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

[am1]

My point is that the Worldmark system should have equity for as many owners as possible. If it doesn't, the BoD should figure out a way to create equity. I have already figured out a few things that I've posted here. Others have been mentioned. I'm suggesting there could be a sticky that puts this in one place so that the playing field is leveled for everyone. Isn't that a big part of what TUG is about - trying to inform the public of timeshare industry's scams, ways to best use timeshare systems, etc.? A sticky where all the information that you can find by doing research would benefit the TUG community.

A utopia. And who do you think would volunteer this info? Like I said earlier mega renters will always fine ways to be profitable even if it is at the expense of other owners.

Anyone can do what mega renters do. Just takes capital, hard work and knowledge.

Maybe you would prefer a fixed week program?

 

[ecwinch]

I don't like the megarenter effects either. However, their presence is a byproduct of a flexible and high value timeshare system. So I believe we should tolerate their existence.

You believe their existence is not tolerable and advocate for ways to reduce flexibility and value of the club to do so.

My point is that changing the club to get rid of megarenters will destroy large value to the owners of the club even if the changes have its intended affect.

First off, your assumptions about what I believe are wrong. The right to rent is explicit and it is important right for some owners for cost recovery.

What I do believe is that owner usage should have priority over non-owner usage at our best resorts for the long-term health of the Club. I do believe that the advent of AirBnb is the game changer, and without some priority period for owner usage the growth of commercial renting will kill the Club. Because that "flexibility" does not matter to the average owner when they cant make reservations.

And likewise rolling out the "destroy large value" is such a trope. The usage statistics - even if off by 100% - do not support the position that the average owner has been impacted any of the BoD's changes, and most of what has been discussed here is no different. The quarterly mgt report tells us that 87% of all reservations are booked within 10 months, and 46% of all reservations are booked within 60 days. So the average owner is unlikely to be impacted by most of what is being discussed.

The problem is the 6.26% of the reservations that are booked 366+ days out, in particular the portion booked for non-owners whose identity is not known at the time of booking. You can argue that 7% of reservations is a small count, but those 38,111 reservations represents around a third of our prime season inventory (12 weeks of summer+2 weeks xmas * 7000 units).

If those reservations follow the standard rate of guest usage (~33%), preserving that inventory for owners would roughly be the same as building a 898 room resort that only operated during prime season. Or almost 13,000 more owners able to book a prime season vacation. I think that outweighs the cost.

 

[ecwinch]

My point is that the Worldmark system should have equity for as many owners as possible. If it doesn't, the BoD should figure out a way to create equity. I have already figured out a few things that I've posted here. Others have been mentioned. I'm suggesting there could be a sticky that puts this in one place so that the playing field is leveled for everyone. Isn't that a big part of what TUG is about - trying to inform the public of timeshare industry's scams, ways to best use timeshare systems, etc.? A sticky where all the information that you can find by doing research would benefit the TUG community.

So at equity you want a practice to end, but you want us to publicize it so that more people will know how to use it? Because that message will never reach everyone, and given that it requires multiple accounts - not even everyone can take advantage of it. I personally have talked about it on all the available forums, so I certainly am not suppressing discussion of the technique, but neither do I want to actively promote it's growth.

That will just place a large group of owners at a disadvantage to others. That would seem to run contrary to "equity".

 

[allenke]

Haven’t frequented TUG forums much in th last 15 yrs or so. Interesting thread.

Eric, thanks for your last two posts. Appreciated the stats and also agree we don’t need to advertise how to get around the 13 month rule.

I do hope that Ron is right in his thinking that Wyndham will come after the Megarenters in the Worldmark system. It was good they were put out of business in club Wyndham. I am all in favor of them doing the same in the Worldmark club.

Ken

 

[ecwinch]

Going back to the Camlin. Now that I have it, how hard to you think it would be to control that inventory for the entire summer of 2020? Breaking it up into rentable week-long segments.

 

[chemteach]

Going back to the Camlin. Now that I have it, how hard to you think it would be to control that inventory for the entire summer of 2020? Breaking it up into rentable week-long segments.

It seems it would be easy - until someone got to the waitlist before you and took it back - but then you could do the same...

 

[chemteach]

I apologise for starting this hullabaloo. I was pretty shocked at units disappearing at 13 months plus throughout the day at 13 months . It seems this is just part of the system, and owners need to plan accordingly. It would be nice if that were not the case, but in order to keep the system flexible, that appears to be a reality..

