Portland WM

[geist1223]

Wyndham sets the Point values by season and size of unit before turning the Deed over to Worldmark. As far as I know the WMTC BOD has never objected or refused to sign accepting the Units or total Resort. They have never changed as far as I know once set. Part of the reason for this is that the number of new Points for sale by Wyndham is the number of Points for the new Resort.

The thought is that while it would be possible to adjust Points within a Resort by season or size of unit the total Points for the resort have to remain the same.

It takes more Points for a Wyndham Member to reserve the same Unit than WMTC member. The value of WMTC Points to Wyndham Points is approximately 13/16 to 1. WMTC is the 1. So if it takes a WMTC Member 20,000 WMTC Points to rent Unit "A" it will takes a Wyndham Member 260,000 to 320,000 Wyndham Points to Reserve Unit "A." I actually saw this when I reserved a Bali Hai Unit through Club Pass.

Ron P once did an analysis of the new Wyndham Park City Resort (located next to the WMTC Park City) that demonstrated that it actually cost more in maintenance fees (number of Points and the MF on those Points) for a Wyndham Member to stay at their Resort then for a WMTC Member to stay at that same Resort through Club Pass (WMTC Points necessary and the MF on those WMTC Points).

 

[DaveNV]

This is all a huge disappointment.

Reading of this higher credit requirement, and the reasoning behind it, is probably the first chink in WorldMark's armor for me. My (apparently, undereducated) "points is points" understanding of how things worked leaves me a little disappointed in the system. I bought 12K credits, what I believed were enough annual credits to stay for a week in a two bedroom WM unit (on average.) Now I'm seeing future development will require more credits than I own if I want to stay in newer resorts. Based on this logic, "enough" will never be enough.

That leaves me to reconsider this entire WorldMark ownership thing. If credits don't change, then if I "ever" want to stay at a newer WM location, I'll need to pay more (i.e. buy more credits), or rent credits, or book for fewer nights, or hope for a Monday Madness thing. "Saving up" credits is an option, but the idea was to be able to travel annually to WM locations I wanted to visit. Seeing that the credit requirements to stay at WM Portland are so much higher than other resorts, with the downside of fewer amenities at the resort, makes me wonder whether this really is the right TS option for me.

WorldMark is basically a fixed-inventory system. (Not counting exchanging out, and such.) Of the existing Worldmark resorts, how many of them am I never be likely to book? I haven't explored them specifically as yet, but I intend to. Virtually all the resorts in Washington state are off the list, with the exception of maybe Leavenworth and Seattle. The other sites, while great for out-of-state visitors who want to visit the Pacific North West, are close enough to where I live, that I'm unlikely to ever want or need to stay there. And that effectively reduces the number of WorldMark locations I'm likely to choose. Add in that newer locations are above the credit account size that I have, or are larger than I'll ever need to book (Estancia), means my options are now limited.

Hmm. Interesting new train of thought for me. Thanks, everyone, for adding this new wrinkle to things for me to consider. I need to spend some quality time on the WM site to look at resort locations, and decide exactly how many of them I'm ever likely to want to stay at. Since Portland, Austin, likely Moab, and a lot of the PNW locations are off the list, what's left? Great food for thought. Thank you.

Dave

 

[ecwinch]

What determines the credit values attached to any resort? Once they're set, do they ever change? As regards WM Portland, are there Wyndham units there, too? Are the points required for a Wyndham owner to stay there also higher than Wyndham resorts elsewhere?

Dave

In the Club Wyndham system the points required has always varied from resort to resort. In part that is due to how Club Wyndham had its basis in deeded properties with points assigned after the fact.

For Portland it is 250k points for a week in a 1BR. As is Austin. NYC is 450k. Alexandria is 184k.

As mentioned above credit values are set by Wyndham based on a variety of factors, with construction costs being the determinant factor. To refuse a resort the BoD would need to object that the credit allocation is unreasonable or that the resort would cause a substantial increase in costs or expenses being borne by the members... presumably if they tried to add a cruise ship or all-inclusive resort to the Club.

