HGV Max - Diamond Integration Discussion in Owner Update

[youppi]

Almost always there is a bloc of units that are owned by Corporate. Unsold inventory or foreclosures/defaults that the resort or trust routes back to corporate for resale. Corporate has the voting rights associated with that unit, and they vote it as a bloc.

Given the low turnout in board elections and the number of owners who will simply vote to retain the existing management, the bloc owned by corporate does not have to be large for corporate to control the board. I would guess as little as 5% ownership would be enough to essentially control the board.

Also, if the corporate controls a trust then the corporate has a good chance to control all resorts HOA where the trust own many units because the board of the trust controlled by the corporate will vote at each HOA of resorts included in the trust and will vote for corporate puppets to put on the board of each HOA.

Example:
HGV corporate controls the HVC Hawaii Collection trust because many members don't vote, members have 1 vote per point owned but corporate has 3 votes per point owned (unsold points of the HI Collection).

The HI Collection trust owns the following resorts and from the number of units owned at each resort, HGV corporate probably controls the HOA at those resorts too:
~64% of units at The Point at Poipu (Kauai, HI)
~62% of units at Ka'anapali Beach Club (Maui, HI)
~60% of units at Villas at Pollo Towers (Las Vegas, NV)
~50% of units at Cancun Resort (Las Vegas, NV)
~32% of units at Palm Canyon Resort (Palm Spring, CA)
~31% of units at Cedar Breaks Lodge, (Brian Head, UT)
~7% of units at Sedona Summit (Sunset section only) (Sedona, AZ) ***

*** The US Collection trust owns ~72% of units at Sedona Summit and the US Collection is controlled by HGV corporate.

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

Also, if the corporate controls a trust then the corporate has a good chance to control all resorts HOA where the trust own many units because the board of the trust controlled by the corporate will vote at each HOA of resorts included in the trust and will vote for corporate puppets to put on the board of each HOA.

Good note. The Trust arrangement further cements corporate control. Using your numbers, even if every deeded owner at Po'ipu or Ka'anapali voted for a change in management, the Trust votes would still carry the day.

 

[pedro47]

Also, if the corporate controls a trust then the corporate has a good chance to control all resorts HOA where the trust own many units because the board of the trust controlled by the corporate will vote at each HOA of resorts included in the trust and will vote for corporate puppets to put on the board of each HOA.

Example:
HGV corporate controls the HVC Hawaii Collection trust because many members don't vote, members have 1 vote per point owned but corporate has 3 votes per point owned (unsold points of the HI Collection).

The HI Collection trust owns the following resorts and from the number of units owned at each resort, HGV corporate probably controls the HOA at those resorts too:
~64% of units at The Point at Poipu (Kauai, HI)
~62% of units at Ka'anapali Beach Club (Maui, HI)
~60% of units at Villas at Pollo Towers (Las Vegas, NV)
~50% of units at Cancun Resort (Las Vegas, NV)
~32% of units at Palm Canyon Resort (Palm Spring, CA)
~31% of units at Cedar Breaks Lodge, (Brian Head, UT)
~7% of units at Sedona Summit (Sunset section only) (Sedona, AZ) ***

*** The US Collection trust owns ~72% of units at Sedona Summit and the US Collection is controlled by HGV corporate.

Heavy

 

[youppi]

FYI, I calculated the % from the financial report December 31, 2020

In the 2019 annual meeting presentation, they show the number in weeks in place of units and the % owned is similar

 

[Mongoose]

Worth the look. They point out HGV is a sub-brand and HGVC is still the flagship. It gives the impression that HGVC and HGV will operate separately for users with no "cross pollination" unless you join the still TBD HGV MAX. To me, the relationship might have the look and feel of the relationship between Worldmark and Wyndham. Hilton Grand Vacations Buys Diamond Resorts: How This Affects You - Selling Timeshares, Inc.