 

[T-Dot-Traveller]

. I was pretty shocked at units disappearing at 13 months .......It would be nice if that were not the case, but in order to keep the system flexible, that appears to be a reality..

TUG is a good place to learn - from the "collected wisdom " -

I have read this thread , (as a non- Worldmark owner) and learned
(not that I understand all the nuances).

IMO -it was a thread worth starting - 11 days ago ; if only for the debate of issues & ideas .

 

[ecwinch]

I apologise for starting this hullabaloo. I was pretty shocked at units disappearing at 13 months plus throughout the day at 13 months . It seems this is just part of the system, and owners need to plan accordingly. It would be nice if that were not the case, but in order to keep the system flexible, that appears to be a reality..

I dont feel there is anything to apologize. We dont - at least I dont - live in a society where we cannot openly discuss ideas/concepts/changes. After all, it is just talk.

Yes, some people get riled up when topics they disagree with are discussed. But that is on them and not you.

 

[ecwinch]

Here is an interesting availability calendar for that 2BR Penthouse Queen at the Camlin. It was too much work to try and walk the reservation forward, so I did not do anything.

But checked it today, and Jan 3-5,2020 are unavailable in the reservation calendar. Which would seem to be impossible for a reservation, as you cannot book just three days that far out. And I still have Dec 27 to Jan 3 (checkout).

Any theories? Bogeyman or something else?

 

[CO skier]

Here is an interesting availability calendar for that 2BR Penthouse Queen at the Camlin. It was too much work to try and walk the reservation forward, so I did not do anything.

But checked it today, and Jan 3-5,2020 are unavailable in the reservation calendar. Which would seem to be impossible for a reservation, as you cannot book just three days that far out. And I still have Dec 27 to Jan 3 (checkout).

Any theories? Bogeyman or something else?

One explanation is those three days are part of a grouped reservation. Today is 13 months before Jan. 4, 2020. Someone could have booked those 3 days yesterday or today with at least 4 nights prior in another WM resort to meet the 7 nights minimum 10-13 months in advance.

 

[ecwinch]

One explanation is those three days are part of a grouped reservation. Today is 13 months before Jan. 4, 2020. Someone could have booked those 3 days yesterday or today with at least 4 nights prior in another WM resort to meet the 7 nights minimum 10-13 months in advance.

Interesting theory. But I think it is off by a couple of days. As the booking window for any reservation starting after Jan 4th is not open yet.

And since they could not yet book a reservation starting at 5th or 6th at another resort - how could they join anything to it to conform to the 7 night min?

They could have booked the 3rd for a week starting yesterday. And they could call in today and drop off six nights - picking up those nights somewhere else to create a grouped reservation. But in that scenario, the 4th and the 5th would show as available.

NOTE: The rule on grouped reservation does not allow you to change the check-in date on any segments you are joining - only the check-out. So to create the grouped reservation as you describe, they need a reservation starting Jan 6th - which cannot be booked yet.

NVM: I finally got your point. They are joining it to the end. Good point.

 

[CO skier]

NVM: I finally got your point. They are joining it to the end. Good point.

Yes, just one more example of how the grouped reservation rule change did not change the flexibility of grouped reservations; it just closed the loophole.

The new rule requires just the first day of all segments be within 13 months when the reservation is made. The last segment (at any given time; e.g., on Dec. 6th the owner could add on another segment in another resort beginning Jan. 6th) may extend beyond 13 months just like a non-grouped reservation.

Accessing the same grouped reservation flexibility as before just takes thinking about grouped reservations a little differently -- something the owner staying in the Camlin 2 BR Penthouse has figured out, imo.

It should also be noted that the change to grouped reservations did nothing to affect Wyndham's bottom line plus or minus, and if Wyndham intends WorldMark to become just like Club Wyndham, as some erroneously suggest, why didn't the BOD just eliminate grouped reservations altogether? Club Wyndham, indeed no other timeshare that I know of, has anything like grouped reservations.

 

[CO skier]

The bogeyman is a mythical creature,

Not when I am on the golf course ...

 

[JudyS]

Wow, this is a fascinating thread! I have yet to digest it all.

I hope I won't re-open any pointed debates, but I have something I want to add. I think the biggest problem with Worldmark availability is that smaller units and off-season dates are not discounted enough. I own in several systems, including Worldmark and Disney Vacation Club. At Disney's Boardwalk Villas, where I own, the most expensive night of the year, preferred view, in a 3-bedroom is 145 DVC points. The least expensive night of the year in a studio, standard view, is 10 DVC points. Worldmark's system is shut down for the night, so I can't check credit values. But, I'm sure the discount for a smaller unit, lower season and lesser view is nowhere near as big.