 

[ecwinch]

This is all a huge disappointment.

Reading of this higher credit requirement, and the reasoning behind it, is probably the first chink in WorldMark's armor for me. My (apparently, undereducated) "points is points" understanding of how things worked leaves me a little disappointed in the system. I bought 12K credits, what I believed were enough annual credits to stay for a week in a two bedroom WM unit (on average.) Now I'm seeing future development will require more credits than I own if I want to stay in newer resorts. Based on this logic, "enough" will never be enough.

That leaves me to reconsider this entire WorldMark ownership thing. If credits don't change, then if I "ever" want to stay at a newer WM location, I'll need to pay more (i.e. buy more credits), or rent credits, or book for fewer nights, or hope for a Monday Madness thing. "Saving up" credits is an option, but the idea was to be able to travel annually to WM locations I wanted to visit. Seeing that the credit requirements to stay at WM Portland are so much higher than other resorts, with the downside of fewer amenities at the resort, makes me wonder whether this really is the right TS option for me.

WorldMark is basically a fixed-inventory system. (Not counting exchanging out, and such.) Of the existing Worldmark resorts, how many of them am I never be likely to book? I haven't explored them specifically as yet, but I intend to. Virtually all the resorts in Washington state are off the list, with the exception of maybe Leavenworth and Seattle. The other sites, while great for out-of-state visitors who want to visit the Pacific North West, are close enough to where I live, that I'm unlikely to ever want or need to stay there. And that effectively reduces the number of WorldMark locations I'm likely to choose. Add in that newer locations are above the credit account size that I have, or are larger than I'll ever need to book (Estancia), means my options are now limited.

Hmm. Interesting new train of thought for me. Thanks, everyone, for adding this new wrinkle to things for me to consider. I need to spend some quality time on the WM site to look at resort locations, and decide exactly how many of them I'm ever likely to want to stay at. Since Portland, Austin, likely Moab, and a lot of the PNW locations are off the list, what's left? Great food for thought. Thank you.

Dave

Didn’t you have something to do with DVC at one point in time, isn’t that similar there?

And Moab is only off the list if you don’t want to pay the credits to stay there.

 

[DaveNV]

Didn’t you have something to do with DVC at one point in time, isn’t that similar there?

No, never owned DVC. WM is my first foray into the Points world. I was always a Weeks guy, and among the assorted ownerships I've had, a number of mini-systems came and went (MROP, VRI, and a few others.)

Dave

 

[DaveNV]

In the Club Wyndham system the points required has always varied from resort to resort. In part that is due to how Club Wyndham had its basis in deeded properties with points assigned after the fact.

For Portland it is 250k points for a week in a 1BR. As is Austin. NYC is 450k. Alexandria is 184k.

As mentioned above credit values are set by Wyndham based on a variety of factors, with construction costs being the determinant factor. To refuse a resort the BoD would need to object that the credit allocation is unreasonable or that the resort would cause a substantial increase in costs or expenses being borne by the members... presumably if they tried to add a cruise ship or all-inclusive resort to the Club.

I can understand that it costs more to build new. But in this case, where I have enough credits to stay elsewhere in a 2 bedroom for a week, at WM Portland I don't own enough to stay in even a 1 bedroom. Hotel rates seem to factor in the "going rate" for the area, and even brand new hotels tend to price themselves competitively with others in the area. Timeshares, I admit, are not the same as hotels, but if the average consumer (i.e. WM Owner) is unable to afford to stay there, then the rates charged by that location seem like they might be too high. And let's be honest - this is Portland, not New York City.

Dave

 

[ecwinch]

Thanks... this whole time I actually have thought you were someone else ...lol

I for one have never understood how it makes sense that new resorts could be added to the system at the same credit allocation as resorts built 20 years ago.

