Implications of new high points resorts and high open season rates

[win555]

@win555 It is good to research but you are overthinking this with doomsday hyperbole for both HGVC and MVC. Risk/reward. Your argument is like a financial pundit saying, "Don't invest in the stock market, you will lose money." I will remind you that the stock market is full of potholes and trader's who's best interest is to make a profit over the individual investor.

Pick a property, then analyze it for each system. Then you will have an answer as to whether this is right for your situation.

If you buy and don't like how the trading situation is evolving. Sell or give it away. Buy where you want to own. Add points for < $10k and stay at newer properties. IMHO...the risk is not that great. It's not like buying a house - we are talking about only $10k - $20k. I can still use or rent out in my timeshare. Can't say the same about stocks. If this risk is too great for your situation then you should not buy timeshares.

yes, I think this is what it comes down to: whether the risk is worth the reward. I don't know that yet.

Stocks are a different thing. I like staying invested in the stock market with Vanguard index funds. I feel the risk/reward is worth it.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

Again, the mindset TS developers seem to have is to destroy value rather than create it. Instead of "I want to make it easier for you to buy my product from me and harder to buy it from someone else", it would be better to say "how can I make my offering more compelling and worthwhile that people will buy from me". Both can achieve increased revenue but in one case value is destroyed, in another it is created. I don't have a problem with the latter. Music piracy has gone down because streaming services make piracy not worthwhile. I think almost everyone is better off.

With the exception of Southwest, the same could be said for the airline industry. Same for many of other industries.

 

[brp]

Again, the mindset TS developers seem to have is to destroy value rather than create it. Instead of "I want to make it easier for you to buy my product from me and harder to buy it from someone else", it would be better to say "how can I make my offering more compelling and worthwhile that people will buy from me". Both can achieve increased revenue but in one case value is destroyed, in another it is created. I don't have a problem with the latter. Music piracy has gone down because streaming services make piracy not worthwhile. I think almost everyone is better off.

Good point. The programs I know about, other than HGVC, have differential benefits for direct versus resale purchase. In the case of DVC, which I know best, it was done by removing things from resale. One could argue that they could have added more perks to direct, instead. However, even with those removals, the DVC purchases actually appreciate in value in many cases. So it does seem to work.

Cheers.

 

[bnoble]

I don't have a dog in the HGVC fight (am not an owner there, and don't plan to become one) but I have been following the OP's quest for a bit now.

It's predictably irrational as shown by studies by famous behavioral economist, Dan Ariely.

I like Dan's stuff. I've read a lot of it. But, whenever I see someone explaining why *they* are rational but the *other guy* (who doesn't agree with them) isn't, and they point to Dan, my spidey senses start to tingle. Even Dan will tell you that he often is irrational. That's the way humans work.

the mindset TS developers seem to have is to destroy value rather than create it.

The part you miss is that TS developers are developers. Their business model is to build (or acquire) and sell (or resell) condos and extract significant profit in the selling. They are not in the business of adding value to existing owners, and they certainly are not in the business of providing value to those who do not buy from them---namely, resale purchasers. That's fundamental to timeshare ownership. If that doesn't sound like a good idea to you, don't buy one.

you are overthinking this with doomsday hyperbole for both HGVC and MVC

Agreed, and I would go further. From where I am sitting you are overthinking all of it. There is no perfect decision. There is no guarantee any particular decision will work out. Make the best decision you can, and enjoy the vacations that come along with it. Alternatively, decide that this isn't for you and go some other route. I hope it works out for you, whichever route you pick.

But, "posting [something] for discussion" and then berating the people who don't agree with you isn't a discussion. It's just rude.

 

[Tamaradarann]

No, I don't own HGVC stock. But I don't need to own the stock to have a view on what a company should be doing. And I fully understand as merely a member, that a program of which I am a member will, and should, do things that are not always in my best interest. That's the reality.

I completely agree that bottom line alone is not sound thinking and things should be done with regard for the members, even if not everything will be things we will like. Then we each get to have our own views on whether particular actions are reasonable or not, and act with our wallets. But thinking that things are either in our best interest or they should not be done is, IMO, naive.

Cheers.

