The 800 lb gorilla in the room

[ronparise]

I think most of us would agree that the lack of an organized resale market place for timeshares has made the PCC's and the various scams reported here on TUG inevitable..That and the serious problem of unpaid maintenance fees at some resorts

Last night I tripped over a blog http://www.insidethegate.com..I havent read much of it but it seems to be written by and for the insiders in the timeshare industry....especially the sales people..

What I found most interesting is the discussion on the resale market, or lack of one for timeshares...It's a 5 part article, I think well balanced and well done that starts here http://www.insidethegate.com/timeshare-resales/

If you read ARDA's publication "Developments" you know that in nearly every issue they have an article that at least mentions the lack of an organized resale market.

I dont know what it all means, but I do find it interesting that the industry. from top to bottom recognizes the problem, but there is no effort to solve it...inspite of the need and the profit potential, the developers and the property owner associations, with few exceptions continue doing business as usual. and just wring their hands over the problems of an ageing owner base, abandoned timeshares, PCC's, uncollected mf's and of course the scam artists taking advantage of a desperate owners

 

[gnorth16]

Interesting read.

Dealing directly with the developer is still the best way a consumer can get what they want and need because it is only at the developer level where prospective owners can actually see the accommodations they are considering purchasing, as well as the grounds, the amenities, the upkeep, services, etc. and have all their questions answered to their (100%) satisfaction before they make a buying decision.

I have to disagree. With so many rentals, exchanges and friends and family members with TS's, I don't necessisarily have to attend a sales pitch to see if I want that resort. Not to mention, some people buy at a resort and will never actually stay there since they only bought it for points or exchange.

100% to their satisfaction? :hysterical: When I have a question, I come to TUG to find the answer!!!

 

[jerseygirl]

I think the industry's reputation is as much to blame for the lack of a secondary market as the non-participation of developers. If timeshares didn't have such a bad reputation, people would find the secondary market as it stands today and units wouldn't sit unsold on ebay for $1.

Also, as the industry has matured and resorts have aged, there are far too many cases where the $$ required to operate/renovate/repair exceeds the cost of comparable rentals. This is especially apparent in resorts with highly defined seasons, as there is little or no incentive for the low season owners to stay in the game. When they bail, the funding falls apart and a vicious cycle begins, making a viable secondary market almost impossible. This screems "flawed design" to me.

 

[timeos2]

One of the big roadblocks to developers handling & reselling older timeshares are the way they choose to deal with those weeks. In many cases rather than taking them in (at extremely low cost usually) and reselling them to a new buyer (usually at a BIG markup/profit) many (most?) want to hold the deed or RTU for themselves, along with the voting rights, in a club or trust. By doing that they do take responsibility for the fees (through the club or trust) but also effectively gain control over the individual owners. That is not good.
Even the most benevolent will sooner or later rattle the sabres with sometimes not so veiled threats to vote in their Board candidates and take control. It is a big worry for even the best owner controlled resorts.

In many cases State laws prohibit the retaking of Board control by a developer once it has been turned over to the owners. But even that may not help once the majority of votes end up in a club/trust and that "independent" block of votes - all too often really under the thumb of the developer/club operator - claims they are in fact independent and thus voting their block for candidates they hand pick. It would take an expensive lawsuit or worse for the true independent owners to fight such a takeover and few resort Associations are able to mount that fight. Effectively a pseudo independent group could take over. A recent article in Timesharing Today called it a strangler fig - the seeming friendly parasite that eventually kills it's host.

Resorts that get the oh so friendly offer from the developer/former developer/sales group offering to buy up foreclosures or deed backs need to be very careful and realize that the voting rights are precious and once gone will likely never be recovered. There are examples of resorts that have had to close due to the sudden departure or failure of trusts/clubs that suddenly decided to walk away from the property. In this case the cure may be worse in the long run than the illness.

A true secondary market for timeshares is desperately needed but after 3 decades seems unlikely. The sales and reputation of timeshares is such that efforts to establish one have failed as the flood of willing sellers quickly overwhelms the demand from buyers depressing prices to what we have today. We have to deal with the hand we are dealt while wishing a stable market somehow comes to be. That hand says timeshare sellers outnumber willing buyers by thousands and prices for resale aren't likely to rise soon if ever.

