Creating a liquid timeshare resale market

[Beefnot]

When it comes to impact on the industry, that is why it was much more worthwhile to discuss it on the old TimeshareBeat boards, as most of those were in the industry and understood the impact. Too many on boards that are mostly exchanger members do not have that level of understanding of the industry and cannot seem to grasp it, even though many of the chickens are now starting to come home to roost from RCI's change in policies.

Many people who have always had poor success in exchanging do indeed have themselves to blame for not understanding the system. But there are lots of experienced exchangers who DO know what they are doing who see a serious decline of the exchanges they can get as some of these policies have kicked in. When people who have owned a long time say ''I never can get anything'' they are probably in the first group but when they say ''These days I just cannot get the things I used to get for years'' then they are in the second. One former active Tugger who now hangs out on another t/s board searched one area on RCI daily for years, SW Florida, and documented that day by day. He can tell you first hand the impact of RCI's changes. People like that are not so easily dismissed.

Nostalgia is simply that, nostalgia. Did your friend stop paying his MFs? I doubt it. TS have collapsed because their are more sellers than buyers or lack of a transparent secondary market or both. The reason that people want out is not because of RCI, it is because of economics and demographics.

 

[strandlover]

The op nearly 300 posts ago presented a problem..."lack of liquidity in the time share market" and then put forward a possible solution

I thought those of us that have stayed around for all 300 posts agreed that the problem exists...we had moved on to discussing solutions.

The last few posts have gone full circle; back to the question...is there really a problem?

Carolinian doesnt think so. or rather Carolinian has used this thread as a soapbox to once again blame RCI for everything thats wrong with the world...He may be right. but for me thats a "who cares" when it coms to this discussion...I would as this question of Carolinian...If you could either abolish RCI or put it back to the way it once was, or remake it to exactly the way you want it; would that give us a effective and efficient resale market place for our timeshares? ..Now it might take one group of sellers out of the equation (the folks that want out because RCI screwed them) but wont there still be sellers looking for buyers?

I do agree with strandlover... "ideas without a business case are scheme"

Im not sure what he means by a "business case" but the way I read it in the context of what we have been discussing is an idea that doesnt solve a problem is not needed...I assume that means strandlover doesnt see the problem that was presented by the op

Maybe Carolinian is right..tweek the RCI business model and who knows, maybe the number of folks that want to sell their timeshare will drop to almost nothing and the ones that do want to sell will have no problem because there will be so many buyers that want in to the rci trading opportunity...I dont think so; I think RCI is a fact of life and we have to adapt to rci, not rci to us

As to Strandlover..just saying there is no problem, doesnt make the problem go away...I may be full of crap, and I didnt go to business school, and I admit it, Im more of a schemer than a businessman..but isnt that what we are talking about here...isnt timesharing itself more of a scheme than a real business?. Timeshares are a great idea but when they got away from the Hapimag model (corporate buy back after 4 years) the problems began... We have discussing the problem of ..no liquidity...and I think thats a real problem Its a problem for the person that cant sell what he owns but even more of a problem for the rest of us, as we watch the number of intervals at our resorts not generating fees get bigger and bigger


Talking about the Hapimag model....Isnt that what the op was suggestion...forcing buybacks by the hoa...maybe hes on to something

This is a great post to re-state our positions and come back to the source.

Do I think that there is a liquidity problem? Of course!

I maintain that the solution is within each HOA, in education and in communication. Deedbacks are one ingredient. Marketing is another and the answer for each HOA will vary and solve their own respective liquidity problem. To some, do nothing is a viable business option. That's different from saying "there is no problem".

Example: for one resort the strategy to address delinquency is do nothing. Why? Because they can rent these and the cash flow generated is greater than the MF that would have been collected. Is this the answer for all HOAs? Of course not!

That's what I expect from my HOA, to be cash flow positive and if not, to work hard to get there.