What is my best interest is not my emphasis. The title of this thread is the "Implications of high point resorts and high open season rates". I am expressing what HGVC is focused on with these actions and that they are less concerned if the implications are that the purchase of HGVC resorts are less attractive to certain buyers whether they are presentation buyers or resale buyers.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

IFrom where I am sitting you are overthinking all of it. There is no perfect decision. There is no guarantee any particular decision will work out. Make the best decision you can, and enjoy the vacations that come along with it. Alternatively, decide that this isn't for you and go some other route. I hope it works out for you, whichever route you pick.

+1 This

 

[CaliSunshine]

If you're buying a timeshare these days a big chunk of the "value" you're paying for is the points system. Look at the prices of Vistana mandatories vs optionals if you don't believe me. Even if what you're buying is a "deeded week" rather than a small percentage of a trust that is true, because many people cannot/will not plan their vacations 9 months in advance.

Unfortunately, with points systems, just like airline miles, there is always going to be an incentive for the developer to engage in devaluation. Having finished selling units in one hotel in Hawaii, why wouldn't they make the next hotel cost more points?

 

[PigsDad]

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

 

[win555]

I don't have a dog in the HGVC fight (am not an owner there, and don't plan to become one) but I have been following the OP's quest for a bit now.


I like Dan's stuff. I've read a lot of it. But, whenever I see someone explaining why *they* are rational but the *other guy* (who doesn't agree with them) isn't, and they point to Dan, my spidey senses start to tingle. Even Dan will tell you that he often is irrational. That's the way humans work.



But, "posting [something] for discussion" and then berating the people who don't agree with you isn't a discussion. It's just rude.

Fair enough. I wasn't trying to berate but that's how it came across.

The part you miss is that TS developers are developers. Their business model is to build (or acquire) and sell (or resell) condos and extract significant profit in the selling. They are not in the business of adding value to existing owners, and they certainly are not in the business of providing value to those who do not buy from them---namely, resale purchasers. That's fundamental to timeshare ownership. If that doesn't sound like a good idea to you, don't buy one.

The developer and management company roles are mixed in these hotel systems. The HOA has the responsibility to make sure management company serves the interest of owners but looks like many HOAs don't do that.

Agreed, and I would go further. From where I am sitting you are overthinking all of it. There is no perfect decision. There is no guarantee any particular decision will work out. Make the best decision you can, and enjoy the vacations that come along with it. Alternatively, decide that this isn't for you and go some other route. I hope it works out for you, whichever route you pick.

this is very insightful and powerful look at the way TS works. I'm going back and forth between being okay with the risk and then thinking this might not be worth the hassle.

 

[win555]

If you're buying a timeshare these days a big chunk of the "value" you're paying for is the points system. Look at the prices of Vistana mandatories vs optionals if you don't believe me. Even if what you're buying is a "deeded week" rather than a small percentage of a trust that is true, because many people cannot/will not plan their vacations 9 months in advance.

Unfortunately, with points systems, just like airline miles, there is always going to be an incentive for the developer to engage in devaluation. Having finished selling units in one hotel in Hawaii, why wouldn't they make the next hotel cost more points?

I guess there are lots of people like me who don't want to go to the same place for a week every year so I can see the weeks being cheaper to buy because of lower demand. With airline devaluations, I have indeed stopped flying certain airlines like Delta (unless the flight price is significantly lower). I see that TUGGERs recommend preparing for TS points system devaluation by buying at a place where it's easy to walk away with non-judicial anti-deficiency judgments.

 

[ski_sierra]

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

As a relatively new resale person, I'm happy with HGVC as well. Sure I'd like new resorts at low points but it seems unlikely to happen.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

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

@PigsDad makes an interesting point. "More choice. More value for me." It would have been very easy for HGVC to limit legacy buyers to the legacy resorts and completely wall off trading into the new resorts. For example if you bought in 2010 and there were 10 resorts, you bought with the premise that you could only trade into those 10. You paid club fees for that. Now there are say 35 resorts (IDK how many). That buyer now has access to 35 resorts.* That's an increase in value to the network. Glass half full? or Glass half empty?


* Some of the resorts like bHC, have reduced reservation windows, but they are not completely walled off. There are others that are completely available without restriction e.g. Ocean Tower, Chicago.

 

[brp]

@PigsDad makes an interesting point. "More choice. More value for me." It would have been very easy for HGVC to limit legacy buyers to the legacy resorts and completely wall off trading into the new resorts. For example if you bought in 2010 and there were 10 resorts, you bought with the premise that you could only trade into those 10. You paid club fees for that. Now there are say 35 resorts (IDK how many). That buyer now has access to 35 resorts.* That's an increase in value to the network. Glass half full? or Glass half empty?


