HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAIL VILLAGE FILING 1 BLOCK 5E TRACT C AUSTRIA HAUS AKA SONNENALP SDD 35 1997 APPROVAL PART 4 OF 5 LEGALk -. r-(w.r{*'r
tltt
Uoyd E. Platt Architect
4645 S. Highland Driue
Salt lake Gity, Utah
(80r1272.9065
27 January,1997
Town 0f Vail:
The following is a list of adjacent properties to the Mike Flannery property of .l86
Forest Road, Lot g:
Block 7, lot I
vR3 tLC
1901 Evergreen Road
Louisviffe, Ky 40223
Lot 25
Ed S. & Gloria M. Hicks
3026 South Padre lsland Drive
Corpus Cristi, Tx 78415
Lot 26
Paul Raether
c/o Cohlberg, Kravis, Roberrs & Co.
#9 West 57th st.4250
NY, NY IO()19
Lot llA
G. John Kredit
c/o C.F. Capitol Corporation
1 landmark Square lSth floor s
Stanford, Ct. 06901
Lot 29ABC
Charles V. McAdam lll
165 Forest Rd.
VailCo. 81657-5012
Lot l0A Rockledge
trancis A. Beer, Trustee
115 Hawk Lane
Boulder, Co. 80304
l-ot 108 Rockledge
R.M. & Jan Rymer Pickens
8111 Preston Rd. suite 800
Oallas, Tr 75225
9A Rockledge
David W. Grabel Fam. Trust
c/o Citizens Bank & Trust
P.0. Box #59
Wausau, Wi 54402.0059
8A Rockledge
CME Vail OPR Trust, V
1 1 1 South Tejon st. suite 610
Colorado Springs, Co 80901
a
Applicant:
Planner:
rHrs rrEM "i"rtit.f;ll3E" PRoPERTY
NOTICE ts HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmentalcommission of the Town of
V"ir *irlnofO a puoti" nearing in?ccorOanCe r,iith Section 18.66.060 of the MunicipalCode of the
Town of Vail on February 24,1gg7,at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building' In
consideration of :
A reouest for a site coveraoe variance to allow for the construction of a two-car garage' located
at t5'C2 Streamside Circle/Lot 15, Bighorn Subdivision 4th Additign'
Applicant: Edward Padilla, represented by Kathy Langenwalter
Planner: Lauren Waterton
A reouest for a site coverage variance and conditional use permit to allow for a Type ll EHU'
locatbd at 1 194 Cabin Circle/Lot 3, Block 2 Vail Valley 1st Filing'
Applicant: William and Shirley Mclntyre, represented by Ned Gwathmey
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
A reouest tor a site coverage variance and conditional use permit to allow for a Type ll EHU'
locatbd at 186 Forest Road/Lot 9, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing'
Mike Flannery, represented by Guy Dreier
George Ruther
A request to amend a platted building envelope amendment to allow for a 4.89 |q' ft. increase in
in"-rr-,,,irOii.tg rnvetope iize, located ai Envelole B, Parcel 4, Lions Ridge Filing #2.
Applicant: David & Jody Leach, represented by Bob Mach
Planner: Tammie Williamson
A request to develop a prefened alternative for Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) for single-
family, duplex and primary/secondary.
Applicant: Town of VailPlanner: Russ Forrest
A request for a worksession to discuss the development standards fgr the propos_ed.Alpine
e aiO'ens Education Center, to be located generally west of the Ford Park Athletic Fields' on a
part ot Tract A, Block 2, Vail Village 7th Filing.
Applicant: Betty Ford Alpine Gardens
Planner: George Ruther
A request for variance(s) from Section 18.58.320, Satellite Dish Antennas, D1,3,4 and 6 to allow
two jit"rrit" oisnes to bd instalteo at the northwest corner of the vail commons property and. a
vaiianCe from Section 18.54.050, Design Guidelines, C 7, to allow two_rooftop antennas on the
taise stairwett tower, located at 2099 N-orth Frontage Road WesWail Commons.
Applicant: KTUN Radio
Planner: Tammie Williamson I
, p'ry-)
,.t "'l'lri
,Tt'" r,, ",rlr t$z
A request for a final review of the establishment of special Development District #35' Austria
Haus. tocated at 242 eait Meadow Drive/on a part oiit"ct C, Bloit< 5-D, VailVillage 1st Filing'
Aoolicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc', represented by Gordon Pierce
Pidnner: George Ruther
A reouest for variances trom sections 18.22.060 (setbacks), 18'22'140 (Parking), 18'04'.1.30 -^
idffi"o"i X;":d'ffitbi2.'0it-ii;;*"tage of nicessory Uses) to allow for an entrv addition at
rhe Swiss chatet, ro""tejZi6i E".t 1rr"i[o* Drive/Partbf Lot K, Block 5-E, Vail Village 1st
Filing.
Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc', represented by Henry Pratt
Pianner: Lauren Waterton
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection durino reoular office hours in the
proiecr ptannsr's orfice tocatei'at-i-h-e-io*rioiliir comtr"iil-D;tft;;;t otip"tittnr' is"soilttt Frontaqe Road'
Sign fanguage interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479'2114 voice or 479'2356
TDD for information.
Community Devslopment DEpartment
Published February 7, 1997 in the Vail Trail.
J
Crossroads C,ondominiums
c/o Steve Stafford
143 East Meadow Drive
Vail, CO 81657
Village Center Association
124 Willow Bridge Rd.
Vail, CO 81657
P & R Enterprises
228 Bridge St.
Vail. CO 81657
Vail Core Condominium Assoc.
c/o Brandess Cadmus ProP. Mgmt
281 Bridge St.
Vail. CO 81657
Creekside Condominium Assoc.
223 Gore Creek Drive
Vail, CO 81657
Mountain House Condo Assoc.
PO Box 1748
Vail, CO 81657
Vail Core Condominium Assoc.
c/o John Kaemmer
434 Gore Creek Drive
Vail, CO 81657
Lodge Properties, Inc.
174 E. Gore Creek Drive
Vail. CO 81657
:
oo THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERW
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning an-d Environmental Commission of the Town of
Vait witl hold a public n""-g in iilotOance ,,iitn SeCtion 18.66'060 of the Municipal Code of the
Town of Vait on oecemoei'6, is9-6, "iiOO
p.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. ln
consideration of:
A request for a worksession to discuss an amendment to the Sign Code to allow for electronic
signs as a Public Information Sign'
Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. represented by Joe Macy
Pianner: Dirk Mason
A request for a worksession to discuss establishing a new Special Development District' located
;i ititi;d togt gutenr Creek Road/Lots 3 & 4, The Vallev, Phase v'
Applicant: Jim and Ronna FlaumPianner: Dominic Mauriello
A request for a conditional use permit utilizing the.250 Ordinance, to allow for a Type ll EHU'
tocatbd at 186 Forest RoadiLot'9, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing'
Applicant: Mike FlannerYPlanner: Dirk Mason
! A request for a worksession to discuss establishing a Special Development D.istrict overlay- to
- l tne-Austria Haur,loCit"o at? 2EastMeadow Driv6/ on'part of Tract C, Vail Village First Filing.
- *oppricant: sonnenarp properties, Inc., represented by Gordon pierce7 \ Planner: George Buther
A request for a major subdivision of Lot P-2, located on Lot P-2, Vail Village 1st Filing'
Applicant: P-2 Association, represented by Art Abplanalp
Planner: George Ruther
A request to amend the Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan and adopt the Gerald R. Ford Park
Management Plan.
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Larry Grafel, Pam Brandmeyer, Todd Oppenheimer'
George Ruther.
llllllllll
The applications and intormation about the proposals are available for pub.!ic. inspection during
regrfiiiti[b hours in the proiect planner's 'otfice located at the Town of Vail Community
Deivelopment Departme nt,' 75 S outh Frontage Road'
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479'2356
TDD for information.
Communrtv Developmsnt Department
Published ir,lovember 22. 1996 in the Vail Trail.t l.r,l$l lr""
r
;
THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of
Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of the Municipal Code of the
Town of Vail on April 12, 1999, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In
consideration of:
A request for a variance from Section 12-6H-8, Town of Vail Municipal Code, to allow for gross
residential floor area (GRFA) in excess of the allowable maximum, located at 303 Gore Creek
Drive #8 / Lot 8, Block 5, VailVillage First Filing.
Applicant: P. Anthony & Constance Ridder, represented by Gwathmey-Pratt ArchitectsPlanner: George Ruther
A request for a conditional use permit, fo allow for outdoor patio seating at Special Development
District #35, located at242East Meadow Drive / Austria Haus Club & Hotel.
Applicant: Johannes FaesslerPlanner: George Ruther
A request lor a minor amendment to a previously approved development plan, to allow for the
construction of a skier tunnel at the Golden Peak Ski Base, located at 458 Vail Valley Drive /
Tract B, Vail Village 7th Filing.
Applicant: Vail AssociatesPlanner: Jetf Hunt
A request for an amendment to a previously approved final plat for the Tall Pines Subdivision,
located at2239 Chamonix Lane / Lots 1 & 2, Tall Pines Subdivision.
Applicant: Chamonix Development Group, LLC & Paintbrush-Tall Pines, GPPlanner: Dominic Mauriello
A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-6, to allow for a building encroachment into a rear
setback, located at2657 Arosa Drive / Lot I, Block D, Vail Ridge.
Applicant: Town of VailPlanner: Allison Ochs
A request for a modification to a platted building envelope, located at 1047 Riva Glen/ Lot 6,
Spraddle Creek Estates.
Applicant: Franco D'Agostino, represented by Robert MachPlanner: Allison Ochs
A request for a variance to the lront setback; to allow a new garage, located at 285 Forest
Road/Lot 20, Block 7, Vail Village 1s.
Applicant: Steve & Linda Waterhouse, represented by Sreven RidenPlanner: Jeff Hunt
A request for a minor amendment to Special Development District No. 35, Austria Haus, to
amend Section 6 of Ordinance #12, Series of 1997 to clarify a condition of the Ordinance,
located at242E. Meadow Drive/ Part of Tract C, Block 5D, VailVillage 1"' Filing.
Applicant: Bill Sullivan, representing the Austria Haus Development GroupPlanner: George Ruther
A request for a final review of a proposed locker room expansion to the Dobson lce Arena,
located at 321 E. Lionshead Gircle/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead zno Filing.
Applicant: VailRecreationDistrictPlanner: George Ruther
A request for a final review of a major amendment to Special Development District #6, Vail
Village lnn, to allow for a hotel redevelopment, located'at 100 East Meadow Drive, Lots M and
O, Block 5D, Vail Village 1st. $. :
fpplicant: Daymer Corporation, represented by Jay Peterson IPlanner: George Ruther - \
A request for a worksession to discuss an amendment to Special Development District #30
(VAC), to allow for an additional dwelling unit and reduction of accommodation units, located at
the VailAthletic Club, 352 E. Meadow Drive/Parcels A & B, VailVillage First Filing.
Applicant: JWT 1987 Limited Partnership, represented by John PerkinsPlanner: Dominic Mauriello
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during O
regular office hours in the proiect planne/s otfice located at the Town ol Vail Community
Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call479-
2356, Telephone for the Hearing lmpaired, for information.
Community Development Department
Published March 26, 1999 in the VailTrail.
T'i|-EsHARE TOPTC
Vacation
Owner Profile
TIhey're ralking about you. They say
you're comfortable. They say you're
sman, educated, and a tough sell. Your
kids are gone. You go s'here you like.
You're satisfied, but somehow you want
more, and you want it more often. Who's
spreading this gossip abour vacation own-
ers? Why. industry researchers, of coune.
lf you've ever panicipated in a sunel
about your timeshare, you've probabh'
wondered how your contribution shaped
the results of the study. Wel.l. according to
researchers, the average timeshare owner
is married, about 52 years old, earning
more than $50,000 a year. has a bache-
lor's degree, and has no cNdren living at
home. When it comes to vacation owner-
ship, odds are that you onn 1.8 intervals
of tinre in a two-bedroom unir at one
resort. and you've exchanged at least
once. The deciding factor for your pur-
chasc? Certaintv of qualirl accomnroda-
tions in the furure and the possibilitv of
exchanging to a host of other resons all
over the world. IJut if rhe picrure
researchers have painted doesn't gailc
Iook like vou, the timing of vour purcha.e
rnav have cast vou irr a different light.
Are vou a long-rime owner? If vou
bought vour first timeshare week eight or
more years ago, rescarchers have a slight -
ly different ponrait of you. lr,lore than half
of all long-time owners have more tharr
one vacarion ownership intervall among
those. 22.90lo own three or more. and
alrnost 390/o own at multiple resorts. Just
over 40% of vacation os'ners troughr
additional weeks after their initial pur-
chase. I-ong-time orvners have an average
of 2.2 intervals at 1.5 resons. The aver-
age age for long-time owners? 55.2 vears.
New owners a.lso have a different look.
lf you purchased your first vacation ocl-
ership interval '*,ithin the last fivg 1'eas5-
you are apt to o*'n only 1.5 rveeks at 1.1
resons. But you lrave lots of time to catcl)
up with long-rime owners since yorrr
group averaFes 4?.9 vears of age- Jusr
ovcr 32o/o of nel, buvcrs are under +0
by Barbara Y. Croun
years of age, as opposed to 18.506 of all
vacation owners. If you purchased within
the last two years. researchers also repon
your annual income is ouer $60.000.
According to surveys, 16.90lo of new own-
ers earn more than $100,000. You've also
helped drive up the resale market. Almost
one out of ten (8.70lo) new owners bought
their timeshare from a previous o*rr"r]k
1989, only one out of every 50 (1.80/o)
bought a resa.le. lbz mav harc ki&ed off
tomonou's trend!
"Over 77o/o of
vacation owners
say they look
a'1 ,rorwaro to
vacations more
since buying
I tta tlmesnare...
I loll do timesharc owners conrpare to
other Li.S. residents!' As a group. you
reflect a significantly higher soclo-eco-
nomic status than the average U.S.
household. l-or example, vou are propor-
tionateh rvealthier than mosl Amtricans.
The median income of households orvning
timcshares is almost double that of all
U.S. households ($63,400 vs. $31,725),
Just over 380/o of vacation owners earn
more than $75.000. More than half of
vou have earned a bachelor's degree:
26.80/o havc a graduate degree.
Perhaps tlre most signihcant furding of
vacaliorr orrrrership suneys. hoq,ever. is
that nrore than three quarters of vou
32 i-.O*'rro,/
report that you are satisfied with your
timeshare. and tlrat vour experiences
have matched or exceeded vour expecla-
tions. Over ?70lo of vacation owners say
they look forward to vacations more since
buying a timeshare, and ?0olo say owning
has allowed them to stav in higher qualirv
resorts. Vell over 6U/o also repon enjor -
ing vacations more and enjoying a wider
range of l'acation experiences as a resul(
of owning a timeshare interval. Other
benefits vacation owners have cited
include experiencing a wider variety of
travel destinations, enjoying more restful
and revitalizing getaways, and greater
peace of mind in planning vacations.
This explains why 30.9/o of all owners
have purchased additional timeshare
intervals. and another 22.80/o arc interest -
ed in buring more time. lbu've proven
yourself to be a discrirninating crrstomer-
You know $'hat vou want. and you're
willing to shop around for it. In facr' more
than half of all owners have atended two
or more sales prcsentations beforc dccid-
ing to purchase an interval. The avcrage
owner has attended more than three pre-
sentations- sith 1.1 of them being at the
resort where they purchased and anmher
2.2 at other resorts. Only 14.?% of own-
ers bought after their first presentalion.
Tough cmutd.
What you a.ll share. perhapa more than
anvthing else. is an eye for qrulity, llexi-
bility. and value. You want ro ma:rimize
vour travel opportunities with all-inclu-
sive. no.hassle, leisure-lifestlle scrvices.
Your demands have popularized vacation
clubs. floaring and flerible-rime pro-
grams. and points programs. You have
driven the latest industn trends. More
and more resorts are offering comprehen-
sive vacation products. and Interval
Internarional is working s.ith them to
provide vou with the highest quality ser-
vices for vour money.
So, let them talk. You're toush. fou
know a good thing when tor, *Jit, *d
you're in excellent companr. We know the
researclt rumors are true. N-.e've alwavs
known thar you have a beautiful profile. i
Swistical dnn atmpild.from tlu fol-
lowing sururys: Timeshare Orvner Bene-
fis: Resr ts From A Nationside Survev Of
Timeshare Owners, 1 995: Timeshare
Purclrasers: Who Thev Are. Whv The-_v
Buy. 1993 Edition.
Barbara l/. Croun is Interual Inter-
tntionol's norketing connunicaliotts
mQnager.
We use this informatlon to
develop and ofler programs and
benelits that wall interest you
most. Worldcardo Prefen€d, lor
example, provides you wltl
savlngs on goods and seMc€s
you're already.buying, such as
hotel stays, mail order goods,
automotive maintenance, and
healthcare items. As a member of
Interval International, you also
can take advantage olthe Dinner
On Us Club* and save at 12,qn
restaurants across the U.S.
sp.ans r ego 33
-
I I TMESHARE TOPrc I
tl
-'r-fA -- ^ rrr 4.'.
