Agree with what Eric mentioned. However, I do believe that these contracts have to have some value. I know they are not an "ownership" structure, but they do provide for years of vacations to a beautiful resort. Any value would be determined by how the potential purchaser assigns a price to these future vacations relative to buying a new contract directly from the developer (Vidanta). If buying a "new" contract from Vidanta costs $100,000, then how much would someone pay to buy a "used" contract from an owner? Certainly not $100,000 but $75,000, $50,000, $25,000? The "used" contract absolutely still has value as the purchaser would still be able to benefit for, in some cases, decades upon decades, of use. Why would this not be like buying a used car? You still get the car, a few years into its usable life. With a Vidanta contract, you still get the exact contract (and exactly same resort and unit), just a few years into its usable life. Why would this not be appealing to a purchaser? I think there should be a concerted effort among owners to cultivate an active secondary marketplace.