NeilGoBlue

I think people are overall very happy with their choice in DCs. DCs seem to exceed customers expectations. People have resgined, but most of the time it is because of a personal reason...Divorce or personal financial situation. I know there are people from the Tanner and Haley debacle that were not happy and I'm guessing that people in Portfino that are not happy.

I think you should worry about a club going out of business. Not that it will happen, but you should do your due diligience. That is one reason I like AK, it gives the equity protection.

I personally would not choose AK for the access to trips... it's a small benefit, but not something I would put at the top of my list. You might use the travel options once every three years, but have to use the club for the other 30 days a year.

I love AK... the houses are awesome and the service is incredible (as it will be at most clubs). Plus I get equity protection and appreciation.

Kagehitokiri

welcome to the forum.

hmm, there is quite a bit of discussion of those things here as well as back on this forum >
http://tugbbs.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=48

there are some who who prefer "equity" options, and others who do a lot of analysis with spreadsheets etc.

a number of clubs offer corporate/group/etc plans and hotel/resort managed properties.

TarheelTraveler was also a crescendo member. both they and Neilgoblue have discussed their clubs on this forum and here >
Non-traditional Interval Ownership - Timeshare Users Group Online Community Forums

Neilgoblue's recent trip report is here >
My Trip to Cabo....

every club has its positives and negatives. speaking of resignations - 3DH resigned from ER and joined lusso. i believe another poster suggested they are also planning to resign from ER as well.

TarheelTraveler

When I was looking at clubs, the ads from ER, PE and Dreamcatcher (now Quintess) initially caught my eye, but the more I looked into them and others, the less comfortable I got with the idea of someone else owning the properties and also receiving any appreciation. The sales approach also bothered me with some DCs. It wasn't like a timeshare hard sell, but I felt like I didn't get good answers to all of my questions in many cases. With Crescendo, I was able to satisfy my inner geekdom with straight forward and more than complete answers to my questions. I joined as a result. After I joined, I have had several clients ask me about DCs as they have become more mainstream, so I've gotten into the financials more and spoken with lots of people in the industry. As a result, I'm probably a lot more cautious than many, particularly with certain clubs when the financial model makes no economic sense, reminds me of internet companies back in the boom and is wholly dependent on adding additional members to sustain the artificially low membership deposits and dues and the special offers. Thankfully, the industry is starting to mature, and with consolidation, we've started seeing less of that over the last year.

In any event, I believe with few exceptions, members are really happy about joining a DC. The satisfaction levels are incredibly high, which is particularly amazing since the travel industry in general rates low normally. Probably, the only "dissatisfaction" I've seen (other than from certain financially troubled DCs) comes from club envy (the grass is greener at some other club), rather than not being satisfied with the elevation in travel personally.

With respect to A&K, I've been very pleased with the management team, and the continued great service and houses. The Crescendo houses were all transitioned over, and the best Bellehavens houses have also been transitioned over. Additional homes are in the works and will be part of the launch. The European villas are amazing, and for me, the A&K trips will be a great benefit, particularly as my child gets older. I always loved the quality of the CR houses and services, and the only thing I didn't like about CR has been rectified with a much larger portfolio and great marketing and financial resources.

I don't know about all of the DCs, but I know that A&K will not go into a place if they don't have resort amenities (with the exception, for example, of NYC for obvious reasons). The tradeoff is that sometimes you could get a better or less expensive house by going outside of a resort area. However, it's important to many to have resort amenities, including myself, and some argue that the real estate investment has greater protection, particularly if it's in a quality resort with strong financial backers. I know that at Kiawah Island, for example, A&K has the resort amenities, while ER surprising does not. As an interesting sidenote, when I was checking on this for a client (they didn't want to deal with salespeople) and prospective ER member, it took me about 4 or 5 frustrating email/phone conversations with ER representatives for them to come out and say that they didn't have access to resort amenities at Kiawah. I wish they would sometimes be more transparent. What ER can do that few other clubs can match at this point is go into a resort and buy 20 or 30 residences at a discount. Not sure if that discount goes for the benefit of the members or the management, but nonetheless, they definitely get good economies of scale. Everybody likes to beat up on ER, but it's hard to argue with their growth.

rwhaugan

I have looked through the forum threads, but haven't seen anything that specifically addresses my questions about availability, etc. Perhaps its just me, but if anyone remembers could you tell me what thread the discussions were in? The links I got simply directed me to the thread directory- I looked through the first 7 pages or so and didn't find a topic that looked promising. I am happy to slog through the forums, but if anyone can shortcut the process I would appreciate it.