In my experience, points systems work best if there is a big discount for off-season (maybe half or more, depending on how seasonal the location is). Also, point size should be almost proportional to square footage, with, say, a suite that is three times as big as a studio (and sleeps twice as many people) costing maybe 2.5 times as many points as a studio.

Disney has done several point reallocations to equalize demand. They can only redistribute points within a single suite (same resort, size, and view), but they can change the ratio for different seasons or for different nights of the week. Disney also has five seasons instead of three.

Does Worldmark have any ability to reallocate credits?

Of course, it would also help if Worldmark stopped selling resorts in the Midwest, and telling owners they could use the credits from these resorts to book the West Coast and Hawaii. But, I think the failure to offer a large enough discount on lower seasons and smaller units is the biggest reason why availability is so low for large units in peak season. Small units actually seem to have OK availability. Studios for July at Seaside are sometimes just sitting there online, after the 13-month window has passed.

 

[ecwinch]

Wow, this is a fascinating thread! I have yet to digest it all.

I hope I won't re-open any pointed debates, but I have something I want to add. I think the biggest problem with Worldmark availability is that smaller units and off-season dates are not discounted enough. I own in several systems, including Worldmark and Disney Vacation Club. At Disney's Boardwalk Villas, where I own, the most expensive night of the year, preferred view, in a 3-bedroom is 145 DVC points. The least expensive night of the year in a studio, standard view, is 10 DVC points. Worldmark's system is shut down for the night, so I can't check credit values. But, I'm sure the discount for a smaller unit, lower season and lesser view is nowhere near as big.

In my experience, points systems work best if there is a big discount for off-season (maybe half or more, depending on how seasonal the location is). Also, point size should be almost proportional to square footage, with, say, a suite that is three times as big as a studio (and sleeps twice as many people) costing maybe 2.5 times as many points as a studio.

Disney has done several point reallocations to equalize demand. They can only redistribute points within a single suite (same resort, size, and view), but they can change the ratio for different seasons or for different nights of the week. Disney also has five seasons instead of three.

Does Worldmark have any ability to reallocate credits?

Of course, it would also help if Worldmark stopped selling resorts in the Midwest, and telling owners they could use the credits from these resorts to book the West Coast and Hawaii. But, I think the failure to offer a large enough discount on lower seasons and smaller units is the biggest reason why availability is so low for large units in peak season. Small units actually seem to have OK availability. Studios for July at Seaside are sometimes just sitting there online, after the 13-month window has passed.

While I agree with your suggestion as a theoretical solution, I really believe it is a nonstarter to suggest increasing credit values to increase availability. But yes, they could reallocate.

And while a lot of hay is made about “Midwest” resorts, WM has not added a resort in the Midwest in quite some time. In 2011, units from those resorts were returned to Wyndham, and had no impact on availability on popular resorts. Because as you point out, it really is pressure from off-season credits that drive it.

And if credit availability is the driver, why not manage it by reducing the number of credits a member can control by doing away with the ability to have up to four years of credits in a account?

 

[rhonda]

FWIW, I find DVC to be a flawed point system. Their point values have created too great a draw for studio stays while disfavoring the 1BR units. I prefer WM's approach of clumping the the room-size-point-values close together to encourage guests to choose a room that fits best for occupancy rather than "costs."

For the record, we've owned WM since 2000 and DVC since 2004. I'm writing this from DVC's Treehouse Villas. (So I'm using my DVC points ... but it will never be my favorite timeshare.)

Wow, this is a fascinating thread! I have yet to digest it all.

I hope I won't re-open any pointed debates, but I have something I want to add. I think the biggest problem with Worldmark availability is that smaller units and off-season dates are not discounted enough. I own in several systems, including Worldmark and Disney Vacation Club. At Disney's Boardwalk Villas, where I own, the most expensive night of the year, preferred view, in a 3-bedroom is 145 DVC points. The least expensive night of the year in a studio, standard view, is 10 DVC points. Worldmark's system is shut down for the night, so I can't check credit values. But, I'm sure the discount for a smaller unit, lower season and lesser view is nowhere near as big.

