On Megarenters - and why hasn't Worldmark fixed this...

[chemteach]

I purchased Worldmark recently, and from the short experience I have had with the online system, it's pretty clear that whatever Worldmark has done with housekeeping fees and guest certificate fees - it may have impacted the bottom line of megarenters, but they are just as active now (concluded based on my studying the availability of Hawaii Xmas weeks for 2019) as they ever were. Every morning for the last 5 days, I tried to get a good unit at a good time. But what happens is that between the hours of 6 and 7am, the current date's availability disappears (as expected), but if only one unit was available today, within a half hour, availability for the following 3 days slowly goes from >5 to 0 units available for many unit types - sometimes just for the following day, sometimes for the next 2 days, sometimes for 5 days. If people are only allowed to book from today to 13 months from today, then the availability of units for the following 6 days should only decrease by the number of units that could be booked 13 months from today. It seems Worldmark has some serious glitches in its system. I have not seen anything like this in Vistana. I have read a lot about people doing strange things with waitlists.

It doesn't seem like the problem with the system is megarenters - Worldmark has nothing in its bylaws against renting units out. The problem is with the 13 month rule not being applied equally to all Worldmark owners. Worldmark really needs to fix the situation with 13 month reservation workarounds. Owners are blaming megarenters for the problem - but any owner can do whatever it is a megarenter is doing as soon as an owner figures out how to "beat" the system.


If Worldmark wants to fix the real problem, they need to do something about the reservation rules (and the computer programming - their online system is very glitchy) and the waitlist rules. A small subset of Worldmark owners have the know-how to get reservations booked in advance of 13 months - that's pretty clear. This morning was crazy to watch how the availability for high demand Xmas weeks suddenly disappeared completely - even checking in on a Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday. Worldmark has to know what is happening - and the fix seems pretty easy - if two accounts appear to be working together in a fixed pattern - where one cancels, and the other account continuously gets the cancelled units off the waitlist - there is clearly a link between the two accounts, and a problem in the system. If someone at Worldmark took 3 hours to look at the history of waitlist placements and cancellations for Kihei units, they could likely identify a number of people who are using some type of workaround. Worldmark could contact any owners doing this and tell them to stop.

There should at least be a rule in place that says if accounts are found to be connected to create workarounds for creating reservations greater than 13 months in advance for more than "x" units per year, those accounts will lose their current reservations. There could be an additional rule that if those accounts continue to use workarounds, they will no longer be allowed to borrow credits into their account, and not be allowed to make reservations until the 12 (or 11) month window - or... make up a consequence...

I find it difficult to understand why this has gone on for so long. (Based on prior posts - it appears this is something owners have known about for a good number of years.) The average owner should have the same access to high demand weeks as any other owner - and not have to watch availability for checkin dates 13 months +1,2,3 days out disappear between the hours of 6-6:30am. It's crazy!!

 

[ecwinch]

If someone at Worldmark took 3 hours to look at the history of waitlist placements and cancellations for Kihei units, they could likely identify a number of people who are using some type of workaround. Worldmark could contact any owners doing this and tell them to stop.

Imagine for a second that you are in charge of reaching out to the owners that are using the waitlist to manipulate the reservation process. What do you cite as your authority to "tell them to stop"? The technique they are using is permitted under the current guidelines - because the activity occurs in different accounts. And when they tell you to go pound sand, what is the next step?

After the recent BoD meeting I had a conversation with BoD member Robert Hartsock on this topic. He told me that when he first got on the BoD he thought it could be handled like you suggest - "just send them a cease and desist" letter was his recommendation. But the issues I mention above are the stumbling blocks there.

Attend a BoD meeting and talk to a few BoD members. They are very focused on ending the "internal virus" that plagues Club. The challenge is trying to strike the balance and that any rule/guideline you might come up with has to apply to all members.