 

[BingoBangoBongo]

Worth the look. They point out HGV is a sub-brand and HGVC is still the flagship. It gives the impression that HGVC and HGV will operate separately for users with no "cross pollination" unless you join the still TBD HGV MAX. To me, the relationship might have the look and feel of the relationship between Worldmark and Wyndham. Hilton Grand Vacations Buys Diamond Resorts: How This Affects You - Selling Timeshares, Inc.

"ClubPoint Values Were Adjusted By 160%" - One of the most notable changes is that Hilton has adjusted ClubPoint values to be 160% higher than before.

Mine only went up 60%. Who should I call

 

[GT75]

Who should I call

Ghostbusters

 

[primeg]

The 160% in the article is a misprint. It should read 60%.

 

[brp]

The 160% in the article is a misprint. It should read 60%.

I thought that it was 160%, and the extra 100% were automatically transferred to HHonors points. And, with the devaluation, they reduced those so that the net result looks the same in the HHonors totals. But your suggestion makes more sense

Cheers.

 

[primeg]

I thought that it was 160%, and the extra 100% were automatically transferred to HHonors points. And, with the devaluation, they reduced those so that the net result looks the same in the HHonors totals. But your suggestion makes more sense

Cheers.

On the HGVC website this am:

Points Adjustment for Club Members
On February 24, 2022, Hilton Grand Vacations is changing the number of Points allocated to a Club Member’s vacation ownership interest and the number of Points required to make a reservation.

• ClubPoints, Bonus Points & Saved Points: The adjustment will increase all Points by 60%. Therefore, for every 1 Point in a Club Member’s account, the account will change to 1.6 Points. Example: If on February 23, a Club Member had 5,000 ClubPoints, on February 24, the Member will have 8,000 ClubPoints.
• Club Reservations: The number of Points needed to make reservations will also be adjusted across the Club Program by the same 60%. Hence, a Member’s ability to make reservations using their Points within the Hilton Grand Vacations Club system stays the same.
• RCI: Currently deposited Points in RCI will also be adjusted on February 24, 2022.
• Hilton Honors: Honors conversion ratios will be adjusted proportionally so you receive a commensurate Points amount.
• ClubPartner Perks: The exchange value per Points converted for ClubPartner Perks will be adjusted proportionally for each partner.
• Maintenance Fees: The exchange value per Bonus Points for maintenance fees will be adjusted proportionally as well.

It looks like we need to relearn all of our purchase/pt and MF/pt math.

 

[brp]

Understood. Both @BingoBangoBongo's and my posts were jokes based on the typo. The actual numbers were discussed a while back

Cheers.

 

[Mongoose]

"ClubPoint Values Were Adjusted By 160%" - One of the most notable changes is that Hilton has adjusted ClubPoint values to be 160% higher than before.

Mine only went up 60%. Who should I call

Yeah, I caught that. I figured if they said 60% people would think they were adjusted down. Could have been worded better.

 

[PigsDad]

"ClubPoint Values Were Adjusted By 160%" - One of the most notable changes is that Hilton has adjusted ClubPoint values to be 160% higher than before.

Mine only went up 60%. Who should I call

A case could be made that both statements are correct. "Adjusted by 160%" could very well mean multiplied by 160%, which is the same as "going up by 60%".

The diversity of discussions we have here always amazes me.

Kurt

 

[Eric B]

A case could be made that both statements are correct. "Adjusted by 160%" could very well mean multiplied by 160%, which is the same as "going up by 60%".

While true, the following statement that was included in the quote couldn't reasonably be interpreted that way:

Hilton has adjusted ClubPoint values to be 160% higher than before.

That statement would require that ClubPoint values be multiplied by 260%.

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

While true, the following statement that was included in the quote couldn't reasonably be interpreted that way:

Hilton has adjusted ClubPoint values to be 160% higher than before.

That statement would require that ClubPoint values be multiplied by 260%.

Or it could be interpreted as sloppy writing/editing. A couple of months ago one of the major US newspaper made this very mistake in the headline of a story real estate price increases. Reading the story is was clear that prices had gone up by nn% year over year. The headline said real estate prices were 1nn% higher than a year earlier.

