Wyndham is closing a handful of legacy resorts - dedicated chart/tracker located in the first post for this unfolding set of events

[Aicken]

Understand what is outside wydhams control. What is in their control is filing in the court and the start of the formal process. That info would be helpful.

 

[bnoble]

Why?

I can’t think of a single decision I might make between now and whenever this process ends that would be contingent upon the timing of Wyndham’s part of one of these dance steps. At some point in the future, I may or may not get a check. Until then, I can’t think of anything I need to do beyond respond to the occasional letter from the law firm.

On the other hand, every time Wyndham (really, the HOA) has to send me something, it is time and money they could be spending on moving the process forward instead.

 

[HitchHiker71]

Understand what is outside wydhams control. What is in their control is filing in the court and the start of the formal process. That info would be helpful.

Incorrect - the representative law firm for the HOAs is performing the filings - which is K&L Gates - not Wyndham. Wyndham's lawyers are not involved in these actions by design - as that would likely be a direct conflict of interest given Wyndham is majority interval holder at the impacted resorts. Wyndham's interests as majority interval holder are basically being represented by K&L Gates via voting control over the HOAs and holding the majority of intervals. K&L Gates is not going to share schedules either - beyond broad strokes - because again - the bankruptcy courts hold all of the keys especially on the timing of the legal processes and approving or denying requested outcomes.

Regardless of how much anyone wants Wyndham to be responsible here - that's not how the legal processes work when we parcel things out properly. That doesn't mean we're not saying the communications have been miserable, they have been, no one is saying otherwise, but at the same time, let's think through the processes logically and without subjection, and understand where Wyndham should and should not be held to account.

 

[Floridaman76]

Wyndham being the controlling ownership interest, and having a majority of members of the HOA initiating this entire thing you would think would be a conflict of interest, but here we are

 

[bnoble]

It is not unreasonable to conflate Wyndham with the HOAs, since (a) Wyndham almost certainly chose the HOA Board members by virtue of being the majority interval owner and (b) in some cases several HOA Board members are also Wyndham employees.

Legally, the HOA is not Wyndham, and the former is arms-length from the latter. In practice, the arm may be shorter than one would prefer.

 

[Aicken]

Amazing how assume their situation must be same as theirs. But perhaps they already know everything. .

 

[bnoble]

The "Why?" was not rhetorical. If you have a reason why it makes a difference to you, I am all ears. But I cannot think of any way it makes a tangible difference to know when e.g. the next court filing will happen.

 

[dioxide45]

Understand what is outside wydhams control. What is in their control is filing in the court and the start of the formal process. That info would be helpful.

Wyndham had a heavy, but limited role in the resort closures. They were heavily involved in picking the resorts, initiating the special meetings and the outcome of the vote. They were also the ones that selected and recommended the law firm and real estate agency to represent the HOAs. Once the votes were complete, their role pretty much stopped and the law firm took over.

 

[Floridaman76]

Wyndham is Wyndham when it's convenient for Wyndham. And by the way, we have this law firm that is really pushing the buttons, that we are paying.

Did I get that all right?

 

[dioxide45]

To do what you suggest would directly and materially contradict what is posted in the TNL 10-Q Report dated July 22, 2026. That would be "misleading investors" and constitute "securities fraud." Highly doubtful any company exec would do that.
View attachment 127591
View attachment 127590


Please quote from the earnings call what led you so far astray, and we will help you understand what you got wrong. There was some Happy Talk regarding the removal of the resorts. Maybe it was comments like this that you misunderstood.
View attachment 127592

The "numerical increase" refers to the number of resorts, not "they aren't taking a loss."

9:16 of the investor call. Sometimes you have to spend money to make money, or in this case, spend money to save money. They will come out better on the other end. It should also be noted that much of the losses were non-cash impairments to inventory. Both inventory that they owned at the properties that closed and inventory that they gave away in swaps. They simply re-evaluated the value of the inventory on their books. Inventory given away in swaps perhaps just impacts their potential to sell that inventory for cash, but that inventory also cost them money year over year in maintenance fees they were responsible to pay. This an accounting write down on their balance sheet. These impairments are excluded from adjusted EBITDA.

 

[Aicken]

The "Why?" was not rhetorical. If you have a reason why it makes a difference to you, I am all ears. But I cannot think of any way it makes a tangible difference to know when e.g. the next court filing will happen.

Not surprising.

 

[HitchHiker71]

Wyndham is Wyndham when it's convenient for Wyndham. And by the way, we have this law firm that is really pushing the buttons, that we are paying.