By business case I mean show me what you would present to an investor. The idea (you have very eloquently and passionately). Show me your target market (you have, sorta but still fuzzy). Show me your projected cash flow position (you have not), etc etc

This has been the best discussion since I joined TUG. Idea generation is so important (not full of crap) and I hope that HOAs, developers, and other lurkers are paying attention. Savvy business people do pay attention to ideas on the fringes.

 

[strandlover]

...
but isnt that what we are talking about here...isnt timesharing itself more of a scheme than a real business?

This is such a great question that it merits its' own response, perhaps even a new thread.

To me they are not schemes. Maybe I am too idealistic.

When I got into timesharing, I was looking for an alternative to owning a full vacation property. While I could afford the mortgage payment on a purchase of a distressed condo (short sale), the condo fees would catch up to me soon enough. So I turned to owning a "piece of a condo" and looked at timeshares within the context of fractional ownership. I continue to look at opportunities under this lens.

As I become more educated, I see that schemes and schemers are abound so I am sure someone will have a different opinion than mine.

 

[Carolinian]

Well, you like to spar with him on that other board. But he DID adjust his ownerships - he bought a whole ownership property in the place he likes to go, SW Fla. Because you can now search for ALL availiblity at RCI, in fact he knows that he would NOT find more availibility no matter what he deposited with RCI. RCI would apparently rent that high demand / low supply inventory to the general public than provide it to timeshare members as exchanges. That and fewer people are willing to take a chance on making a deposit with the new RCI.

This ''current tide of exchanging'' in not something that developed from the customers but was dictated from above and imposed on customers.

Actually, I have run into the very same attitude among timesharers at several RCI resorts I have traded into in discussions in the welcome meetings, but I have not heard the same thing at similar meetings at II resorts.

Ebb and flow is all it is...too many people are holding on to old outdated trading styles that just don't fit with the current 'tide' of exchanging....i bet if that guy(who may have me on ignore over there) adjusted his ownerships to fit the current flow he'd find there is actually MORE availability...Sure traveling by horse drawn cart was nice and you knew how long it took you to get somewhere and what trails to take....But now we have cars, if you want to sit and talk all day about how much you miss horses, that doesn't change the fact that cars are the new way to travel...unless you adjust to the new paved roads, you'll never find your way

 

[Carolinian]

Nostalgia is simply that, nostalgia. Did your friend stop paying his MFs? I doubt it. TS have collapsed because their are more sellers than buyers or lack of a transparent secondary market or both. The reason that people want out is not because of RCI, it is because of economics and demographics.

The former Tugger I gave as an example has NOT stopped paying his m/f's on the red weeks he owns, but is trying to dispose of them, including a couple of nice ski weeks.

One other example I gave of the guy who nominated me the first time I was elected to my HOA board (incidentally as the candidate of the pro-RCI faction) also did not stiff the resort when he bailed out. Since he was trading a total of 12 weeks in the 45-day window, he saw it going south before most people when RCI first started degrading it. He had beleived in exchanging enough to shell out his own money for a mailing to organize that pro-RCI faction, yet RCI stabbed him in the back and he got out of timesharing. He did transfer all of his weeks at our resort to new owners, and I think he did at the other two resorts where he had weeks, but he got out before 2007. He did not get out because of demographics, but because RCI had moved the goalposts.

What is the basis of your opinons? Any real facts? I have cited the basis of mine which go to experiences as diverse as local resellers, resort managers, and a major developer from what they are seeing.

The only REAL facts on the secondary market in this entire thread are what I have posted, and they do NOT show a basis for your opinion as to a secondary market of economics forcing people out or a collapse in prices. Care to cite some real numbers from anywhere? And yes, I do know that since the PCC's started dumping at eBay, prices have tanked there (although summer weeks on the OBX still bring $2-3,000).

 

[hypnotiq]

That is plain silly that winning the lotto means it now costs exponentially more to raise the same child. The law can be so stupid.

Sorry, I wasn't clear.