 

[BingoBangoBongo]

Or it could be interpreted as sloppy writing/editing. A couple of months ago one of the major US newspaper made this very mistake in the headline of a story real estate price increases. Reading the story is was clear that prices had gone up by nn% year over year. The headline said real estate prices were 1nn% higher than a year earlier.

Or could be interpreted as "Timeshare math".

 

[Eric B]

Or it could be interpreted as sloppy writing/editing. A couple of months ago one of the major US newspaper made this very mistake in the headline of a story real estate price increases. Reading the story is was clear that prices had gone up by nn% year over year. The headline said real estate prices were 1nn% higher than a year earlier.

Well, that would probably be an appropriate identification of the root cause that lead to the publication of a headline that said what it said. Up is not down and wrong is not right. Call me a stickler or curmudgeon if you will - I won't object.

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

Well, that would probably be an appropriate identification of the root cause that lead to the publication of a headline that said what it said. Up is not down and wrong is not right. Call me a stickler or curmudgeon if you will - I won't object.

I'm a stickler as well. I emailed the writer of the article about the mistake. He acknowledged the error and they fixed the headline.

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

Or could be interpreted as "Timeshare math"

Yep - I've seen that math on a timeshare sales floor.

 

[Eric B]

Or could be interpreted as "Timeshare math".

Probably not as it was in printed material rather than being written upside down....

 

[Mongoose]

The 160% in the article is a misprint. It should read 60%.

While true, the following statement that was included in the quote couldn't reasonably be interpreted that way:

Hilton has adjusted ClubPoint values to be 160% higher than before.

That statement would require that ClubPoint values be multiplied by 260%.

Geez did this have legs…. It says adjusted to 160% rather than increased by 160%. It’s technically accurate but poorly written.

 

[brp]

Geez did this have legs…. It says adjusted to 160% rather than increased by 160%. It’s technically accurate but poorly written.

Right, but

One of the most notable changes is that Hilton has adjusted ClubPoint values to be 160% higher than before.

is not even technically correct as written.

Cheers.

 

[Eric B]

Geez did this have legs…. It says adjusted to 160% rather than increased by 160%. It’s technically accurate but poorly written.

It would be technically accurate but for the inclusion of the word "be" after the word "to" and the phrase "higher than before" after the figure 160%, making this a statement about the margin by which the ClubPoints changed rather than a statement about the final level of the ClubPoints. In my view, it's technically inaccurate and poorly written, but I fully admit to being a curmudgeon.

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]

It would be technically accurate but for the inclusion of the word "be" after the word "to" and the phrase "higher than before" after the figure 160%, making this a statement about the margin by which the ClubPoints changed rather than a statement about the final level of the ClubPoints. In my view, it's technically inaccurate and poorly written, but I fully admit to being a curmudgeon.

Curmudgeons rule!!!

One of the most notable changes is that Hilton has adjusted ClubPoint values to be 160% higher than before.

That statement can only mean that the new values are 260% of the old values. If they said values were 60% higher, then that would unequivocally mean that the new values are 1.6x the old values - you multiply by 0.6 and add that value to the old value. Thus, If they are 160% higher, you multiply by 1.6 and add that value to the old value, yielding a results that is 2.6x the original.

 

[terces]

I agree. When we owned 2 weeks at PoloTowers and DRI bought Sunterra, it made sense for us to pay the $2,995 joiner fee. It gave us easy access to a wealth of resorts and locations we didn’t have easy access into except through external exchange with II. It gave us control to choose the resort, check in date and view. All things we didn’t have with II.

I suspect there are more than a few Hilton owners who find themselves in the same position as we were all those years ago. They feel limited by Hilton’s offerings of destinations and will find the addition of all the DRI destinations attractive. Even if the joiner fee is $5,000, it’s less expensive than starting over in another system or even buying a resale week but having to pay the yearly MF on those purchases.

Agree - I would be totally happy to pay a reasonable joiner fee. Especially if they include some resorts in Canada.