 

[ace2000]

I don't understand... how can you say there's no organized resale marketplace for timeshares? Resale of timeshares is done just like the resale of any other consumer items... like cars, houses, and other used items. It is the sole responsibility of the owner to sell their item in any manner they see feasible, such as Craigslist, eBay, realtor, etc. and it's the exact same thing here.

I believe everyone wants the developer or the HOA to take on that role, however there is no direct incentive for them to do so. However, one could argue differently if you look at the indirect consequences.

 

[AwayWeGo]

Time For A Whole New Biz Model ?

The timeshare companies are all (far as I can tell) locked into the old biz model of selling hugely overpriced units, for which there is no natural demand, exclusively through high-pressure razzle-dazzle & ballyhoo in sales pitches featuring truth-stretching & fact hiding & guilt tripping & psychological manipulation.

Some of the timeshare companies have hung in there commercially if only by a thread. Others have gone broke, or are teetering on the brink of insolvency.

Why won't any of'm try an entirely new biz plan based on something like Wal-Mart for newly deeded units & more or less like CarMax for resales ?

How much worse for their bottom line could it be than the tired old carnival-barker model they cling to because it's the only way they know ?

And what if truth in selling reinvigorates the market, generating demand for newly deeded units & resales alike as more & more people catch on that by playing their cards right they can enjoy spacious & luxurious vacation accommodations at roughly Motel 6 & Super 8 rates ?

Wouldn't that be something ?

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​

 

[ace2000]

Why won't any of'm try an entirely new biz plan based on something like Wal-Mart for newly deeded units & more or less like CarMax for resales ?

If someone really believed they could make a profit doing it in that manner, it would have been done by now. That's the problem.

We're talking about selling a product that gives the owner a set amount of resort time per year for a set amount of maintenance fees per year. Some on TUG say that product is priceless... the real market has determined that most timeshare weeks are worthless.

 

[bnoble]

If someone really believed they could make a profit doing it in that manner, it would have been done by now.

Well, *more* of a profit, but yeah.

The big problem with "vacation ownership" is that it is not a product with organic demand. Very few people (present company excepted) wake up and decide that that's the day they are going to obligate themselves to pay for the operation and upkeep of a portion of a vacation condo. Instead, you have to *explain* to people why they want it---either on a tour, or by letting them experience it for themselves.

And, that's the problem. The vast majority of folks still think that a 350 sq. ft. box with two queen beds and one bathroom is how people are supposed to vacation. It's not until you've been exposed to what vacation can be by renting something bigger---a privately owned home or condo, or perhaps someone's timeshare---that you "get it". But, if you don't know that that's even out there, how do you know where to look?

So, my sense is that the only way to help develop the secondary market is to create a vibrant rental ecosystem to expose people to condo-style vacationing. But, that's only half the battle. They still need to make the connection that *owning* can be cheaper than *renting*---and (a) it is not clear to me that that is true in many cases given the current demand for such lodging, and (b) even if it is true, that's *another* round of explanation required.

The problem with this is that the money side of the equation is something that very few people actually understand or can figure out for themselves.

So, from where I sit, the prospects are dim. In some way's RCI's rapacious rental arm is the best thing that can happen to the secondary market, but it's not enough by itself.

Edited to add: yes, Inside The Gate is great.

 

[ace2000]

Well, *more* of a profit, but yeah.

And, that's the problem. The vast majority of folks still think that a 350 sq. ft. box with two queen beds and one bathroom is how people are supposed to vacation. It's not until you've been exposed to what vacation can be by renting something bigger---a privately owned home or condo, or perhaps someone's timeshare---that you "get it". But, if you don't know that that's even out there, how do you know where to look?

I've been on those tours and I've enjoyed the experience firsthand. However, even after that, I still have to come to the conclusion that the experience is just not worth what I have to pay in maintenance fees each year.

So, what's the core problem... I feel it's the current level of maintenance fees. If the MFs were sliced in half (I realize it'll never happen), and therefore making it a real value, then you'd have something worthwhile. But, when people can rent cheaper than what it costs to own, well there's your real problem.

Yes, I realize that MFs have to keep up with the cost of managing a resort.

 

[TSKeith]

Devil's Advocate

I am going to play devil's advocate here, only for the sake of the discussion. These are not my actual views, but in order to have a well rounded conversation, someone has to be the bad guy.