' - /AIe IWO We'ek<'t\-\-I\JBetter Than One?
.l|_Is a timestrare owner, ytrrl nny be sur_ql* to g- rhar your initial purduse of
uus vacauon produc has made you inoeas_
ingly attracdve to people who want to sell
you morr of.ir - induding the development
lirm thar sold you your initia.l weslq y6ur
reson s owne6.asso(iation, and developers
of resorts into which you may exchange
U
1ou
U3urdr inirially from a develop-
ment brm that rermirs activg tod8y, n may
You're a good proqmct for all of rhese
people precisely because you ovn a
timeshare week. That mears you under-
srand the producr - and you probablv likc
it. Marka-research srudres sparuung more
than a decode demonsrate with remark_
able consistency that g0% to 9fflo of time-
share owners are satisfied with thcir
purchase. Such satishction presumabll
maxes you np€ lor onotw sucj purchasr: .
Assuming that you want and reason_
ably can afford a second or third time-
share week here are some considerations
to help you purchax it wisely:
Oorupat ibilitv
(.o nsirlerations
Add.itional dmeshares you buy should
bc mmpatible u,ith, or at le".t noi in con-
flict with, whar vou already ou,n. Thus.
buying tlre sarne lucd wcek at rwo djffcr-
want to.sell yru additional *eeL at the
rcSon.wherc you aLeady own, at another
r€sort n the same localg or at a r€son in
a totally difietem destinadon areE-
If yotu rcson alrradv has oassed
from devdoper conrol o the conrol
o]_ ln o,y." association, it may- wanr to sell you additiona.l weela from
tnventory left ovgr when rhe initial marker_
ug ellon ende4 weeks offered on behalf
of owners who want to resell. or l,eeks
deeded back in lieu of foreclosure ov
oc,ners delinquent on their parnrenu
. \\hen vou exchange into , reson
rn,actrvg s"algs, the staff quire likelv
wrll lnytte you to a sales presenratio,,
where they will encourage lou to
by Ccorg" tr6.oi*y
:1, Y_T obviou5ly would not be a goodrdea. whih you'rc nor ""*.orily bj;;
ln,urlC.. p€tterns for a lifetime (anEindeed the. flexibiliq, of usage i" on. f*",you snoud coruider). havurg at least someloea how you will use additional time-
shar.es hetps you decide what to purduse.
. Ar one exlreme, you may desire noth_rngtmore elaborate than a longer vacation
f:l,t'T al,your home resort. How youluurI thar desire depends on *het'her
yotr,.resort ofiers fi"xed or floating dme oran sllorment of poina.
--ll-,"
fu:l-*:ek setting, discuss yourva.catron oblective with the developer.
AsA-wherher the week just before or just
alrer rhe one you already own is still avail-
aDIe so rou won't have to charge units fromweeli ro week. or q,hedrer tlre developer wilJs*ap lle 6xed unit -n,eek you now ovm forone srth available cort*turive n.eeks..{t a resorr n.itlr floating ttme or apotn(-based progranr. buying additional
nme or porrts will allos. you to reserve atonger stav each vear on a first-come.
trrsr-sened ba..is. Before vou but,, be surerhat vour entire block of time or pornrss,ill meet the seasonality and unit-size
rc(Ttlrements for the lonqer vacations vorr\rrll '*anr [o arrange rn the years a.tlej. lfvour new trme or poirrLs don,t mesh with
rne onFnal lrme or points, you could findvourselt wlth rwo s€parate vacarions butlack the abiliry to combine them rnro a
srngle long vacation.
fu the other. extreme. you mav preferto purchase additi<-rnal vacation accom_
rnodations in different destinations for useat different Dmes of vcar _ perhaps a skiresort In wtnter and a beach resort insummer. or a tropical destination rn r*rn-
ter and a northcrrr mountain retreat ln
summcr. It vou r-rrignally purchased from
a multr-srre developmenr firm. purchasing
more lrom the sanlc firm at another siten'ill give vou locational varietv s,irh a
familiar ambiance and qua.lirv level.
. Another option to e*plore is urban
runeshanng. available on a split-week or in
Some cases er,en a dailr. basis- in locadons
renllT| as an owner.
26 t-,r.(1r r.a,/
convenient to entertainment, gourmet
dining, and shopping in the central core
of major metropolitan areas. Urban time-
share properties are well-established in
New Orleans and Sar Francisco, and are
being developed in several other large
U.S. cities, including Boston and Miami
Beach. Purchasing such a produo in addi-
tion to a traditional resort timeshare will
give you a wide variety of leisure options.
" ...8Oo/o to 900/o
of timeshare
owners are
satisfied with
their purchase. "
If you alreadv o\\Tr at a vacation desti-
nation far from honre where vou go onll
during vour assigrred rveek. consider but'-
ing an additional timeshare at a resort
close to home that grants day-use pnvt^
leges to it-s owners at little or no additional
charge. Compared to membership in a
health club. this may be an economical
say for you to enjoy regular use of a
snimming pool and fitness equiprnent. l[
the nearby resort offers preferrcd golfing
arrangements to its owners and guests.
you may be able to use them all year for
less than the cost ofjoining a countw club,
Consider also the possible business
benefits that you could derive from a
timeshare resort's day-use privileges.
Look for a resort with conference and
food-and-beveragc faciliries and services
suitable for informal entertainment of
vour business associates, and for small
meetings awoy from the distractions of
vour ofhce. Furthermore. if the resort also
s'elcomes a transient-stay clientele. voLr
could arrange for out-of-ton'n business
guests visiting your firm to stay thcre.
When you buy a timeshare week at a
resort close to home [o access the resort's
day-use benefis, thc vacation week itself
may seem almost superfluous - but don'(
let it so to waste! 'fhc u,ide s,onderlirl
world of exchange beckons.
Exchangc Corrsiderations
lf you purchase additional weeks ar
different resorts from development 6rms
unrelated to your original acquisition or
to each other, at least purchase from
resorts in the same exchange network.
That will simplify any future effon you
may make to combine two unrelated
weeks into a logistically - feasible two-
week vacation. I offer this advice from
personal experience, after trying to cob-
ble together for my parents a timesharc
vacation spanning two consecutive werks
based on their week in one exchange net-
work and a guest certificate lor mv week
in another exchange network.
Although it is possible to arrange oon-
secutive week exchange vacations, it is
often difficu.lt, especially if you're reqtrest-
ing the same unit at the same resort for
multiple weeks. It's important to rrrnem-
ber that the accommodations available
through the exchange system are deter-
mined by the week that have been relin-
quished bv otlrcr members..{s vacalitrn
owners fronr arnund thc rvorld olfer their
reson s'eeks to the exchange svstent. thev
arc addrd to the pool fronr which
exchange requests are fulfilled.
The accommodations an exchange
network offers you dcpend greatly on
what vou put into the system. Mrile you
should purchase vour vacation $'eek at a
reson q'here vou would like to vacation, if
the abilitv to exchange is important to
you. keep in rnind that owning a high-
season week in a higtrly-demanded desti-
nation at a high-quality reson givcs you
the best cxchange opporturutres.
Remember. too, that traveling during
the off season or to less-demandcd
destinations offers a number of advan -
tagrs. lrluseums and attractions are
uncrowdcd. restaurant reservations arc
readily available or unnecessarv: FaIIic is
light, and local residents are more apt to
interact with vou and share insighrs into
their communitv.
Thc phvsical conhguration of tlre unit
you purchase also influences its exdnngc
potential. Many units on the markcl
todav are lock-offs - two-bedroom unrts
that sleep six peoplc or divide for indc-
pendent occupancy. rerrtal, or exchangc
into a one-bedroom component thal
sleeps four and a separate studio compo-
nent that sleeps two. Some develooers
offer lock-off unia on a biennial basis (for
occupancy everv other year). you can
even lind biennial two-bqdroom lock-off
weeks exchangeable for two n eeks in a
one-bedroom unit that sleeps four, giving
you a vacation week every year with just
one maintenance fee to pay every rwo
years.
Lcg;rl (.onsiderations
Vhen considering an additional time-
share purchase, pay attention to the legal
srrucrure of the product. Possibilities
include:. Fee-simple. If vou own a fee-sim-
ple rimeshare. vou received a deed with
title insurance *'hen vou bouglu it. Unless
vou scll a fee-simple timeshare. you ano
your heirs will own it in perperuity as long
as the taxes and maintenance fees are
paid each vear. In the United States, closc
to 90% of all timeshare resons sell a [ee-
simple product,
" irt tlte
T T I
'T.u nlleo )tates,
ciose to 90(Xr
of all
timeshare
resorts sell
a fee-sirnple
product. "
' Righl-to-use. A righr-ru-use tirrre-
share product gives purchasers access to
the propertv for a specihc period of time,
hut confers no ownership of tlte underly-
ing real cstate. ln Mexico and othcr coun-
trics that restrict land os nerslrip bv
l'orcigners. nranv trnlcshare resorts arc
sp"arrs t ggs 27
,!gi||riz{{l on a rigll(-((|-ltit l, ri5.
' Club ntcrnborship. 1'lrt lacati,rrr
irrlr is att enrerging gerrrc irr tlrc ,atati'rrt.
os ncrship indtrstrr..\ <lub rrrrnrlrrrship
rrr tlrc L.S. oftert irtclrrrlct an intrrcst ir)
tlrr. underlving rcal estate an(l cc(:cJs
rights 1o arty o[ tlrc club's k,catiors undcr
prrscribed circurnstance.,. r,r it rnay lre
:old on a right-to-use ba"i''. Orrtside the
L'.S.. club nrembcrships arc rrsuallv solrl
as right- to-use.
' Leasehold. A lea',,hokl plodrrct
(ottlcrs on thc purclrascr all osrtersltip
lishts to the real t'sratr lirl a rpccilic
rtutrtber of velrs. alter wlriclr tlrose rights
te\.cn to the seller..\ltlrorrglr s()nrc de\rrl-
rrpcrs establish right-tr.r-trtc tirneslrale
resons on land tlltr c{nrtr(,| l)\ rrrearrs ol a
long-ternt lease. rclatirclr' li.s ale sellirrs
ieasehokls to corrsrrnres. 0
Ceorge Leposk-r' is lntcrrat lnter-
tttr! nn|'s direcutr oJ conmrunia iuts tnd
.ditor of Inten.mt's quurkrl.t trnrh' mayrt-
:rrrr,. \ircation lrxltrstrr llcr i,.rr .
Wh€n you buy a vacalion weok, you should know whal legal strucluro goyems you, pur_
chase. In additi0n, you sho0ld make sure you feceivo thc lollowing documsnB:
The disclosuro document, which describes the lroiscl, thc developer, the devslopor,s
plans l0r pt0iect managament, the developer's obligation to complete lhs promised rmoni-
ties, and any pubtic reporl issued by the ofiicial body rmpowered by law to regulsts lime.
shares in lhat iulisdiction.
Th6 declaralion ol timesha?ing (or the c0y6nants, conditi0ns, and ,cstrictio.,s), whlch
describes the timsshare plan and wherher the weels to be sold are lired or lloating wrGks,
the proiected budget tor op6rating orpsnses. amangemenls lor sstablishing the owners asso-
ciation, lhe association's bylaws and how they may be amended, and lhe stage in thE pro_
iect's developmenl at which contror ot the associarion rill pass lfom the deyeloper to the
owners. ll the proiect uas originally registered as a condominium rather than a limeshare pro-
lect, a separrte declaralion ol condominium also may b! proylded.
The managemenl agrsement. which describes how tho property is to be used, owners, end
managomenl's rights, lhe rules by which owners a.e to be 0oyehed in their occupancy, how
guesls are l0 be authotired and govemed, and anythin! else iflvolving the use and opention
0l the propeo.
A complele erplanation ol how the erchange program f,orls, details 0f the afliliation
agreement made by the developer wilh an erchange c0mprny 0n behalf of future orners, and
the 0bligati0ns ol the deyeloper to the ownenr and to Ine erchangr company.
nap nlcd hon lhe AEt Eesource nenual, lgg1.
ALM. ..The easy" comfortable
tnt u'ill e.xpcnettca'll1c cbarnl of
lhL' Curihbeatt. Dutch st:|'l(. 'l hc
to
sttlLfitp to sL,c that ectl ALll Jligbl is
sl)c.'i(tl Tl.,cs? (lu(tlttics ltttt,c baett tl.te hall
nUrkol AI'll /irr)t.,t .jt-).t,c.tt\ Ue arc pr(,utl (,f o rh1t.
tl1t,q.'. ()ll) p(4)lu (tt1(l trLtr tr'rl Sp?Cktl p.lis(tlq(r c.are l-'Or
tt,t1'1)t)cktl frltst('nNt,1 r'.1tr, in tlJc (..til)bsttt. cltrxtst, Al-Il,'ll ta, l t tl r t t L' ( )l t l)( l ) t ( l t r.l t riblxu t t
nrontcnl I'ou step ttboartl, vnr u,ill f'ttttl u'arnt
stttilcs. .qn.rctotrs hospilalit\'. d ,q.'n iu( <ortcc'rn .frtr
passangL'l com.fitn. antl i! fu)esn t lttl tl)a,(,. lJL,hind ctvl.\'
u,qrtn stttilc. Iher<: an' httttdrqls ttl tIcdttctttll (t11plot't,(,rF,
RUBA
28 L"tt--n"./
irtlorttt.tlrr ln ttnr.l tcsgrr'l r, rr')s I )t )- 127 --
re
ts
te
l-
rg
m
rd
t-
te
r-
Time-share indushy enjoys
a new respectability
I
i,
v
t
I
t-
te
)-
v
lr
e
t-
o
'f
e
t
)
I
;
le
:h
s-
et
,t,
re
w
le
n,
rn
)t
,y
By Caitlin Molliron
DOW JOarEg tfWS S€BMCE
NOWN IN TIIE past for
fast-talking, high-pressure
salespeople, the time-sh8rc
industry has come out of the &rk
and into the mainstream.
No longer the bane of the tour-
ism business, time shales have be-
come trendy and respectable.
Big-name resort operatore hLe
Mariott Intcrnational Inc., Wdt
Disney Co. and Hilton Hotels
Corp. have helped drag the time-
share industry's image out of the
gutter. At the game time, more
companiea are specializing in tirne
sharee, and some real-estate devel-
openr are ehifting their focts to
reap the benefits of this high-
growtlt business.
Between 1980 and 1994. rerre-
nues for the time-share industry
r',ose nearly 18 percent a year, bal-
Iooning to $4.8 billion worldwide
last year, according to statistice
provided bv KPMG Peat Mar-
wick's R€al Estat€ and Hospitality
Coneulting Division. Only
$360 million of this was revenue
earned by Marriott, Disney and
Hilton.
"I would apeculate that growth
over the coming three to 6ve years
would probably mirror what we've
se€n the last few years," said Brian
J. Coan, a genior manager at the
KPMG Peat Manvick division.
"It's the fastest growing seg-
ment of the travel and tourism in-
dustry which is the second largest
employer in the country after
healtl care," said Christopher Lar-
sen, director of communications at
the American Resort Development
Association, an industry trade
group in Washington. He said
about three-quarters of the associ-
ation's members are real estate
'companies interested in grabbing a
piece of the pie.
''The bulk of the industry is the
independents, not the big, big hos-pitality players," Larsen said.
"They haven't taken over the in-
dustry. But I can't downplay their
S.F, Sunday Examrnor il Chronicl.
importance. When the Marriotts
and the Disneys decided to jump
in, it raised the awareness and gen-
eral overall imprrssion of the in-
dustry."
In time-sharing, a buyer pur-
chases a week's use of a condomini-
um or other rcsort accommodation
and becomes an owner ofone-fifty-
second of the unit" For the cost of
the investment plus an annual
maintenance fee and property tar-
es, the buyer can spend that week
there every year.
The industry used to be known
for sleazy sales tactics where buy-
erg would be promised their time
shares would jump in value, only to
aee the developen disappear with
their money,
That's why many of the smaller
players have welcomed the en-
trance of the big-name hospitality
chains, which have legitimized
time sharee. And most of the non-
hotcl companies @cupy nichee in
the industry and don't compete
head-to-head with the resort
chains.
Obeer',rers contend that the in-
dustry's combination of high-
growth potential and meager pene-
tration allowe plenty of room for a
multitude of players.
Brad Eichler. a sefluities ana-
lyst at Stephens Inc., of Little
Rock, fuk., said only about 3 per-
cent to 4 percent of the U.S. popu-
lation with an income high enough
to do so currently owns a time
share,
Marriott is the biggest tine-
share player, as measured by reve-
nue, with sales of about $225 Eil-
lion in 1994. But Faffield Cosrmu-
nities Inc,, a Little Rock, fuk., de-
velopment company, is the largest
operator in the United States in
terms of units sold.