Neilgoblue, thanks for your response re the financial viability of the DCs. While I am aware of the previous BK, it seemed as though this was an aberration- I'll have to spend more time on the financial analysis side of things. It appears though that the clubs who have the least to worry about are the one where the members (financially anyway) benefit the least- this makes the clubs more profitable and less likely to go out of business- do you agree with this analysis?

travelenthusiast

As I look at various clubs,another key attractive point about the equity model is that the non-equity clubs hope to make their BIG money from appreciation upon the sale of homes. My fear is that they will sell my favorites ... just to make money.

Kagehitokiri

rwhaugan,

first, id recommend seeing what clubs offer things you are interested in.

then check out the individual club forums here.

if you have general questions, there is the Q&A forum. but you should post any questions you have regarding any of the clubs in the club's individual forum.

also, searching for "availability" results in 273 posts on this forum, and 226 posts on TUG.

intheknow,

if a club did that, members would resign, and they would not be able to gain new members.

an example from quintess >
an example from DHH >
http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showpos...6&postcount=20
also, ER usually buys large blocks of properties, often for a very large discount im sure.

TarheelTraveler

I agree with Kag to a point, but what if a club has a cap and the club has reached the cap. Being the prettiest girl at the dance may no longer be as important.

vineyarder

I agee that is a concern with having a cap; PE started out with a cap, and the members overwhelmingly supported eliminating the cap...

__________________
*************
Living in a vacuum sucks!

Quintess Michael

Quintess is Member owned, Member Managed and Member Driven.

If we sell a home, it is because it is NOT being used. You can easily extrapolate that if we have a house in a location that doesn't get much use, and we have $4mm tied up there, just the simple fact that members aren't using it is an indicator that it isn't as strong an investment as one of the top locations, or a new location that members have been saying they desire.

The desire by our members (which are all across the world, but mostly here in the US) to have a home in a destination is a huge indication that there is enough demand in that market to buoy a new development there.

__________________
Michael Aumock
Director, Membership Development
Quintess, The Leading Residences of the World

3DH

I would have to disagree about the member cap being a bad thing. We joined LUSSO because they DO have a member cap. In order to continue pleasing the existing members -- which, with a 100% fee return, they would obviously want to do -- homes would have to remain desirable, impeccable, and with that "wow" factor members have come to love!

When a member of a club with a lesser fee return (ie: the 80% refund model or less), it is obviously in the club's best interest to "turn over" that membership. They retain a percentage of the original membership fee and get to "resell" that membership at the current, often higher rate.

A member cap is a positive thing in my humble opinion... members are actually "known" by the club management, there would never be a situation where you are lost in the crowd and not be able to access someone at the top of the company -- should it be necessary for comments or suggestions, and the members and their concerns are absolutely a part of every decision.

__________________
"Boutique" is better! Another extremely satisfied LUSSO member!

vineyarder

This is certainly true if you get back your 100% without having to wait for any new members to join... but if you have to wait to be cashed out until 1, 2 or 3 new members join, then (from a financial standpoint), the club doesn't have to worry about customer satisfaction any more, because if you are unsatisfied, then you still have to pay dues, etc., until someone else joins, etc. So theoretically, once they are 'full', they don't need to care whether there are 2 members or 200 members on the resignation list, since the net number of members will still be the same, and they aren't even obligated to advertise for new members, since they are 'full'... Not saying that Lusso would actually treat people that way, just that it is a hypothetical concern.

Agreed! Of course, in order to turn that profit, they have to still appeal to, and advertise to, new members, as they only get the profit when the new members join to replace the departing one...

I agree, although it is not really the 'cap' that gives a club a 'boutique' feel, it is the size and attitudes... After all, if ER decided to 'cap' membership at 10,000, that wouldn't mean that you would never be 'lost in the crowd'...

__________________
*************
Living in a vacuum sucks!

NeilGoBlue

At some level yes, I agree... BUT, and a big BUT... if the club does go out of business, you potentially lose everything... That is highly unlikely in an equity club.

The other thing to consider is that the club model you are describing can easily go under. They are paying mortgage payments out of annual dues and new member deposits. If member desposits slow to a trickle.... it might create a problem.

In an equity club there is room for profit in just the annual dues (assuming the dues are the same for both clubs) To me, that breeds more long term stability.

vineyarder

I just looked over Lusso's website, and this would not apply to them, as once they are 'full', they guarantee to refund your deposit within 9 months of your request, even if no new members join, so in this case, they do have a very significant interest in maintaining member satisfaction... So with Lusso you do get the upside of maintaining a boutique feel without the downside that a cap could theoretically have. Very impressive!

__________________
*************
Living in a vacuum sucks!