The worksheet determines that raising a kid cost X amount of dollars. For arguement purposes, we'll say $20,000 a year.

They have a formula that will take each parents income, time with child, etc and determine what portion each is responsible for of that $20,000. In my case, since I make significantly more than my ex, I'm responsible for 70% of that $20,000 and I have my daughter 50% of the time.

Hope that makes more sense...

 

[Beefnot]

The former Tugger I gave as an example has NOT stopped paying his m/f's on the red weeks he owns, but is trying to dispose of them, including a couple of nice ski weeks.

One other example I gave of the guy who nominated me the first time I was elected to my HOA board (incidentally as the candidate of the pro-RCI faction) also did not stiff the resort when he bailed out. Since he was trading a total of 12 weeks in the 45-day window, he saw it going south before most people when RCI first started degrading it. He had beleived in exchanging enough to shell out his own money for a mailing to organize that pro-RCI faction, yet RCI stabbed him in the back and he got out of timesharing. He did transfer all of his weeks at our resort to new owners, and I think he did at the other two resorts where he had weeks, but he got out before 2007. He did not get out because of demographics, but because RCI had moved the goalposts.

What is the basis of your opinons? Any real facts? I have cited the basis of mine which go to experiences as diverse as local resellers, resort managers, and a major developer from what they are seeing.

The only REAL facts on the secondary market in this entire thread are what I have posted, and they do NOT show a basis for your opinion as to a secondary market of economics forcing people out or a collapse in prices. Care to cite some real numbers from anywhere? And yes, I do know that since the PCC's started dumping at eBay, prices have tanked there (although summer weeks on the OBX still bring $2-3,000).

Are you talking about the factual selling prices or the factual anecdotes or both? I have no issue with your factual price points. As far as your anecdotal examples, TUG is littered with those first hand responses about how financial situations have forced them to abort. And I find the rationale that RCI tanking the entire TS industry to be just plain dumb. Does it have some effect? A minor effect at worst. Does it make more sense that the tanking of the economy in 2008 had a much more pronounced effect than any policy that RCI could have dreamed up, especially considering that most timesharers are not aggressive exchangers in the first place? Absolutely. Add to that, a recession can disproportionately impact seniors, that creates an equally detrimental impact on timesharing.

Personal attack remarks removed--Please just stick to the issues and leave out the personal jabs.

 

[bizaro86]

The only REAL facts on the secondary market in this entire thread are what I have posted, and they do NOT show a basis for your opinion as to a secondary market of economics forcing people out or a collapse in prices. Care to cite some real numbers from anywhere? And yes, I do know that since the PCC's started dumping at eBay, prices have tanked there (although summer weeks on the OBX still bring $2-3,000).

If timeshare's can be sold with a reasonable amount of liquidity, why do people pay PCCs thousands of dollars to get out from under? It's a big enough problem that the FL AG has gotten involved. To me that is evidence that not everyone who wants to sell their timeshare is able to.

Possibly that could be educational/information asymmetry, where people don't know how/where to sell their TS. But I think it's quite a bit more likely that the number of buyers for blue weeks is much greater than the number of sellers, and that even "give away" weeks have trouble finding a home because nobody wants them

 

[Beefnot]

If timeshare's can be sold with a reasonable amount of liquidity, why do people pay PCCs thousands of dollars to get out from under? It's a big enough problem that the FL AG has gotten involved. To me that is evidence that not everyone who wants to sell their timeshare is able to.

Possibly that could be educational/information asymmetry, where people don't know how/where to sell their TS. But I think it's quite a bit more likely that the number of buyers for blue weeks is much greater than the number of sellers, and that even "give away" weeks have trouble finding a home because nobody wants them

But you're missing the point. If RCI had not changed its policies in 2005 or 2007 or whenever, people wouldn't want to sell in the first place. Some people were dissatisfied that they could not receive the exchange they wanted, so they are now paying a PCC to get rid of their TS. Some people were appalled that RCI was cherrypicking prime weeks to rent, so they are paying a PCC to dump their TS. Even the majority of people who never used their TS for exchanging anyway are outraged with RCI because, well, just because, so they are paying a PCC to take their TS.