 

[DaveNV]

Thanks... this whole time I actually have thought you were someone else ...lol

I for one have never understood how it makes sense that new resorts could be added to the system at the same credit allocation as resorts built 20 years ago.

Sorry if I've been impersonating someone else all this time.

It's not that I expect the rates to be the same for newer locations as those built 20 years ago. But when things jump by 20-25% or more, or what amounts to fewer amenities for the additional cost, it just seems like it's a bigger step than what would be a reasonable "markup."

And I should add that if this is how things are, or how they've been in the past when a new location was built, it wasn't apparent to me. The credits needed to stay at "most" WM locations I've checked seems to be within a certain range. To add WM Portland in and jump the requirement so much seems excessive to me.

Dave

 

[bbodb1]

Thanks... this whole time I actually have thought you were someone else ...lol

I for one have never understood how it makes sense that new resorts could be added to the system at the same credit allocation as resorts built 20 years ago.

Here's the problem I see with adding new resorts at higher prices, Eric: WM (and/or Wyndham) is actually devaluing what existing WM owners hold. I wish I could explain this position better, but when the points I own are not worth the same amount of time (days) at new locations, my existing investment in WM TS is being lessened. How is this fair to existing WM TS holders?

I'm not sure I have an answer here but when the end result of adding new resorts to the WM brand mean existing owners will need more resources to stay the same amount of time in some (i.e. the newer) resources than others, something is amiss. I realize not every WM location is exactly the same (in terms of quality, location, amenities, perceived value, etc) but it seems to me that WM comes the closest among the systems I am familiar with in terms of consistency between locations. In my mind, WM has set an implied standard - one that charging higher amounts at new locations violates.

Might upping the required ante at one WM location eventually mean that other (not so modern) WM locations up their required points to stay as well?

This certainly is not a positive development for existing WM TS holders with smaller accounts.

 

[ecwinch]

Here's the problem I see with adding new resorts at higher prices, Eric: WM (and/or Wyndham) is actually devaluing what existing WM owners hold. I wish I could explain this position better, but when the points I own are not worth the same amount of time (days) at new locations, my existing investment in WM TS is being lessened. How is this fair to existing WM TS holders?

I'm not sure I have an answer here but when the end result of adding new resorts to the WM brand mean existing owners will need more resources to stay the same amount of time in some (i.e. the newer) resources than others, something is amiss. I realize not every WM location is exactly the same (in terms of quality, location, amenities, perceived value, etc) but it seems to me that WM comes the closest among the systems I am familiar with in terms of consistency between locations. In my mind, WM has set an implied standard - one that charging higher amounts at new locations violates.

Might upping the required ante at one WM location eventually mean that other (not so modern) WM locations up their required points to stay as well?

This certainly is not a positive development for existing WM TS holders with smaller accounts.

You certainly can view it that way. But the reality is that every resort that existed when you first became a member is still available to you at that same credit cost. With some new ones at or near those values. Granted, you might face more competition for those resorts, but that would have happened even if credit allocations had remained constant. So how it is unfair - if you got what you paid for (plus some)?

Relative Use Value (RUV) ... ie. the theory that every resort should come into the system at the same credit values was just as unsound a theory as the concept of free housekeeping. It just took longer for it to become unviable.

Thinking that 1 night in historic building in downtown Seattle has the same value (or cost) as a converted motel in Ocean Shores is unrealistic. It is neither viable from a value standpoint or a operating cost standpoint. And anything that economically unrealistic will fail over time.

ps. Assume for a moment that RUV had been explicitly spelled out in our governing documents. Where would be as a Club today? There are a lot of possible answers, but the one definite answer is that our dues would be significantly higher and/or we would have annual special assessments. Simply because the operating expenses of the Club would be spread over fewer credits. And/or nothing new like Portland, Austin, Seattle, etc. Instead new resorts would by picking up intervals on the cheap at existing resorts. That is not what I signed up for.

