Implications of new high points resorts and high open season rates

[CaliSunshine]

I can give examples of this MF arbitrage:

a) On a MF/point basis we pay more for NYC bHC points. Most owners of expensive bHC points will never use their points for club resorts because the MF per point cost is too high. So we use "NEW" NYC points for priority NYC reservations where we own. OTOH, legacy OLD owners in Vegas can arbitrage into NYC when the club window opens. They are way ahead on a MF/point basis. For example, on a studio, we pay $1600 MF for 5250 points. An "Old" Vegas owner can apply at $ 0.14/point x 5250 = $735 for the same week in the same resort. (Am I upset? No because we get priority rights to pick almost any room in the place before everyone else plus we get owner's lounge privileges that traders don't.) Why would I spend $1600 to trade NYC for a week in Vegas when I could rent for half that?

b) We trade Vegas into Hawaii annually. We pay a lower MF/point for Vegas, trading into Hawaiian properties with a high MF/point. So if it takes 7000 points for a room, say the Hawaiian owner pays $1600 MF. Our 7000 Vegas points cost us only $1000 MF/year. $1600 vs. $1000 for the same room. Who is ahead? Legacy Vegas. Of course, if the Hawaii owner decides to use their home unit, they get priority reservations. And they should because they paid a premium for this right. Just like we do in NYC.

For sure these kinds of MF/point optimizations exist regardless. Even in pure points trusts, they exist, although they're not explicit. You don't have to be a Wyndham employee to realize that the Worldmarks in Maui probably costs more to maintain on a per unit basis than the Worldmarks in Vegas. That doesn't mean that all existing owners won't be diluted if HGVC keeps on adding units with inflated points costs, due to the logic I laid out above. Sure, your HGVC in Vegas will still be a good deal as a trader, but over time, it will be less of a good deal because HGVC introduced higher point units. Thankfully, the process of building new resorts is a slow one, so the dilution will also happen relatively slowly. And there's not a whole lot owners can do in my opinion except keep enjoying their vacations and finding the best trades possible. Even Worldmark, with its nominally independent board and a fairly educated and loyal ownership couldn't stop it.

Of the big timeshare companies, it looks like DVC is the only one that doesn't make their existing owners "subsidize" (I put subsidize in quotes because people who buy retail are getting a raw deal regardless) their new owners. They do that by raising their prices every year, which AFAIK is not the case for other systems.

 

[CaliSunshine]

Do you work for HGV and have access to reservation Reports? There is no other way you could possibly assert that the majority of owners do not book before the 9 month window. TUGers maybe, but we are a very small percentage of owners.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

I do not. However, it's my opinion that TUGgers are far more likely to be value optimizers and book before the 9 month window (for certain resorts) than the average owner.

 

[Tamaradarann]

I've been an owner since 2005, and I can honestly say that I don't feel that any value of my ownership has been destroyed by HGVC building and selling the high point resorts. I can still book the same HGVC resorts that were available to me in 2005 with the exact same number of points as when I purchased. And now, I have even more choices of resorts, some that require higher points, and some that are on the original point structure. More choice, more value for me. I have not seen the availability go down of the resorts that were around when I bought, so I personally don't buy into the hypothesis of the reduced value for existing owners as new, higher point properties come online.

Kurt

I agree with you that the value of my ownership has NOT been destroyed by HGVC. I can still book the same resorts for the same points that I could book 10 years ago. Of course, as a member it would be good to be able to use Open Season to book a Hawaii Studio for $60/night during the week and $80/night on the weekend like it was 10 years ago.

I am re-thinking my position on the "Implications of High Points Resorts and High Open Season Rates". I still believe that the High Price at Presentations for the High Point Resorts will prevent some people from buying as will the high price for the legacy HGVC resorts at presentation. However, I don't believe that the High Open Season Rates is a deterrent for new buyers since they don't know the Open Season system and the sales people will show them Open Season Rates in an area where they are still $60/night during the week and $80/night and say that you can book all the resorts using Open Season which is true except the rates will NOT be the same.

Furthermore, on the resale purchase and selling market the higher the price at presentations makes the resale market more attractive. This is better for current owners who are selling their HGVC timeshares.