* Some of the resorts like bHC, have reduced reservation windows, but they are not completely walled off. There are others that are completely available without restriction e.g. Ocean Tower, Chicago.

This is exactly what DVC have done. They are building new resorts and people who buy resale at the "Legacy 14" will not be able to trade into these.

Cheers.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

Plus, HGVC is aggressively adding new properties for the foreseeable future to compete with MVC. This will open up MORE inventory to Club members because HGVC tends to make unsold inventory in new developments available to club owners for the first few years. There is no requirement to do this. Does it typically cost more points? Usually, but shouldn't newer cost more? (There are some pockets with lower points requirements: 3250 points in NYC. Ocean Tower on BI has studios and 1 bedrooms 3400 - 7200 points.)

How is opening up inventory in newer resorts to legacy owners taking away value?

 

[win555]

How is opening up inventory in newer resorts to legacy owners taking away value?

It depends on whether the points requirements for new inventory match their market value. Is ocean tower studio 1.5x more desirable for club members than Lagoon Tower? The only way to answer is look at the utilization ratio of those studios.

If they assign fair market value, then it's great for club members. If they don't then it's not great for club members.

 

[CaliSunshine]

Plus, HGVC is aggressively adding new properties for the foreseeable future to compete with MVC. This will open up MORE inventory to Club members because HGVC tends to make unsold inventory in new developments available to club owners for the first few years. There is no requirement to do this. Does it typically cost more points? Usually, but shouldn't newer cost more? (There are some pockets with lower points requirements: 3250 points in NYC. Ocean Tower on BI has studios and 1 bedrooms 3400 - 7200 points.)

How is opening up inventory in newer resorts to legacy owners taking away value?

WMOwners, when it was up had a really good answer to this. The basic idea is that you have a right to use a certain pool of properties right now. When new properties are added to the pool, the new owners who own in that new property also get access to use your pool of properties, thereby diluting your right to use. That's great if the new property is as desirable, or even more desirable to use than your existing properties, but not good if the new property is not (or is just too expensive).

Easiest way to see it is if we have two imaginary properties only, and you are an owner in one of them (property Old). For the purposes of explanation, let's say the units are all the same size (2BR) and let's say there are 100 units in each property, and forget season for the time being.

So today, you own a week in property Old, and you can use your points to book a week in any unit of property Old. That means you effectively own 1/5200 of property Old (100 units x 52 weeks = 5200). Tomorrow, HGVC decides to add property New to the system. Property New, as implied by the name, is newer, but their units cost 50% more points. When HGVC adds property New to your system and sells all of property New, all of a sudden your ownership also changes. Instead of owning 1/5200 of property Old, you own 1/13000 of property Old and 1/13000 of property New. Why 13000? Because now the total ownership is 5200 (all of the owners of property Old) + 1.5 x 5200 (all of the owners of property New). The New owners own a bit more than that: 1/8666.7 of both property Old and property New. So the real question is whether you are willing to exchange a piece of your ownership in property Old for property New. If the property New is in fact 1.5 times or even 2 times as good as property Old, then yes, you're getting a benefit. But instead, if property New is not 1.5x as good, maybe it's only just 1x as good as property Old, then you've just made a bad exchange. Of course, you don't have any say in this. HGVC makes the decision for you, which means it's highly unlikely that property New will ever be 1.5x as good as property Old, which means over time the value of your ownership will be diluted.

 

[ljmiii]

This is exactly what DVC have done. They are building new resorts and people who buy resale at the "Legacy 14" will not be able to trade into these.

Even worse, no one who buys resale at any new DVC resort will be able to trade anywhere. It will be interesting to see how that plays out from both a sales and reservation perspective.

 

[tombanjo]

that is not exactly true for a few reasons, primarily, booking windows and home week make "your" property more accessible to "you". The $ per point in MF is not necessarily the same, and there will not be 5200 units on the resale market to start, so the buy in between the new and old are not the same. If you want to look at dilution, you could say anyone who buys resale devalues all the "developer" owners. Anyone who uses their points outside their home windows and resort dilutes the entire system but taking away a room from an owner at that resort. The reality is it is a non-linear process with a lot of moving parts. Not all variables have known values. Next year (and the remainder of this year) might show some serious weaknesses in the process, as points get rolled over and demand increases once people can travel freely.

