WorldMark - Top resorts on Monday Madness special

[LLW]

3) The chance available date slips through 11-month windows to 14-day is slim to none. What we found in bonus time is either EXTREME GARAGE TIME or orphan days from (multiple) cancellations;

I googled, but still don't know what you meant by EXTREME GARAGE TIME as in relation to bonus time.

1) If an owner chooses to book with cash than credits (which likely costs less from award or rental), then it is his choice;

.........Bottom line is credits should be mostly used for 13-month booking, that's where value is and the way it designed to be used......

I beg to differ:

1. Fixed week fixed location timeshares should be used for 13-month booking. Flexible points systems like WM should be used in the 2 years for which the points are good, with most preference garnered at 13 months, and the priority would diminish over time. But 11 months is very early. 9-7-5 months? I don't know, that's another discussion.

2. Call me old-style, but putting up money up-front for the purchase should be worth something. Small account owners should have priority only on the credits that they own. One-time rental payments by owners should have less value than credits, although more value than outsiders who didn't purchase at all. When should cash be valued about the same as credits? Some time after credits' priority period, but before public rentals. That's how FAX works: it comes with restrictions.

Equalizing credits and cash depresses both developer sales and resale value. If people keep saying buy a small account, and rent credits as you need (from other owners or the Developer), because it's true, then that's what buyers will do, and market resale value would slide and slide. It was only a few years ago resale value was 80 cents for many, many years. Now owners can only rent out credits for less than maintenance fees, because FAX and MM provide a cap at 7-8 cents. Wyndham can afford it, because they rent the credits from TravelShare owners at 3-4 cents. But for many ordinary owners, there is no sense in owning more than a small account. And those who own larger accounts could just cry when they lost over half of their ownership value. I guess we are better off than others who have to give away their timeshares, or pay to give them away.

We need a system that would maintain or increase asset value. Eventually we will all have to sell.

JMHO.

 

[cotraveller]

I don't know if I should even try to respond to this latest post of yours. It's so far out in left field it defies reason. Let's try a few points.

putting up money up-front for the purchase should be worth something. Small account owners should have priority only on the credits that they own.

I am a second class owner because I only put up-front money to purchase 10,000 WorldMark credits? Whereas an owner who has purchased 100,000 or more credits is higher on the food chain? Wow! Shades of TravelShare presentations. Buy new TravelShare credits because your old legacy WorldMark credits are going to be worthless. Buy from the developer because you will spend more money and therefore have a more valuable account. One of the complaints about TravelShare was that it created different classes of owners. Now you want to extend that concept to all accounts based on how much money you put up to purchase your account? I'm sure the owners will be excited about that idea.

One-time rental payments by owners should have less value than credits, although more value than outsiders who didn't purchase at all.

So if I rent credits from another owner those rental credits should have less value than credits I receive as my annual allotment? Maybe I can book Depoe Bay with my annual allotment credits but only Galena with rental credits. What a concept! That should kill credit rentals and we won't have to worry about those nasty owners who rent credits for who knows what evil purpose.

When should cash be valued about the same as credits? Some time after credits' priority period, but before public rentals. That's how FAX works: it comes with restrictions.

This one has a little truth in it. FAX credits can be used at 13 months, at a rate of 8 cents per credit with a once every 5 years restriction in Red season. Monday Madness and similar specials can be used out to 11 months at 7 cents per credit, usually on select resorts only. Inventory Specials kick in at 60 days and are at Bonus Time rates, currently 5.4 cents per credit, and like Monday Madness are restricted to only selected resorts. Bonus time starts at 14 days, again at 5.4 cents per credit and applies to all resorts. So yes, booking with cash costs more the further out you can book, I will concede that point.

 

[ronparise]

I googled, but still don't know what you meant by EXTREME GARAGE TIME as in relation to bonus time.




I beg to differ:

1. Fixed week fixed location timeshares should be used for 13-month booking. Flexible points systems like WM should be used in the 2 years for which the points are good, with most preference garnered at 13 months, and the priority would diminish over time. But 11 months is very early. 9-7-5 months? I don't know, that's another discussion.

2. Call me old-style, but putting up money up-front for the purchase should be worth something. Small account owners should have priority only on the credits that they own. One-time rental payments by owners should have less value than credits, although more value than outsiders who didn't purchase at all. When should cash be valued about the same as credits? Some time after credits' priority period, but before public rentals. That's how FAX works: it comes with restrictions.