Fairfield's stratery is to target
destinations with heavy tourist
traffic that have existing amenities
available. But the company's prices
- t]'pically between $6,000 and
$16,000 - undercut the big hotel
chains' tirne shares, which average
between $12,000 and $28,000.
Another time-share developer,
Mego Financial Corp. of Lae
Vegas, has done well under a de"l
with HFS Inc.'s Ramada units
which allows Mego to market ite
time shares under the Ramada
banner and to cross-sell between
the two companies.
More joint agreements ard even
industry consolidation are inevita-
ble, analysts say.
Some smaller time-ghare corn-
panies, like Boca Raton, Fla., land
developer Patten Corp., target re-
gions the big hotel chains gloas
over. Patten'g time-share locations
include Myrtle Beacb and Gatlin-
burg, Tenn., and the company is
considering the northern part of
Florida's Atlantic coast
Others are betting big on unique
strategies.
IIX Inc., based in Phoenir, bas
a unit called Varsity Clubs of
America Inc. wbich focu.ses on the
college time-share market. The
company targets locations Dear
prominent schools known for tlreir
sports prograns.
ILX's lirst stop was South
Ben{ Ind., home of t}e University
of Notre Dame and the Fighting
Irish, whele it opened a 62-suit€,
sports-thened hotel in Septenber
to accommodate rabid college foot-
bal fans.
The company is developing
projects near other schools, includ-
ing the University of Arizona, Syr-
acuse University, Pennsylvania
Stat€ University and Aubun Uni-
versity in Alabana.
"Everyone is trying to get in-
volved in this industry," Coan, of
KPMG Peat Marwick said- ''Iime
shares, if done correctly, is a profit-
able business. What used to be a
dirty word is now getting a lot of
publicity."
The Chronicle &
The Eraminer Classifieds
777-7777
sEP-15-1396 13:35
Moo,'taln Pnop*tg.
A SnnnrOpTnnAcrror\r
81'Dlots tleedhgn
IKE BISNER,
^
MARKETING EXECUTIVE }VITH SAIOMON, W'ALKED INTO
tlrc Gm.od Sruarnir des officc nr Sugarhrs[ Va, end put down 52.000 on 1 g4o,9oo
qu.ner,shse for a slopcside con<lo. a week laccr, Bob Orbacz, prcsidear of rhe EIan
sh compury, scrolLd into the sasre olfice. told rhc sdcsman he cou.ld dtspense with
thc pltch, pointed to rhc untr hc wanred ou a blucprinc, reached lor his credit qud
i
rnd boutht fus qugtcr.ghu'c second honc. Within
a nrondr" rhree othcrs at bis comprny, based in Bur.
lington. vr, did rhe same, Ali this for r phce thot
hrdn't ycc brolccn gor:nC and wouldn'r be operr un.
til Dccembcr 1997.
Wlut is lc rhor ski indusrry cxccutlve know
ehout ski nrea rcal egtrtc rhat you ard I don,r? For
onc. rhey vlsir a lor of ski rrcr.c. Fot enothar, rhoy
know thc pttlallr of fu.ll ew1gs5fup ond the ltolu of
r ooc-wcEl(.r,yqu tlnrolmrc. They've dcclded lt's
bcst to buy occupancy in a sccond home only when
they'cc goiag to use it
"Wc owncd a couple of acrcs ner.r Sugarbush
that wc phnned ro build on.' Bisner e.<pleins, "But
the *concl-homc muket lvent through thc floor,
Wc rtrli:cd rhat thc draern hornc would bc worth
abou! SIOO,OOO less than what wc had plauncd to
put ,nto ic So we decidcd to sd! rl.e ts4 and iook
inco condo ownetshiF. Bur chen we found we'd heve
Conttnucd on pap 160
Just rrhat is tt tsat s[t indusFy ffiufives hmrp
aboutsEl arearcaI e$tat€t[atyou a,lld I atont?
a
1l
ll
l|
l:
Tho planncd Grrnd Summlt at the brr. of SuSrrbush lras crcetrd lt fzir rharc of intcrli3t.
P.@t/@5
Ocrorsr 1996 a oxr r r57
sEP-15-1996 13!36
I ne womd |s rull ormmEsro qo.
Somehowthev all
wound up inoneplace.
l.8$.AT.TAHoE.
Real Cloes, Rcal Fun.VeryCool.
Youeanrkrt*orldfr rnourrht*ottcllhcHcawrJy, llithriood,
Sie"r'r.at.Tahoc, "rrJot c20 otLerdowntjlhnd crors-coot t ,y
rti.rt... Yoo caaino.'bouJr sltrrrnc'qtntilo. Yon can &c*"l
yo,*.1{inr".tr"tyr}td. tidbg on.}rottutat t l"d, \'ot *o
iine ortc cntcrtoindby'*Io Srcahrt namcr it .!,o, Lu.dncss. Yc,.t
,;an {eel2 J ,.,rto* tLc licc . Ot, yoocon do abrolutc! nothtng at
JI inthc rnost!,o.uUftJ Jphcsrttinglttt!,e torld, IJ."TaLoe,
O t aEa, diT.l- Vtr ditiit
r6o r sxr r Ocrosrn r996
P.@2/AS
Mor,,toh Pnopertg.
Continued from pagc !57
ro dcal wrth rntal rgents, buy linans ald pay for houa.ke.pt"g
serwices, rnelntcnencc and all thoec othc! so-call€d incidentals
that go alolg with fut owncrship.
"Quertcr-rhue onnership giveS rae cnoruous 0erdblJr1f
cohdnues Bisn?r, "\\t9 cah uar rh? placc onc weeft out of erery
four- nnd when we don'r usc ig. wc crn rtht it, Wc borgbt e
un,t wllh r ldtchen, a living room *'ith pull.out bc& rnd a
loch.off bedroom thar even dlows us ro rent half of rhc unit
wbile wc'rc ustng thc odrcr."
Telluride'r uorcsle FEnr Klammer Lodge giver e whole
naw meaning to fractional ovtnaarhiP'
A quaner.shara at thc Grand Summit ftdf' and frdl'shrrcs
a:c :lso rvaileble) alto ,ncludcs valct perldug, privete dci lock'
us, en owncft llbrery, privae lourrgc, hcalth dub, hated pool
and concietgc eervice, In a nutshcll all thc unenlties ofr full-
scrvicc hocd,
Credit Sundry fuver owner Les Otten, who built thc 147'
unit Surnrnir Hotd at Sunday Rivcr five yeas ago and rncket-
ed it, undcr the Croqrn Club inPrinatu!. e$ r rlder'c quaiter'
shate secohd hotac wit}' hotel sendccn induded, The concept
was so r.tLrecElve go Meine, Massachr:setts and Ncw He.np'
shirc skiers thrt it was 25 pcrcenr Pre'sold cucn before thc firtr
spede *'es rurned, lt also lerl Otten and his LBO Enterprises
(now the Amcricalr Sloing Company) to the conclusion thar
quarter-shta ownership 6uld v'rolk clscwhcrc Resuk: Crown
Club propmics, tn ad&6on to those at Sun&y fuv6 6{ 5ug'
arbush" a.rc now undcrway er Atitash, N.rL, and plnnncd {ot
Killington and voum Snorv, Vu
T:m Cohec, formcr Sunduy lUver markering dircetor end
sEP-15-1996 133 3?
Rcwnbr tbc cbiU ubhin,,,baildizg swuncn tn rnuhu4
iliding hdtpily doun tnout chuta aad lunting to *ukt
a ucdg on thc hanny opu, wa will gli& down hilk of
uhtn poudcn.,cxplorc a fawrin *eil uith a frimd and
uondn et tht panoumk lalt dau. A l4ndary ttacation.
(8oo)8r+-6t+8
rhc tolroc gou imoyincd, is; rhiing o diffcr'cnt rcsoi-t
cvery Ccrv. pockagct ineludc lh! "rcuEn rountoin purs."
',olid orr squow vdicv, xonhrror, rlpinc ucodowr. ut. losc,
rror:c includinc horicc, moicls, horsll, condos or lrr's.
"iil .f zar rcu., rli xomeuooo, riemoni peoh. vrith r.odgirg
1-i
-
flor:s lncru0lnq rroricc, moicls, hotgll, condos or lrt's,la-F
t6: r sxr r Ocro rl n :,o96
P.@3/95
Mooold. Pnopertg.
cuneut prasidcnt of Kirhwood" Cdi[, lncw r good t]rlnB whcn
ha grrv lt. He bought thrcc units at rhc Suruoit (which he ctill
owns) end no<r sprlng will be builcli.ng a new 46,unit qulltcr'.
sharc lodgc rt thr Kirkwood base uith unirs idcndcd-dghr
do'arn to tha door hendles, du$ hops end utcnell drawels-to
the Sumit's.
\A/h)' all thie suddeo intcrcsr in vac.arioo?roparry owno-
st:ip. panicrrluly eJro dre rimcsharc bueincss got such I b,rd
rap ln the So'encim? "That wls all hnrd sdl and the quick dcal
Mdr sorne pretty qur*rJoneble prlcdeer ahd no leguhri.on.-
says Chris Larson of rhe Wrshtngton, D,C..based Arlclica!
' Rcson Dcvdopmelt Associaclon, 'But dong camc srare rcguln-
rlon, which thc indusrv eupponcd, and thc involvehent of
somc majo! plnyets-Marriott, Hi.hon. WcstkL Disney. Hy"
rtt-wfi9 guddenly 6aw inlcrval ownership a-e an ettrrctivc vr-
cecion dtanadve
Intenral owlership, of ctrursc, comes r.r'ith anothcr perk: ex.
changc privlJegcs, the ebilig'Eo swlp vou! wtek, through rn .
A tenth-share exchalge nenvork, for a wc&
!n a similar unit at. say. thc
hr*ch or golf courAe. In thtr clie
of Sunday lUver and Sugarbush,
howcvcr. this idca bccomcs orcn
tnor. n.oririu., tsy Decenbel
1997 Ottcn cxpccts to havc
Crown CIub projecrs up aud
runnint at livc o[ his resorts,
lVirh owncrship cornes rhe op-
pomrnit)' to exchange among
rnembership
'l-at the,rranz
drese orher propenies for a night, a wcckcnd crr q '*'cck, csEcn.
tinliy ollcrlng rcclnd-homc owncrthip at rnuldpla tcsons.
'h just rnel<es a lot of sense," says Bisner, "in terms of to,
dey's li.festylc urd i:t ternrs of snpponing thc local cconomy."
Although che decdcd onc,wcck drncsharc is crill the ruosr
cornmon ernngetnenr, flcxible.use projects seem certain l.o
doulinate tht funre. Frastional owncrship, in fect, is gettlng
prcttl' crcatlvs, Iimited only by wher dre seller thinls he can re'
disricrllv ch*ge and what r-he prospectivc owncr will acruall)'
buy. For example, a ccnth-sharc mcmbctship rt Tdlurida's
swank Frgnz Kle.rnmer Lodge, u'hich brokc ground lasr Mry
with 29 trx'o. and thrcc,bcdroom uhilc and c ce6t of ho*1.[ke
pcrics, will rcr you back 1n av*rge 5i50,000. Pretry pricey for
rhe privilege of cailing yoursclf Oprah's ncighbor.
Derpttc tha high-price entry ar rnejor ski desrinations. nrany
axpens belicvc the real furure is in fractional owncrship at rc-
gtond rclrorts. 'tt's the pcrfcct producr," says Cohee, "for a re,
son rhar's wirhin crsy rcach of a major popul4tion ccntcr."
Worldwidc rlrnesharc 5als5 )rr.ve hiE s5 billion annua.lly,
Klammer
Lodge goes
for $150,000.
sEP-15-1996 13:39 F.A4/@5
Moootrlo Pn,rpertg.
rad helf of the buyc$ te Aherlcarr" Aay
way you Iook at it, that'r a lor of vaca-
don homcs md vlcarion-hom? own?rs.
And the buyag freazy, espccially among
sllcrs, riocsn'c show any signs of slow,
iag down. tl
Brdatlrr Ga^n You tpase A Quarter?
Kcap lhora tipr in mind rr you
conridsr fnetlonal owncrshlp:
. Know tht Prorluct. \^/}|en you buy
I tlmlrhrrc, yourrc buying vrcedon
tlmq not rrrl erhto, The velue is in
Itr continurd ure tnd ltt potentid
to tev: on vecgtion rpending. Whcn
you purchuo e fractiond ownerrhip,
hewover, you arc buying real cstate,
r varant:d intsrest with a tide,
a morttltc and, usu.lly, a lrtt6r
lnvartnrnt up fi.onL
. Know tha D:veloper. Check refer-
GncBr -tinancial, locd end burint$.
. T.it Driva. Get to know the pcrkr,
rnd thc tlltcher. by rcnting 4 unit
lt the rerort you'r€ intcF$tcd ln
or by rr&ing edvarrage of * compli.
mentary weekend.
. Tdk to Owners.Thir ic the bcet
way ?o tind out about ownQrrhiP.
A liet of ownrrr can usuelly be ob-
talned from the dcveloper.
. Verify Exchange Policy. Be sure
the company has acreit to a'l
cxchangc network rc that you can
trade your week, or weclo, for time
at other rcSortg. -D.N.
RTAI tSTATt
tltc ntou tttttins?
.,4 )l(ir tit,i.st ott
ittlc
y l) t'oL'c
titt14tt I,,rri,
rr lot.
Timeshares Return
Loolrittg'to bu.y irt
u .fir i I cd ,so.s icl cu
lt? (l tltut
c(t lt n t(Q n
BY |(TII |l|J}ITIR
f" I l ll TII\{ESHARE CONCEPT is being
| ,Led o{i'and updatedin resort towns
-
neople who don't have the means
' rrr u.ant the responsibilitl, of a full-t i.rlTre second home, Two ski resort
giants, American Skiing Company and
Intrawest, are preparing to battle on this old
front as a nerl generation looks covetously at
mountain resort real estate.
These firms are bctting hearily that
prospective buvers uill view a more flexible
and upscale approach to timesharinq as a
s,elconre change lronr the high-pressure
sales and lorr'-quality construction that too
often plagued rimeshares in the lg80s.
Traditionallr,. developers sold time-
shares in one-rveek blocks for a snecific unit.sith bu.r'ers required to but ai least rwo
u'eeks. 'Ihe crrncept didn t catch on due to
inflexible schc<lulirrg. liequent developcr
bankrulttcies i{nd r structure t]rat {brever
linkcd an inr csrrrr to orre ltarticular unit.
All thlt s r irangcrl. Iil. instance. Arneri-
can Skiing norr oflcr.s u hal it terrns Quarter
Ou,nelslrip I,r{)pertics." lrtvestors bu.r, a
quartet' sharf. or l;j \\.ceks per 1.ear, of a
specific unit. \\ ccks IolrLtt' cach I'ear so os.rr-
", asStrr, ,l (,(.( lrl)ilr)(.\ on attr gitert
,lt as ( lrristrrrlrs. irt leilst once everl
(Jrr r ers itls, r t lrn exchange weeks
\l|r(rr, .rIr Skrrng properties. Tinte
r uscti ,rr tratlctl cnters the resort'-s
general rental pool. Unrts rotate to the top
of the vacancl list to ensure equal rental
opportunities for investors.
Owners lrpicallv pocket about 55 per-
cent ofrental fees. However, thev must cover
cleaning and maintenance costs \\,hich can
run up to $3O0 per rveek. O$ncrs use a
propert-y an aleragc of three rveeks a vear
and post the rernaining rveeks on the rental
)ist, according tc.r Scott Oldakor|ski. Ameri-
can Skiingis director of real estate. ..\\'e conl_
pete rrrore \\ith the sccond_honrl nrarkcl
than traditional tirreslrares," he sar.s
So far. furrer.ican Skiing Coritpanr has
opcned-and conrpletell, sold out rrnh.onc
-quartcr
orrlership prog>crtr. a lirtrr-rr.ar ol,l
dclclopnleltt in Sundav Rilrr.. Mairrr. llrrl
nes propcrtics ar.e exlx,cted to be open ltr
\\'rnter 1997 at Sundav River: .{ttitash, Ner\'
Hampshirc; and Killington, IIount Snorrand Sugarbush. Vcrnront. l hest clcvclop-
ments rvill be fu r-
nished ski-inlski-out
facilities. Thev will
offer a hotel-like
atmosphere. complete
with senices such as a
concierge, front desk
and health spa.
Prices lan. Quar-
ter-sharcs sell fronr
$19,9OO lor a studio ar
thc proposccl (irand Suntrnit Hotel and
Crou n CiLrb at .{ttitash. to $I.1o,ooo for a
i,74o-square-fbot, three-bedroont pent-
house at tbe firture Grantl .sunrnrit Hotel
and Crorvn Club at Sugarbr:sb. Arnerican
Skiing offcrs grt 1;erccnt iinarrcing. Rates ;rrc
slightlv higher than traditional ntortg:rgcs.