In my experience, points systems work best if there is a big discount for off-season (maybe half or more, depending on how seasonal the location is). Also, point size should be almost proportional to square footage, with, say, a suite that is three times as big as a studio (and sleeps twice as many people) costing maybe 2.5 times as many points as a studio.

Disney has done several point reallocations to equalize demand. They can only redistribute points within a single suite (same resort, size, and view), but they can change the ratio for different seasons or for different nights of the week. Disney also has five seasons instead of three.

Does Worldmark have any ability to reallocate credits?

Of course, it would also help if Worldmark stopped selling resorts in the Midwest, and telling owners they could use the credits from these resorts to book the West Coast and Hawaii. But, I think the failure to offer a large enough discount on lower seasons and smaller units is the biggest reason why availability is so low for large units in peak season. Small units actually seem to have OK availability. Studios for July at Seaside are sometimes just sitting there online, after the 13-month window has passed.

 

[bizaro86]

Wow, this is a fascinating thread! I have yet to digest it all.

I hope I won't re-open any pointed debates, but I have something I want to add. I think the biggest problem with Worldmark availability is that smaller units and off-season dates are not discounted enough. I own in several systems, including Worldmark and Disney Vacation Club. At Disney's Boardwalk Villas, where I own, the most expensive night of the year, preferred view, in a 3-bedroom is 145 DVC points. The least expensive night of the year in a studio, standard view, is 10 DVC points. Worldmark's system is shut down for the night, so I can't check credit values. But, I'm sure the discount for a smaller unit, lower season and lesser view is nowhere near as big.

In my experience, points systems work best if there is a big discount for off-season (maybe half or more, depending on how seasonal the location is). Also, point size should be almost proportional to square footage, with, say, a suite that is three times as big as a studio (and sleeps twice as many people) costing maybe 2.5 times as many points as a studio.

Disney has done several point reallocations to equalize demand. They can only redistribute points within a single suite (same resort, size, and view), but they can change the ratio for different seasons or for different nights of the week. Disney also has five seasons instead of three.

Does Worldmark have any ability to reallocate credits?

Of course, it would also help if Worldmark stopped selling resorts in the Midwest, and telling owners they could use the credits from these resorts to book the West Coast and Hawaii. But, I think the failure to offer a large enough discount on lower seasons and smaller units is the biggest reason why availability is so low for large units in peak season. Small units actually seem to have OK availability. Studios for July at Seaside are sometimes just sitting there online, after the 13-month window has passed.

I agree with this in general. I think the most expensive worldmark unit is a 40k 4 bedroom presidential, and the cheapest is a 3k studio week. That is a 13.333x multiple, so fairly large.

That said, their general practice of making things (both size and season) differ by 2k doesn't work now that the numbers are bigger, because the percentage difference is insufficient.

The "legacy" 2 bedroom chart was 6k blue, 8k white, 10k red. A red 2 bedroom is 66% more credits than a blue 2 bedroom.

At west yellowstone, a newer and commonly complained about resort, the point schedule for a 2 bedroom is 13k red, 11.5k white, 9.5k blue. A red 2 bedroom is only 37% more credits than a blue 2 bedroom.

That is especially problematic with how seasonal west yellowstone is. The gate to the park isn't open to vehicles all year, which dramatically reduces demand in the winter. But the cost is pretty close to a seaside summer week. So summer weeks are a big issue at more than 13 months, while winter is pretty much always available on bonus time. Making red more expensive and blue cheaper would improve availability in the summer and help the winter actually get used.

My biggest hesitation to this is the moral hazard. If the membership accepts credit re-allocation I worry Wyn will reallocate into their own pockets.

Also, I'm not sure that "midwest" characterization is totally fair. I think their are west resorts that are underutilized as well, and some of the foreclosed weeks additions don't look likely to be well used to me (Poconos, Lake Havasu eg)

 

[JudyS]

I don't know how many Worldmark owners own in other systems, but I own many different timeshares, and Worldmark availability for peak-season reservations is shockingly bad. One of my timeshares floats almost 1-52 (it's something like 7-48), and is on the Southern California coast, adjacent to a state beach. One year, some owners got into a fist-fight at the resort over July 4th reservations. But, that problem is only for July 4th week. If I give the resort a choice of two summer weeks other than July 4th, I *always* get one of those weeks. Worldmark is way worse.