Equalizing credits and cash depresses both developer sales and resale value. If people keep saying buy a small account, and rent credits as you need (from other owners or the Developer), because it's true, then that's what buyers will do, and market resale value would slide and slide. It was only a few years ago resale value was 80 cents for many, many years. Now owners can only rent out credits for less than maintenance fees, because FAX and MM provide a cap at 7-8 cents. Wyndham can afford it, because they rent the credits from TravelShare owners at 3-4 cents. But for many ordinary owners, there is no sense in owning more than a small account. And those who own larger accounts could just cry when they lost over half of their ownership value. I guess we are better off than others who have to give away their timeshares, or pay to give them away.

We need a system that would maintain or increase asset value. Eventually we will all have to sell.

JMHO.

Hard to know where to start....There is so much wrong with what you say.

1) If you cant plan ahead Timeshares are not right for you. Flexible Timeshare Systems Like Worldmarks Credit System especially require advance planning.

2) The money you put up front to buy into the system, has nothing to do with the value of the credits today. Go ahead and have a good cry, but you would do well to understand that the value of your credits is what a buyer is willing to pay you. It has nothing to do with what you paid.

3) I like that the Worldmark system has cash options, but cash is not the cheaper option. They are about equal or maybe its slightly cheaper to use credits. Even the last minute opportunities (Bonus Time) done with cash arent much cheaper than using credits. And I havent seen credits for rent cheaper than maintenance fees. Thats why Im buying credits, rather than depending on renting them

4) The ability to rent credits from another owner is just another cash option, that make the purchase of a large account unnecessary for most folks. But I dont see how small accounts or these cash options reduce the value of credits. In fact the opposite is probably true. If everyone had to buy large accounts to effectively use the system I think the price they would be willing to pay per credit would go down. At least the number of people willing and able to buy would go down

5) You say we need a system that would maintain or increase asset value. Using the word asset is your biggest mistake. A timeshare is not an asset. Its an obligation. Some would say a liability.

What gives a timeshare value is the ratio of its purchase price amortized over several years plus maintenance fees to fair market, rental value. As long as that number is less than one the timeshare has value. If its more than one, that timeshare has no value, or perhaps a negative value. Worldmark has value on the secondary market because its maintenance fees are so low. Thats all. And as maintenance fees go up value is likely to go down

Now that I own a few credits myself, I agree with you, Id like to see values go up too. (arent we greedy) But for that to happen maintenance fees would have to go even lower. And whether I have a good cry or not...that aint gonna happem

 

[PassionForTravel]

Ron,

You made a mistake in the last paragraph. I think what you meant to say is either MF have to go down or rental rates have to go up.

Ian

 

[LLW]

I am a second class owner because I only put up-front money to purchase 10,000 WorldMark credits? Whereas an owner who has purchased 100,000 or more credits is higher on the food chain? Wow! Shades of TravelShare presentations. Buy new TravelShare credits because your old legacy WorldMark credits are going to be worthless. Buy from the developer because you will spend more money and therefore have a more valuable account. One of the complaints about TravelShare was that it created different classes of owners. Now you want to extend that concept to all accounts based on how much money you put up to purchase your account? I'm sure the owners will be excited about that idea.



So if I rent credits from another owner those rental credits should have less value than credits I receive as my annual allotment? Maybe I can book Depoe Bay with my annual allotment credits but only Galena with rental credits. What a concept! That should kill credit rentals and we won't have to worry about those nasty owners who rent credits for who knows what evil purpose.


This one has a little truth in it. FAX credits can be used at 13 months, at a rate of 8 cents per credit with a once every 5 years restriction in Red season. Monday Madness and similar specials can be used out to 11 months at 7 cents per credit, usually on select resorts only. Inventory Specials kick in at 60 days and are at Bonus Time rates, currently 5.4 cents per credit, and like Monday Madness are restricted to only selected resorts. Bonus time starts at 14 days, again at 5.4 cents per credit and applies to all resorts. So yes, booking with cash costs more the further out you can book, I will concede that point.

You are an owner, but have ownership rights only on the credits that you own, not on the millions of other credits that other owners own. For example, you may rent credits, but that does not give you voting rights on those. That does not transfer to you.

 

[LLW]

5) You say we need a system that would maintain or increase asset value. Using the word asset is your biggest mistake. A timeshare is not an asset. Its an obligation. Some would say a liability.