 

[frank808]

Of the big timeshare companies, it looks like DVC is the only one that doesn't make their existing owners "subsidize" (I put subsidize in quotes because people who buy retail are getting a raw deal regardless) their new owners. They do that by raising their prices every year, which AFAIK is not the case for other systems.

Direct buyers at the newest Riviera Resorts can book all the DVC resorts. While resale owners at the other DVC resorts cannot book into Riviera Resort (this was implemented for resale contracts bought after Jan 18, 2019).

MVC raises prices on the points and weeks they sell every year.

Sent from my SM-T377P using Tapatalk

 

[CalGalTraveler]

For sure these kinds of MF/point optimizations exist regardless. Even in pure points trusts, they exist, although they're not explicit. You don't have to be a Wyndham employee to realize that the Worldmarks in Maui probably costs more to maintain on a per unit basis than the Worldmarks in Vegas. That doesn't mean that all existing owners won't be diluted if HGVC keeps on adding units with inflated points costs, due to the logic I laid out above. Sure, your HGVC in Vegas will still be a good deal as a trader, but over time, it will be less of a good deal because HGVC introduced higher point units. Thankfully, the process of building new resorts is a slow one, so the dilution will also happen relatively slowly. And there's not a whole lot owners can do in my opinion except keep enjoying their vacations and finding the best trades possible. Even Worldmark, with its nominally independent board and a fairly educated and loyal ownership couldn't stop it.

You and @win555 keep referring to Worldmark like there has been a disaster. I thought Worldmark owners were happy and the system runs well. Can you elaborate on what has happened to owners on dilution, i.e. what are you experiencing that you could do before? Plus the number of new units/buildings they added that brought them to this tipping point of disaster you keep referring to?

 

[brp]

I do not. However, it's my opinion that TUGgers are far more likely to be value optimizers and book before the 9 month window (for certain resorts) than the average owner.

I agree. However, realistically, there are not enough to matter and skew the distribution in a measurable way. So, while some of your analysis is theoretically valid, it's likely just that - theory, without too much practical application. I just don't think it plays out as you have outlined anywhere near enough to matter.

(Oh yeah, we own cheap Vegas points that we use on The Big Island )

Cheers.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

FWIW...I would like to see HGVC enable renting of points to/from owners similar to MVC enrolled weeks. A lot less hassle than being a landlord for a home week if you have excess points and can't/won't sell. It would provide an additional option and reduce defaults.

 

[CaliSunshine]

You and @win555 keep referring to Worldmark like there has been a disaster. I thought Worldmark owners were happy and the system runs well. Can you elaborate on what has happened to owners on dilution, i.e. what are you experiencing that you could do before? Plus the number of new units/buildings they added that brought them to this tipping point of disaster you keep referring to?

WMOwners is back up so I’ll let you peruse their much better explained arguments about point inflation/dilution and end my ill advised foray into this subject. https://www.wmowners.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=80569#80569

To me worldmark still is a tremendous value. I’m in California so 4 Worldmarks are within a couple of hours of driving and a big chunk more are not that much further.

The problem is that they’ve entered this state where points that owners pay 8 cents a point for maintenance fees on are regularly getting rented out at 6 or even under 5 cents a point. That has depressed resale values. Unfortunately they have really low brand recognition and their owner population like most other systems is aging rapidly so I don’t see the trend changing anytime soon.

 

[tombanjo]

As an aside to the aging - Hilton Club NY definitely has an older demographic than W 57th. At least as it appeared to me. Possibly because there are a lot more people at W 57th than HCNY, so a more diverse population is more apparent. There are a lot of people who mention how many kids they have and what activities there are for kids as they look for Orlando or other beach-y vacation locations, so I think a younger demographic is still doing timeshares. Obviously, an older group is possibly retired and has more time for timeshares, as well as more disposable income, but I would not write timeshares off as an ancient and soon to be discarded anachronism.