Did I get that all right?

Last time I checked, the law firm is being paid by the clients, which are the HOAs, using reserve funds.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[afk324]

Maybe Wyndham doesn't have a majority stake in the Commons Association? So the commons would still be available to whomever the purchasers of the other assets might be? The plot thickens....

Interesting, I didn't know this. We were in town and visited the Resort. The ""Only Place across all the Villages with signs of Life" was the Recreation Center!

 

[chapjim]

Last time I checked, the law firm is being paid by the clients, which are the HOAs, using reserve funds.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And, Troy fails to see the difference between Wyndham, the timeshare owner, and Wyndham corporate.

And, he calls others uneducated.

 

[Floridaman76]

Last time I checked, the law firm is being paid by the clients, which are the HOAs, using reserve funds.

Which... wait for it... is WYNDHAM

 

[paxsarah]

Which... wait for it... is WYNDHAM

It's the owners at those resorts, reserve funds that they've already paid through 2025. As an owner not at those resorts, I'm not paying it at all. Wyndham's paying it as an owner at those resorts, proportionally to any other owner there.

 

[chapjim]

Which... wait for it... is WYNDHAM

Wrong again, Troy!

 

[Arimaas]

At the end the day, in the end this all, isn’t it Wyndham who makes out ? Yes this process is costing them the most upfront, but the cost of holding those points, and the special assessment that they would have paid as the majority holder, would, I assume, outpace what they are spending on this wind down process? I mean, to me; this whole process is driven by Wyndham, to benefit Wyndham. Again, to me, it doesn’t really matter who’s ledger the money is coming from and if it’s a positive or negative this year. In the long run, this is a net positive to Wyndham.

 

[CO skier]

9:16 of the investor call. Sometimes you have to spend money to make money, or in this case, spend money to save money.

Exactly. There are more than a quarter billion dollars of costs associated with the closed resorts. At no points during the earnings call did Michael Brown or Erik Hoag say They (Wyndham) are not taking a loss. Michael Brown, instead, steered the discussion to the new acquisitions, which is where the analysts focused their questions in the Q&A.

 

[Floridaman76]

Wrong again, Troy!

Wyndham controls all of the HOA boards
Wyndham is the majority owner
Wyndham has hired and is paying for the lawyers involved

And i'm wrong? Or i'm being naive that Wyndham isn't controlling this whole process AND has a vested interest in the outcome netting them either huge dividends or outright profit of some kind?

I probably misspoke when I used the phrase "windfall" somewhere months ago, I will concede this. But long term, this is such a gift to them. AND they are controlling the process soup to nuts (even if at "an arms length"), to the largest that extent anyone that is not the individual bankruptcy court judge has control.

 

[comicbookman]

Wyndham controls all of the HOA boards
Wyndham is the majority owner
Wyndham has hired and is paying for the lawyers involved

And i'm wrong? Or i'm being naive that Wyndham isn't controlling this whole process AND has a vested interest in the outcome netting them either huge dividends or outright profit of some kind?

I probably misspoke when I used the phrase "windfall" somewhere months ago, I will concede this. But long term, this is such a gift to them. AND they are controlling the process soup to nuts (even if at "an arms length"), to the largest that extent anyone that is not the individual bankruptcy court judge has control.

You keep saying "Wyndham has hired and is paying for the lawyers involved" That is false. The HOA reserve funds are paying for the lawyer. Although Wyndham is the majority owner at all of the resorts (more so after the Access swaps) that does not change the facts. Of course it is better for them long term, and as majority owner they have vested interest. Duh.. For most of the owners it is better long term. The fact that Wyndham owned a majority shows the resorts were mostly slowly failing. Better to close them now, in an orderly way that at least extracts some value, than let them collapse under their own weight in the future.

 

[bnoble]

As an owner in one of the closing resorts, I am thrilled that Wyndham's incentives and mine align. I hope Wyndham makes a killing selling this resort, because it converts deeds that were worth less than zero* into actual money. I hope they are greedy as all get out.

------
*: I adopted this deed by paying a few hundred dollars in closing costs, but getting a free year's worth of use, so the old owner was paying me to take it.

 

[Arimaas]

I

You keep saying "Wyndham has hired and is paying for the lawyers involved" That is false. The HOA reserve funds are paying for the lawyer. Although Wyndham is the majority owner at all of the resorts (more so after the Access swaps) that does not change the facts. Of course it is better for them long term, and as majority owner they have vested interest. Duh.. For most of the owners it is better long term. The fact that Wyndham owned a majority shows the resorts were mostly slowly failing. Better to close them now, in an orderly way that at least extracts some value, than let them collapse under their own weight in the future.