What gives a timeshare value is the ratio of its purchase price amortized over several years plus maintenance fees to fair market, rental value. As long as that number is less than one the timeshare has value. If its more than one, that timeshare has no value, or perhaps a negative value. Worldmark has value on the secondary market because its maintenance fees are so low. Thats all. And as maintenance fees go up value is likely to go down

Now that I own a few credits myself, I agree with you, Id like to see values go up too. (arent we greedy) But for that to happen maintenance fees would have to go even lower. And whether I have a good cry or not...that aint gonna happem

WM is an asset for me (and many other owner users) because it is prepaid vacation. It is a liability for you (and many other megarenters) because you assumed loans (liability) for the ownership. It has value on the secondary market because buyers (both owner users and megarenters) perceive it to be worth that much.

 

[ronparise]

You are an owner, but have ownership rights only on the credits that you own, not on the millions of other credits that other owners own. For example, you may rent credits, but that does not give you voting rights on those. That does not transfer to you.

Voting rights are meaningless. Its the use rights that are important and I can use rented credits in the same way I can use owned credits, or in my case, mortgaged credits. As long as the maintenance fees are paid it doesnt matter how those credits came to be in my account

 

[ronparise]

WM is an asset for me (and many other owner users) because it is prepaid vacation. It is a liability for you (and many other megarenters) because you assumed loans (liability) for the ownership. It has value on the secondary market because buyers (both owner users and megarenters) perceive it to be worth that much.

Wow....a prepaid vacation. The last time I heard that line I was earning a $100 gift card sparring with a Wyndham Salesman


The one mega renter I know doesnt own many credits, He rents most of them.

A timeshare has value for me if I can rent it for more than the maintenance fees. and what gives value to most timeshare owners is that the maintenance fees are less than what rental rates are...ie they get cheaper vacations, owning rather than renting....but no one thinks that they prepaid all their vacation costs when they buy a timeshare


Mayby liability isnt exactly the right word. Perhaps "obligation" says it better. Either way its not the loan alone that makes a timeshare an obligation or liability, its those damn maintenance fees .... Dont pay them for a few quarters and see what happens..

You are right that value is what a buyer says it is, but dont think that a timeshare is a prepaid vacation....You sound like a timeshare salesman when you do that...Just like them, you are forgetting to consider maintenance fees. and you cant take your vacation each year until that years maintenance fees are paid


Perhaps we have uncovered your secret...You are really a Wyndham salesman

 

[ronparise]

WM is an asset for me (and many other owner users) because it is prepaid vacation. It is a liability for you (and many other megarenters) because you assumed loans (liability) for the ownership. It has value on the secondary market because buyers (both owner users and megarenters) perceive it to be worth that much.

I for one dont just "perceive" it to be that much....I calculate it to be that much and my calculation assumes that its value when I go to sell it will be zero

The reason I assumed loans for the Worldmark I own is because Im unwilling to commit any real money to something as risky as a timeshare

 

[ronparise]

Ron,

You made a mistake in the last paragraph. I think what you meant to say is either MF have to go down or rental rates have to go up.

Ian

You are right...if rental rates go up faster than mf that would be a good thing too. I probably should have said If the spread between fair rental value and maintenance fees widens, timeshare value will increase.

I dont see that happening either

 

[cotraveller]

You are an owner, but have ownership rights only on the credits that you own, not on the millions of other credits that other owners own. For example, you may rent credits, but that does not give you voting rights on those. That does not transfer to you.

The voting rights do not transfer on rented credits but the booking rights do. That is what is important to me and to many WorldMark owners.

WM is an asset for me (and many other owner users) because it is prepaid vacation. It is a liability for you (and many other megarenters) because you assumed loans (liability) for the ownership. It has value on the secondary market because buyers (both owner users and megarenters) perceive it to be worth that much.

You addressed the above to Ron, but I'll add my perspective as an owner of a relatively small WorldMark account and as an owner who uses his account for vacations, not for rentals. When we first purchased WorldMark the value to me was the fact that they had a resort in the Tucson area (Rancho Vistoso). We were travelling there every year for spring training baseball and having a nice place to stay on those trips was the primary selling point.

As I learned more about WorldMark and how to use my ownership I recognized the vacation opportunities it held. Over the 12+ years we have been owners we have visited somewhere around 25 WorldMark resorts in all parts of the country and even on one visit to Australia. It has been one of the better decisions we ever made.

I never considered WorldMark either a liability or an asset. It's value to me is those vacation opportunities. We visited places we would nave never travelled to without WorldMark and have had many repeat visits to some of our more popular spots. Note that I said OUR more popular spots, which does not necessarily coincide with other owner's popular spots.

No, I do not long for the good old days of Trendwest who were still present when we first became owners. They made some colossal blunders in the development of WorldMark, some of which are the cause of the current squabbles you hear from some owners.