 

[CaliSunshine]

As an aside to the aging - Hilton Club NY definitely has an older demographic than W 57th. At least as it appeared to me. Possibly because there are a lot more people at W 57th than HCNY, so a more diverse population is more apparent. There are a lot of people who mention how many kids they have and what activities there are for kids as they look for Orlando or other beach-y vacation locations, so I think a younger demographic is still doing timeshares. Obviously, an older group is possibly retired and has more time for timeshares, as well as more disposable income, but I would not write timeshares off as an ancient and soon to be discarded anachronism.

Oh for sure. I'm in my mid-30s. But if it weren't for TUG I would have never found out about Worldmark. Their website still asks me to upgrade to Flash 3.0 or above!

 

[CalGalTraveler]

WMOwners is back up so I’ll let you peruse their much better explained arguments about point inflation/dilution and end my ill advised foray into this subject. https://www.wmowners.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=80569#80569

To me worldmark still is a tremendous value. I’m in California so 4 Worldmarks are within a couple of hours of driving and a big chunk more are not that much further.

The problem is that they’ve entered this state where points that owners pay 8 cents a point for maintenance fees on are regularly getting rented out at 6 or even under 5 cents a point. That has depressed resale values. Unfortunately they have really low brand recognition and their owner population like most other systems is aging rapidly so I don’t see the trend changing anytime soon.

Thanks will review. Just to clarify: Is Worldmark a trust points portfolio i.e. owners do not own a deed at a specific property; they own a share of a land trust with many properties, or is it like HGVC with points attached to a specific deed?

 

[CaliSunshine]

Thanks will review. Just to clarify: Worldmark is a trust points portfolio i.e. owners do not own a deed to a specific deed at a specific property correct?

Correct, and I understand HGVC is weeks based. However, my argument is that it doesn't make as much of a difference as people think. Compare the difference in resale between a no points Elara week and a HGVC points-based Elara week. The bulk of the value people are paying for is in the points program.

 

[win555]

I can give examples of this MF arbitrage:

a) On a MF/point basis we pay more for NYC bHC points. Most owners of expensive bHC points will never use their points for club resorts because the MF per point cost is too high. So we use "NEW" NYC points for priority NYC reservations where we own. OTOH, legacy OLD owners in Vegas can arbitrage into NYC when the club window opens. They are way ahead on a MF/point basis. For example, on a studio, we pay $1600 MF for 5250 points. An "Old" Vegas owner can apply at $ 0.14/point x 5250 = $735 for the same week in the same resort. (Am I upset? No because we get priority rights to pick almost any room in the place before everyone else plus we get owner's lounge privileges that traders don't.) Why would I spend $1600 to trade NYC for a week in Vegas when I could rent for half that?

b) We trade Vegas into Hawaii annually. We pay a lower MF/point for Vegas, trading into Hawaiian properties with a high MF/point. So if it takes 7000 points for a room, say the Hawaiian owner pays $1600 MF. Our 7000 Vegas points cost us only $1000 MF/year. $1600 vs. $1000 for the same room. Who is ahead? Legacy Vegas. Of course, if the Hawaii owner decides to use their home unit, they get priority reservations. And they should because they paid a premium for this right. Just like we do in NYC.

Let me use Lagoon Tower units as a proxy for high value units/locations/timeframes but low points attached to them.

Because HGVC is deeded, the Lagoon Tower owners may not want to participate in the club as expressed by @alwysonvac. @alwysonvac has also expressed a desire to opt out from the club as it is a burden rather than a benefit. Once you have very few Lagoon Tower units in the club, there are limited arbitrage opportunities.

The situation is slightly different for the high points owner weeks. For many of them it might not make sense to use their weeks in the club because of the high purchase price or MF as explained by @brp and @GT75. In that case the club fee is also a burden for them, maybe a small one because of their high purchase price/MF. They are more likely to participate in the club than the Lagoon Tower owners as they get more points. Some of the high points weeks may end up in the club unintentionally or intentionally, but if you need to buy another Vegas week to stay in the high points units, what happens to the arbitrage calculation above?