 

[ampaholic]

These are all good ideas. But when I went to business school (also a real one), I learned that ideas without a business case is called a scheme.

Yes, you will get inventory, by the boatloads. Suppose someone landed on their head this morning and gave you a million bucks. You will run out of cash before you know it. Then what? You will have a bunch of abandoned timeshare weeks in a trust / LLC. How are you "helping" the industry?

Well, thank you for advancing the cause so rapidly.

When I wrote "when is that Maga Millions ..." I was rolling the issue down the track to: "We need Capital"

If we need capital, we might need investors, thus we would need a formal business plan and if we need investors we will need a prospectus for investors.

When I was still in the corporate world at Exxon a "Business Case" was generally used as the opening to create a project and was never seen by the investors. As the project(s) progressed we would refer to the "case" file which usually contained tools (such as a brief description of the case, fish-bone charts, legal briefs, balance sheets etc.) that would help see the project(s) through to a valid completion.

It was much as a Dr. might have a "case" file for each patient and a "plan" on how he will run his entire practice.

So in that context it would be later that the trustees might discuss a "Business Case" (or several) in conjunction to forwarding the "Business Plan".

If you meant "a start up without a business case plan is called a scheme" I would agree.

Perhaps my understanding is west coast and yours is east coast?

Tomato, tomato?

 

[ampaholic]

Wow, most of the good stuff on this thread happens while I'm still asleep here on the western side.

Dang, Carolinian still still wants RCI to revert to the old ways and that will solve all issues. Must have done well with the old RCI, eh?

With the added twist that "exchangers are part of the problem".

And we are back to "do we have an issue at all" stage.

I think I'll go back to bed, sheesh.

 

[strandlover]

Well, thank you for advancing the cause so rapidly.

When I wrote "when is that Maga Millions ..." I was rolling the issue down the track to: "We need Capital"

If we need capital, we might need investors, thus we would need a formal business plan and if we need investors we will need a prospectus for investors.

When I was still in the corporate world at Exxon a "Business Case" was generally used as the opening to create a project and was never seen by the investors. As the project(s) progressed we would refer to the "case" file which usually contained tools (such as a brief description of the case, fish-bone charts, legal briefs, balance sheets etc.) that would help see the project(s) through to a valid completion.

It was much as a Dr. might have a "case" file for each patient and a "plan" on how he will run his entire practice.

So in that context it would be later that the trustees might discuss a "Business Case" (or several) in conjunction to forwarding the "Business Plan".

If you meant "a start up without a business case plan is called a scheme" I would agree.

Perhaps my understanding is west coast and yours is east coast?

Tomato, tomato?

I tend to use business case / plan interchangeably, didn't mean to confuse anyone.

Whether is a business case or business plan the end game is show an investor, banker, or whoever the viability of the idea needs to be presented to.

In my current world, I look at the business case within an Excel spreadsheet. Show me your financials, discount your cash flows to present value and if that number is greater than zero, then it becomes a necessary but not sufficient condition to proceed. Don't show me profitability, they will be lies anyway.

There is a show in Canada called the Dragons' Den, where entrepreneurs needing capital present their idea to a panel of venture capitalists. This idea cannot even sustain my softball challenges, imagine to a panel of these sharks. Let's come down to earth and put ourselves in the shoes of people with money to invest.

Tomato, tomato.

 

[ampaholic]

I tend to use business case / plan interchangeably, didn't mean to confuse anyone.

Whether is a business case or business plan the end game is show an investor, banker, or whoever the viability of the idea needs to be presented to.

In my current world, I look at the business case within an Excel spreadsheet. Show me your financials, discount your cash flows to present value and if that number is greater than zero, then it becomes a necessary but not sufficient condition to proceed. Don't show me profitability, they will be lies anyway.