I believe that the consumers have to shoulder some of the blame for the poor re-sale market as well. Resort owners pay thousands of dollars to "Rescue Companies" and "Timeshare Attorneys", only to have that same timeshare show up on e-bay for $1, and if it fails to sell, be transferred into a junk company only to be defaulted upon and taken back by the developer at a later date. Now I'm sure that this information is not presented in the sales pitch at a "We will buy your timeshare today at your local XYZ Hotel and Convention center", but I know for a fact that there is one company whose website state, word for word, "Our program is as simple as this, for a fee-to be paid only after the contract is fulfilled-of $495.00 to $995.00 depending on your next year's maintenance fee, we will transfer your unwanted timeshare out of your name and into our holding company's name Today! We will try to give the timeshare away. If we are unable to find a willing recipient to "donate" your timeshare to, the resort will take the timeshare back from our holding company after approximately 3 years in most cases. Your credit / estate is protected."

Pretty easy for the timeshare owner to know that they will be hurting other paying owners, yet these companies make millions of dollars a year. The problem begins with the resorts (rising maintenance fees, special assessments, high pressure sales, unkempt resort facilities), trickles down to the owners, who are fed up (with said rising maintenance fees, special assessments, high pressure sales, unkempt resort facilities), turn to unscrupulous companies to rid them of their timeshare, and then burden other owners with additional maintenance fee hikes.

As I said, this is just one angle. Personally, I believe that the whole industry needs an overhaul. I know that there are re-sale brokers that make a good (if not great) living at turning one mans junk into another mans dream vacation. I also know that many tuggers, myself included, have used the depressed re-sale market to acquire timeshares to sell or rent, and have had a lot of success. I know there is a solution out there somewhere, and someone (hopefully me! ) will someday find it. I just hope it happens before the industry is in too big of a hole to dig out of.

 

[spirits]

Are we speaking to the converted?

First of all disclosure. I am an owner of a TS for 5 years, love it and am working on buying a second. If my husband would let me I would own 2 more weeks at our home resort in Banff. (But I digress). In my circle of friends and family, my two sons are happy to go IF I continue ownership. They do not want the responsibility of ownership, do not want to be tied down,but they will come with us at New Years if work,other family commitments allow. (Does anyone see a pattern here?) Now, of all my friends noone want the timeshare life. Mostly because the women do NOT want to cook. They want to be in an urban environment or in Europe on a Rick Steeves type holiday. Or on a cruise. Or an all inclusive in Mexico. Common denominator....no kitchen facilities no where no way.
I believe they are converted to a certain vacation lifestyle that has been promoted by the media and they have bought into it.
I am waiting for a Loveboat type TV show to come on featuring the antics going on at a timeshare. Imagine some Jersey Shores housewives at a ___________(picture your timeshare here)with a real cute pool guy with defined 6pack abs. And Michael Buble lookalike at the dining room table serenading you.
In other words I have no solution either.

 

[timeos2]

I've been on those tours and I've enjoyed the experience firsthand. However, even after that, I still have to come to the conclusion that the experience is just not worth what I have to pay in maintenance fees each year.

So, what's the core problem... I feel it's the current level of maintenance fees. If the MFs were sliced in half (I realize it'll never happen), and therefore making it a real value, then you'd have something worthwhile. But, when people can rent cheaper than what it costs to own, well there's your real problem.

Yes, I realize that MFs have to keep up with the cost of managing a resort.

IMO for the vast majority of resorts, most of which are mostly to highly seasonal in nature, it is the drag of the not-so-desirable times that really kill the otherwise great ownership model. Those that require equal payment for the non-prime seasons either by State law or from the original documents force the non-prime owner to effectively, if not intentionally, subsidize the prime owners. Rents as well as potential trade values are far higher on any prime week while the world is awash in low demand times that won't rent for the fees and have low trade value.

If those resorts weren't built with amenities to provide value to owners during low demand times or if they refuse to look for creative ways to increase values of those non-prime weeks they suffer from owner defaults and delinquencies. Eventually the prime or near prime owners end up covering the non-prime times as no one is willing to pay full freight and get peanuts back. It is no different then from a full ownership condo - you are effectively covering the year round costs but spread over the relatively small number of prime owners rather than a 50-52 week year. The prime owners that refuse to offer lower fees to the non-prime weeks or somehow increase the value of those weeks are really hurting themselves.