The sad part is that waitlist manipulation is likely cause for the Wyndham killing the waitlist system in the future.

ps. Dont get me wrong. I am in agreement with your intent. But the challenge is coming up with a rule. I even suggested something to the BoD - but it would be unlikely to survive a challenge.

 

[ronparise]

Be assured they are working on a solution and have been for some time.

But understand renting is specifically allowed by the declaration. So a flat prohibition of rentals is not something that can happen. What they have been doing is closing loopholes and changing rules so that every owner has an equal chance at every reservation. Ie leveling the playing field. Manipulation of the waitlist was never a thing because there were other ways to get a jump on the rest of the owners to make multiple high value reservations. Now that those loopholes are closed the waitlist was exploited. Change the waitlist and they will find something else. It’s been a game of wack a mole

Wyndham knows who the mega renters are so that’s not an issue, and they know what they are doing to get more than their fair share of high value reservations. The problem has been crafting new rules to level the playing field that are fair to the entire ownership

You are, i think on the right track when you say they should just tell the megarenters to stop what they are doing

That’s what they did to us club Wyndham megarenters. They suspended our accounts for “unusual activity” and did audits that lasted forever. We were effectively shut down. I had a choice, I could sign my entire ownership back to Wyndham, or fight them in court. We had a little heart to heart talk and ultimately they made me an offer I couldn’t refuse. and they did the same with all of us. I’m out and I’ve signed an agreement that I’ll never own a wyndham timeshare again

They then changed the rules to make it really difficult for new megarenter wannabes to get started

I’m guessing they have something similar in mind for the Worldmark megarenters There are only about 20 of them. My prediction is that they will contact each one and just suspend their accounts and then dare the owners to challenge them in court. As big as some of the megarenters are, none of them have the resources to outlast Wyndham in court and all of them have a hot button that when pushed will get them to agree to give up their ownerships

So be patient, you are gonna get what you want


Just know this, it won’t be any easier to get the reservations you want. You will have a chance at that special reservation but your chances won’t be much better than they are now

 

[ecwinch]

As much as I would like to have faith in Ron's prediction, I believe he is comparing an apple to an orange.

In Club Wyndham, the account suspensions were supported by a credit imbalance in their account, giving Wyndham probable cause to justify the actions taken.

In WM, suspending their accounts without some similar proof would make for a fairly easy court case. Ron's situation was different in that regard and would have undermined his challenge of the actions taken.

 

[CO skier]

Be assured they are working on a solution and have been for some time.

But understand renting is specifically allowed by the declaration. So a flat prohibition of rentals is not something that can happen.

My prediction is that they will contact each one and just suspend their accounts and then dare the owners to challenge them in court.

Therein lies the difference between WorldMark and Club Wyndham. The WorldMark declaration specifically allows rentals.

Just know this, it won’t be any easier to get the reservations you want. You will have a chance at that special reservation but your chances won’t be much better than they are now

​

It is not easy to reserve the Hawaii resorts, for example, but the 13-month availability is definitely better now than it was before the change to grouped reservations and the limitation on transferred credits and housekeeping. If more owners are staying in popular resorts as a result of these changes, that is a plus for those lucky owners.

 

[chemteach]

But there is still some kind of workaround that people are using to get reservations at more than 13 months out. If all owners know how to do this, then there is a fair playing field. The problem is that not all owners know how to do this, so the ability to get a reservation is not up to chance at the same probability for all owners. It seems to me that the problem is not megarenters - the problem is that people have found ways to play the system. Worldmark has no rules against renting, but it does have a rule about units being available for rent only at 13 months out. The BoD should come up with some way to ensure that no one can use a workaround to get reservations guaranteed for a date by starting a reservation 13 months in advance that will guarantee them a reservation 13 months and 2 weeks out. The changes I saw happening between 6am and 7am this morning (described in the original post) gave fairly clear evidence that something is rotten in Denmark.