There is a show in Canada called the Dragons' Den, where entrepreneurs needing capital present their idea to a panel of venture capitalists. This idea cannot even sustain my softball challenges, imagine to a panel of these sharks. Let's come down to earth and put ourselves in the shoes of people with money to invest.

Tomato, tomato.

I think it is premature to talk of presenting this to investors. During the brainstorming part of the creation process I would want to see lots of ideas (even schemes) tossed out onto the table, worried to death and let then the survivors proceed to "planning".

Here in the states the show is called "Shark Tank" and all of the contestants have either a somewhat "running" business or a business plan that they want investors for - we have neither.

While I think Ron has the bones of a good idea - I think we could use a lot of hard work to flesh out an actual "Business Plan" also many questions might come up that would toss it back into the brainstorming phase.

tomato

 

[am1]

First advice would to have multiple trusts. Keep red weeks in one. Mud weeks in another. That way you do not loose everything when the house of cards collapse.

People who put prime weeks in should get the TPU's at a lower cost.

Give everyone a heads up on tug before the business crashes so we can all jump ship.

 

[Beefnot]

I think it is premature to talk of presenting this to investors. During the brainstorming part of the creation process I would want to see lots of ideas (even schemes) tossed out onto the table, worried to death and let then the survivors proceed to "planning".

Here in the states the show is called "Shark Tank" and all of the contestants have either a somewhat "running" business or a business plan that they want investors for - we have neither.

While I think Ron has the bones of a good idea - I think we could use a lot of hard work to flesh out an actual "Business Plan" also many questions might come up that would toss it back into the brainstorming phase.

tomato

Exactly, this is simply a conceptual proposal as it stands now. Half of the business model--the acquisition of weeks--has been straw-manned out, but the other half--managing of the weeks--has not. That is perhaps the biggest hurdle.

 

[strandlover]

First advice would to have multiple trusts. Keep red weeks in one. Mud weeks in another. That way you do not loose everything when the house of cards collapse.

Now that's what I call a scheme!

People who put prime weeks in should get the TPU's at a lower cost.

Viking Ship Platinum.. I love it!

It's never premature to talk about financials and the investor context. It's the sanity check while our heads are in the clouds.

 

[Passepartout]

Whenever I see this thread, I wonder if we are supposed to put liquid timeshares in our quart ziplock along with all the rest of the junk we can't live without on vacation.

Jim

 

[Ridewithme38]

Whenever I see this thread, I wonder if we are supposed to put liquid timeshares in our quart ziplock along with all the rest of the junk we can't live without on vacation.

Jim

Just make sure it is under an ounce of Timeshare...otherwise you will be added to the 'no fly' list!

 

[ampaholic]

Just make sure it is under an ounce of Timeshare...otherwise you will be added to the 'no fly' list!

"Excellent"

I think all my timeshares are under an ounce - I'll weigh the deeds to make sure.

 

[bizaro86]

Tomato, tomato.

That saying really only works verbally.

 

[Carolinian]

Some of the state AG's have gotten involved with the PCC's, too, which have been fined and made to pay restitution for their shady practices.

The way PCC's operate is that they imply that they are going to buy someone's timeshare. They then get them in a meeting, usually at a hotel, and do the usual timeshare sales weasel flim-flam. They have dumped enough inventory on eBay to depress that market, so they point to it saying timeshares cannot be sold. They say resorts will not take deedbacks, even when they know resorts will. In fact one of the tranactions in the area I looked at involved a PCC conning someone out of big bucks to dispose of a timeshare that could be deeded back, and then deeding it back to the HOA themselves. They tell owners of weeks they know will sell for a decent price on eBay that their weeks are worthless. They misrepresent inheritance law, and potential tax deductions. Basically, like all timeshare sales weasels, they lie, and they apply high pressure.

On Nags Head and Kill Devil Hills, there were PCC transactions even with resorts taking deedbacks direct from owners.