The few areas that enjoy nearly equal year round demand suffer less but even they get impacted by the incredible number of resales & rentals available to anyone everyday. No one, no resort, no system, no location or brand name is immune. Next to a true resale market the non-prime week cost issue is a top reason we are finding zero resale value today. And little is being done to address it system wide. That may be the 700 lb gorilla in the room - if not the 900 lb one.

 

[chriskre]

I've been on those tours and I've enjoyed the experience firsthand. However, even after that, I still have to come to the conclusion that the experience is just not worth what I have to pay in maintenance fees each year.

So, what's the core problem... I feel it's the current level of maintenance fees. If the MFs were sliced in half (I realize it'll never happen), and therefore making it a real value, then you'd have something worthwhile. But, when people can rent cheaper than what it costs to own, well there's your real problem.

Yes, I realize that MFs have to keep up with the cost of managing a resort.

But there are still many resort where it costs less in MF's than it does to rent. I own several weeks where that is the case as well as my points ownerships.

Unfortunately, usually the first TS that most are exposed to, me included, were not a good deal rent/MF wise but once I was educated, I didn't make that mistake again. :annoyed: So unfortunately as bad as those "tours" are, they do at least spark curiosity in those who with a little self control and luck find TUG or other communities where with a little time invested in their own education can find those bargains. Isnt' the internet great!

 

[chriskre]

First of all disclosure. I am an owner of a TS for 5 years, love it and am working on buying a second. If my husband would let me I would own 2 more weeks at our home resort in Banff. (But I digress). In my circle of friends and family, my two sons are happy to go IF I continue ownership. They do not want the responsibility of ownership, do not want to be tied down,but they will come with us at New Years if work,other family commitments allow. (Does anyone see a pattern here?) Now, of all my friends noone want the timeshare life. Mostly because the women do NOT want to cook. They want to be in an urban environment or in Europe on a Rick Steeves type holiday. Or on a cruise. Or an all inclusive in Mexico. Common denominator....no kitchen facilities no where no way.
I believe they are converted to a certain vacation lifestyle that has been promoted by the media and they have bought into it.
I am waiting for a Loveboat type TV show to come on featuring the antics going on at a timeshare. Imagine some Jersey Shores housewives at a ___________(picture your timeshare here)with a real cute pool guy with defined 6pack abs. And Michael Buble lookalike at the dining room table serenading you.
In other words I have no solution either.

I agree with you, the next generation has been conditioned to eat out almost every meal, almost every day, me included. I really only use the kitchen for breakfast and sometimes lunch. I was a cruise girl before I discovered TS's. I still cruise but do enjoy an all inclusive resort every now and then. It's too bad that most TS AI's gouge their best customers so that there is little incentive to want to come back when you can get an AI in a real hotel resort without the ongoing commitment much cheaper.

I think that with vacations, definitely one size does not fit all. It would be nice if it were actually possible to trade your week for a week on a cruise ship. Not the sorry discounts available thru RCI and ICE but an actual exchange. DVC actually does it. It's not the best value but it's an option. Of course it helps that they own their own cruise line.

 

[funtime]

I am shocked every time I go on ebay at the rock bottem prices. For those of us that love timesharing - now is the time to upgrade.

For the resorts, I have seen a few that have an active rental program - that should bring in some money per year. San Clemente Cove and Winners Circle in Southern California are two examples. Winners Circle rents (usually Mon to Thurs) at greatly reduced rates ($55 a day?) to owners. They do an assessment each week and by Monday or Tuesday know how many units are not being used, they have a waiting list that they maintain of prospective renters and then they match. They have been doing this for years and it is a great asset to the timeshare and its owners. Often I seen owner rental rates at 100 or more a night - what kind of incentive is that?

The management associations need to step up their game - especially in the off season - and create new markets for their timeshare. If I am not mistaken one company in NOLA even advertised rentals on Craig's List.

Also, some Southern California resorts have a sales real estate agent in the lobby - Winners Circle does. I believe she rotates different resorts so that she represents two or three.

More ideas are needed. Funtime

 

[bnoble]

I feel it's the current level of maintenance fees. ... Yes, I realize that MFs have to keep up with the cost of managing a resort.

But, of course, there is no "one size fits all" for fees vs. amenities. Everyone has their own preferences about how much they want out of a vacation condo. Some folks want fancier amenities and furnishings, which are more expensive to operate and maintain, and are willing to pay more for it. Others want a simpler and less expensive experience. Likewise some locations are just more expensive---due to cost of labor, underlying value of land (and therefore high real estate taxes), etc. As long as the resort is well-managed, the fees should be commensurate with the kind of resort you are getting, and fair values in the long run.