 

[ecwinch]

The work-around they are using requires multiple accounts and large amounts of credits - so it is not something that most owners could do - even if they had the knowledge.

Effectively they first control a block of inventory, then they use the waitlist to chop that inventory up into desirable "rentable" reservations.

The easiest solution is to end the waitlist program. Something Wyndham would love to do IMHO. It is just a question of does the patient survive the cure.

And as bad as it seems now, it was far worse a few years back before they closed the grouped reservation loophole. Back then it was commonplace to rarely see certain resorts available to book 13 months out during prime season.

 

[chemteach]

The work-around they are using requires multiple accounts and large amounts of credits - so it is not something that most owners could do - even if they had the knowledge.

Effectively they first control a block of inventory, then they use the waitlist to chop that inventory up into desirable "rentable" reservations.

The easiest solution is to end the waitlist program. Something Wyndham would love to do IMHO. It is just a question of does the patient survive the cure.

And as bad as it seems now, it was far worse a few years back before they closed the grouped reservation loophole. Back then it was commonplace to rarely see certain resorts available to book 13 months out during prime season.

Couldn't they make the waitlist work in a way that it couldn't be abused - or create a set of rules that make this workaround no longer work (such as - if 2 or more accounts are found to be working together to aid any owner in securing reservations for a time more than 13 months in advance, those reservations will be cancelled.) Some older posts I read discussed people doing this at Yellowstone - did Worldmark do anything about that? Maybe there could be a rule that no owner could have more than 3 units at the same resort in the same timeframe during high demand weeks - or some reasonable number of units that would allow a person to perhaps do a small family reunion but no more than some maximum number. Or even that only 2 units could be reserved for high demand weeks at any particular resort - some owners would be upset because they may want to do a family reunion - but based on my short experience with online reservations - if everyone truly has equal access to the inventory, no one would even be able to get 2 units at the same resort for the same week because (if everyone had equal access) the units would be gone before a second reservation could go through. And for resorts like Kihei - they could limit usage to a maximum of (pick a number) weeks per year total in order to provide access to all owners.

The waitlist rules could certainly be changed to keep someone from controlling a block of inventory. It doesn't seem like rocket science to figure out how to keep people from abusing the system. It sounds like Worldmark/Wyndham knows who is doing this, and perhaps there are regular owners who have figured out loopholes to the system. (Maybe Worldmark should just publicize how it's being done so that all owners could know what is needed to allow anyone to have the same access - total sarcasm there...) It sounds like Worldmark needs to fix the waitlist and reservation system to ensure that all owners have equal access. It actually sounds like it could be a lawsuit against the BoD and/or the management company because they are not giving every owner equal access to 13 month reservations. Since the BoD and management company know a problem exists, it is their responsibility to find a solution. Is anyone on TUG on the BoD? It sounds from past posts that the BoD is trying to deal with the problem - is anyone from TUG on the Worldmark BoD? Maybe they could really push the issue.

 

[chemteach]

Be assured they are working on a solution and have been for some time.

But understand renting is specifically allowed by the declaration. So a flat prohibition of rentals is not something that can happen. What they have been doing is closing loopholes and changing rules so that every owner has an equal chance at every reservation. Ie leveling the playing field. Manipulation of the waitlist was never a thing because there were other ways to get a jump on the rest of the owners to make multiple high value reservations. Now that those loopholes are closed the waitlist was exploited. Change the waitlist and they will find something else. It’s been a game of wack a mole

Wyndham knows who the mega renters are so that’s not an issue, and they know what they are doing to get more than their fair share of high value reservations. The problem has been crafting new rules to level the playing field that are fair to the entire ownership


I’m guessing they have something similar in mind for the Worldmark megarenters There are only about 20 of them. My prediction is that they will contact each one and just suspend their accounts and then dare the owners to challenge them in court. As big as some of the megarenters are, none of them have the resources to outlast Wyndham in court and all of them have a hot button that when pushed will get them to agree to give up their ownerships