There were none in this period, but I have seen elderly people conned into paying PCC's big bucks to dispose of prime summer weeks which easily bring $2,000+ even on the bargain basement of eBay. As far as I am concerned, the state AG's should not stop at civil fines and restitution, but they ought to be turning PCC sales weasels over for criminal prosecution for fraud.

There is a blue week problem among those owners who exchange, which at resorts in my area were a minority of blue week owners. That is caused by changes at exchange companies. After Points Lite was imposed, resorts in our area were deluged with calls from blue week and some other week exchanger owners wanting out because they perceived Points Lite as downgrading their situation in exchanging from what it had been. That is a problem that will have to be dealt with over the next few years, but then once new homes are found for those weeks, it should stabilize. I have been pointing out the coming blue week problem ever since RCI rolled out GPN (the early name of RCI Points) as it was clear to see then the fruit basket turnover that RCI had in mind. It is now here.

To contrast, 6 to 10 years ago when I had the resale portfolio on my HOA BOD, we had no problem selling blue weeks, even on eBay, where most went in the $200-300 range and some in the $500 range. Every one we put on eBay sold. We were also selling them through our local timeshare specialist real estate broker, and through other means. I also have owned personally red, white, and blue weeks that I have sold when I changed my t/s portfolio. My OBX weeks sold fairly quickly and for more than I paid for them. The only week I sold that really liingered much was an Australian week but I think that sold in about 4 months or so. The resale market worked, then.

I watched the eBay market flooded and broken, and it was the PCC's who did it. I am sure that was part of their busines plan to point to eBay and tell suckers at their presentations that ''look, timeshare don't sell on eBay''.

RCI's rentals to the general public was another dynamic in this, as it destroyed the ''exclusivity'' element of timeshare, where you had to own to participate. Well, not any more. I published the letter that was sent to HOA's by an RCI exec announced in a round about way their entry into this field. They never said they were going to rent buy phrased it something like ''RCI is going to use its position as a market leader to take timeshare to the mass market''. That was way back on an earlier version of the TUG board and at the time I pointed out that this meant they were going to rent to the general public. The cadre of RCI defenders on these boards was quite shrill is proclaiming that RCI would never do such a thing. Well, it turned out that they did, and it has had a profound impact on timesharing, not only on resales but also on owner rentals. And of course RCI's degradation of the 45 day window profoundly changed the dynamics as to the usefulness for trading and consequently the value of deep off season weeks.

But you have hit the nail on the head on one resale problem. Like all real estate, the timeshare resale market is largely local, and in some areas may be poorly developed and in others people do not know how to access it. Resorts can and should help their members in that regard, and some do. For a long time, for example, Golden Strand had a manager who was also a licnsened real estate broker and she was quite active in moving both HOA and member weeks. Some resorts have resale pages on their websites. I do think education can improve the situation in this regard, and all resorts should strive to provide info to members on how to sell their weeks.

If timeshare's can be sold with a reasonable amount of liquidity, why do people pay PCCs thousands of dollars to get out from under? It's a big enough problem that the FL AG has gotten involved. To me that is evidence that not everyone who wants to sell their timeshare is able to.

Possibly that could be educational/information asymmetry, where people don't know how/where to sell their TS. But I think it's quite a bit more likely that the number of buyers for blue weeks is much greater than the number of sellers, and that even "give away" weeks have trouble finding a home because nobody wants them

 

[Carolinian]

I think most thinking timesharers would want RCI to stop renting exchange deposits to the general public, but then again many of the Tuggers who participated in the very long thread on the settlement / sellout of the class action lawsuit don't post much on TUG anymore.

While anyone who does not have their head in the sand has to realize that the changes at RCi are a big part of the problem today with blue weeks, it is also clear that the bean-counters with short range tunnel vision are going to be guiding what RCI will do, and I have not suggested that reversing all of RCI's negative changes is the answer, because it is unlikely to happen. I have said that the answer is resorts either migrating their owners to other exchange companies and / or developing markets of own to use buyers for those weeks and have mentioned some such markets that have worked. Since it is the own to exchange members who are hot to trot to get out due to the changes in exchanging, yes, this is the big area of concern. Own to use members are more stable.