Should WorldMark ever get to the point where it does not provide those opportunities I will sell or give away my account. In the meantime I will continue to enjoy my ownership. Nothing that Wyndham has done has seriously hampered that enjoyment so I don't get too concerned about all of the political blustering that goes on. WorldMark has expanded from around 40 resorts when we first purchased to over 80 resorts now. Most of that expansion was since Wyndham took over. That's a lot of new travel opportunities. I like new opportunities and welcome the new resorts.

So while some are moaning and groaning about how bad things are and how change is needed, I just go on about my business of enjoying the good things. I throw in a tweak or two every now and then just to see how much it will stir some people up, but mainly I try to help other owners get that same enjoyment out of their ownership.

 

[Rent_Share]

How to keep my blood pressure low

September 22, 2013 11:11 AM cotravellerThis user is on your Ignore List.
September 22, 2013 08:08 AM ronpariseThis user is on your Ignore List.
September 22, 2013 08:03 AM ronpariseThis user is on your Ignore List.
September 22, 2013 07:56 AM ronpariseThis user is on your Ignore List.
September 22, 2013 07:37 AM ronpariseThis user is on your Ignore List.

 

[LLW]

A timeshare has value for me if I can rent it for more than the maintenance fees. and what gives value to most timeshare owners is that the maintenance fees are less than what rental rates are...ie they get cheaper vacations, owning rather than renting....but no one thinks that they prepaid all their vacation costs when they buy a timeshare


Mayby liability isnt exactly the right word. Perhaps "obligation" says it better. Either way its not the loan alone that makes a timeshare an obligation or liability, its those damn maintenance fees .... Dont pay them for a few quarters and see what happens..

You are right that value is what a buyer says it is, but dont think that a timeshare is a prepaid vacation....You sound like a timeshare salesman when you do that...Just like them, you are forgetting to consider maintenance fees. and you cant take your vacation each year until that years maintenance fees are paid

I for one dont just "perceive" it to be that much....I calculate it to be that much and my calculation assumes that its value when I go to sell it will be zero

The reason I assumed loans for the Worldmark I own is because Im unwilling to commit any real money to something as risky as a timeshare

I am a lot less calculating than you. I see it this way: if I don't buy WM, I just won't shell out the high rent for the kind of vacation that I can take if I buy. The MF is just like maintenance on a car or a house that I own - upkeep to keep my asset in good quality. Sure it is part of the cost, but nobody forces me to pay it. I can get out anytime I want - I don't have a mortgage on it. Are houses and cars not assets even when you have to pay future maintenance?

I thought you said WM was going to be something that you will retire in and you are just renting it until it's retirement time? Why commit to buying now at all if the future value is going to be zero?

 

[LLW]

You addressed the above to Ron, but I'll add my perspective as an owner of a relatively small WorldMark account and as an owner who uses his account for vacations, not for rentals. When we first purchased WorldMark the value to me was the fact that they had a resort in the Tucson area (Rancho Vistoso). We were travelling there every year for spring training baseball and having a nice place to stay on those trips was the primary selling point.

As I learned more about WorldMark and how to use my ownership I recognized the vacation opportunities it held. Over the 12+ years we have been owners we have visited somewhere around 25 WorldMark resorts in all parts of the country and even on one visit to Australia. It has been one of the better decisions we ever made.

I never considered WorldMark either a liability or an asset. It's value to me is those vacation opportunities. We visited places we would nave never travelled to without WorldMark and have had many repeat visits to some of our more popular spots. Note that I said OUR more popular spots, which does not necessarily coincide with other owner's popular spots.

No, I do not long for the good old days of Trendwest who were still present when we first became owners. They made some colossal blunders in the development of WorldMark, some of which are the cause of the current squabbles you hear from some owners.

Should WorldMark ever get to the point where it does not provide those opportunities I will sell or give away my account. In the meantime I will continue to enjoy my ownership. Nothing that Wyndham has done has seriously hampered that enjoyment so I don't get too concerned about all of the political blustering that goes on. WorldMark has expanded from around 40 resorts when we first purchased to over 80 resorts now. Most of that expansion was since Wyndham took over. That's a lot of new travel opportunities. I like new opportunities and welcome the new resorts. So while some are moaning and groaning about how bad things are and how change is needed....

Like you, my vacation opportunities have not worsened. But it is not all about me. WM is a good thing for me, but it has become less so for some owners. I am just helping while I can. Perhaps because I am younger than you are, I still am naïve enough to think things can get better....

