 13-month availability for Marina Dunes and the Hawaii resorts, as examples. There will always be rentals, but the scale of renting was significantly reduced by this change, because megarenters could not reserve multiple units more than 13 months in advance. They might get one or two at the most popular resorts at the most popular times at 13 months. All WorldMark Owners benefited from the increased 13-month availability; not all owners, of course, reserve their vacations at 13 months, but the availability is there now where it was not before.

The change limiting credits and housekeeping transfers reduced credit transfers by 60,000,000 credits per year. Megarenters would transfer credits into their accounts in bulk. At 10,000 credits per reservation that would be 6,000 reservations. Not all reservations are for full weeks, and many reservations are for only 2-3 days, so it is hard to calculate, but easy to think that 8,000 fewer rental reservations are made each year as a result of the credit transfer limit of 2 times annual allotment. That is 8,000 prime reservation for owners to reserve for their own vacations each year that were not available before the change.

The Guest Certificate will reduce megarenter reservations incrementally, but nothing like the scale of limiting Grouped Reservations to 13 months and credit/HK transfer limits. But it is another step in putting more owners and fewer renters in WorldMark units, and that benefits every WorldMark Owner, except those who use their ownership primarily as a business.

Nothing will ever eliminate renting in WorldMark. There are many resorts where the credits costs are so low versus comparable rental rates that only extraordinary guest usage fees would equalize. The Guideline changes over the last three years do show how WorldMark may be modified to increase owner usage while reducing guest usage.

Its important to note that the purpose of grouped reservations was always written in the guidelines, Specifically grouped reservations enable an owner to combine reservations to comply with the 7 day rule (which requires red season reservations made 10-13 months in advance, to be at least 7 days ) It was never intended to use blue and white days to violate the 7 day rule. My point is that the "new" rule wasnt a new rule at all, It was simply a clarification of the old rule.

Similarly there is another rule that requires reservations be made no more than 13 months in advance. Grouped reservations are several individual reservations, grouped together and the way grouped reservation were administered allowed violations of the 13 month rule. this was never the intent. Again, the "new" rule was simply a clarification requiring that all reservations (including the individual legs of a grouped reservation) comply with the 13 month rule


Wyndham may intend to stop commercial rentals, but since renting is allowed by the declaration, without any qualification regarding "commercial" renting they have to come at it in a less direct way than a simple ban. Their stated goal is a reservations system where every owner has an equal chance at every reservation and they will reach that goal by closing the loopholes and squeezing the profits of the commercial renters.

 

[taterhed]

Here's a solution:

Generate a 1099 (right form?) for all 'imputed' income exceeding $XXXXX based on owner activity. Allow the owners to demonstrate that they were conducting private activity and not 'commercial for profit enterprise.'

Bet that would slow things a bit.

 

[ronparise]

Here's a solution:

Generate a 1099 (right form?) for all 'imputed' income exceeding $XXXXX based on owner activity. Allow the owners to demonstrate that they were conducting private activity and not 'commercial for profit enterprise.'

Bet that would slow things a bit.

A 1099 is used to report monies paid to contractors and sub contractors.

The monies that would be reported on wyndhams 1099 to a megarenter would be expenses incurred by Wyndham and income to the megarenter

Wyndham however dosent pay the rent that a megarenter collects. So no 1099

However Wyndham now offers a rental program for Worldmark owners. The owners turn their reservations over to Wyndham Wyndham finds the rental customers and collects the rent. They take their fees and turn the rest over to the owner. These monies will be reported on a 1099

I used a points manager to handle nearly all of my Wyndham points. They found the rental customers, and collected the rent. They sent my share to me and reported those monies on a 1099. I of course included that income (less my expenses) on my tax return


I resent your assumption that megarenters don’t pay taxes. Paying taxes is a privilege. The more taxes I pay, the more money I’m making. Paying taxes is a good thing

 

[taterhed]

A 1099 is used to report monies paid to contractors and sub contractors.