Then one also has the risk of Vegas units being in a state with unfavorable laws. Because of the high transfer/activation fees for HGVC, once the arbitrage opportunity becomes limited, it might not be easy to unload. The Vegas unit values with no club benefits would sell for similar prices to the Marriott there. I see that people pick up a 2 Br Marriott unit there for <$2k, but there is no burdensome transfer fee (unlike HGVC) or ongoing club fee.

The home week stays have be for a week. Vegas doesn't exactly strike me as a destination for week long trips unlike Orlando, Hawaii or the mountains. And there are so many nice shiny hotels in Vegas and the type of demographic that goes there might not value the kitchen and extra space (unlike those going to Hawaii) if one is trying to rent out in Vegas. Many owners will look to unload causing resale prices to fall, some will default causing MFs to rise further and you know the rest...

I guess there will always be other low value units in the club so HGVC Vegas owners might not need to use it for a week long stay. From what I read about exchanging, it could end up being like II/RCI, where there is very limited high value inventory and lots of less desirable weeks that they will let you book for $300 a week.

Correct, and I understand HGVC is weeks based. However, my argument is that it doesn't make as much of a difference as people think. Compare the difference in resale between a no points Elara week and a HGVC points-based Elara week. The bulk of the value people are paying for is in the points program.

sometimes not being deeded can have advantages. In WM, the high value units cannot be taken out of the club, so they will always be there but with more competition. Plus my understanding is that the club is registered in California so one day when the time comes to walk away, it shouldn't be a pain with the consumer-friendly CA laws.

That was a lucky coincidence for me with WM registered in CA. I didn't know that when I bought my WM resale.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

Let me use Lagoon Tower units as a proxy for high value units/locations/timeframes but low points attached to them.

Because HGVC is deeded, the Lagoon Tower owners may not want to participate in the club as expressed by @alwysonvac. @alwysonvac has also expressed a desire to opt out from the club as it is a burden rather than a benefit. Once you have very few Lagoon Tower units in the club, there are limited arbitrage opportunities.

Why do you think traders should have higher priority? They know what they are getting when they buy. That's why many TUGGers say, "Buy where you want to go." If you buy a week at Lagoon Tower, you have forever rights to use that week. That's zero devaluation, zip. That's vastly different from a land trust in which the entire system is competing for the same limited high-value units.

Can you cite a single points trading program in timesharing that hasn't experienced some form of devaluation or change over time?

In addition, there is arbitrage in Lagoon Tower. Home week is only good for the exact unit in the exact season. Many Lagoon Tower home week owners want a different view or different size unit or a different season. This puts them back in club to use points for Lagoon Tower or other property.

Club fee is a small price to pay for the flexibility to tailor what you own to a your vacation needs. Club is still a fraction of rental cost for the same unit. Compared to renting the same unit, owners are saving a bundle.

Traders know they are getting a deal and nothing lasts forever. Ride the horse as long as you can and then move onto the next one. This horse is changing very slowly so I am not concerned.

Some of the high points weeks may end up in the club unintentionally or intentionally, but if you need to buy another Vegas week to stay in the high points units, what happens to the arbitrage calculation above?

Even if you need to buy another week the MF/point remains the same. If the new unit is .22 cents a point and the Vegas double is .14 cents a point MF, for the same number of points per unit. Sure the purchase price add a few thousand but compared to the new owner who bought developer it's a fraction of the cost for that new unit. Alternatively, sell Vegas and pick up a resale in the new building for a fraction of the cost.

Then one also has the risk of Vegas units being in a state with unfavorable laws. Because of the high transfer/activation fees for HGVC, once the arbitrage opportunity becomes limited, it might not be easy to unload. The Vegas unit values with no club benefits would sell for similar prices to the Marriott there. I see that people pick up a 2 Br Marriott unit there for <$2k, but there is no burdensome transfer fee (unlike HGVC) or ongoing club fee.

sometimes not being deeded can have advantages. In WM, the high value units cannot be taken out of the club, so they will always be there but with more competition. Plus my understanding is that the club is registered in California so one day when the time comes to walk away, it shouldn't be a pain with the consumer-friendly CA laws.

That was a lucky coincidence for me with WM registered in CA. I didn't know that when I bought my WM resale.