Intrarvest'-s tinteshart, concept. knorvn
as "lntra\\'r.sl Resort Clrrhs, lunctions as a
vacation centcr. \ltcrc inr.t'stor.s purchasc
llith lifts neorby,
Americon Skiing's
"quolterol||nership"
timeshores hove
sold out ot Sundoy
Biver in Hoine.
l|0I TlP, Before
buying, csk o reol
estote ogent obout
the rentol success
of o development.
ltl
Octobcl lt)l)(i : Sl{01{ C0UllTlY : M5
"points" which can be redeemed for time at
any of the companl'! properties. Partici-
pants tend to buy onll'what they'll use. The
format isnt designed as an investment.
After studying the timeshare business,
Intrarvest determined that low flexibility
wa^s the greatest impairment to purchases.
So the firm developed a hybrid "point" time-
share that it markets as a blend of a hotel,
country club and Club Med
It's designed to ofer flexibilitl'
while preserving quality.
The Intrawest properties
are luxurious and would sell fo'
upwards of $4o0,ooo if sold
as individual units, according
to Jim Gibbons, president of
lntrawest's Resort Ownership
Corporation. Properties feature
home entertainment systems,
fire places. lounges, business
centers and movie theaters-
An Intrawest point has a
one-time cost of $84 and is
renewed,
good in perpetuity. Points are
redeemed, and automatically
on an annual basis. So each year
you have your set number ofpoints to trade
for time. Annual resort dues, however, are
assessed at roughly $4 per point for upkeep.
Point redemption levels vary widely. A
stay in a 3oo-square-foot studio in Black-
comb runs 29 points ($2,4,36) per week in
the off-season but jumps to u9 points
($9,996) for a winter holiday week. A two-
bedroom unit at Tremblant costs 68 poinls
($5,712) for low-season up to 273 points
($22,932) for a holidaY week
Only two Intrawest Resort Clubs-
Blackcomb, British Columbia, and M'.
Tremblant, Quebec-are open. But Clut,
properties are proposed for Mammoth
Mountain, California; Ke),stone, Colorado;
and Stratton, Vermont, in addition to proi-
ects scheduled at various beach resorts.
lnvestors looking to buy tinteshares
for income need to do their homewori;
Research the property's rental histr
through a local real-estate agent. Find ou.
rental rates, occupancy levels and the degrer
of competition from other units. Also, inves-
tigate area build-out. plans, tourist trends
and the resort's policy on directing vaca-
tioners to particular properties.
Timeshares aren't for everyone. But for
the right investor or visitor, these twists ,
an old idea are ways to share the benefi'
while reducing the risks, ofownership. A
KEN HUNTER is contribut ing reul-estate
editor for Sttow Couprnr.
UPSTA[[: Stule az d comfort are thc ho llmarks of netrs
timesharis, such os tlz Resorl Club at T remblant.
PEOJECI
Ittitosh, New Hampshire
The Grand Summit Hotel
and Crown Club at
Attitash/Bear Peak
Blockcomb, British Columbia
Intrawest Resort Club
at Blackcomb
|(illington, Vermont
The Killington Grand
Hotel and Crown Club
I'lont lremblont, Quebec
lntrawest Resort Club
at Mont Tremblant
Sugorbush, Vermont
The Grand Summit Hotel
and Crown Club at Sugarbush
Sundoy 8iver, Maine
The Jordan Grand Hotel and
Crou,n Club at Sunday fuver
0ttil.0PililtI sttt lilD Pntcts
Srudio, as2-+u8 sq. ft. ($19,9oO-$29,9oo/ql share);
I br., 58O-885 sq.ft. ($3a,9oo-$5r,9OO);
2 br., 8eo-r,o+s sq.ft. (954,9oo-g9o,ooo);
I hr., r,o4r sq. ft. ($72,50o- $95,ooo);
Prnthousr, r,7*o sq. ft. ($9o,ooo -$l2o,ooo);
llunhcr ol units:2o5 0pcling: February'92
Studio, aOo sq. ft. (.9ee storyfor point sgstem.s costs)
I br., 77s sq. ft.;
2 br., r,o7s sq. ft.;
llumbcr of unitsr 2oo 0prn!d: April'94
Studio, esz-+zs sq. ft. ($2r,9oo-$32,9oo);
I br.,58o-885 sq. ft. (935,9oo-$5a,9oo);
2 br., aeo-r,o*s sq. ft. ($55,9o0-$9o,ooo);
I br., 1,o4r sq. ft. ($90,ooo- $13o,ooo);
llumbel ol units: 2o5 0peningr December'97
Studio, 45O sq. ft. (.See sbr!/-for point syste.ns cost)
I br., aoo sq- ft.;
2 br., r,zso sq. ft.
llumbcr of units: 2to 0pened: May'95
studio, ssz-+za sq. ft. (s2l,9oo-$32,90o);
I b1, s80- 885 sq. ft. (g3Z5o0-955,9oo);
2 br., aao-r,o+s sq. ft. ($59,9oo-s95,ooo);
3 br., r,o4r sq. ft. ($80,OoO- $loO,Ooo);
Pcnthousc, t,7*o sq. ft. ($roo,ooo-Srao,ooo);
llumber of units: 2os 0pening: December'92
Studio, asz-+za sq. ft.(gr9,9oo-$29,9oo);
I br, 58o-885 sq. ft. ($3.r,9OO-$5r,9OO);
2 br., aeo-t,o+s sq. ft. (954,90o-$90,ooo);
3 br., l,o4r sq. ft. (S72,soo-g95,ooo);
Pcnthouse, r,7+o sq. ft. ($9o,ooo-$120,ooo);
llunbcr of units, 2os 0peIing: December'97
0il.slrt tilriltilts
Dalrare, restaurant,
game room, library,
members-only club,
outdoor heated pool,
concierge.
Pool, health club,
junior game lounge,
adult game room,
member lounge.
Restaurant, game
room, Iibrary, mem-
bers-only club, par-
round storage lockers,
valet parking.
Pool, Jacuzzi, tennis
courts, health club,
juniors game lounge,
member lounge
Concierge, tennis
courts, golf, daycsre,
members-only club,
restaurant, valet park-
ing, library.
Tennis courts, health
club, outdoor heated
pool and spa, valet
parkin!i, restaurant,
game room.
rrfiill{Gt lttlv0il(
lcsort Condominiuns
lnurnotionol
(603) 374-0869
Intervol Internotionol
(60.s) 938-3030
lesort Condoniniums
lnternotionol
(8o2) 422-3333
lnterYol Intelnotionol
(8r9) 681-3535
Icsolt Condominiuns
lnternotionol
(8O2) 583-23OO
lesort hndoniniums
lntanotionol
(2On 824-35OO
ert. 4Q7
196: Sll0ll COUllIlY : October 1996
Deaelopers Market Time Shares
As Classy Vacation for theRinh
BY MtrcnnLl Plclt r r
Stcll Repottet of Trc WAL! STREE! Jouh|r^L
When pltching expensive time shares
lhese days, rule No. I is simple: Don't calt
them time shares.
At the FrBnz Klsmmer lndge, now
under construction in Telluride, Colo.,
slders can joln I "prlyate refldence club,"
payinS tUE,000 to $lF,{,m0 {or et least five
weeks'8nnu&l use of a luxury @ndomin-
ium.llke residence ln the fashionable but
remote 6ld hwn. The . lodge ls h the
vanguatd of I movement ln the time.shsre
industry to court alfluent vacatloners.
"Afnuent buyers can never really feel
comfortable telling thelr friends they own
a tlme share," says developer Thomas
Fulton. "As far as they're concerned, they
own a condo ln Telluride,"
Sorne ol the natlon's lodging Stants,
includlng Manlott lnterDatloDsl lnc.; tilt-
ton lloteb Corp., Bystt lntemsfonal
Corp. and Four Scarons Hotels Ltd., as
well as Wslt DlsDey Co., atr now selllng
shsres, whlch they cell "vaotlon clubs,"
"rcsort clubs," "lnterval ownetrNp" or
"vacatlon ownellblp,"
Theso br8nd nsme! of lhc vrcrtlon
lndustry arle strlvlng to overcome the
lndustry'r lomewh8t slcazy r?putauon of
the p8st, when hlgh-pre$ure lslermen
p€ddled dme shares to nlddledlst bwers
by promhing thern lhclr sharer cqdd soar
in value. Ingt€ad, rome developeB dlsaP
p€8red or went under. 8nd the resale
mar*et failed to develop.
However, over the past lew yesrs,
hotel oompsnles have begrn offering more
nexible time-gh&re deals. People who buy
time in I nesort often csn opt out of the
time, and organizations have sprung up to
help ownerr swap end sell their tlme
shares. The big companies "rcinvented
the vocabular? at the same time they
relnvented the buslness. These two words
are magical: vacation 8nd ownership,"
s0ys Peter Yesowlch of Roblnson, ye.
sowich & Pepperdlne, en Orlando, na.,
travel marketing company.
"In genetal, tlme shares get a pnetty
bad rap." says Jay Cutspec, I hospital
adminisF8tor fnom Ashevlue, N.C. None-
theless, he bought I515,000 shsre ln a
resort Dlsney ls currently building on
Hilton Head lslsnd, S.C. "Disney's such a
high-quallty compsny, I,didn't feet it was a
risk," he says.
Companies. like Disney and Mariott
are drswing a bead on potenual buyeN
earning more than 3100,000 a year.'That
8T0up now maJ(es up 16.870 0f me-share
buyers, says Ragalz Assoclstes, a Eugene,
Urc., time-Ehare Fgesrcher. In a l9g2
Rsgatz survey, only 3.170 of meshare
buyers esrned more than 00,000 a year.
The companies have "been able to 'show
that this lsn't just a blue-collar market."
says Jon Simon, a lodging specialist ar
KPMG Peat Marwick.
To appeal to such buyeF. Dlsney ls
taking its first crack at building vscauon
lodging that isn't connected to its theme
parks. lts Hilton HeBd r€sort. slated t0
open in March, was desl8ned to rctemble a
turn.of-the-century hunting and fishlng
camp, and its vem B€ach, Fls., pmJect ls
in the style 0f a century-old hotel. lt has
bought land in Newport Besch, C8llf.,
where it envlsions something resembling s
northern ltr8llan hill vlllege, snd lt ls
looklng at a site ln Besver Creek, Colo,
For high€nd developers, the bigg€st
challenge m8y be convincing the affluent
that buying I resort share is preferable to
ownlng I second home, a tmditional st8t$
symbol. Among the upwardly moblle, "at
what polnt does someone say, 'l don't wsnt
to share a unit wlth 50 other owlert?' "
asl6 Mr. Simon, of Peat Marrlck,
At the Telluride lodge, whenever I
club member ls scheduled to tae the time
share, staffers will lug the member's ilh,
clothing, even famlly photros out ot storage,
then stock the refrlgerator wlth farcrtte
foods and drlnks. Cell lt the llluslon of
ownership.
H. Wllliam Mott, an orthopedic surgeon
in Pocttello, ldaho. chose a time share lor
its convenience. He recently spent more
than $50,000 for a three-wgek share of a
Marriott resort in Palm Desert, Calil. Dr.
Mott used to have a condo near Palm
Desert, but maintenance was too much
trouble, he says. Dr. Mott still owns fwo
vacation houses closer to home, a condo
minium in Jackson Hole, Wyo., and a
townhouse in Salt lake City, yhere he says
he spends enough time to jus0fy the
bother.
Time-share marketers llke to remtnd
potential buyers that second-home oprers
typically don't use their hldea*eys nearly
as much as they hope, 8nd malntenance
and msnagement often become nsjor
headaches.
"Our studies show that the svenge
owner of & second home uses it only sbout
20 nights a year," says Robert Miller. head
Pl?ase TVnt to PeAe 85, @lumn I
.
:
l.i.I TIEDIA
r"i I
Developers Market Alexandra PenneT, the0ditor in Chicf
',
Their Time Shares 0f Conde Nostt Self Mo6azins Ror6n1
&tfinpilFvot WeBl
ol Marrlott Osnership Resorts.
Mr, Futon, the Telluride dereloper,
says that flndlng renters to delray the cost
olomlng t sE condomlnium can become
'la pqrt-t|mc Job tor somcone in your
fanlly. . , . It r€ally became clear that tlle
standsl{l own-e{ondcand-put-ltln-the-
r€ntal'pool ru not appealing for the hlgt-
end c[ent. Whst they were lmking for was
romethlng motr hasslefree, "
.Cleveland lswy.er ltning Rmner says
that hi8 5& to 60-hour work weeks leave
hlrn rlllh no deslre to t&ke on additional
burdeil. "It I had my own place, I'd be
very rcluc'tstrt t0 rent lt otlt," he 88ys. So
he boutt a orlweek annual share ln
MaITiott'B Falm Desert resort for 90.000.
Developers are tailoring their pro
grams to sppeal !o overworked people
llle Mr. RorDet -,
"The vscsttoi bl the millennium - we
csll lt the $und-blte vacation - ts shorterin durado!. and is taken more frc-
qucntly," ssys Mr. yerowich. "lt's the
, nnd 0f lhlng thst's planned 8nd tsken In
an lmpulslve fasbion," elth mor" than half, ,; ,. ,ir wltlln 60 dsys 0f depsrture.
-r
rlosner rays that slx years ago,
-
never have considered buying av .r;fg. beCause he wouldn't wsnt his
vsc6lon cholc€r Umlted h a slngle resort
for. a slngle weel. But the Ma|llott ptD
gram "grve u9 nexibility that we vere
never oflercd before," he said. He can
rcdeem hi8 ree[. for points he can appty to
ltarrlott hot€ls all over the world. as well
as cruises 8nd eirline tickets. Disney offers
to redeem such polnts on everything fmm
bed-and-breakfrst lodging in Wisconsin tr0'
a Calapagos Islands cnrise.
Inde€d, the race is on among devel.
opers to ca6t thelr webs ever wider.
"We're gping to target upper-tier vacation
locauons sround the world," vows Brian
Mluer, M0rrlott'B vlce presldent of mar.
l@ting. ln Msrbella, Spain, the company is
developing its first Eumpean time.share
resort, &nd it is eyeing such cities as
Boston, New York, New Orleans and San
trlancl8@ for its first urban time share.
Dbney has even traken an option to develop
a time-share pmject on Manhattan's {znd
. Sheet, s seedy srea slated tor rengwal.
Desplte such creative efforts, though,
some lodging experts have their doubtg
.ti': :,' whether timgShare develop€rs c&n
^ ,:k the blueblood vacation market.
I . e on WaU Smer earning tl mlllion.t you're pubSbly not going to go forI ume rharc," @ncludes one hotel time.
Ehalt €recutive, "You'll buy the condo,
ard use it two weeks a year. You'll have
'ou
brsggtng rlghts, and prcbably lose
F^n^
^-
i. t'
By Plrntcx M. RnLLY
Saoft Repottet of TEE WALL STtlrr JounrAL
NEW YORK - Alexandra Penney, edi.
tor in chief ol Conde Nast Publicattons
lnc.'s Self magazine, is resigning fmm the
magazine. This time for gpod, the com.
pany 88ys.
The high-profile and outspoken editor's
unexpected departure comes a little more
than I year sfter the - Just as sur?rls.
ingly - quit the magazine to take e coryo-
rate Job for Conde Nast. the country's
leading publisher of women's and lif$tyle
magozlnes. L€ss than a week lster, Ms.
Penney returned to the Job.
Conde Nast yesterday seid Ms. Penney
will remain in the post untlt it finds a
succe880r.
Though Conde Nast, s unit of Adv!trrp
Publicaflons Inc., said the parting was
amicable, people within the @mpany also
Eaid Ms. Penney had "philosophicat dif.
ferences" with S.l. Newhouse Jr.. cl|atr-
man of closely held Advance, 8nd others
regarding coverage of women's fitness and
her lack of lnterest in it.
Ms, Penney, 56 years old, author of
"Hor4' To Make Love T0 e Man" snd I
televislon commentalor. conceded in sn
interview she had grown restless In th? lob
she held 6ince 1989. "l want to do some-
thing new and fun. I wasn't learring things
every day," rhe said. As for complaints
about her lack of Interest In fltness, she
quipped, "l can bench press ?0 pounds Bnd
hack squat l?0 pounds. Do I need to l€arn
more about fitness?"
launched in l9?9, self ls conde Nast's
magazine for women interested ln fitness
and emotional and physical health. Once a
pioneer, the title now faces more competi.
tion from younger rivals such as lffelder
Rrbllcrtlons Inc.'s Shape and Gruner +
JuhrUS.{ Publishlng's FltnesJ. i
Ms. Penney is cEdited with bringing
the magazine into prcfltsbllity sfter trtslg
over as edltor. She also tded to steot
the magazine toward more lnterscdon
with its readers. In the psst year she llst€d
e-mail addrcses so rcaderf, cluld respond
to editors snd I z{-hour phone llne wt|Cil
readers @uld call for tips on nufrtloo,
health snd money, among other topl6. .
Her departure comes &s the msgarlnc'!
circulation ha6 been dropping. 8n.l ltt d
pags rhow moderate growth at be8t.