The monies that would be reported on wyndhams 1099 to a megarenter would be expenses incurred by Wyndham and income to the megarenter

Wyndham however dosent pay the rent that a megarenter collects. So no 1099

However Wyndham now offers a rental program for Worldmark owners. The owners turn their reservations over to Wyndham Wyndham finds the rental customers and collects the rent. They take their fees and turn the rest over to the owner. These monies will be reported on a 1099

I used a points manager to handle nearly all of my Wyndham points. They found the rental customers, and collected the rent. They sent my share to me and reported those monies on a 1099. I of course included that income (less my expenses) on my tax return


I resent your assumption that megarenters don’t pay taxes. Paying taxes is a privilege. The more taxes I pay, the more money I’m making. Paying taxes is a good thing

You assume too much.

First, I have no beef with you. So, if you insulted or angered....it's not by me.

I'm glad you pay taxes. I'm glad you feel it's a privilege.
I think there are some that under-report rentals income. Megarenters? I don't know. I have no idea what the statistics are. In fact, I'm not sure it's the megarenters that are causing the problems. It may be some other 'unnamed' class of renters.

So, am I to assume by your comments that you truthfully believe that all 'commercial' renters on Worldmark--whether self-declared as commercial or not--are claiming their income appropriately and being fully taxed on this amount?

I'd be interested to know your opinions.

BTW: I'm not in favor of stopping all rental activity on Worldmark, Marriott, Wyndham or anywhere else.
I am in favor of leveling the playing field so that individual owners have the same opportunities as commercial renters--whether they are 'megarenters' or idiots with a pc or ?.

If the opportunity exists....then I do not fault the renter. I fault the managers/club for not moderating the rentals to balance the opportunities between 6000 point owners and 6 million point owners.

Put your feathers down Ron. No insult intended.

 

[ronparise]

You assume too much.

First, I have no beef with you. So, if you insulted or angered....it's not by me.

I'm glad you pay taxes. I'm glad you feel it's a privilege.
I think there are some that under-report rentals income. Megarenters? I don't know. I have no idea what the statistics are. In fact, I'm not sure it's the megarenters that are causing the problems. It may be some other 'unnamed' class of renters.

So, am I to assume by your comments that you truthfully believe that all 'commercial' renters on Worldmark--whether self-declared as commercial or not--are claiming their income appropriately and being fully taxed on this amount?

I'd be interested to know your opinions.

BTW: I'm not in favor of stopping all rental activity on Worldmark, Marriott, Wyndham or anywhere else.
I am in favor of leveling the playing field so that individual owners have the same opportunities as commercial renters--whether they are 'megarenters' or idiots with a pc or ?.

If the opportunity exists....then I do not fault the renter. I fault the managers/club for not moderating the rentals to balance the opportunities between 6000 point owners and 6 million point owners.

Put your feathers down Ron. No insult intended.

I’m not insulted

But I do think you are wrong to assume that anyone wouldn’t pay their taxes. I’m just saying that paying taxes is a good sign you are making money

But that’s secondary to the point i wanted to make with my post and the point you apparently missed altogether

My point is that Wyndham can’t issue a 1099 for income someone might make renting their Wyndham or Worldmark reservations Because they (Wyndham) didn’t pay the rent.

 

[taterhed]

Thanks Ron.
There is a process for reporting 'gained value' or 'imputed income.'
I haven't the foggiest what it is. That's why I posted it with a question mark (?) to indicate my lack of knowledge in this area.

My point was this: Just like AirBnb and VRBO, government and others are figuring out ways to determine where income is being generated far beyond the 'casual' renter. I suspect that Wyndham or Worldmark could figure out a way to trip the flag at a certain threshold and shed a bit more light on the activity just in case some folks might not be aware. Ignorance and all that.

Based on current legislation targeting ABNB and VRBO renters.....I think I'm not the only sole human being alive that believes that people are not fully disclosing what or how much they are renting.

It's a guess....I may be wrong.
Thanks for the chat.....I'm done with the subject.