None of my other resorts are as hard to book as Worldmark. My 1-52 float in Scottsdale -- I have to be online when reservations open, but if I am, I can get one of the best eight weeks of the year. Summer in a week that floats from February to November in Myrtle Beach -- fine, and I usually see July 4th availability. I just booked New Year's Eve at Disney's Boardwalk, in one of the most desirable room types. No problem.

With Worldmark, there are resorts where I get online right at the 13 month mark, and everything is already gone. Until I read this thread, I had no idea how people even booked those reservations.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy with Worldmark. But, that's because I get good value when depositing non-Worldmark weeks via Exchange Plus, and also because I can rent out my credits if I can't book them. When I joined Worldmark, I was truly shocked at how bad peak-season availability is. I live in Michigan, so I don't do midweek stays out west. I can't reliably get the sorts of WM reservations that are worth traveling 2,000 miles to use. If Worldmark didn't make it easy to rent out surplus credits, I'd probably sell. (Although I lucked out and Worldmark Austin opened at just the perfect time to get a bunch of rooms for my nephew's graduation -- and the resort is right next to UT-Austin!)

About my "Midwest" comment, I think the location of resorts is a factor, but not the main factor. And, I was really thinking about the differences between resorts in states that have an ocean coast and those that are in the overall middle part of the country. Arizona isn't "Midwest" in the usual sense, but it doesn't have a coast. And, I grew up in the Poconos, and they might as well be in the Midwest -- they are similar in geography to where I live in Michigan, but even lower in tourist demand.

...
And if credit availability is the driver, why not manage it by reducing the number of credits a member can control by doing away with the ability to have up to four years of credits in a account?

I wasn't thinking about the total number of credits available at one time, but rather the small difference between peak season/large units and off season/small units.

Mgearenters controlling many credits at once is certainly a problem, but I was thinking more of regular owners, not megarenters, competing for prime reservations.

FWIW, I find DVC to be a flawed point system. Their point values have created too great a draw for studio stays while disfavoring the 1BR units....

There is a flaw with the Disney one-bedroom points values, but it isn't because of their size. It's because the one-bedrooms only provide onsite Disney privileges to four people, which is the same number as the studios. Yet, the one-bedrooms cost about twice as much as the studios. (I'm not sure the Disney resorts that aren't affiliated with theme parks have as much of a problem with the one-bedrooms being slow to book up.)

This four-person occupancy limit for one-bedrooms is a mistake that Disney made in designing their early resorts, and the Declarations don't allow them to re-allocate points to fix it. The newer resorts improve on this problem by having five (or maybe sometimes six?) people allowed in a one-bedroom. Plus, the newest Disney resort, Riveria, has some studios that are for just two people.

Overall, though, the problem with slow bookings for one-bedrooms at some Disney resorts supports the idea that point/credit allocation must truly reflect the use one can get out of a particular size (and season). There can't just be an arbitrary allocation of credits/points, which seems to be the case with a lot of Worldmark resorts.



On the topic of megarenters (who I think are part of the problem, but not as bad as the credit allocation problem), what about the idea of limiting the total number of guest certificates an owner can have per year? I know some megarenters are actually managers for other owners. Still, would it be possible to have a rule that one person/company could only have a certain number of GCs per year, even if they were managing for other owners? This would be hard to enforce, but just the threat of investigating and maybe canceling reservations would probably make a lot of owners think twice bout giving their points to a megarenter to manage. The question is whether there is the legal standing for such a rule. Eric, what do you think?

 

[bizaro86]

The reason peak availability for worldmark is so bad is because they really don't charge much extra for it, so everyone wants it. If they re-allocated credits between peak weeks and off-peak, the problem would probably be significantly improved.

The other thing is the flexibility you mention. Because wm credits last effectively 3 years (1 year to borrow and 2 years active) and can be easily transferred/sold, I suspect a lot less expire unused than in other systems. That takes a lot of slack out of the system as well.

 

[JudyS]

I agree with this in general. I think the most expensive worldmark unit is a 40k 4 bedroom presidential, and the cheapest is a 3k studio week. That is a 13.333x multiple, so fairly large....

At west yellowstone, a newer and commonly complained about resort, the point schedule for a 2 bedroom is 13k red, 11.5k white, 9.5k blue. A red 2 bedroom is only 37% more credits than a blue 2 bedroom.

That is especially problematic with how seasonal west yellowstone is. The gate to the park isn't open to vehicles all year, which dramatically reduces demand in the winter. But the cost is pretty close to a seaside summer week. So summer weeks are a big issue at more than 13 months, while winter is pretty much always available on bonus time. Making red more expensive and blue cheaper would improve availability in the summer and help the winter actually get used.