As a concrete example, a typical 2BR at DVC will run an owner about $1,800 and change in season. Just down the road, at Bonnet Creek---without the included transportation, etc.---it would be a shade under $1,200. Some people would rather pay the 50% more for the increased set of amenities. Others wouldn't. That's okay; both are fair values for what they offer compared to similar resorts renting directly to the public.

Now, of all my friends noone want the timeshare life. Mostly because the women do NOT want to cook.

Two thoughts. One: I'm the one who generally makes dinner in my house, and I'm not a woman. At least, not last i checked. Two: we don't cook in timeshares by and large. We "assemble" breakfast, we re-heat leftovers, and we *might* make one (at most two) dinners over the course of a week. Just because the kitchen is there doesn't mean you have to cook in it. But, it is very nice to have a real bowl for your salsa, real wine glasses for the vino, and an ice maker and blender for the cocktails! For us, the value of a condo is space. We have a private sleeping space separate from the kids'. There is a common space that early birds and night owls can use without disturbing the others. And so on. Other people might prefer to cook, and that's cool too.

IMO for the vast majority of resorts, most of which are mostly to highly seasonal in nature, it is the drag of the not-so-desirable times that really kill the otherwise great ownership model.

Resorts sold as pure point-based products solve this by charging fees per point, not per week. Because the offseason costs fewer points, those who visit in offseason spend less, and those who visit during peak demand spend more.

This doesn't solve the problem for week-based schemes, but it is workable.

 

[AwayWeGo]

It's Not Always The Developers Who Get Stuck With Defaulted Timeshare Units.

Resort owners pay thousands of dollars to "Rescue Companies" and "Timeshare Attorneys", only to have that same timeshare show up on e-bay for $1, and if it fails to sell, be transferred into a junk company only to be defaulted upon and taken back by the developer at a later date.

Sometimes it's an independent HOA that has to take'm back, rather than the timeshare company or the company's captive HOA -- not a good situation for the responsible, fee-paying owners who then get stuck with higher fees to cover their share of the maintenance/reserve money not being paid on defaulted units.

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​

 

[rickandcindy23]

If older, independent resorts just had a way to sell timeshares, they could provide the market. But they do not have the marketing capability to sell.

There are plenty of resellers, like Seth Nock, who will list your valuable timeshare, but he cannot do anything with a Val Chatelle summer week. These companies won't even sell a Sands of Kahana 2 bedroom on Maui. They know the value, and we all know it as well.

We just stayed at the Rosen Shingle Creek hotel in Orlando for two nights, both nights were $96 total through Hotwire It was very nice, but they charged $9.95 per day for internet, and they also charged for parking.

 

[AwayWeGo]

Exclusive Right To Sell Timeshares On Site.

Also, some Southern California resorts have a sales real estate agent in the lobby - Winners Circle does. I believe she rotates different resorts so that she represents two or three.

Cameron Cove Resort at Indian Rocks Beach FL likewise has a resale broker on site.

Unfortunately, that option is not always open.

At some of the sold-out timeshares that are independently operated by owner-controlled HOAs, the timeshare company managed to hold onto the exclusive right to sell timeshares on site indefinitely.

That means there is no way the HOA can even let checked-in owners & renters & exchange guests know about the deeded-back & foreclosed units that the HOA would be willing to sell for way less than the timeshare company asks for its full-freight timeshares & club memberships.

How, you may ask, can the timeshare company keep on selling timeshares on site at sold-out resorts where by definition there is no unsold inventory ?

Easy. They sell trust-based exchange-club memberships, & deeds to weeks at off-site timeshares, etc.

Meanwhile, the independent HOA has to get super-creative to find new owners for its deedbacks & foreclosures.

So it goes.

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​

 

[alexadeparis]

I love this quote from the insidethegate website about how they view us timeshare consumers, from their article entitled "Missouri Mule":

Why is it then that our sales centers are overflowing with these tight fisted miser types while across town or down the street other consumers are demonstrating they have no shortage of disposable income and are freely spending cash (or using credit) like those proverbial drunken sailors on a long overdue shore-leave?