 

[DaveNV]

Here's the problem I see with adding new resorts at higher prices, Eric: WM (and/or Wyndham) is actually devaluing what existing WM owners hold. I wish I could explain this position better, but when the points I own are not worth the same amount of time (days) at new locations, my existing investment in WM TS is being lessened. How is this fair to existing WM TS holders?

I'm not sure I have an answer here but when the end result of adding new resorts to the WM brand mean existing owners will need more resources to stay the same amount of time in some (i.e. the newer) resources than others, something is amiss. I realize not every WM location is exactly the same (in terms of quality, location, amenities, perceived value, etc) but it seems to me that WM comes the closest among the systems I am familiar with in terms of consistency between locations. In my mind, WM has set an implied standard - one that charging higher amounts at new locations violates.

Might upping the required ante at one WM location eventually mean that other (not so modern) WM locations up their required points to stay as well?

This certainly is not a positive development for existing WM TS holders with smaller accounts.

Great points. And is pretty much what I've been trying to explain. If newer resorts are priced out of range for current owners, then what? I'm not sure I'm ready to buy more credits to add to my account, increasing my costs, just to give me the same staying options I currently have.

I just had a talk with my spouse about this topic, and I was reminded that for the way we travel now, WM is still the best fit. That is, we rarely go to a location and stay there for a week at a time, unless it's a destination, like Hawaii. So if we ever wanted to go to Portland, we'd probably only stay for a few days, since it'd likely be a road trip, and on the way to somewhere else. If the daily rate is higher, it may not be as big a deal as I'm perceiving it to be. We could still stay there, and compare the costs to what we might spend to stay in a hotel in the area. And that makes me question whether that's what WM Portland was planning all along - that people would stay few a few days at a time, rather than a week or more.

Distance seems to be the determining factor for me. If I have to travel a long way to get there, I'll likely want to stay there longer.

Dave

 

[samara64]

I for one have never understood how it makes sense that new resorts could be added to the system at the same credit allocation as resorts built 20 years ago.

That is how to compensate for inflation. $ value in 1989 is way higher than 2019. Building cost has gone up so did WM credit prices.

Your idea would be sound if credit cost would be the same @ $1. It is now $3+

So now you are increasing credit prices and count. Pure Greed.

 

[b2bailey]

This is all a huge disappointment.

Reading of this higher credit requirement, and the reasoning behind it, is probably the first chink in WorldMark's armor for me. My (apparently, undereducated) "points is points" understanding of how things worked leaves me a little disappointed in the system. I bought 12K credits, what I believed were enough annual credits to stay for a week in a two bedroom WM unit (on average.) Now I'm seeing future development will require more credits than I own if I want to stay in newer resorts. Based on this logic, "enough" will never be enough.

That leaves me to reconsider this entire WorldMark ownership thing. If credits don't change, then if I "ever" want to stay at a newer WM location, I'll need to pay more (i.e. buy more credits), or rent credits, or book for fewer nights, or hope for a Monday Madness thing. "Saving up" credits is an option, but the idea was to be able to travel annually to WM locations I wanted to visit. Seeing that the credit requirements to stay at WM Portland are so much higher than other resorts, with the downside of fewer amenities at the resort, makes me wonder whether this really is the right TS option for me.

WorldMark is basically a fixed-inventory system. (Not counting exchanging out, and such.) Of the existing Worldmark resorts, how many of them am I never be likely to book? I haven't explored them specifically as yet, but I intend to. Virtually all the resorts in Washington state are off the list, with the exception of maybe Leavenworth and Seattle. The other sites, while great for out-of-state visitors who want to visit the Pacific North West, are close enough to where I live, that I'm unlikely to ever want or need to stay there. And that effectively reduces the number of WorldMark locations I'm likely to choose. Add in that newer locations are above the credit account size that I have, or are larger than I'll ever need to book (Estancia), means my options are now limited.