I wouldn't count your chickens. The law is settled for deeded timeshares. Land Trusts, especially those that contain multi-state deeds, have yet to be fully tested in the courts.

One of the fees for transfer is enrolling the unit in club. This is required of all HGVC units (except a few affiliates). This makes most units available to club and makes the system fluid. MVC only has about 60% of units enrolled. That's a lot of units (incl. highly valued ones that owners will use or rent out ) that will never become available to points owners.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

Correct, and I understand HGVC is weeks based. However, my argument is that it doesn't make as much of a difference as people think. Compare the difference in resale between a no points Elara week and a HGVC points-based Elara week. The bulk of the value people are paying for is in the points program.

They also don't want to own units associated with Westgate program which has a reputation for treating resale buyers poorly by stripping away many perks. HGVC treats resale buyers well.

 

[GT75]

And at Lagoon Tower you are required to be part of the club (it isn’t an affiliate)

 

[PigsDad]

All of this is an interesting theory started by a person who has never owned HGVC (not knocking @win555, just stating that s/he has not had the same personal experience as owners have had), but the true reality could be something quite different. I propose a survey:

Question: For anyone who has owned HGVC for more than 5 years (experienced owners), do you feel that your value has been (diminished | remained the same | increased) by the addition of the new, higher-point resorts?

As a 15 year owner, I would vote "increased", as I have stated earlier.

Kurt

 

[CalGalTraveler]

@PigsDad good idea. Can you set this up as a poll?

 

[PigsDad]

@PigsDad good idea. Can you set this up as a poll?

Done.

Kurt

 

[escanoe]

If "ifs and buts" were "beers and nuts" this thread would be one heck of a party. I am through reading this one for now. Someone DM me if the topic changes and I should come back.

 

[win555]

And at Lagoon Tower you are required to be part of the club (it isn’t an affiliate)

Yes. Worst of both worlds for owners of Lagoon Tower as said by @alwysonvac. For other club members: LT is in the club but not many owners will make their week available to book for club members because there is only a small percentage of inventory of comparable value in the club.

I wouldn't count your chickens. The law is settled for deeded timeshares. Land Trusts, especially those that contain multi-state deeds, have yet to be fully tested in the courts.

Thanks for the info about California and land trusts. That makes me question whether I should keep WM. I certainly won't be buying in NV as the law there is not favorable for timeshare ownership.

Regarding your other questions: I think we are talking past each other and it's no longer a fruitful discussion, so I'll bow out.

I have the information I need to make my decision based on the things posted by other people and the poll set up by @PigsDad

 

[CalGalTraveler]

@win555 agree it is time to move one. Deeded weeks with points attached, and points-based land trusts are apples and oranges with their own set of pros and cons.

Good luck with your decision.

 

[SmithOp]

If "ifs and buts" were "beers and nuts" this thread would be one heck of a party. I am through reading this one for now. Someone DM me if the topic changes and I should come back.

my popcorn hasn’t run out yet


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[rjp123]

That's the point. Folks who purchase at the high-point-price places plan to use it there. Otherwise they'd be buying in Vegas.

Cheers.

The vast majority of people who buy at the high price places do not know about the resale market. They are sold on the fact that their one week in a high price resort can get them many more weeks in a low price resort.

Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk

 

[brp]

The vast majority of people who buy at the high price places do not know about the resale market. They are sold on the fact that their one week in a high price resort can get them many more weeks in a low price resort.

Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk

Interesting. Do you have data to support that? I don't doubt the "don't know about the resale market" part. But I am skeptical of people buying higher-priced bHC points to use in places like Vegas and Orlando rather than at their high-priced resort. Basically, my conjecture is that people buying W. 57th primarily use it at W. 57th, not Vegas.

Also, I don't believe that the point multiple is that great that one gets "many more" weeks elsewhere. Maybe 2:1?

Now, even exempting any knowledge of the resale market, if one wants to use points in Vegas, is it cheaper (in buy-in and MFs) to simply buy more in Vegas verus buying in NYC to use in Vegas? I just think that there is never a logic point (resale or not), to buy high-priced points to use in low-priced locations. But I haven't priced out the permutations.

Cheers.