For the first half ol 1995, Sell'8 total pai{
clrrulation dmpped 570 frcm 8 yesr esrlier,
Ils nevrstrnd sales dropped 109o,.and subr
scriptions slid l.{qu ln the hsl[.
Beth Flchs Brenner. publisher of Sclf.
sald Conde Nast will be loox,ing for an
edihr to "continue the frand[1e."
ADD
Humorour burincr vidror. 3{ miaulc
raomcntr or full curlomircd lilmr.
Spoil nrw idror ond motivol. your lrom.
mt ?PEt nEmNc?il.ts'r-800-8s3-7758
r.2lz.s6l.l360tNYl
Request for l)xprcssions of lnterest for the Devcklpmcnt of a Hotel
The tsatterl Park Cit.v Author.itv is seekinA qualified teams for the
rlevelopment of a horel rrear.the l\brld F inancial eeiter in l,ower Manhattan,
Now York_ Citl: 'l'he Authority intends to enter into a krng-term leuse for the
site, which can uccommodate up to 500,000 seuare ft'ct of slruce includins
associated retail and cntert:lnrnent uses. lnterdstcrl dcvelopcris may ohtain i
pre-qualilication form from:
llrttclr, ['ark (-'itl Authority
One Workl Fin:rncial Center
Neu'lbrk, NY l0Ail
Attn: Jon McMiilan
(212) 416-fr364
I
I'l ,
t'':
tt
BATTERY PnRx Cny AI.JTHoR TTY
wl vlrrr
{Disney, r\Iarriott
to
interval-owner
resort business
By John Handley
TRrD(JNE ST^FF WRnER
RLANDO-WouId a sexY
whrrlpool tub fit the DisneY
image?
Michael Eisner, walt DisneyV co. CEO, apparently decided it
was OK, because the tub-for-two is one of
the distinctive desigt features in the Dis'
nev Vacation CIub, the new timeshare de'
ueiopment here at Walt Disney world.
Previously. Eisner had said yes to an
even more basic question: Would time'
sharing fit the Disney image?
It was a di-flicult decision, because it
wou.ld be a marriage of two opposites-
soueaky clean Disney and tarnished time'
sharine. an industry known in the l90s
--a,rrd early 1980s for its sleazy, fly'by-nightrl--^r^-^
-tatturJ.
Uwe looked at time'sharing for seven
vears. There was a serious concern that
we didn't want to put our name on a nega'
tive consumer image. We didn't want to
be associated with deplorable sales and
marketing practices," said Don Goodman'
Disney's vice president of rea-l estate ven'
ture development.
"But here we were in Orlando, the larg'
est timeshare market in the world. We
concluded that there would tle a lot of ap'
peU for thneshar€s built by a stable de'
veloper," Goodman said.
The go-ahead decision resulted in the
Disney Vacation Club, also known as
Conch Flats. Constnrction began in De'
cember 1990, on the first of 497 two and
three-bedroom villas on a 74'acre site that
included stx holes of an existing Disney
World golf course.
Completed in April 1991. the project is
now about 45 percent sold, with mor€ tlran
1 1,500 timeshare Purchasers.
Disney isn't aione in seeing the opportu-
nttv foi pront ln an industry that racked
uo sales of M billion worldwide in 1993.'Marriott International Inc. curently is
dominating U.S. time-sharing with more
than 20 p€icent of the market, according
to Cart Burlingame, senior editor of "Re-
^lrt Development & Operations," pub'
Ied in Bellingham, Wash.
Ve predicts time-share sales of about
$zso nliUion this year for Marriott, which
has 1B time-share resorts' Marriott has
more than 53,000 owners.
Burlingame pointed out, thoug!' th-at
Disnev aird Mahiott arc building for the
hieh end of the market. "Not everything is
luiury out there."
Clinton Burr, Northbrook-based con'
sumer advocate and author of "Condo &
Villa Vacations Rated," has views of tim*
sharing not colored bY Pixie dust.
"Disney and Marriott cloak the whole
industry with their good names, but the
trouble is that not all tim+share resorts
are up to their quality," Burr said.
He maintains that vacationers arc better
otr rentlng than buying a time'share unit'
Rental lates at the Disney Vacation
Club, for example, range from $190 to $755
a day, depending on season and size of
unit.
One argument for timesharing is that
the consumer is buying a vacation at t0'
day's prices for Years to come.
':In 6ur mobile society, though few want
to own the same pllace more than seven
.trestore luster
years. But when they wdnt to sell' tley
iina t}ere is no resale market for time'
shares," Brrrr said.
Stuart llriedman, proiect director for
Marriott Ownership Resorts in Orlando'
said that less than 2.5 percent of Mar'
riott's buyers want to r€sell. "Once a Mar'
riott tim*share reson sells. out, we set up
a resale office," he said. But Marriott
charlps a hefw 25 percent commission on
resales.
Another problem was t}lat initialy time
sharts wer€ sold as r€al estate. "It came as
a shock to some owners that thcir time-
share ctid not appreciate but actually lost
value," Burlingame noted.
"Now, though, time'shards are being
sold for what they are--€ vacation plan,"
he said.
The positive impact of such major play'
ers as
-Marriott and Disney on time-shar-
ins was examined at the Urban Land In'
stiltute's me€ting last month in Orlando.
One semirur focused on how Disney was
able to put its own brand of maglc on a
vacation concept that previously had been
characterized more by the Big Bad Wolf
than Snow White.
"Disney's vision was to create a new
concept and a new product," said Aram
Bassinian, principal in Bassenian &
Laeoni Architects, based in Costa Mesa,
Calit. ttis firm designed the villas at
Conch F'lats.
He described the llexibility of the Disnev
system, which sells vacation points, rather
than the usual timsshare practice of sell'
ing a week at the same time of year in the
same unrl,
The points can be used for accommoda-
tions ai various times of year in units of
varying size. F.;r example. more points
worild be required ln a twGbedroom unlt
SEE lbvtEsHAn.s, PAGE 6
-..-."_
Acknowledgements
ARDA would like to extend a special recognition and thanks to the dedicated companies who
comprise the Alliance For Timeshare Excellence.
All Seasons DeveloPment
Costamex Intemational Associates
Disney Vacation DeveloPment, Inc.
Fairfi eld Communities, Inc.
FINOVA
Four Seasons Lakesites, Inc.
Heller Financial
Hilton Grand Vacations Company
Interval International, Inc.
Island One,Inc.
La Cabana All Suite Beach Resort & Casino
Marriott Ownership Resorts, Inc.
Orange Lake CountrY Club
Peppertree Resorts, Ltd.
Polo Towers
Preferred Equities Corp.lRamada Vacation Suites
Resort Condominiums Intemational, Inc.
Resort Development International
The Shell GrouP,Inc.
Silver Lake Resort, Ltd.
Silverleaf Resorts, Ltd.
The Success Companies, Inc.
Vistana DeveloPment, Ltd.
Welk Vacation C :ii:cration
Trm 1995 WonrDwrDE Rnsonr
TrnmsIrARE IntousrRY
Prepared by:
Ragatz Associates
767 Willamette St. . Suite 307
Eugene, Oregon 97401
(503) 686-9335
Sponsored bY:
ALLIANCE FOR TIMESHARE EXCELLENCE
1220L Street, NW
Suite 510
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 37r-6700
/
Acknowledgements
On behalf of the resort industry, the American Resort Development Association thanks Ragatz Associates for its
preparation of this research study. This study was made possible by the generous contributions of the members of
the ATE. Special recognition and thanks also go to:
Interval International
Miami. Florida
Resort Condominiums International
Inciianapolis, Indiana
These two exchange companies graciously provided much of the information found in this report. Their continuing
support is greatly appreciated.
This publication is designed to provide accurzrte and authoritative information
in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold with the understanding that the publisher
is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other professional service.
Iflegal advice or other expert assistance is required,
the services ofa competent professional person should be sought.
Copyright @ 1995 by the American Resort Development Association. Ail rights
reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission of the
publisher. Inquiries should be addressed to ARDA, IZZO L Street, N.W., Suite
510, Washington, D.C. 20005
1995
Printed in the United States of America
/
o
Tnn 1995 Wonr,uwrDE Rnsonr
Tnr,msHARE INousrRY
o
o
I.
II.
n.
Iv.
V.
vI.
VII.
vm.
Table of Contents
Paee
Executive Summary..... ...............6
Introduction ........... 8
Current Size of the IndusW........ ...................... 9
Location of the Resort Timeshare Market ...... 15
Trends Between 1990 & 1995............. .......... 18
Some Detailed Comparisons ......................... 22
Some Supply Characteristics................... ...... 24
Some Market Indicators..... ...... 26
Comparison of Timeshare Owners ................. 35
Table A.
laDle l.
Ue2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Table 6.
Table 7.
List of Tables
Resort Timeshare Market by Area of World' December 3l' 1994
Trends in the Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry, 1980 to 1994 """""""
Resort Timeshare Market by Area of World' December 31, 1994
The Top 15 Resort Timeshare Countries, December 3l' 1994""""
Trends in the Resort Timeshare Market by Area of the world, 1990 to 1994 ..........-..
Trends in the Resort Timeshare Industry for Selected Countries, 1992 to 1994 --.-........-.
Examples of Resort Timeshare Ownership Penetration Rates As Measured by Resort
Timeshare Ownerb Per 10,000 Population (Major Countries Only), Decernber 3 I , 1994 ...""""""'
The Top 15 Countries in Regard to Resort Timeshare Owners Per 1'000 Tourists
From Abroad, December 31,1994
Summary of Size of Resort Timeshare Units by Area of World, 1990 """""'
Averase Prices for Resort Timeshare Intervals
Characteristics of Resort Timeshare Industry
Characteristics of Resort Timeshare Industry
Potential Problems Facing Resort Timeshare Industry
Potential Opportunities for the Resort Timesharing Industry
Opinions Conceming the Future of the Resort Timeshare Industry
Demographic Characteristics of Resort Timeshare Owners in North America...'...
Satisfaction Among Resort Timeshare Owners in North America.......-
Purchase Decision of Resort Timeshare Owners in North America------.
Exchange Use Among Resort Timeshare Owners in North America....."
Use of Purchase and Consumer Expenditures
by Resort Timeshare Owners in North America.....---
Location of Resort Timeshare Projects and Resort Timeshare Owners, l2l3lll994
Rankings of Resort Timeshare Owners Owning in Country
and Il.eson Timeshare Owners Residing in Country, December 31 ,1994
Trends in Number of Resort Timeshare Projects, 1990 to 1994 --.........--.
Trends in Number of Resort Timeshare Owners Owning in Country, 1990 to 1994 ................---.-...
Trends in Number of Resort Timeshare Owners Residing in Country, 1990 to 1994...............--......
Comparison of Resort Timeshare Owners Owning in'Country and-
Resort Timeshare Owners Residing in Country, December 31, 1994
Resort Timeshare Owncrs Residing in Country Per 10,000 Population,
December 3 l. 1994........
Ranking of Resort Timeshare Owners Residing in Country Per 10,000 Population
Compaied With Gross National Product Per Capita, December 3 1 , 1994 """"""""" 63
Resort Timeshare Owners Owning in Country Per 1,000 Tourists
From Abroad, December 31,lgg4 """""" 67
7
9
tf
l6
l9
20
Table 8.
Table 9.
Table 10.
Table I l.
Table 12.
Table 13.
Table 14.
lble 15.
'l?ble 16.
laDte I /.
Table 18.
Table 19.
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C.
Appendix D.
Appendix E.
Appendix F.
Appendix G.
Appendix H.
Xppendix I.
24
.A
25
26
27
29
'\')
34
35
)t
38
40
40
A-,
44
i1
49
5l
))
59
The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industrv
Executive Summary
! The resort timeshare concept is less than 30 years old. As
-late as I 980, only about 155,000 households throughout the
world owned a timeshare interval in about 500 resorts. In
i980, it is estimated that roughly 100,000 intervals were
purchased for a worldwide sales volume of about $500
million.
Recent growth in the United States has been
complemented by a boom in the timeshare market
elsewhere in the world, especially in Europe, Mexico and
South America. When looked at in a worldwide
perspective, recent overall groMh has been tremendous.
The following facts place the size of the worldwide
resort timeshare industry in proper perspective:. About 4, 145 timeshare resorts now exist.. About 3,144,000 households now own a timeshare
interval.
About 560,000 timeshare intervals were sold in 1994,
about 460 percent more than in 1980 (about 100,000).
Gross sales volume in 1994 was about $4.76 billion, over
870 percent more than in 1980 ($490 million).
Roughly 4.9 million timeshare intervals have been
purchased since 1980 for a sales volume of over $36
billion.
Over 780,000 households have purchased a total of
almost I .2 million timeshare intervals in justthe past two
years, representing a sales volume of over $9 billion.
1994 was a record year in the timeshare industry, with
384,000 new owners purchasing 560,000 intervals for a
sales volume of about $4.76 billion.
An important finding from recent trends is the relative
consistency in annual worldwide growth in timeshare
owners in the past eight years. This has averaged 15.8
percent, with a narrow range from only 13.9 percent to 17.5
percent. This obviously suggests a stable and maturing
industry. It is important to note that the absolute increases
in the past four years have been the highest in the history of
the industry.
Timeshare resorts are located in 8 I countries and
timeshare owners reside in 174 countries. As shown in
Table A, the United States is the leader in the worldwide
reson timesharing market, containing 37.3 percent (1,546)
of the resons, 48.9 percent (1,538,000) of the "owners
owning in the area" and 52.4 percent (1,648,000; or Lhe
"owners residine in the a .a."
The second most dominant area for timeshare is Europe,
containing 28.7 percent ofthe resorts, 20.9 percent ofthe
owners owning in the area and 21.3 percent of the owners
residing in the area. Collectively, the United States and
6 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industrv
Europe contain 66.0 percent ofthe resorts, 69.8 percent of
the owners owning in the are4 and 73.7 percent of the
owners residing in the area. Such distributions obviously
re late to population size, gross national product and
household income.
Some areas of the world have almost exactly the same
number of timeshare owners owning in the area and living
in the area. This is especially true for the United States.
Europe, South Africa, Australasia, Japan/Southeast Asia
and South America. These areas are more or less isolated
unto themselves, thereby forming rather closed supply and
demand situations. On the other hand, this situation is quite
different in Mexico, the Caribbean and Canada.
As noted previously, 37.3 percent ofall timeshare resorts
in the world are located in the United States (1,546 of
4,145). Two other specific countries (not areas) contain
more than five percent of the total: Spain (407 and 9.8
percent) and Mexico (291 and 7.0 percent). When including
Italy (152 resorts), France (143 resorts) and South Africa
(142 resorts), it is found that 64.5 percent of all timeshare
resorts are found in six counties.
The United States contains 48.9 percent of all timeshare
owners owning in the area. Only Spain (327,0U and 10.4
percent), Mexico (319,346 and 10.2 percent) and South
Africa (151,372 and 5.1 percent) are other countries where
over 100,000/five percent of all owners own. Collectively,
74.6 percent of all timeshare owners own in these four
countries. There are seven other countries where over
50,000 owners own: Pornrgal (75,043), Germany (68,735),
Netherlands Antilles (68,308), Venezuela (65,480), the
United Kingdom (62,169), Canada (55,853) and Australia
(56,105). The other four counties in the top 15 are Italy
(4 1, 8 84), the Bahamas (28,726), New Zealan d (27,57 4) and
Japan ( 19,175). The rernaining 60 countries are ones where
227.974 additional owners own.
Some 52,4 percent of all timeshare owners in the world
reside in the United States, although this proportion is
decreasing as the market takes firmer hold around the
world. The next ranking country is the United Kingdom
with 286,259 owners or 9.1 Percent ofthe total. Three other
countries contain over 100,000 owners: Mexico (171,905)'
South Africa (162,339) and Canada (127,050). Other
countries in the top 15 are Germany (80,024), Veuez;rla
(70,671), Japan (59,435), Italy (5o,l3t), Australia
(56,967), France (54,259), rpain (51,214), Argentina
(45,049), Portugal (28,481) and New Zealand (26,894).
The remaining 159 countries contain 216,922 (5.9 percent)
of the owners residing in the area.
Table A
Resort Timeshare Market by Area of World, December 31' 1994
Resort Timeshare
Projects
Number o/o of Total
Resort Timeshare Owners
Owning in Area
Number 7o of Total
48.9
20.9
l0.l
J.J
4.4
l)
5.1
2.7
1.8
100.0
Resort Timeshare Owners
Residing in Area
Number 7o ofTotal
52.4
?l 1
).)
4.4
aa
<t
', 1
4.0
r1
t00J
Area
United Sutes
Europe
Mexico
South America
Caribbean
SE Asia/Japan
South Africa
Australasia
Canada
Elsewhere
Totrl
1,546
l,888
?9l
276
202
160
142
ll7
93
130
4,145
)t.)