 

[CaliSunshine]

Sorry I made the math too complicated. Basically when property New gets added into the system instead of owning the right to use 100% of property Old you now own the right to use 40% of a week of property Old and 40% of a week of property New.

If 40% of a week of property New is more valuable than 60% of a week of property Old then you’ve profited. Otherwise you’ve lost out.

Yes the fact that there’s an underlying week makes this a bit more complicated but except for a couple of Hawaii resorts the majority of owners do not book before the 9 month window.

 

[buzglyd]

For the life of me, I’ve never consulted a spreadsheet to decide whether I’ve enjoyed my vacation or not.

welcome to the spreadsheet brigade win 555!

 

[dayooper]

Sorry I made the math too complicated. Basically when property New gets added into the system instead of owning the right to use 100% of property Old you now own the right to use 40% of a week of property Old and 40% of a week of property New.

If 40% of a week of property New is more valuable than 60% of a week of property Old then you’ve profited. Otherwise you’ve lost out.

Yes the fact that there’s an underlying week makes this a bit more complicated but except for a couple of Hawaii resorts the majority of owners do not book before the 9 month window.

No, I’m the one that needs to apologize. You lost me when you basically said I wasn’t intelligent enough to understand the math behind your point.

 

[CaliSunshine]

No, I’m the one that needs to apologize. You lost me when you basically said I wasn’t intelligent enough to understand the math behind your point.

That wasn’t directed at you or anyone else. Just had a moment where I was like why am I making this so complicated when there’s a much easier way to say the same thing.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

WMOwners, when it was up had a really good answer to this. The basic idea is that you have a right to use a certain pool of properties right now. When new properties are added to the pool, the new owners who own in that new property also get access to use your pool of properties, thereby diluting your right to use. That's great if the new property is as desirable, or even more desirable to use than your existing properties, but not good if the new property is not (or is just too expensive).

Easiest way to see it is if we have two imaginary properties only, and you are an owner in one of them (property Old). For the purposes of explanation, let's say the units are all the same size (2BR) and let's say there are 100 units in each property, and forget season for the time being.

So today, you own a week in property Old, and you can use your points to book a week in any unit of property Old. That means you effectively own 1/5200 of property Old (100 units x 52 weeks = 5200). Tomorrow, HGVC decides to add property New to the system. Property New, as implied by the name, is newer, but their units cost 50% more points. When HGVC adds property New to your system and sells all of property New, all of a sudden your ownership also changes. Instead of owning 1/5200 of property Old, you own 1/13000 property Old and 1/13000 of property New. Why 13000? Because now the total ownership is 5200 (all of the owners of property Old) + 1.5 x 5200 (all of the owners of property New). The New owners own a bit more than that: 1/8666.7 of both property Old and property New. So the real question is whether you are willing to exchange a piece of your ownership in property Old for property New. If the property New is in fact 1.5 times or even 2 times as good as property Old, then yes, you're getting a benefit. But instead, if property New is not 1.5x as good, maybe it's only just 1x as good as property Old, then you've just made a bad exchange. Of course, you don't have any say in this. HGVC makes the decision for you, which means it's highly unlikely that property New will ever be 1.5x as good as property Old, which means over time the value of your ownership will be diluted.

Perhaps this is the case in a pure points trust. But as @tombanjo pointed out, HGVC (and Vistana, and MVC deeded units) are anchored in deeds so Old owner still have 100% right to use their deed. Old owner still has 1/5200 ownership at their resort when they use their deed. - nothing has changed.

What you are describing only happens when the owner chooses to trade. But I am not convinced ownership % is the best way to look at this.

How do you account for arbitrage on MF? If I am able to use my lower MF/point Old property to trade into high MF on New, I am still way ahead of New owner who must pay the higher MF/point to use the same property. If anything, on a MF/point basis NEW is paying a premium to use my legacy resort so may not view it as optimal as using on a NEW property. This goes against the hypothesis the OP made for too much demand for legacy.

 

[CalGalTraveler]

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.

 

[SmithOp]

Yes the fact that there’s an underlying week makes this a bit more complicated but except for a couple of Hawaii resorts the majority of owners do not book before the 9 month window.

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