So be patient, you are gonna get what you want


Just know this, it won’t be any easier to get the reservations you want. You will have a chance at that special reservation but your chances won’t be much better than they are now

I don't mind having a very small chance to get a reservation - I just hope that any owner trying to get a reservation has equal access. I get that people may find loopholes - but Worldmark could do something to ensure that units for 13 months +1 to 5 days don't disappear throughout the day at 13 months out. That's a clear manipulation of something... Maybe from 13 to 11 months - waitlists can only fill if full weeks are being requested - and whenever two or more accounts are working together (Worldmark can define that) - the accounts should be put on warning and the reservations cancelled (if Worldmark created a rule against such actions.)

In the meantime - it seems the only way to get the most difficult reservations is for two+ accounts to work the system - that's a sad situation and suggests that Wyndham is selling a product that they know is not what they describe as far as 13 month reservations since they specifically know that people are manipulating the system to ensure at 14+ months out, that they will get the reservation they want. Marriott explicitly states 50% of inventory can be reserved at 13 months out if 2+ weeks are owned and the reservations are joined together. Vistana doesn't have this issue. It's very difficult to get prime weeks at the most desired locations - but it's possible, and it seems everyone has equal access. I don't know about HGVC/HIVC/Club Wyndham. The issue to me isn't about whether people are renting - that is clearly allowed by the bylaws, so the BoD and management really have no legal recourse to stop people from doing it. But the BoD has the responsibility to create rules wherein all owners have equal access, and that no owner can ensure they get a specific reservation earlier than 13 months out (unless they are willing to pay the points for the extra weeks before the reservation they want - and they lose the reservation if they cancel and try to rebook.)

 

[bizaro86]

The worldmark board is hand picked by Wyndham. WMowners have been trying to get someone else elected for years.

I get that you're disappointed you can't get a reservation for Kihei at Christmas, but some of those suggestions would make the club much less flexible for everyone all the time, which is a bad trade, imo.

 

[chemteach]

One last suggestion/question - is it possible for Worldmark to list the 3 - 5% most demanded reservations, and create a bylaw that says no more than (pick a number - say 6) weeks per year can be made at 13 months out for these most demanded weeks by any one owner? This would have little to no effect on any owner with 15,000 or fewer credits in their account. The problem with that sort of rule is that if someone wanted to spend 3 months straight at a high demand resort, they would no longer have that ability.

I'm just throwing ideas out there - but ultimately, perhaps the problem could just be fixed by doing something about the waitlist loophole that currently exists.

 

[tschwa2]

One last suggestion/question - is it possible for Worldmark to list the 3 - 5% most demanded reservations, and create a bylaw that says no more than (pick a number - say 6) weeks per year can be made at 13 months out for these most demanded weeks by any one owner? This would have little to no effect on any owner with 15,000 or fewer credits in their account. The problem with that sort of rule is that if someone wanted to spend 3 months straight at a high demand resort, they would no longer have that ability.

I'm just throwing ideas out there - but ultimately, perhaps the problem could just be fixed by doing something about the waitlist loophole that currently exists.

I could be wrong but changing bylaws usually takes a supermajority. If owners can't meet the quorum and get a single independent board member elected the chance of getting a super majority would be slim to none.

 

[ecwinch]

One last suggestion/question - is it possible for Worldmark to list the 3 - 5% most demanded reservations, and create a bylaw that says no more than (pick a number - say 6) weeks per year can be made at 13 months out for these most demanded weeks by any one owner? This would have little to no effect on any owner with 15,000 or fewer credits in their account. The problem with that sort of rule is that if someone wanted to spend 3 months straight at a high demand resort, they would no longer have that ability.

I'm just throwing ideas out there - but ultimately, perhaps the problem could just be fixed by doing something about the waitlist loophole that currently exists.