28.7
7.0
b./
4.9
)-t
2.8
2.2
J.l
100.0
I,538,000
658,000
319,000
104,000
139,000
39,000
l6l,000
84,000
57,C00
45.000
3,144,000
1,648,000
669,000
172,000
138,000
9,000
82,000
162,000
84,000
127,000
53,000
3,144,000
Growth in the resort timeshare industry has been
iremendous since the first worldwide study was completed
in 1990. During this brief Period:
l. 1,788 new timeshare resorts were developed (plus 75.9
percent);
2. 1,344,000 more households purchased a timeshare
interval (plus 74.7 percent); and
3. rwo million more intervals were sold for a sales volume
of over $17 billion.
When analyzing tends just between 1992 and 1994' on
Aarea-wide basis, the greatest absolute growth was in the
lted States, Europe and South America. These three
areas accounted for 70,0 Percent (767) ofthe new resorts'
75.5 percent (590,000) of the new owners owning in the
area and 76.2 percent (595,000) ofthe new owners residing
in the area.' Ou", one-third (35.7 percent) ofthe 1,095 new resorts
.were in Europe, with 391 . This area realizedz4T.l percent
increase in its number of timeshare resorts- However, the
greatest relative increase was in South America at 135.9
percent (from I l7 to 276 resorts). The United States gained
217 new resorts, while other areas gaining over 50 were
Mexico (90), the Caribbean (71) and Japan/Southern Asia
(68). At the other end of the growth sPectum were Canada
and Austalasia" with only nine and seven new resorts,
respectively.
When looking at the increase of new owners owning in
the area" by far the two leading areas were the United States
(plus 280,000) and Europe (plus 230,000). Growth rates in
these two areas were 22.3 percent and a very high 54'2
percent. While absolute gains were consrtierably less, large
relative
"i.:ns
were realtzed in South America (336'9
percent) and Canada (50.5 percent). Due to a continuing
recession, growth was slowest in Australasia at only 9.1
lrcent and 7,000 new owners owning in the area.v
When looking at the growth of new owners residing in
the area, Europe surpasses the United States as the leader'
During the lasitwo years, an additional 249,000 households
residing in Europe have purchased timeshare compared to
237,000 in the United States. Collectively, these two areas
accounted for 62.2 percent of all new owners residing in
any given area.
iiabsolute terms, the third greatest gain was realized in
South America, with 109,000 new resident owners'
followed by Mexico at 48,000 and South Africa at 42,000'
South Amirica again realized by far the highest relative
gain ata huge 380.2 percent. Two other areas also saw more
ihan a 50 percent gain, including Europe at 59'3 percent and
the CaribLean at 80.0 percent- On the other hand, growth in
Australasia was onlY 7.7 Percent.
The penetration rate is over 50 owners per 10,000
population in two countries New Zealand at 79'4:10'000
*d th" Unit.d States at 63.2. It is higher than 35:10,000 in
four other countries: United Kingdom (49'2), Canada
(45.2), South Africa (37.0) and Finland (35'2)' The other
counnies in the toP 15 are Venezuel4 Israel, Australi4
Pornrgal, Norway, Argentina' Singapore, Spain and
Belgium. For the most par! these 15 countries are highly
industrialized. Several are in cold northern climates; most
timeshare owners in these countries have purchased their
timeshare intervals elsewhere. Countries with lowest
penetration rates have few income-eligible households andl/
or past or present Political restrictions'
The overall average figure for all countries is 8'9
timeshare owners per 1'000 tourists from abroad' However'
this ratio is significantly higher ir. re"'oral countries' As
might be rxpeJted, these crt'ntries tend to be sun and surf
loc-ations sucn as Mexico, the Caribbean and southern
Europe.
The 1995 Worldwide Rcsort Timeshrre Industry 7
Introduction
This report provides an overview ofthe worldrvide reson
timeshare industry as it exists in 1995. It updates two earlier
such reports prepared in 1990 and 1992 by Ragatz
Associates for the International Foundation for Timeshar-
ing (The 1990 ltorldwide Timeshare Indusw\ and The
Alliance for Timeshare Excellence (en Annuil Report of
the Worldwide Resort Timesharing Industry: 1992).
None of the reports are detailed in content due to the
unavailabiliry ofconsistent and thorough information on a
country-by-country basis. Forthe same reasons, they do not
contain extensive trend data from past years or projections
for the future. However, they do describe in as much detail
as possible an industry that has become a vital component
in our global sociery's basket of leisure-time products.
As noted, this report represents the third published effort
at describing the extent of this important and exciring
industry on a worldwide basis. Several national consurner
surveys previously have been conducted by Ragatz
Associates for the United States timeshare market. as well
as for Canada, Australi4 the Caribbean. Mexico. and the
United Kingdom. These surveys concentrate on consumer
characteristics, purchase motivations, expenditure pat-
terns, etc.
A few journal articles have partially described cenain
aspects of the industry on either a national (e.9.
Timesharing in the USA, Trwel and Tourism Analyst.
August 1987, Ragatz Associates) or global basis (e.g.
Developments in Worldwide Timeshare, Travel and
TourkmAnalyst,No. 2, 1988, Ron Haylock of RCI Europe
Ltd.). Also, numerous newspaper articles and books have
been written on timesharing, but with emphasis on
individual resorts and/or marketing and sales practices. The
American Resort Development Association a list of
available publications.
The following information on the numbers of timeshare
resorts and oMers was graciously provided by Intewal
Intemational (II) and Resort Condominiums Intemational
(RCI). Information on consumer characteristics and
economic impacts was obtained by generalizing results
from past studies conducted by Ragatz Associates.
8 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industrv
Current Size of the Indusfry
The resort timeshare concept is less than 30 years old.
-,,1Qbservers generally credit the concept with having
lginated in 1964 at Superdevolvy in the French Alps. The
Tndustry was relatively slow to expand, especially on a
global basis. As late as 1980 only about 155,000
households throughout the world owned a timeshare
interval in about 500 resorts (Table l). In 1980 it is
estimated that roughly 100,000 intervals were purchased
for a worldwide sales volume of about $500 million.
However, the indusry expanded tremendously during the
1980s as shown in Table I and Figure I (number of resorts),
Figure 2 (number of owners) and Figure 3 (sales volume).
In relative terms, the most significant growth in number
ofresorts and owners occured in the first three years ofthe
1980s due primarily to the conversion of hundreds of
unsuccessfu I wholly-owned resort condominium projects
in the United States to resort timeshare projects and the
accompanying extensive public awareness and marketing
campaigls. During this three-year period the number of
timeshare resorts throughout the world increased from 506
to 1,200 for an average annual relative increase of 33.8
percent. The number ofnew owners increased from about
155,000 to 470,000 for an average annual relative increase
of 44.4 percent.
The next few years sv 4 5lgwer growth in the industry
due to the recovery from the United States recession and
considerable fallout in that country of mediocre resorts and
under-funded developers. From 1984 to 1986, the number
of new resorts only increased from 1,550 to 1,779 for an
average annual relative increase of 13.0 percent. The
number ofnew owners increased by 3 50,000 for an average
annual relative increase of 27.4 petcent'
Since 1987, the number of new resorts coming onto the
market in the United States has been less than in the first
three years ofthat decade. However, the average size ofthe
new resorts has increased tremendously, and they are being
developed by more experienced and better-funded
companies. Thus, timeshare sales volume in the United
States has been continually increasing although fewer new
resorts have been initiated and the vast majority ofearlier
resorts no longer are in sales.
Recent growth in the United States has been
complemented by a boom in the timeshare market
etsewhere in the world, especially in Europe, Mexico and
South America. When looked at in a world-wide
perspective, recent overall growth has been tremendous.
Year
(December 31)
Rcsort
Timcshare
Projects
Table 1
iort Time
Resort
Timeshare
Owners
Iutcrvals
Sold
Sales
Volume
Trends in the World-Wide Resort Timeshare Indusfi, 19E0 to 1994r
t9E0
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
r986
1987
1988
1989
1990
l99l
1992
1993
t994
506
631
950
1,200
1,550
1 11'
1,779
1,822
1,899
2,132
', 1<1
2,687
3,050
1 K<?
4,145
155,000
220,000
335,000
470,000
620,000
805,000
970,000
1,125,000
I,310,000
I,530,000
1,800,000
2,070,000
2,363,000
2,760,000
3,144,000
100,000
175,000
205,000
225,000
275,000
245,000
240,000
280,000
330,000
395,000
405,000
440,000
500,000
530,000
560,000
$490 mil
$965 mil
$1.r65 bir
$1.340 bil
$1.735 bil
$1.580 bil
$1.610 bil
s1.940 bil
s2.390 bir
$2.970 bil
s3.240 bil
$3.740 bil
s4.2s0 bil
$4.505 bil
$4.760 bil
I Actual dr..r,. ofyear for whicn uata obtained from ll and RCI vary from year-to-yer:. thus creating in,.;;sistencies in annual comparisons'
Especially notable for 1990 to 1994 period.
Source: )ppend* A, calculations erplained in rexr, The 1990 tVorldwide Resort fimesharing Industry, and An Annual Report of the
jorUwUe
Resort nmesha ng Industry, Ign
'/Thc 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry
Some important findings from Table I place the size of
the worldwide resort timeshare industry in proper
persPective:. About 4,145 timeshare resorts now exist.. About 3, 144.000 households now own a timeshare
- interval.rr. tr!6u1 560,000 timeshare intervals were sold in 1994,
about 460 percent morethan in 1980 (about 100,000).. Gross sales volume in I 994 was about $4.76 billion, over
870 percent more than in 1980 ($490 million).. Roughly 4.9 million timeshare intervals have been
purchased since 1980 for a sales volume of over $36
billion.. Over 780,000 households have purchased a total of
almost I .2 million timeshare intervals in justthe past two
years, representing a sales volume of over $9 billion.. 1994 was a record year in the timeshare industry, with
384,000 new owners purchasing 560,000 intervals for a
sales volume of about $4.76 billion.
Absolute trends since 1980 are shown forresorts, owners
and sales volume in Figures 1,2 and 3, respectively. Figure
4 shows annual relative change for resorts and owners. At
first glance, Figure 4 may appear negative since the lines
slope downward. However, they simply describe a
maturing industry that has settled down after the initial
boom period (1980 to 1983) and slow-down period (1984 to
1986). Therefore, while the absolute numbers of resorts and
owners have continually increased, the relative changes
have not (due to the previously-noted boom and slow-down
periods and also to having a larger absolute base from
which to start each year).
Perhaps the most important finding in Figure 4 is the
relative consistency in annual worldwide growth in
timeshare owners in the past eight years. This has averaged
I 5.8 perceng with a narrow range only from l3.9 percent to
17.6 percent. This obviously suggests a stable and maturing
industry. It is important to note that the absolute increases
in the past four years have been the highest in the history of
the industry, even though each year has started with a much
larger absolute base (thus making a relative increase more
difficult).
The preceding "size of industry" findings were derived
as follows. The procedures are not scientific but they
provide good ballpark estimates.
l. Number of resorts: II and RCI provided current figures
for the 1990, 1992 and 1995 reports. Figures for other
years were obtained from published II and RCI audits.
Numbers assume that all timeshare resorts are affiliated
with one of these two exchange companies, so the true
total is perhaps under-estimated by five Percent or so.
2. Number of owners: II and RCI provided figures for the
1990, 1992 and 1995 reports. Figures for other years
were obtained from published II and RCI audits.
Aggregated totals were increased by 25 percent to
account for timeshare owners notbelongingto one ofthe
two exchange companies. This estimate was based on
dozens of consumer surveys conducted by Ragatz
Associates for individual timeshare resorts throughout
the world in the past several years.
3. Intervals sold: This assumes an average of 1.5 weeks
per sale and is based upon studies conducted by Ragatz
Associates and upon interviews with II and RCI field
representatives.
4. Sales volune: This assumes an annual avemge interval
price increase of $500 between 1980 and 1992. This
average w,rs held constant for 1993 and 1994 estimates
due to the large number of new resorts goming onto the
market in countries where prices are still lower than in
countries with more established markets. These
estimates are based upon industry publications, dozens
of market analyses conducted by Ragatz Associates and
general knowledge of the industry. The worldwide
estimate for':994 was $8,500, up from $5,000 in 1980.
l0 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Indusrry
I I ,{lrsnpul errqsautlJ, uoseu epl'J$Plroa\ t56I aq'L
oE
a(l)
(5
oov,a
N
(6g)
(6E
(r)
CD6)
s|
C"
C')
o)g)
oo)
ct)
o)
CT'o)
CD
co
ctr
CEo)
ro
cog)
-lco
ct)
fil
co
ctl
N
co
ct)
co
ct
o
co
C"
o+,OorqoLL
oL
GltFIooFFIIIF
+fLoooE
o
f
ctj
iL
EEHEAAAAHO++sterolN?-
I
sl33!old lo JaqunN
,fulsnpu1 arEqseutll uos.U aPlrnplloAt s66l eqJ. ZI
?66!
t66t
266[
166!
066[
686[
8861
z86t
9861
986t
?86!
t86t
286[
t86!
0861
os
ao
(tr
oooo
N
(gg)
(6
E.
oLoFI
=o
oL
rtrF
-rootFFI
IIF
+tl-oooE
c\Io
(t)
LL
E aga= E-a=HgFAH.E.HFt c't oI oi
$eutno lo laqunN
eI &lsnpul .raqs.utll Uossu tPlr$plloll s66I ttlJ,
og
tt)
c)
(u
c)og,
U'
N
(U
o,(o
q
€l)
CD
F)
cl)6,
6|6)
cl)
ct)6t
ctl
ct)
olG'o)
CD
EO
ctr
t\(D
o)
(ooo)
rdt
EOg)
q
co
ctt
c)€
ct)
N
co
cl)
Cl'o)
o
EO
ct)
o?FIrlJIc
oo
I
Gt'l
oL
G'F
-ooFF
-l-F
+fLoooE
c)
o
:f(')
iL
===========orootaqu?qu?q9?ESSEAssE:*EB
,{:1snpu1 arEqseurll uoseu rpr,rrpljoA\ S66t .qI tt
oc
o(t)
(It
oott
v,
N
(6
O)(g
<t
ct)
ct)
F)
ct)
cl)
(\|
ct)
ctr
ctt
ctt
o
ctt
ctt
c')€
CD
E}(o
ot
N
€og)
G'co
ct)
tc)
co
ct)
.t(D
Ct)
(?
c0
o)
c\|G'o)F
CrI
C')
3t'L
Go
Lot!-Lr
FFIoLrF
o
h0
I
G'
r-t
CJ
>q
og
o+,LoooE
€
oLoFI
=o
F
-II
3n
I IFIoLF
.g)
LL
sb"-"db"Ea*(9lj'strtolF
JEeA JO!Jd uloJl e6uE43 "/o
Location of the Resort Timeshare Market
Timeshare resorts are located in 8l countries and
timeshare owners reside in 174 countries. Before
dq]bing the distribution of resorts and owners on a
.ily-by-"ountry basis, let us look at the disnibution on
an area. (not sPecific country) basis as shown in Table 2'
Currently, the United States is the leader in the
worldwide resort timeshare marke! containing 37.3
percent (1,546) ofthe resorts,48.9 percent (1'538,000) of
the "owners owning in the area," and 52.4 percent
(1,548,000) of the "owners residing in the area." The latter
two figures are due further explanation. The first figure
("owners owning in the area") represents owners who have
actually purchased a timeshare interval in the area in
question, regardless of where they live' The second figure
(i'owners residing in the area") represents owners who live
in the area in question, regardless of where they own their
timeshare intenal. Thus, 1,538,000 households throughout
the world own timeshare intervals in the United States and
1,648,000 households residing in the United States own
timeshare intervals throughout the world.
The second most dominant area for timeshare is Europe,
containing 28.7 percent ofthe resorts,20.9 percent ofthe
owners owning in the area and 21.3 percent of the owners
residing in the area. Collectively, the United States and
Europe contain 66.0 percent ofthe resorts, 69.8 percent of
t[lwners owning in the area and 73.7 percent of the
il.r residing in the area. Such distributions obviously
relate to population size, gross national product and
household income as discussed in following sections.