Hmm. Interesting new train of thought for me. Thanks, everyone, for adding this new wrinkle to things for me to consider. I need to spend some quality time on the WM site to look at resort locations, and decide exactly how many of them I'm ever likely to want to stay at. Since Portland, Austin, likely Moab, and a lot of the PNW locations are off the list, what's left? Great food for thought. Thank you.

Dave

Dave, my first timeshare purchase was points from Trendwest -- later to become Worldmark -- many years ago. Don't remember how many points or how much I paid. BUT... it was supposed to get me a 2 BR for 7 nights at any and all locations.
And then things began to change. Ended up selling because of what I considered unfair practices. After that became a weeks owner through Marriott. Bought weeks at Timber Lodge and Newport Coast -- and they can't take that away from me. Years of happy exchanging through II -- never joined Marriott points system because of my disappointment with Worldmark.

 

[DaveNV]

Dave, my first timeshare purchase was points from Trendwest -- later to become Worldmark -- many years ago. Don't remember how many points or how much I paid. BUT... it was supposed to get me a 2 BR for 7 nights at any and all locations.
And then things began to change. Ended up selling because of what I considered unfair practices. After that became a weeks owner through Marriott. Bought weeks at Timber Lodge and Newport Coast -- and they can't take that away from me. Years of happy exchanging through II -- never joined Marriott points system because of my disappointment with Worldmark.

Thanks. I'm still learning how it all is supposed to work. And after all these years, I should know that where timeshares are concerned, things are always changing. Overall I'm happy with WorldMark, but once that stops being the case, I'll probably divest myself of any timeshare ownerships, and just become a serial renter. If I was younger, or had a family traveling with me, or had a handful of other reasons, I'd be more likely to step up and pay more to get more. But realistically, how often am I going to want to stay at one of the more expensive places? Not often, and not likely more than once in a great while. So at the end of the day, it isn't hurting me to know this about these newer resorts. And I can see that my ownership in any timeshare system is limited. Surprisingly, that doesn't bother me all that much.

Dave

 

[geist1223]

Dave where you could stay for 12K Points for a week when you first bought in you can still stay for the same 12K Points. You just may not be able to stay for a week in a new Resort for 12K Points. The problem will be if they try selling off the older resorts.

 

[rickandcindy23]

I wonder if this higher credit requirement is a trend that WM is going to use with all new resorts? They did it with Estancia and Austin, and now Portland. "Yes, WM Owner, you need to buy more credits. You don't own enough!" Seems kind of underhanded, regardless of the cost to build the new facility. I can only guess at what they'll require to stay at Moab.

Dave

The Anaheim resort (new one, not Dolphin's Cove) gets very high in required credits. There is no way I would give that many credits for one of those units. They used to be available through exchange. Should have done it. The one bedrooms are a decent number of credits.

If 10K credits costs around $700, those are high-priced units in this new Portland location.

I did notice the Wyndham chart recently for Plantation Resort of Myrtle Beach. Those are reasonably pointed in both Wyndham and WorldMark. Not bad for Myrtle Beach. It was kind of in-line with our MF's on our weeks.

 

[geist1223]

In the Club Wyndham system the points . . . For Portland it is 250k points for a week in a 1BR. As is Austin.

It cost a WMTC Owner 11K or 13K depending on the season for that same 1 Bedroom. This is roughly equivalent to an exchange rate/differential of 19.23 to 22.72 to 1 between the two systems. If I remember correctly from what Ron P. said several years ago the average Wyndham Owner pays more in MF's for 250,000 Wyndham Points than the average WMTC Owner pays in MF's on the 11K or 13K WMTC Points.

 

[ecwinch]

It cost a WMTC Owner 11K or 13K depending on the season for that same 1 Bedroom. This is roughly equivalent to an exchange rate/differential of 19.23 to 22.72 to 1 between the two systems. If I remember correctly from what Ron P. said several years ago the average Wyndham Owner pays more in MF's for 250,000 Wyndham Points than the average WMTC Owner pays in MF's on the 11K or 13K WMTC Points.