Any booking rule that explicitly targets/discriminates against large account holders would be unlikely to survive a legal challenge. A rule like that is also easily defeated by using multiple accounts.

The BoD recently approved a new guideline that caps reservation length at 30 days, so that should help a little.

They could implement a lottery system for high demand reservations like some other resorts in Hawaii have.

To defeat the megarenters there is an easy solution that the BoD is considering - a rule that for reservations made more than 12 months in advance, a guest certificate cannot be added/changed after the reservation is made. Rental operations rarely know the name of the guest that far out, so it would have some impact on those reservations.

 

[ronparise]

As much as I would like to have faith in Ron's prediction, I believe he is comparing an apple to an orange.

In Club Wyndham, the account suspensions were supported by a credit imbalance in their account, giving Wyndham probable cause to justify the actions taken.

In WM, suspending their accounts without some similar proof would make for a fairly easy court case. Ron's situation was different in that regard and would have undermined his challenge of the actions taken.

There was no points imbalance in my account... It looked like I had more points in reservations than my ownership justified so they suspended my accounts pending an audit...but the audit never happened. I was able account for every point. They should have lifted the suspension at that point. But they didnt... so after that, the suspension was kept in place for no reason except that they wanted me (and others) out.. I asked that they give me a number...How many points did they think I wasnt entitled to. and we could talk about that.. They didnt come up with a number, and they wouldnt talk. Bottom line is that they wouldnt pursue any course of action that let me continue renting. You are right, I could have pursued a fairly easy court case but that would take time and money, that I didnt have, and wouldnt have been willing to spend even if I did. Wyndham has fairly deep pockets. I pursued a settlement instead

I think there is probably something in the worldmark docs that wyndham could cite to justify an audit,, and then they could negotiate settlements like they did with us

 

[ecwinch]

I could be wrong but changing bylaws usually takes a supermajority. If owners can't meet the quorum and get a single independent board member elected the chance of getting a super majority would be slim to none.

The by-laws can be changed by an affirmative vote by 25% of the membership. The Declaration (where the Rental clause is) requires an affirmative vote by 50% of the total voting power. None of our documents require a super-majority.

The declaration has not been modified since the first few years of the Club. The by-laws have been modified a number of times over the years - most recently in 2016.

 

[ecwinch]

There was no points imbalance in my account...

I think there is probably something in the worldmark docs that wyndham could cite to justify an audit,, and then they could negotiate settlements like they did with us

I think the court would likely disagree that there was not a point imbalance. You might argue that the imbalance was permitted, but at equity, pulling points from future years when you have not paid maintenance on those points would be one hurdle to overcome. I fully understand your position that the rules allowed that practice of credit pooling and dumping the contract, but I dont think it is as strong as you might think. You could be right, but it would be a dice roll IMHO.

But the broader point is that they had "probable cause" to suspend your account. The analogy I would make is that they had enough evidence to charge you with a "crime" and lock you up without bail. And you took the plea deal to get out of jail.

I think it would be a little tougher to do something on the WM side.

 

[ronparise]

The by-laws can be changed by an affirmative vote by 25% of the membership. The Declaration (where the Rental clause is) requires an affirmative vote by 50% of the total voting power. None of our documents require a super-majority.

The declaration has not been modified since the first few years of the Club. The by-laws have been modified a number of times over the years - most recently in 2016.

The guidelines can be modified by the board without a vote by membership and that has been the approach taken to control megarenting, one loophole at a time. They do not say a rule change is to control renting, what they say is that a rule change is being done to make sure every owner has an equal chance at every reservation

It is my belief that Wyndham has become frustrated with that approach and that they have been emboldened by their success in club Wyndham

It’s not easy or cheap to make money with Worldmark rentals. The cost of entry is quite high and the profit margin on each reservation not that great (at least not as good as it was with club Wyndham.