 

[ampaholic]

I don't understand... how can you say there's no organized resale marketplace for timeshares? Resale of timeshares is done just like the resale of any other consumer items... like cars, houses, and other used items. It is the sole responsibility of the owner to sell their item in any manner they see feasible, such as Craigslist, eBay, realtor, etc. and it's the exact same thing here.

I believe everyone wants the developer or the HOA to take on that role, however there is no direct incentive for them to do so. However, one could argue differently if you look at the indirect consequences.

I think the "lack" that is most lamented is the lack of what in the auto industry is known as a "used car dealer". The biggest issue with the development of a robust "dealership" network in "used" timeshares (Alan - I know they are all used - but that is another issue) is that potential dealers balk at becoming liable for the MF's if they don't sell. Boy you talk about "lot rot - imagine you as a used car dealer if every month you had to pay a fee for every car on the lot to another owner besides the one who dropped it off.

This is why PCC require MF's to be paid up before they will take one. I think perhaps the industry may evolve into something where a "dealer fee" can be charged and a "relief of MF's" can be negotiated with the HOA to "list" the interval for a year or two - then perhaps the $1 eBay specials will end?

In the car dealer scenario the buyer pays the "lot fee" as mark up when they buy.

In the PCC scenario the seller has to pay the "lot fee" as a prepay - since the mark up is only "up" to $1. These low season timeshares have only a negative market value.

Junkers is junkers = I would like to see it solved by the Red weeks pay more and the blue weeks pay less in MF's to equalize their market value.

As it is the Blue week owners subsidize the Red week owners. You really can't blame them if they shrug and drop the load the Red week owners lay on them.

 

[chriskre]

If older, independent resorts just had a way to sell timeshares, they could provide the market. But they do not have the marketing capability to sell.

Well there is no reason why they can't join TUG and market these ownerships for free here. I just took one of the CMV UDI's that I found here from one of the board members who was taking an active interest in helping the resort. Of course she's heavily invested there too so wants to see the resort stay solvent.

I think I'm going to mention to my resort next time I speak to the manager about doing this with some of our deedbacks or foreclosures. I'm not sure about how many we have but I'm sure there are some. I'd hate to see our resort go under because of lack of info on how to market these weeks. I also think that since our little resort gives day privileges that marketing to the local community is definitely what should be going on.

 

[bogey21]

....... it is the drag of the not-so-desirable times that really kill the otherwise great ownership model.......

I agree. If the MFs had originally been set up so that the least desirable Weeks had lower MFs and the more desirable Weeks had higher MFs, I think things would be a whole lot different. I'm sure there were reasons this wasn't done (except in a few instances) when things were set up, but it sure would help in today's market.

George

 

[timeos2]

I agree. If the MFs had originally been set up so that the least desirable Weeks had lower MFs and the more desirable Weeks had higher MFs, I think things would be a whole lot different. I'm sure there were reasons this wasn't done (except in a few instances) when things were set up, but it sure would help in today's market.

George

One way around the existing problem is, as much as some hate it, points! Not the type where you give up your deeded rights - those can hurt the resort & Association as the points provider becomes too influential over the operation/management - but rather the type where you give up your use rights for points. Done correctly this can translate into a more costly use period if you hold a prime week ownership (you get, and pay the maintenance fees for MORE points) and a less costly one (you get less points and therefore pay less fees) as the fees are based on number of points assigned. This has already been implemented & worked at older resort that had the "one price fits all" problem with seasonal weeks.

There are answers - not always what the owners want to hear. But it can mean the very survival of a resort is at risk if these things aren't addressed.

 

[AwayWeGo]

1 Price Fits All At (Some) Points Timeshares, Too.

One way around the existing problem is, as much as some hate it, points! Not the type where you give up your deeded rights - those can hurt the resort & Association as the points provider becomes too influential over the operation/management - but rather the type where you give up your use rights for points. Done correctly this can translate into a more costly use period if you hold a prime week ownership (you get, and pay the maintenance fees for MORE points) and a less costly one (you get less points and therefore pay less fees) as the fees are based on number of points assigned. This has already been implemented & worked at older resort that had the "one price fits all" problem with seasonal weeks.

Maintenance fees are the same for all three -- 3 -- of our triennial points units, all at the same timeshare resort but with 3 different points values.

Currently, it's $732 per use year for 2BR lock-off units (basically, just 2 adjoining stand-alone 1BR units).

That's the amount charged regardless of whether the 2BR lock-off generates 92,500 points or 74,000 points or 55,500 points.

Go figure.

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​