Yes, at the Club Pass exchange rates (~16.6:1) Club Wyndham members pay more in dues than a WM member pays in dues.

16600 Club Wyndham points are ~$99 dollars. 1000 WM credits are ~$80 dollars.

A lot of that has to do with range of dues a Club Wyndham member might pay for points. Depending on the cost basis, certain Club Wyndham resorts would be closer to WM.

The disparity gets wider when you look at the shared resorts as you note, as it would make no sense to allow Club Wyndham members to exchange via Club Pass for fewer points than to book direct.

ps. Given how often Ron P gets quoted, you have to wonder why WMO thought it was a good idea to run him off.

 

[sparty]

Just got back from WM PDX..

Pics is from a standard 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom presidential.

The kitchen with the range/stove is the 2 bedroom presidential that goes for 28K credits per week. The small induction top is from the kitchen of a standard 1 bedroom. I didn't see a washer/dryer in the standard 1 bedroom but it was there in the two bedroom presidential.

The 1 bedroom is pretty small - the 2 bedroom presidential is pricey but roomy. I didn't get a pic, but the murphy bed in the studio is a little different, it comes down out of the wall and goes between the arms of the couch Not many people realized this and was trying to move the couch out of the way of the murphy bed.

There is no pool or hot tub but on the 2nd floor there is a patio with gas fire pit and bbq. Public parking is plentiful nearby but WM has no parking. The light rail (the Max) stops 2 blocks from WM and goes directly to the airport. Definitely the way to go if arriving by plane.

 

[rhonda]

What a weird "W" logo ... thanks for the photos!

 

[geist1223]

Ron was kind of gruff at times. He and I got into a few times. Can you believe that? I was warned and I toned it down. He got into several fights with Moderators when he was told to tone it down and not be so attacking in languange. This would on occasion make him even more pointed. I was off in Europe for several weeks when it all came to a head and so I wasn't reading WMOWNERS at the time.

Though the longer Ron is out of Wyndham and WMTC his knowledge will become less relevant.

 

[geist1223]

Dave if you want to see some nice fair Point Values check out WM Shawnee Village and WM Myrtle Beach Plantation (but not actually in Myrtle Beach). This clearly illustrates the difference between new construction and Wyndham buying into an established Resort. Also the Point values at WM Park City are not that outrageous. Again a Resort Wyndham bought into. It costs a lot more to stay at Wyndham Park City - new built. These two properties share a property line.

 

[ecwinch]

Similar aesthetic as Austin.... other than the cabinet color.

 

[b2bailey]

I don't remember the details, but the original resorts, when I purchased, where I could stay for a week in a 2bedroom, it was no longer the case.
That's why I became disenchanted.

Dave where you could stay for 12K Points for a week when you first bought in you can still stay for the same 12K Points. You just may not be able to stay for a week in a new Resort for 12K Points. The problem will be if they try selling off the older resorts.

 

[DaveNV]

Dave if you want to see some nice fair Point Values check out WM Shawnee Village and WM Myrtle Beach Plantation (but not actually in Myrtle Beach). This clearly illustrates the difference between new construction and Wyndham buying into an established Resort. Also the Point values at WM Park City are not that outrageous. Again a Resort Wyndham bought into. It costs a lot more to stay at Wyndham Park City - new built. These two properties share a property line.

Thanks, Tom. I fully understand how and why it's happening. I think the issue I had/have with it all was that I thought 12K credits was "enough." I see now that it's not, and going forward, as new resorts are built, it's unlikely 12K will ever be enough. And that's ok. I only bought WM in the first place because I got a killer deal on the purchase. If I use it for a few years, stay at the resorts I want to stay at, and then sell it off, I'll still be money ahead. And that's when the renting starts.

Dave