I think if they can force out the current big players, it will be a long time before anyone else can get a business going

 

[ecwinch]

Couldn't they make the waitlist work in a way that it couldn't be abused - or create a set of rules that make this workaround no longer work (such as - if 2 or more accounts are found to be working together to aid any owner in securing reservations for a time more than 13 months in advance, those reservations will be cancelled.) Some older posts I read discussed people doing this at Yellowstone - did Worldmark do anything about that? Maybe there could be a rule that no owner could have more than 3 units at the same resort in the same timeframe during high demand weeks - or some reasonable number of units that would allow a person to perhaps do a small family reunion but no more than some maximum number. Or even that only 2 units could be reserved for high demand weeks at any particular resort - some owners would be upset because they may want to do a family reunion - but based on my short experience with online reservations - if everyone truly has equal access to the inventory, no one would even be able to get 2 units at the same resort for the same week because (if everyone had equal access) the units would be gone before a second reservation could go through. And for resorts like Kihei - they could limit usage to a maximum of (pick a number) weeks per year total in order to provide access to all owners.

The waitlist rules could certainly be changed to keep someone from controlling a block of inventory. It doesn't seem like rocket science to figure out how to keep people from abusing the system. It sounds like Worldmark/Wyndham knows who is doing this, and perhaps there are regular owners who have figured out loopholes to the system. (Maybe Worldmark should just publicize how it's being done so that all owners could know what is needed to allow anyone to have the same access - total sarcasm there...) It sounds like Worldmark needs to fix the waitlist and reservation system to ensure that all owners have equal access. It actually sounds like it could be a lawsuit against the BoD and/or the management company because they are not giving every owner equal access to 13 month reservations. Since the BoD and management company know a problem exists, it is their responsibility to find a solution. Is anyone on TUG on the BoD? It sounds from past posts that the BoD is trying to deal with the problem - is anyone from TUG on the Worldmark BoD? Maybe they could really push the issue.

It seems like a simple issue - but when you consider all the variables - it becomes more challenging as you note with some of your suggestions.

The core issue is that any rule has to apply equally to all members. And each and every rule impacts someone other than renters.

So the challenge for the BoD is how do you implement rules that curb renting and have minimal impact on the average owner? And by large that is what the BoD has been doing - coming up with rules that attempt to curb the growth of renting by making it more difficult to operate profitably or to get into the business. But the argument can be made that cumulative impact of all the recent rule changes is starting to impact more and more regular owners.

There is no member of TUG that is currently on the BoD.

 

[sue1947]

To defeat the megarenters there is an easy solution that the BoD is considering - a rule that for reservations made more than 12 months in advance, a guest certificate cannot be added/changed after the reservation is made. Rental operations rarely know the name of the guest that far out, so it would have some impact on those reservations.

And neither do most family/friends gatherings. This is a good example of how a rule to impact mega-renters would hit 'regular' owners as well. If you book a Christmas/Thanksgiving/summer family get together, you will need to book at 13 months to get availability. Most non-timeshare owners don't plan that far out and somebody in the family will cancel; guaranteed. Somebody's job or health changes and you need to put another family member down as checking in. Currently, you can keep all reservations in the owners name and add guest names at the last minute when you know who will be coming. This proposed rule would mean that unit would have to be cancelled without much hope of replacing it. This goes to Geist's point about WM being less family friendly.

The real issue for the OP is that you bought a point based timeshare when you really needed a fixed week. Point timeshares are more flexible, but you need to be flexible in when and where. You are not. Get rid of the big renter operations and you still have 220000 owners competing for limited space. You want a larger unit (actually multiple units) at a ski area during the week between Christmas and New Years. What percent of that 220,000 wants the same thing? The result is hundreds, if not thousands, of owners all trying to get online and get that same unit. Even if you eliminate the manipulations, you will be lucky to get one unit. You want multiple units. It's just not realistic.