Many of the so-called experts on this thread (John excluded) have never spent years in resort direction either on a hands-on HOA board or as a resort manager and are making quite a few statements that are nothing but their own personal opinion. I have watched all of this go down, and it was all quite predictable from the day RCI set out on this new course that rung the stability out of the timeshare world. And it is very likely not over, as I expect the next major change in a few years to be when RCI merges Points and Points Lite, and like most RCI changes, that one will have both winners and losers.

Wow, most of the good stuff on this thread happens while I'm still asleep here on the western side.

Dang, Carolinian still still wants RCI to revert to the old ways and that will solve all issues. Must have done well with the old RCI, eh?

With the added twist that "exchangers are part of the problem".

And we are back to "do we have an issue at all" stage.

I think I'll go back to bed, sheesh.

 

[ronparise]

First advice would to have multiple trusts. Keep red weeks in one. Mud weeks in another. That way you do not loose everything when the house of cards collapse.

People who put prime weeks in should get the TPU's at a lower cost.

Give everyone a heads up on tug before the business crashes so we can all jump ship.

You are misunderstanding the concept as I meant it when I put it forward

The source of the trust inventory will be different front the folks that use the inventory..just as buyers are different from sellers. If you sell your red week to the trust, clearly you are someone that doesnt want it any more...Customers of the trust are folks that want vacation accommodations, but dont want to buy a timeshare to get it

I see the competition for customers as VRBO and other such vacation rental sites

 

[Carolinian]

What positions have you held that give you any insight into the dynamics of timeshare? Ever spent a few years on an HOA board or managed a resort or anything like that? No, I thought not!

The old TimeshareBeat and its Street Talk column had a much more knowledgable set of posters on such issues; people who were in the industry in one fashion or another, including some of us HOA board members. The discussion there was much more informed as to impacts of RCI's actions, and much of what was predicted by some of the posters there has come to pass. Some of those in the industry actually thought RCI's end game was crashing lots of resorts, but I have always been of the opinion that what is driving RCI's changes have mostly been the bean counters trying to goose short term profits without caring about the impact on the longterm sustainablitiy of timesharing.

The one part of the resale market that went considerably downhill BEFORE the economic crisis, and it is a tiny niche, is eBay. That part was not so much driven by changes at RCI but by the PCC's flooding that market, which I am sure was deliberately part of their business plan. Those who want to see the PCC's as an effect of the problem have got it backwards, as the PCC's are a big cause of the problem, at least as it pertains to the eBay fragment of the market. As one who was feeding HOA inventory through eBay, I had a front row seat to watch that happen.

Are you talking about the factual selling prices or the factual anecdotes or both? I have no issue with your factual price points. As far as your anecdotal examples, TUG is littered with those first hand responses about how financial situations have forced them to abort. And I find the rationale that RCI tanking the entire TS industry to be just plain dumb. Does it have some effect? A minor effect at worst. Does it make more sense that the tanking of the economy in 2008 had a much more pronounced effect than any policy that RCI could have dreamed up, especially considering that most timesharers are not aggressive exchangers in the first place? Absolutely. Add to that, a recession can disproportionately impact seniors, that creates an equally detrimental impact on timesharing.

Personal attack remarks removed--Please just stick to the issues and leave out the personal jabs.

 

[Beefnot]

Many of the so-called experts on this thread (John excluded) have never spent years in resort direction either on a hands-on HOA board or as a resort manager and are making quite a few statements that are nothing but their own personal opinion.

Oh I didn't realize that once you've served on an HOA board, you no longer have a personal opinion. It is now called...expert analysis? Where I come from, I can throw a million facts out, but how I construe those facts is at the end of the day called personal opinion. Thanks for educating me. Appreciate it.