Some areas of the world have almost exactly the same
number of timeshare owners owning in the area and living
in the area. This is especially true for the United Smtes'
Europe, South Africa, Australasia, Japan/Southeast Asia
and 6outh America. These areas are more or less isolated
unto themselves, thereby forming rather closed supply and
demand situations. On the other hand, this situation is quite
different in Mexico, the Caribbean and Canada'
For example, 3 19,000 households own timeshare
intervals in Mexico and 139,000 own in the Caribbean'
However, only 172,000 Mexican households own
timeshare and only 9,000 Caribbean households do so'
These situations obviously relate to the relatively low
number of income-eligible households in the two areas and
the fact that both are excellent sun and surfresort locations'
The situation in Canada is reversed, perhaps due to the lack
of demand for timeshare in the long, cold winter months'
There, some l27,OOO Canadians own timeshare, but only
57,000 households throughout the world (including
Canadians) own timeshare in Canada'
Table 3 ranks the top 15 countries in regard to the
number of timeshare resorts (3-A)' timeshare owners
owning in the country (3-B) and timeshare owners residing
in the-country (3-C)' Appendix A shows in alphabetical
order all 8l countries in which timeshare resorts are found
according to the number of owners that own in each country
and all 174 countries in which timeshare owners reside
according to the number of resident-owners' The same
information is found in Appendix B where the counfiies are
ranked for both items'
Table 2
Resort Timeshare Market by Area of World, December 3lr1994
Resort Timeshare
Projects
Resort Timeshare Owners Resort Timeshare Owners
Owniug in Area Residing in Area
Arca
United states
Europe
Mexico
South America
Caribbean
SE Asia/Japan
South Africa
Australasia
Canada
Elsewh .'e
Total
Numbcr
1,546
I,188
tol
276
160
142
t17
93
IJU
4J 45
7o ofTotal
J /.J
28.7
7.0
6.7
4.9
3.9
J..t
2.8
1)
lo0.o
Number
l,538,000
6s8,000
319,000
104,000
139,000
39,000
l6l,000
84,000
57,000
45,000
tr+-+O;
o/o of Total
48.9
20.9
l0.l
J.J
4.4
. t.2
5.1
2.7
1.8
100.0-
Number
t,648,000
669,000
172,000
138,000
9,000
82,000
162,000
84,000
127.000
53,00u
3,144p00
7o of Total
52.4
21.3
J-f
4.4
0.3
2.7
<?
)'f
4.0
1.7
100-0
The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry 15
Table 3
The Top 15 Resort Timeshare Countries, December 31, 1994
Percent
Number
Cumulrtiv€
of Totel
Percent
NumberPercent
A. Resort Timeshare Projects
Cumuletive
of Total Percent
72.7
76.7
78.4
80.0
8r.3
82.4
100.0
85.5
87.3
89.1
90.4
91.3
Q'' 1
92.8
100.0
84.6
E6.4
88.1
89.7
91.2
92-r
93.0
100.0
o,
2.
3.
5.
o.
7.
E,
United States
Spain
Mexico
Italy
France
South Africa
Ponugal
Argentina
I,546
407
29r
152
143
142
ll8
ll6
r,648,l3 9
286,259
l7 t,905
t62,339
127,050
80,024
70,671
59,435
56,986
56,967
54,259
51,214
46,049
28,481
26,894
216.922
3,143,594
'rn.
1.8
1.8
1.3
0.9
0.9
0.6
7.3
100.0
1.8
l.E
t-7
1.6
1.5
0.9
0.9
6.q
100.0
)t,J
9.8
7.0
3.7
3.4
)..+
2.8
2.8
)1.)
47.1
54.l
57.8
ot-l
64.6
67.4
70.2
9. United Kingdom
10. Canada
I l. Austalia
12. Japan
13. Venezuela
14. Austria
15. Brazil
Elsewhere
Total
9. ltaly
10. Australia
I l. France
12. Spain
13. Argentina
14. Portugal
15. New Zealand
Elsewhere
Total
9. United Kingdom 62,169
10. Canada 56,853
ll. Australia 56,105
12. ltzly 41,884
I 3. Bahamas 28.726
14. New Zealand 27,574
15. Japan 19,175
Elsewhere 227 -a74
Total 3.t43.594
105
93
76
72
66
52
45
721
4,145
2.5
2.2
1.8
t.7
1.6
l-J
t1 a
100.0
B. Resort Timeshare Owners Owning in Country
l. Unired Stares 1,537,7962. Spain 327,0643. Mexico 319,3464. South Africa 161,3725. Pornrgal 75,0436. Germany 68,7357. Netherlands Antilles 68,3088. Venezuela 65.480
48.9
r0.2
5.1
2-2
)1
)l
48.9
59.3
69.5
74.6
77.0
79.2
8l .4
83.5
C. Resort Timeshare Owners Residing in Country
l. United States
2. United Kingdom
3. Mexico
4. South Africa
5. Canada
6. Germany
7. Venezuela
8. Japan
52.4
9.1
).)
5.2
4.0
2.5))
1.9
52.4
61.5
67.0
1))
76.2
78.7
80.9
82.8
Source: Appendices A and D.
l6 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industrv
AS nolcu prcvtously, J /.J percent ol all umesnare resorts
in the world are located in the United States (1,546 of
4,145). The two other countries that contain more than five
percent of the total are Spain (407 and 9.8 percent) and
Mexico (291 and 7.0 percent). When including Italy (152
resorts), France (143 resorts) and South Africa (142
resorts), it is found that 64.6 percent ofall timeshare resorts
lre found in six countries.V The United States' leading position in the industry is
again shown in Table l-S as this counrry contains 48.9
percent of all timeshare owners owning in the area. Only
Spain (327,064 and 10.4 percenr), Mexico (319,346 and
10.2 percent) and South Africa (161,372 and 5.1 percent)
are other countries where over 100,000/five percent of all
owners own. Collectively, 74.6 percent of all rimeshare
owners own in these four countries. There are seven other
counries where over 50,000 owners own: Portugal
(75,043), Germany (68,735),Netherlands Antilles (68,308),
Venezuela (65,480), the United Kingdom (52,1 59), Canada
(56,853) and Australia(56,105). The other four countries in
the top 15 include Italy (41,884), the Bahamas (28,726),
New Zealand (27,574),aillapan (19,175). The remaining
60 countries are ones where 227,974 additional owners
own.
Some caveats should be noted in regard to the above
ranking (as well as to the ranking in Table 3-C):
l. Several "clubs" in Europe are not included in this report.
Since they are not affiliated with II or RCI. accurate data
are not available in regard to number and location of
resorts and members. Some repons place the number of
memDers ln mese cluos at over l)u,uuu.
2. Similarly, it is reported that over 300,000 households in
Japan also belong to some form of club. Again, these
numbers are not included in this report.
3. If the club members in (l) and (2) above were included.
the total number of owners in the world would be close to
3.75 million and the total number of resorts would be
close to 4,500.
4. The UnitedKingdom includes England, Isle ofMan, Isle
of Wight, Northern lreland, Scotland and Wales, but not
Ireland.
5. The Netherlands Antilles includes Aruba" Bonaire,
Curacao and St. Maarten, even though Aruba recently
became a separate entity.
6. Spain includes the Canary Islands.
In Table 3-C, we find that 52.4 percent of all timeshare
owners in the world reside in the United States, although
this proportion is decreasing as the market takes firmer hold
in other countries around the world. The next ranking
country is the United Kingdom with 286,259 owners or 9.1
percent of the total. Three other countries contain over
100,000 owners, including Mexico ( 171,905), South Africa
(162,339) and Canada (127,050). The other top 15
countries are: Germany (80,024), Venezuela (70,671),
Japan (59,435), Italy (56,980), Australia (55,967), France
(54,259), Spain (51,214), Argentina (46,049), Pornrgal
(28,481) and New Zealand (26,894). The remaining 159
countries contain 216,922 (6.9 percent) of the owners
residing in the area.
Thc 1995 Worldwide Resort Timcsbare Industry 17
Trends Between 1990 and 1994
Growth in the resort timeshare industry has been
Ltremendous since the first worldwide study was completed
Uin 1990. During this brief five-year period:
l. 1,788 new timeshare resorts were developed (plus 75.9
percent);
2. 1,344,Q00 more households purchased a timeshare
interval (plus 74.7 percent); and
3. two million more intervals were sold for a sales volume
of over $17 billion.
When analyzing trends just between 1992 and 1994, we
find that on an area-wide basis the greatest absolute growh
was in the United States, Europe and South America. These
three areas accounted for 70.0 percent (767) of the new
resorts (Table 4-A), 75.5 percent (590,000) of the new
owners owning in the area (Table 4-B) and 76.2 percent
(595,000) of the new owners residing in the area (Table 4-
c).
Over one-third (35.7 percent) ofthe 1,095 new resorts
were in Europe. This are arealized a49.1 percent increase in
its number of timeshare resorts. However, the greatest
relative increase was in South America at 135.9 percent
(from I 17 to 276 resorts). The United States gained 217
new resorts, while the other areas gaining over 50 were
Mexico (90), the Caribbean (71) and Japar/Southeast Asia
(68). At the other end ofthe growth specnum were Canada
and Australasi4 with only nine and seven new resorts,
respectively.
When looking at the increase of new owners owning in
the area. by far the rwo leading areas were the United States
(plus 280,000) and Europe (plus 23 I,000). Growth rates in
these two areas were 22.3 percent and a very high 54.3
percent.
While absolute gains were considerably less, large
relative gains were realized in South America (336.9
percent) and Canada (50.5 percent). Due to a continuing
recession, growth was slowest in Australasia at only 9.1
percent and 7,000 new owners owning in the area. (It should
be noted that the loss of25,000 in Japan/Southeast Asia is
due to an anomaly in the data presentation process by one of
the exchange companies during the past two years for this
item.)
When looking at the growth of new owners residing in
the area, Europe surpasses the United States as the leader.
During the last two years, an additional 249,000 households
residing in Europe have purchased timeshare compared to
237,0OO in the United States. Collectively, these two areas
account for 62.2 percent for all new owners residing in any
given area.
In absolute terms, the third greatest gain was realized in
South America with 109,000 new resident-owners.
followed by Mexico at 48,000 and South Africa at 42,000.
South America again realized by far the highest relative
gain at a huge 380.2 percent. The two other areas that saw
more than a 50 percent gainwere Europe at 59.0 percent and
Couutry
Spain
Mexico
Germany
Venezuela
South Africa
Country
Venezuela
Mexico
United Kingdom
Germany
South Africa
Major Increases in Owners Owning iz CountrT
Absolute Increases
Increase
101,758
76,888
56,199
53,005
43,324
Major Increases in
Absolute Increases
Increase
r), 1) t
47,5 t2
43,934
43,275
42,636
Owners Residing iz Country
Reletive Increases
Country
Israel
B razi I
Greece
Venezuela
Argentina
Relative Increases
Country Increase
lsrael l,5l2.l
Germany 448.6
Venezuela 424.9
Creece 185.1
Argentina 130.5
Increase
1.955.3
919.J
604.0
355.4
324.4
18 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare lndustry
Table 4
Trends in the Resort Timeshare Market by Area of the world, 1990 to 1994
Area
United States
Europe
Mexico
South America
Caribbean
SE Asia/Japan
South Africa
Australasia
Canada
Elsewhere
Total
Unitcd States
Europe
Mexico
South Africa
Caribbean
South America
Australasia
Canada
SE Asia/Japan
Elsewhere
Total
Number
1990 1992 t994
A. Resort Timeshare Projects
Percent of
Total Growth
19.8
35.7
8.2
14.5
6.i
d-,l
0.6
1.0
0.8
6.6
I,200
490
149
62
118
69
96
94
48
3l
I ??O
797tnl
tt7
lJt
92
135
t06
84
58
1,546
l,188
291
276
160
t42
l17
93
130
2t7
391
on
159
7l
58
7ll
9
72
16.3
49.1
44.8
135.9
54.2
I 5.9\)
10.4
10.7
lz4.l
', a<',3,050 4.1d5 1,095 100.0
B. Resort Timeshare Owners Owning in Area
l,082,000
257,000
134,000
83,000
84,000
6,000
7l,000
2l,000
5l,000
l l,000
1,258,000
428,000
242,000
l 18,000
103,000
24,000
77,000
38,000
64,000
I I,000
1,538,000
658,000
319,000
t 5l,000
139,000
104,000
84,000
57,000
39,000
45,000
280,000
231,000
77,000
43,000
36,000
80,000
7,000
19,000
-25,000
34,000
7) 'l
54.2
3l .8
36.4
35.0
JJJ.J
9.1
50.5
-39. r
309.1
35.9
29.4
9.9
)-)
4.6
10.2
0.9.,L
-3.2
4.4
r,800,000 2J53,000 3,144,000 781.000 33.1
C. Resorrt Timeshare Owners Residing in Area
100.0
United States
Europe
Mexico
South Africa
South America
Canada
Australasia
SE Asia/Japan
Caribbean
Elsewhere
Total
1,198,000 l,4l 1,000
259,000 420,000
60,000 124,000
82,000 120,000
5,000 29,000
57,000 94,000
70,000 78,000
52,000 56,0004,000 5,000
9,000 16,000
1,648,000
569,000
172,000
162,000
138,000
127,000
84,000
82.000
9,000
53,000
237,000
249,000
48,000
42,000
109,000
33,000
6,000
16,000
4,000
37,000
16.8
59.3
38.7
35.0
315.9
35.1
7.7
80.0
23t.3
JU.J
31 .9
6.1
5.4
14.0
0.8
2.0
0.5
4.7
Change: 1992 to L994
Number Percent
1,800,000 2,353,000 3,144,000 781,000 100.0
Source: Appendices B, C and D, The 1990 Worldwide Resort Timesharing Induslry, and An Annual Report oJ the |l/orldwide Resort
Industry: 1992.
The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timcshare Industry 19
the Caribbean at 80.0-percent. On the other hand, the
gro*.th in Australia was only 7.7 percent.
Comparable information is found in Table 5 for specific
countries. Table 5-A ranks the top l5 countries in regard to
number of new resortsl Table 5-B does the same for new
owners owning in the country; and Table 5-C does the same
for new owners residing in the country. This information is
detailed in Appendix C (resorts), Appendix D (owners
owning in) and Appendix E (owners residing in). The three
Appendices also show data for 1990.
In terms of new resorts. six individual countries
accounted for 60.2 Dercent ofthe total: the United States
(217, for 19.8 percent), Spain (162, for I4.8 percent).
Mexico (90, for 8.2 percent), Italy (67, for 6.1 percent).
Argentina (64, for 5.8 percent) and France (60' for 5.5
percent). As noted in an earlier section, Spain includes the
Canary Islands, where extensive growth has occurred in the
Past two years.
Due to its size and past extensive history with timeshare.
the United States was the leading individual growth counrr
in terms of new owners owning in and residing in, as
previously noted. However, some radical increases wer€
made in several other countries. as summarized below.
Table 5
Trends in the Resort Timeshare Industry for Selected Countries, 1992 to 1994
Country
Number
t992 1994
Chanee: 1992 to 1994
Number Percent
217
t62
90
67
64
60It
32
)7
20
l9
17
t'l
l6
l5
245
Percetrt of
Totd
Cumulative
Percent
A. Resort Timeshare Projects
United States
Spain
Mexico
Italy
Argentina
France
Brazil
Venezuela
India
Japan
United Kingdom
lndonesia
Malaysia
Turkey
Switzerland
Elsewhere
Total
1,329
245
201
85
<t
E3
l3
J+
4
<)
89
J
l0
9
It
tro
1,546
407
291
r52
ll6
143
45
66
26
'f',
108
20
",.,
)<
27
1,074
r9.8
14.8
8.2
o.l
5.8
J.)
'to
2.0
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.6t(
1.4
19.8
34.6
42.8
48.9
54.7
60.2
63.1
66.0
68.0
69.8
7t.5
73.1
74-7
76-2
77.6
100.0
3d50 4,r45 1,095 r00.0
20 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare lndustry
Number
t992 1994
Change: 1992 to 1994
Number Percent
Percent of
Total
Cumulative
Percent
B. Resort Timeshare Owners Owning in Country
I .<? stS
225,306
242,458
12,536
12,475
I 18,048
38,194
24,498
46,725
55,590
834
63,103
7,903
4,776
s 77<
246,955
1,537,786
321,064
319,346
68,735
65,480
161,372
56,8s3
41,884
62,t69
68,308
13,445
75,043
18,219
13,620
13,6 r 8
301,105
280,261
l0l,75 8
75,888
56,199
53,005
43,324
18,659
17,386
15,444
12,718
12,61I
l1,940
10,316
8,844
7,393
54,150
22.3
45.2
)t.I
448.3
424.9
36.7
48-9
7r.0
33.1
z:-,
l,5 r2.l
18.9
130.5
185.1
128.0
18.0
35.9
13.0
9.8
1)
6.8
<5
)'\
2.2
2.0
1.6
1.6
1.5
l.J
l.l
0.9
1)
tt*
35.9
48.9
58.7(<o
72.7
t 6,z
80.5
82.7
84.7
86.3
87.9
89.4
90.7
91.8
a)1
100.0
2362,698 3,143,594 780,896 33.1
C. Resort Timeshere Owrers Residing in Coutrtry
v
I.
2.
4.
).
6..'7
8.
q
10.
rl.
12.
14.
15.
1,410,973 1,548,139
15,520 70,671
124,393 171,905
242,325 286,259
36,749 80,024
l19,703 162,339
13,935 5l,214
10,850 46,049
19,921 54,?59
23,616 56,986
94,198 127,050
805 15,626
1,508 10,616
19,684 28,481
825 8,408
227,693 324,568
237,166
5 5,15 1
47,512
43,934
43,275
42,636
37,279
35,199
34,338
33,370
32,852
15,821
9,108
8,797
7,583
96,875
16.8
355.4
38.2
l8.l
117.8
35.6
267.5
)t+,4
t72.4
141.3
34.9
1,965.3
604.0
44.7
oto ?