The sales people do a good job of convincing people that they can book whatever you want whenever you want. The reality is quite different. Example: Every sales location has a photo of Depoe Bay on the wall. Midweek in the low season is now booking up at 13 months and that's not the mega renters; it's baby boomers. For the first time this year, I wasn't able to get what I wanted and had to book a day later. The reality is that the number of owners wanting those high demand times is going up and you just have to deal with the changes.
Sue

 

[ecwinch]

And neither do most family/friends gatherings. This is a good example of how a rule to impact mega-renters would hit 'regular' owners as well. If you book a Christmas/Thanksgiving/summer family get together, you will need to book at 13 months to get availability. Most non-timeshare owners don't plan that far out and somebody in the family will cancel; guaranteed. Somebody's job or health changes and you need to put another family member down as checking in.

I think that most families can easily identify at least the 2+ family members that will be there, and if those members can't be there then the vacation is equally likely to be cancelled.

So while there is an edge case where owners would be impacted, the benefits outweigh the impact. And there are multiple strategies that be used to mitigate the impact. As I pointed out, there is no rule that is kryptonite to renting and has no impact to regular members. It is the classic "Perfect is the enemy of the good". No need to spin our wheels searching for perfect when good will suffice.

 

[ronparise]

I think the court would likely disagree that there was not a point imbalance. You might argue that the imbalance was permitted, but at equity, pulling points from future years when you have not paid maintenance on those points would be one hurdle to overcome. I fully understand your position that the rules allowed that practice of credit pooling and dumping the contract, but I dont think it is as strong as you might think. You could be right, but it would be a dice roll IMHO.

But the broader point is that they had "probable cause" to suspend your account. The analogy I would make is that they had enough evidence to charge you with a "crime" and lock you up without bail. And you took the plea deal to get out of jail.

I think it would be a little tougher to do something on the WM side.

You are absolutely right. I showed where the points came from, it all added up , but I didn’t pay maintenance fees for them. I had sold the underlying contracts and the new owner should have been paying the fees.

I get it that they could have taken those points from my account and re attached them to the contracts I sold. Or they could have demanded the fees from me. But they werent interested in that kind of resolution. Because I would have still been in busines.

What I’m telling you is that I offered to give back whatever points they thought I wasn’t entitled to or pay for them. We wouldn’t have needed a court case for that. I was ready to give them whatever they wanted to “balance my accounts” All I wanted was a number

Our discussions were going nowhere until I asked this question: what are we talking about; are we trying to determine the number of points I’m not entitled to. Or are we discussing my exit from all things wyndham

To their credit they answered honestly. They wanted both. They wanted compensated for what I wasn’t entitled to and they wanted me out

They got both


What I’m suggesting is that there is something in the Worldmark docs that they can hang their hat on to get the megarenters to the table. actually I don’t thing they need anything except a willingness to be sued. And they will then “make them an offer they can’t refuse”

I may be completely wrong about this. But I think wyndham is tired of the “one loophole at a time approach” that they have been doing for years.

All I’m really trying to say here is that I believe Wyndham and the board feel the same as the op. it’s past time to do something about the megarenter problem. They tried the “one rule change after another” approach and I think they are ready to do something bold. My thinking about what they might do is colored by my experience and what I learned about the Wyndham folks I was dealing with. So let’s forget my experience and assume that they will do something completely different.

My point is that they will do something other than just another rule change and I think they will do it sooner rather than later

 

[chemteach]

I think that most families can easily identify at least the 2+ family members that will be there, and if those members can't be there then the vacation is equally likely to be cancelled.

So while there is an edge case where owners would be impacted, the benefits outweigh the impact. And there are multiple strategies that be used to mitigate the impact. As I pointed out, there is no rule that is kryptonite to renting and has no impact to regular members. It is the classic "Perfect is the enemy of the good". No need to spin our wheels searching for perfect when good will suffice.