 

[samara64]

Here is impact of that rule (if it was implemented):

So 13 months out I get up to book my 3BR West Yellowstone unit at 6:00am. They are all gone, and the next available check-in is 13 months 6 days out. So I put in my waitlist for 1 day.

Then I have to repeat this process six more times, expanding my reservation one day each time.

And even with this change, they still could manipulate the wait list - since they control the event that is "triggering" the waitlist match. They just have to be first person to call in and add the wait list request at 8:30am. This suggestion would make a little less likely they could manipulate it, but not prevent it.

More effective IMHO would be prevent waitlist reservations from adding-on extra days that are outside the 13 month booking window.

This is very easy to implement by adding a high priority waitlist to catch the 13 month cancellations.

Once a user cancels or adjusts the last days of a reservation (has to be done by a VPC), the software can check if the cut days are unavailable on line and can be used to book 13 month out. In such a case, the first day will be held for one day then will go to next waitlist on the list.

So for example, if the next available day on the calendar is 13 month + 2 days away and someone cancels a reservation that will fill in these 2 days, software will keep the first day in priority waitlist until next day and will release the following days to availability so everyone can book it next morning.

This way we did not bypass any user waitlist but we also gave everyone a good chance to book.

 

[ecwinch]

Sam - it is not that there are no solutions that can curb commercial renting. It is that we have some that are focused on finding a magic bullet that has no impact for the members and is 100% effective.

That is a pipe-dream. Rules have to apply to everyone, and there is no rule that will kill commercial renting and have no impact. As Voltaire said "Perfect is the enemy of the good.". So we by-pass lots of good solutions because they are not perfect, and because some are unwilling to accept any solution that impacts them - or might impact them in the future.

The guest fee is a good example, as there is certainly a segment of the commercial rental market that will be impacted by this change. Just go to AirBnb and see how many members are operating "on-demand" rental businesses where they do not hold inventory, but instead make reservations on-request. Some might argue that is not a problem, but success breeds competition.

 

[rickandcindy23]

I have a reservation next year for Dolphin's Cove, and my name is on it now. What if I change the name later on? Am I going to incur this fee? Or will my four free guest certificates (I own 40K credits) allow me to change the name without a cost?

I guess I am asking if the free guest certificates are only good to use at the time of booking and not later.

 

[ecwinch]

They can be used any time - not just at the time of booking. So in your case, you would use one of your free guest certificates, or pay the fee if you were out of them.


If you would like to add a guest name to an existing reservation without incurring the Guest Certificate fee, you may do so up until Sep. 11, 2018. After that date, a Guest Certificate will be required for all guest reservations regardless of original booking date.

 

[Shannon1]

Does anyone else feel this is a lawsuit waiting to happen? I am going to spend the next month or so digging into the regulations. Currently, i myself am extremely upset about the guest certificates. Every year in December, Worldmark post all resorts on special offer and each owner is allowed 6 reservations. On top of that there are inventory specials and bonus time reservation. For the holidays, birthdays and more as gifts, I usually give a night or two stay to most of my family, and friends. I have been for over 10 years. I do transfer reservations to their names as I was told was allowed at no additional fee for years. This new policy will ultimately cost me a few thousand dollars a year. The truth is my family and friends look forward to this gift, but I can’t afford another $99 per gift for a one night stay. Needless to say, I am not happy.

 

[ecwinch]

Shannon1,

It sounds like you might be someone who uses their member benefits heavily - ie. someone who makes extensive use of cash bookings, and a high percentage of those bookings are for non-member use.

If so, then you probably one the members I believe they are targeting with this new "fee for service" model they claim they are migrating the Club to. I think of it as "use more, pay more". Use more Club benefits than the average owner, and pay more towards the Club's operating expenses.

I know that is not a popular view. But as you find discussed early in this thread, this new fee is definitely within the authority of the BoD. The reserves would certainly benefit from it.

 

[ecwinch]

I just want to point out that another targeted class is NHK accounts with a high percentage of short-stay guest usage.