..... I just go on about my business of enjoying the good things. I throw in a tweak or two every now and then just to see how much it will stir some people up, but mainly I try to help other owners get that same enjoyment out of their ownership.

Just curious: why don't you have a forum on your web site? You can still do it such that you would not have to see any different opinions........

 

[ronparise]

I am a lot less calculating than you. I see it this way: if I don't buy WM, I just won't shell out the high rent for the kind of vacation that I can take if I buy. The MF is just like maintenance on a car or a house that I own - upkeep to keep my asset in good quality. Sure it is part of the cost, but nobody forces me to pay it. I can get out anytime I want - I don't have a mortgage on it. Are houses and cars not assets even when you have to pay future maintenance?

I thought you said WM was going to be something that you will retire in and you are just renting it until it's retirement time? Why commit to buying now at all if the future value is going to be zero?

There was a time in my life when I was a stockbroker and another time when I owned over 100 rental properties. When I think "asset" I think in financial terms. Im also a pretty simple guy.

Heres a definition of asset I found on Wikipedia

In financial accounting, an asset is an economic resource. Anything tangible or intangible that is capable of being owned or controlled to produce value and that is held to have positive economic value is considered an asset. Simply stated, assets represent value of ownership that can be converted into cash (although cash itself is also considered an asset).[1]

Simply put, "an asset is something that puts money in your pocket".[2]


As I said, Im a simple kinda guy. The "Simply put" part of that definition is what I think, when I think asset. Things that take money out of my pocket are not assets...

So things held to generate income are assets...also things bought to resell at a profit are assets. Things I own to consume and things I own for pleasure are not assets (in my simple little world)

A car parked in a used car lot is an asset (to the dealer) but when its parked in my garage; its not. My house with a for sale sign in the front yard, or occupied by a rent paying tenant is an asset. My home is not

So some things can be assets or not be assets depending on how I use them. ...at least thats how I see it

So timeshares held for the purpose of family vacations are not assets to me. But timeshares held for income purposes or to resell at a profit are

I realize that there are other ways to define asset, for example you could (and you probably do) define an asset like this: "An asset is an economic resource, or something of value" but I think thats too simple and unqualified. Using that definition you could define a timeshare as an asset (as you do)


So whats the point of all this?.....I was simply trying to respond to your claim that timeshares are pre-paid vacations. Certainly you prepay part of it when you make the purchase, but thats the small part. You pay the rest of each vacation (the greater part) when you pay the fees each year

To answer your question: Why commit to buying now at all if the future value is going to be zero?.....Three reasons; 1) Im old and I dont have time to wait 2) I might be wrong 3) Im not paying for my Worldmark...The income from my timeshare rental operation is. ie I buy new timeshares and make my maintenance fee payments from the rental income they generate

 

[cotraveller]

Like you, my vacation opportunities have not worsened. But it is not all about me. WM is a good thing for me, but it has become less so for some owners. I am just helping while I can. Perhaps because I am younger than you are, I still am naïve enough to think things can get better....

Things will change, that is inevitable. Things can get better, things can get worse. I (and you) have little control over that. What we can control is our approach to change. Beating our heads on the wall trying to change things over which we have little control doesn't accomplish much except create headaches. Trying to help owners learn how to make WorldMark work for them no matter what changes seems like a better approach. That's what I try to do and you do some of the same except that you get caught up in the politics of the system. I commented on that long ago, not about you specifically, but about wmowners in general. You (the generic you, not you as an individual) should spend more time concentrating on helping owners learn the system and how to use it. You have a lot very useful information on wmowners but it is buried in all of the WorldMark political commentary. The front page of the wmowners web site (not the forum) is also primarily devoted to WorldMark politics. The political rants turn off a lot of potential visitors who are just looking for information.

Just curious: why don't you have a forum on your web site? You can still do it such that you would not have to see any different opinions........

That's an easy one to answer. I spend enough time now dealing with hackers who continually try to crash the site and with comments even though they are moderated before being published. I do not have the time or inclination to moderate a forum that would be subject to much more of that type of abuse. I do get questions from visitors to the site and try to answer them, either by adding something to the site or via email.

The current site is set up to be more like a wiki, with easily accessible information. Unlike the WorldMark Words blog that I wrote for 6 years, it has no running commentary and is not designed to be a place for ongoing discussions. It is strictly an information site. I'd like to get some more owner involvement, especially in the form of resort photos and reviews but without the forum (or the blog) approach that doesn't happen very often. People are more drawn to places where they can complain which is what the forums provide. Just look at a lot of the posts here on TUG and you will see that.