Actually, I often don't know who will be traveling with us. I invite my friends and family, but most people can't commit 13 months in advance. I don't think I'm unusual in that regard. I think the guest certificate rule about not changing the name would be problematic for many owners. I still don't understand why worldmark can't figure out how to close the waitlist loophole. If Worldmark knows what people are doing, they should be able to come up with a way to stop it. Perhaps they need a waitlist rule that involves only the top 5 percent of highly demanded units. Maybe allowing only one or two waitist requests to be filled for any of those high demand units per year. The current rule about 4 requests at a time doesn't impact a megarenter very much because as soon as they have filled their request they can put in another. If owners were only allowed to have a set number of waitlistf fulfillments for high demand units per year, it would counteract the problem. I imagine the megatenters might then try to own a very large number of ownerships, but then worldmark could have a rule about number of waitlist requests per name. It is a whack a mole problem, but it seems fixable. And it is quite easy to identify if a problem exists. One need only watch availability changes throughout the day this coming week.

 

[chemteach]

My point is that they will do something other than just another rule change and I think they will do it sooner rather than later

I hope you are correct. Watching the availability at 13 months plus 1 to 5 days change throughout the day after a unit became unavailable at exactly 13 months was a clear indication that the current system isn't working. Some owners have figured out how to play the system. The system still needs to be fixed so that if all units of a particular type become unavailable at exactly 13 months out, the availability at 13 months plus any number of days does not change in the 23.9999 hours following the event. (Aside from someone cancelling the ending days of a reservation, which ought to create more, not less availability...)

 

[ecwinch]

Actually, I often don't know who will be traveling with us. I invite my friends and family, but most people can't commit 13 months in advance. I don't think I'm unusual in that regard. I think the guest certificate rule about not changing the name would be problematic for many owners. I still don't understand why worldmark can't figure out how to close the waitlist loophole. If Worldmark knows what people are doing, they should be able to come up with a way to stop it. Perhaps they need a waitlist rule that involves only the top 5 percent of highly demanded units. Maybe allowing only one or two waitist requests to be filled for any of those high demand units per year. The current rule about 4 requests at a time doesn't impact a megarenter very much because as soon as they have filled their request they can put in another. If owners were only allowed to have a set number of waitlistf fulfillments for high demand units per year, it would counteract the problem. I imagine the megatenters might then try to own a very large number of ownerships, but then worldmark could have a rule about number of waitlist requests per name. It is a whack a mole problem, but it seems fixable. And it is quite easy to identify if a problem exists. One need only watch availability changes throughout the day this coming week.

There is another variable you are not considering... mega-renters who are account managers - i.e. they effectively "rent" the account from another member.

There are any number of rules they could implement. IMHO - any rule that is based on some account limit will easily be defeated.

 

[chemteach]

There is another variable you are not considering... mega-renters who are account managers - i.e. they effectively "rent" the account from another member.

There are any number of rules they could implement. IMHO - any rule that is based on some account limit will easily be defeated.

Other than the guest certificate rule you mentioned earlier - there really isn't any way to stop someone who is "renting" other people's account and managing them. But it would be really difficult to catch someone if they are managing 20 or more accounts - that seems crazy! But I suppose some people can figure out how to work any system. Still - if there were a waitlist implementation that no account could have more than 2 high demand waitlist fulfillments per year, any "megarenter" would have to manage 2.5% of all the ownership points to be able to reserve the 5% highest demand weeks (assuming the waitlist is what is being used as a loophole to the 13 month reservation rule.) Maybe Worldmark could also put out a statement that using loopholes to beat the 13 month reservation can result in reservations getting cancelled. Vistana has a great way to keep people from going against their rules. Whenever a guest certificate is asked for, they remind owners of the rules. So if you are actively going against one of their rules, you are at least constantly told there are consequences. While the megarenters managing people's accounts may not care about the ethics of it, perhaps the people whose accounts they are managing would feel worse about it, and perhaps stop. (Wishful thinking, I realize - but it could possibly work for some people.)