My biggest hesitation to this is the moral hazard. If the membership accepts credit re-allocation I worry Wyn will reallocate into their own pockets.

In the Hyatt system (which I don't own), the most seasonal resorts charge over 10 times as much for peak season as for the lowest season. And, their roads aren't even closed in winter.

I'm not sure if Wyndham could line their pockets with a credit reallocation. The rule would probably be that the total number of credits to book the resort for the year would be the same.

That 3k studio -- it isn't at the same resort as the 40k 4-bedroom presidential, is it? And, does anyone know what the square footage difference is? The Disney 3-bedroom I was talking about is at the same resort as the studio, and is about 6 times the square footage for 5 times the number of points, for the same view category. I'd say furnishings aren't that different -- there is no presidential versus regular distinction.

Perhaps Eric is correct that credit reallocation is a non-starter. I would really like to see smaller units discounted more, though, even if the difference between seasons stayed the same. What do other WM owners here think?

 

[geist1223]

If I remember correctly from the WMTC governing Documents Credits can be re-allocated within the Resort by Room Size and Season but the total Points for each Resort has to remain the same.This would probably cause a major fight within the WMTC Community. People are already upset by the number of Penthouse and Presidential Units in the new Resorts with their astronomically high Point Values. Just take a look at the New Resort in Portland.

As to the original topic we are on the side that almost everything the WMTC BOD has done at the behest of Wyndham (their sole advisor) had hurt the average to small Owners more than it has hurt the megarentors.

 

[JudyS]

...The other thing is the flexibility you mention. Because wm credits last effectively 3 years (1 year to borrow and 2 years active) and can be easily transferred/sold, I suspect a lot less expire unused than in other systems. That takes a lot of slack out of the system as well.

Ah, I missed your post because we were writing at the same time. I see your point about few credits expiring. I actually wonder where WM finds the inventory for Bonus Time, Inventory Specials, etc. I would think that would lead to a surplus of credits in the system. Perhaps it does lead to a surplus, and that is one reason why peak season availability is so hard to find.

If I remember correctly from the WMTC governing Documents Credits can be re-allocated within the Resort by Room Size and Season but the total Points for each Resort has to remain the same.This would probably cause a major fight within the WMTC Community. People are already upset by the number of Penthouse and Presidential Units in the new Resorts with their astronomically high Point Values. Just take a look at the New Resort in Portland.

Well, if the members don't want to reallocate, they don't want to reallocate. Still, I suspect reallocation would be more acceptable at some resorts than others. The resorts that offer exceptionally good deals on large units during peak season are probably the ones that are so hard to book. These are the resorts where reallocating makes sense, and these are also the resorts that probably are targeted by people looking for inventory to rent. Resorts that are already expensive aren't going to be desirable for renting, and I would guess these resorts are easier for ordinary owners to book. (Although I don't have enough experience booking high-demand WM reservations to be sure.)

As to the original topic we are on the side that almost everything the WMTC BOD has done at the behest of Wyndham (their sole advisor) had hurt the average to small Owners more than it has hurt the megarentors.

You could be right, although I don't know much about the megarenters. So, I don't know how much the new rules impact them. The rules are certainly a hassle for ordinary owners. I suspect the current booking rules are too complicated for some ordinary owners to even understand. WM seems to have an awful lot of online resources designed to explain their booking rules.

 

[geist1223]

I believe that most Points to support BT, IS, MM come from the huge block of Points that Wyndham still owns. Also remember BT has a very short fuse for Booking. So if rooms in a Resort are not Booked 14 before then it is unlikely that they will be Booked. For IS these are offered at Resorts that are historically under booked for the time period listed and they are mainly midweek. Though some IS do offer weekends.

 

[ronparise]

I believe that most Points to support BT, IS, MM come from the huge block of Points that Wyndham still owns. Also remember BT has a very short fuse for Booking. So if rooms in a Resort are not Booked 14 before then it is unlikely that they will be Booked. For IS these are offered at Resorts that are historically under booked for the time period listed and they are mainly midweek. Though some IS do offer weekends.

There is something in Worldmark called Travelshare. Travelshare allows an owner to use their credits for things other than worldmark reservationsSo wyndham has a lot of credits to work with from unsold inventory and the credits that owners have exchanged through Travelshare for airfare, cruises, car rentals etc.