Is there a better exit plan than this, however? Not to bring Wyndham sales into it, but aren’t timeshares being sold to people as a way to own vacations forever at today’s cost? I hope that what comes out of this is a better way to “resort refresh”. I don’t know what that way is, but it can’t be this.

I also think we are splitting hairs here between Wyndham and the HOA, but I think @Floridaman76 and I are in the minority here. I don’t care whose name is in the papers, to be, Wyndham is the HOA. Sure the money comes off of the HOA balance sheet, but it’s Wyndham controlling this whole process.

BTW seems like we are relitigating the same stuff from a year ago.

 

[CO skier]

Wyndham controls all of the HOA boards
Wyndham is the majority owner
Wyndham has hired and is paying for the lawyers involved

And i'm wrong?

Mostly, yes.

As the majority owner at most if not all the closed resorts, Wyndham controlled the outcome of the various HOA votes to close the resorts. This was not a "hostile takeover" or other sinister plan. The majority ownership was acquired over the last decade through Certified Exit, which benefited owners who wanted to exit their ownership, or HOA foreclosures, which benefited the HOAs when Wyndham reimbursed the HOA for up to $2,000 of foreclosure costs (that is how it worked at my home resort, at least). Wyndham paid maintenance dues on all the reacquired inventory until it was resold in some form, thereby benefiting the HOA and remaining individual owners.

Read post #5692 where the long-term strategic plan is summarized.

... Restructuring from the 10-Q issued today:

"Resort Optimization Initiative

In order to promote the long-term strength of its portfolio of vacation ownership resorts, the Company undertook a strategic review with the intent of optimizing the overall quality of its resort portfolio, aligning with evolving owner preferences, preserving the affordability of maintenance fees, and mitigating the need for costly special assessments in the future. This review identified 17 resorts requiring significant owner reinvestment, or are in markets that no longer align with owner demand. As a result, during 2025, the Company proposed to the boards of the respective homeowners’ associations (“HOAs”) of these identified resorts, court-supervised restructuring plans to remove select resorts from the Company’s portfolio and reduce the number of units at certain other resorts."

 

[bnoble]

Is there a better exit plan than this, however?

There are two problems with timeshares of this vintage, and both are happening simultaneously. Problem One: The buildings are aging and becoming more expensive to maintain. Problem Two: the owners are also getting older, and defaulting in increasing numbers.

Wyndham solves Problem Two by offsetting some of the foreclosure costs, and folding the acquired inventory into CWA, making that inventory "productive" again, where "productive" means "someone is paying the fees on that interval." However, the first problem is still there and only getting worse. And it does not matter how well you maintain a structure, because you cannot prevent everything. What's more, older resorts' popularity fades. Yes, there are long-time families who go back year after year, but look around---there are fewer of them every year, because of Problem Two. The next wave of timeshare buyers are not beating down the doors to stay at any of these resorts, they are more interested in newer, shinier places that are often in better locations.

Eventually, every resort is going to reach the end of its serviceable life. You can try to put that day off by pouring more and more money into it, but at some point the line is crossed. Reasonable people can disagree about whether we are at that point with any of these resorts, but I don't think closing any of them is unequivocally wrong.

aren’t timeshares being sold to people as a way to own vacations forever at today’s cost?

Timeshares are sold by lots of one-liners like this, and most of them are not entirely accurate. However, Wymdham is honoring this part of the deal. At least, they are for points owners. If you want to keep vacationing, take the swap. Yes, the fees are probably more than you're paying now, but that was going to happen sooner or later no matter what, because of Problem One.

Wyndham is far from the only management company/developer facing these questions. You can't swing a dead cat on TUG without hitting a discussion about a resort that (a) has an eye-watering special assessment to fix some serious maintenance issue or bring it up to brand standard, (b) is dropped from the brand by refusing, (c) has fees skyrocketing due to an ever-increasing share of non-performing weeks, (d) is trying to consolidate owners into a smaller section of the resort and selling off the remaining buildings, or (e) liquidating. Given the history of resort development, we are going to see more of this in the next ten years, not less, and there is an entire management company (Lemonjuice) whose business model is "Let us take the reins of your dying resort, and we'll figure out the best path forward." Resorts who take Lemonjuice on don't always close right away. But no one hires Lemonjuice on a winning streak.