42.5
30.4
7.1
6.I
5.6
<{
{{
4.8
4.5
4.4
4.3
2.O
t)
l.l
1.0
12.3
r00.0
30.4
37.5
43.6.
49.2
54.7
60.2
65.0
59.5
73.9
78.2
82.4
84.4
E5.6
86.7
87.7
100.0
Source: Appendices B, C, and D,
fimesharing IndustrY: ! ^92,
]oun,o
l. United States
2. Spain
3. Mexico
4. Germany
5. Venezuela
6. South Africa
7. Canada
8. Italy
9. United Kingdom
10. Nethcrlurds Antilles
I l. Israel
12. Ponugal
13. Argentina
14. Grecce
15. Malaysia
Elsewhere
Total
United States
Venezuela
Mexico
United Kingdom
Germany
South Africa
Spain
Argentina
France
Italy
Canada
Israel
Greece
Pormgal
Brazil
Elsewhere
Total
Table 5 (continued)
Trends in the Resort Timeshaie Industry for Selected Countries, 1992 to 1994
2J62.698 3,143,594 780,896 33.1
The lgg0 lltorldwide Resorl Timesharing Industry, and An Annual Repott of the ,voflfu're i:roft
The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry 2l
Some Detailed Comparisons
As noted in Table 2, some discrepancies exist in regard
e'"",H[::f ,:'JT',1"":'.::1il:i:]ff ,:::;:::13,T:
detailed in Appendix F on a country-by-country basis. The
"destination-of-owners" countries are basically small, sun
and surfcountries with a limited number of income-eligible
households. They mostly are in the Caribbean (plus
Mexico) and southern Europe. The "origin-of-owners"
countries are basically colder, densely population countries
with large numbers of income-eligible households. They
mostly are in northern Europe (plus Canada).
Table 6 analyzes how the top 15 countries rank
according to timeshare ownership per 10,000 population (it
only includes the larger countries having the most reliable
information). Appendix G contains such inform ation for all
174 countries in which timeshare owners reside.
As shown in Table 6, the penetration rate is over 50
owners per 10,000 population in two countries: New
Zezland at 79.4:10,000 and the United States at 63.2. It is
higher than 35:10,000 in the United Kingdom (49.2),
Canada (45.2), South Africa (37.0) and Finland (35.2). The
other top 15 countries are Venezuel4 Israel, Australia,
Portugal, Norway, Argentin4 Singapore, Spain and
Belgium. For the most part, these l5 countries are highly
dH'l',"j'"':r'-:":ffi ::J'i"Ti:""ili::*:ff:',T:i:
purchased their timeshare intervals elsewhere.
Countries with the lowest penetration rates have few
income-eligible households and./or past or present political
, restrictions. These issues are enhanced upon in Appendix H
which lists the 174 countries according to penetration rates.per 10,000 population in the first column. The second
column shows gross national product per capita for
countries for which the information is available.
One of the most interesting findings in Table 6 and
Appendix H is the high penetration rate in South Africa
despite this country's low gross national product per capita
(36.9:10,000 and only $4,000). The penetration rate among
only income-eligible households in South Africa is
probably higher than in any other large country in the
world. Other large countries with a relatively high
penetration rate and relatively low gross national product
per capita include Venezuela (34.4 and $8,000), Portugal
(27.1 and $8,700), Mexico ( 18.6 and $8,200) and Argentina
(13.5 and $5,500). These countries contain numerous
timeshare resorts marketed to tourists from other counrries.
The widespread recognition ofthe opportunity to purchase
a timeshare interval and the presence of a sizeable number
of upper-middle income households have combined to
create relatively high penetration rates among local
residents.
Another approach to looking at penetration rates is to
analyze the ratio of timeshare owners owning in a country
per 1,000 tourists to that country from abroad. Such
information is contained in Table 7 and Appendix I. (The
reliability ofthe tourism figures is somewhat suspect due to
inconsistencies in reporting procedures on a country-by-
country basis.)
The overall average figure for all countries in Appendix
I is 8.9 timeshare owners per 1,000 tourists from abroad.
However, this ratio is significantly higher in several
countries, as shown in Table 7. As might be expected, these
countries tend to be sun and surf locations such as Mexico,
the Caribbean and southern Europe. (Due to the simplistic
approach in designing this ratio, the list in Table 7 also
includes countries in which penetration is high among the
residents themselves, such as Australia, the United States,
South Afric4 etc.)
22 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industrv
Table 6
Examples of Resort Timeshare Ownership Penetration Rates As Measured by
Resort Timeshare Owners Per 10'000 Population
(Major Countries Only)' December 31' 1994
Resort Timeshare Owners Per
l0'000 PoPulation
Gross Natioual Product
Per CaoitaCountry
l. New Zealand
2. United States
3. United Kingdom
4. Canada
5. South Africa
6. Finland
7. Venezuela
8. Israel
9. Australia
10. Pomtgal
I l. Mexico
12. Norway
13. Argenrina
14. Singapore
15. Spain
Source: Appendices G and H.
79.3629
6:.2t65
49.1794
45.1910
36.9535
3:.2126
34.3690
32.9t72
31.5108
27.0624
t8.6442
t7.4130
13.5786
13.0389
13.0307
$15,700
s24,700
$ 16,900
$22,200
$4,000
$ 16,100
$8,000
$13,350
$ 19,100
$8,700
$8,200
$20,800
$5,500
$ 15,000
$12,700
Thc 1995 Worldwidc Resort Timeshere Industry 23
Some Supply Characteristics
lnthe 1990 ll'orldwide Timeshare IndusrDl study, about
1120,85 0 un its were contained in rhe 2,3 57 tim-eshare resons]round the world, including units that were completed,
under consrruction and planned in the affiliated resons.This resulted in an average resorr size of 5l unis. Thisinformation was not updated in rhe 1992 or I 995 study. Butif we assume that since 1990 the numbe, of unil ii"reaseoat about the same rate as the number of ."rort 1ZA.lpercent) and the number of timeshare owners (74.7
percent), it would mean that about 2l I ,400 timeshare unitsnow exist on a worldwide basis.
Based on the 1990 study, the United States average of 50units was almost exactly the worldwide
"u"rug.. So_"significant discrepancies on the high side inctuJliapan at
154, Puerto Rico at 125, Dominicai Repubiic at t1, ttaly at8l and Netherlands Antilles at 29.'Convers"ly, ,o_"significant discrepancies on the low side inclua" i# unit"aKingdom at 32, Canada at 29 and ttew Zealana at tO.
On a worldwide basis, about one_third (33,! peicent; ofall timeshare units were rooms/studios/suites. Anotherone-third (33.5 percent) contained one bedroom; theremaining one-third (33.0 percent) contained either two
bedrooms_(29,5 percent) or three or more bedrooms (3.5
percent). It is unknown how this mix has changed since^ 1990.
t!^ Table 8 shows unit sizes in several areas of the worldtiom the 1990 study. Some major discrepancies existed.
F-or instance, only I g.l percent of all timeshare unis in theUnited States were roomVstudios/suites, whereas this
, proportion was 50.1 percent in Europe and gl.0 percent in
Resort Timeshere
OwnersPer 1,000
Tourists From Abroad
150.9
55.8
34.4
zo. I
'r< )
21.6
20.5
18.5
t6.2
IJ.J
11 'l
I t.5
1 1.3
10.5
Table 7
The Top 15 Countries in Regard to Resort
Timeshare Owners Per 1.000 Tourists
From Abroad, December 31.-1994
Country
1. Venezuela
2. NetherlandsAntilles
3. South Africa
4. United States
5. New Zealand
6. Cayman Islands
7. Australia
8. Bahamas
9. Mexico
10. Antigua and Barbuda
I l. Malaysia
12. Barbados
13. Finland
14. French Polyncsia
15. Virgin Islands (US and UK)
Sowce: Appendix H.
Japan/Southeast Asia. Conversely, 48.8 percent of all
timeshare units in the United States contained two or more
bedrooms. This proportion was only 15.9 percent in Europe
and 5.6 percent in Japan/Southeast Asia.
Table 8
Summary of Size of Resort Timeshare Units by Area of World, 1990
Pcrcent of units by size
Area
United States
Mexico
Caribbean
South America
Europe
South Africa
Aus;.alasia
SE Asia/Japan
Overall
Units
60,380
9,710
6,050
2,t t0
25,98^
4,070
2,980
7 t1n
t20,850
3+ BED
5.6
1.4
0.9
t.J
0.9
5.4
2.9
0.2
J.)
ws/s
l8.l
47.6
32.5
54.5
50.1
37.0
r 5.3
8t.0
33.5
I BED
40.3 '
41.2
z3.o
34.0
31.9
Jt.l
tJ..l
2 BED
+J.Z
r0.7
20.6
15.0
'r< 1
<A
to(
Total
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
j"u'' The 1990 llorldwide Resort Tim*haring Industry, International rimeshare Foundation, 1990.
24 The 1995 Wortdwide Resort Timcshare lndustrv
Size of Unit Averlges
Table 9
Average Prices for Resort Timeshare lntervals
f .lr"a'Studio
$4,900
s3,700
$3,800
s3,700
$5,300
$7,000
s5,300
$5,800
$6,900
$s,300
$4,300
$1,300
$4,600
$2,600
$6,900
$3,500
$6,000
s8,500
s3,000
$2,800
s6,800
s4,000
$4,s00
s5,000
$5,900
$3,600
$4,800
One Bedroom Two Bedroom
Season Averages Overall
Avcrage
$3,800
s7,200
$5,300
$5.700
$5,100
s7,000
s8,400
$7,300
3;,300
s8,700
$7,600
s5,600
$1,900
$6,800
s3,700
s8,900
s9,500
$4,700
$9,100
$6,500
$6,400
s4.500
$7,900
s5,700
$5,700
$6,800
$9,500
$5,300
s6,500
Sboulder High
s5,300
st 1,000
$4,500
$7,300
$8,400
$9,500
sl1,200
$8,000
$10,700
$l1,300
$10,100
$7,700
s2,200
$9,200
s4,800
$ 15,000
Arabic Nations ( l)
Argentina (2)
Australia/New Zealand (3)
Benelux ( I )
Brazil (2)
Canada Eastem (2)
Canada Westem (l)
Canary Islands (2)
Finland (2)
France (2)
Germany/Ausria/Switzerland (2)
Greecc ( l)
lndia (l )
Indonesia (l)
Israel ( I )
Italy (2)
Japan (2)
Korea ( I )
Mexico (3)
Portugal (2)
Scandinavia (l )
South Africa (l)
Southeast Asia (2)
Spain (3)
Thailand (l)
United Kingdom (1)
Unitcd States
Vcnczuela/Colombia (2)
Avcrage
$3,200
$7,000
$4,900
s5,700
$5.200
$6,900
$8,400
$6,800
s7,500
$9,400
$7,600
$5,700
$2,000
$7,300
$3,600
$8,500
$4,200
$8,700
$6,200
$5,800
$3,700
s8,600
$5,500
$6,s00
s6,800
$7,500
s5,000
$6300
$4,400
$10,000
s6,200
$8,500
s7,000
$8,300
s9,800
$9,E00
sl I,700
$l1,000
$ 10,100
$6,700
$2,300
$ 14,000
ss,300
$ l 1,400
$11,700
$12,100
$8,600
$7,000
$5,000
$9,900
s7,500
$9,000
$8,000
s9,s00
$7,200
38'j00
$2,100 s3,800
$3,800 s6,700
$2.200 s3,300
$3,800 $s,700
$3,300 s5,500
s4,800 $6,700
s6,300 s9,100
s5'500
$6,000 $8,300
$6,100 $9,200
s5,200 s7,100
$3,900 $5,000
$1,600 $1,900
$5,200 $6,000
$2,800 s3,600
$4,500 $7,300
s8,000
s4,300
$3,800
s2,700
$3,800
$5J;
$5,500
$4,200
$4J00
s9,700 $11,600
$6,300 $8,600
$5,100 $10,100
$5,000 $6,800
$8,500 $8,700
$s,200 $8,000
$6,800 $9,900
$7,500 $10,000
s5,200 $6,400
$6100 $8,700
I Numbers in parentheses refer to number ofrespondents from that area'
Source: Sw.vey of ofices of Interval Internationol and Reson Condominiums lnlemational by Ragatz Associates, January 1995-
The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timcshere Industry 25
Some Market Indicators
In order to obtain insights into local market conditions, a
questionnaire was senr ro 55 field reoresentatives of II and
RCI throughout the world (excluding the United States;.
Completed questionnaires were received from 45
representatives representing 27 different countries or areas
of the world. While exchange company field representa-
tives are not direct panicipants in the development and
marketing of timeshare, they probably havi a better
overview understanding of the industry in their local areas
than any other single individuals.
Responses to the questionnaires are found in Tables 9
through 14. When representatives from both exchanse
companies in the same area responded, the tables contain
both answers. With a few exceptions, dual responses rvere
very similar. The information is not statistically valid, bur it
does provide some good insights on an area-by-area basis.
The unweighted average price of timeshare intervals in
the 27 areas was reported to be about $6,500 (Table 9).
However, since the average in the dominant United States
market is roughly $9,500, it is suspected that the true
average of all timeshare intervals being sold throughout the
world is about $8,500. These averages reportedly are
$4,000 or lower in several areas, including the Arabic
Nations, Indi4 Israel, Korea and South Africa. The averase
Table 10
Characteristics of Resort Timeshare Iudustrv
Areal
Percent of
Floating
Intervals
Percent of
Projects Offering
Deeded Owncrship
Percent of
Buyers
Paying Casb
Arabic Nations (l)
Argentina (2)
Ausrralia/l.,lew Zealand (3 )
Benelux (l)
Brazil (2)
Canada Eastem (2)
Canada Western (l)
Canary Islands (2)
Finland (2)
France (2)
Germany/Austria/Switzerland (2)
Greece ( l)
India (l )
Indonesia (l)
Isnel (l)
Italy (2)
Japan (2)
Korca (l)
Mexico (3)
Ponugal (2)
Scandinavia (l)
South Africa (l)
Southeast Asia (2)
Spain (3)
Thailand (l)
Unired Kingdom (l)
United States
Venearela/Colombia (2)
Averrge
5%
63%
85o/o
sOYo
33%
30o/o
800a
l5%
0
13%
20o/o
0
0
70o/"
20%
5%
94%
l00o/o
77Vo
20%
lOVo
4Qo/o
93Vo
37o/o
qJVo
3IYo
25%
44%
4lb/o
80%
640/o
85Vo
lO0o/o
38%
40%
6oo/o
23o/o
100%
45%
7o/o
5o/o
0
0
0
95o/o
38o/o
60o/o
2o/o
73o/o
9oo/o
5%
3%
50o/o
0
0
90%
78%
44o/o
20o/o
60/o
55o/o
30o/o
20%
20%
l0o/o
78o/o
39o/o
55%
33%
3o/o
t00%
4OVo
l5o/o
2o/o
82o/o
100"/o
l8o/o
23Vo
50o/o
20%
l8o/o
20o/o
20%
20o/o
25o/o
38%
34o/o
rNumbers in parentheses refer to number ofrespondents from that area
Source: Survey of ffices of Intemal Internatioial and Resorr Condominiums International by Ragatz Associates, January 1995.
26 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industrv
reDonedly is over $8'000 in western Canada' France' Italy'
Mexico and the United States'' -
The percentage of intervals sold on a floating/flex time
buri, ,ung"t widely (Table l0)' For example' almost all
iJrhur. int.*als float inJapan, Korea,New Zealandand
lheast Asia. On the other hand, the vast majoriry sold in
Xt European countries are fixed. The overall average
oroportion of floating weeks in Austria/Switzerland, the
banary Islands, France, Spain, Germany, Greece, Italy,
fortulat and Scandinavia was rePorted to be about 15
percent. This proportion was 30 percent in the most recent
national consumer survey in the United States, although
much higher among new resorts.
Table l0 also shows that on the average, respondents
reported that ownership in about 44 percent of timeshare
iniervals is conveyed via a deed in perpetuity. The other 56
percent are conveyed zrs some form of right+o-use for a
specific number of years. Countries/areas with the highest
proportion of deeded ownership include the Arabic
i.l"tiont, Australasia, Scandinavia, Italy and the United
States.
According to resPondents, about one-third (34 percent)
ofresort timishare purchasers pay cash, while the other 66
percent finance their purchase' Consumer financing
upp"urt least available inlndiaand Southeast Asia'
The traditional average net close rate of l0 percent was
stated by about one-half of the respondents (Table ll)'
Howevei. due to different marketing and sales practices
and/or government participation, this average was reported
to be cJnsiderably higher in several areas' For examPle' it
was reported to be 50 percent or more in Brazil, Indonesia
and Scandinavia. Cancellation rates also reportedly vary
Arear
Table 1l
Characteristics of Resort Timeshare Industta
Net Close Crncellation Marketing and
Rate Rate Sales Costs
Arabic Nations (l)
Argentina (2)
Austral ia,/New Zealand (3)
Benelux ( I )
Brazil (2)
Canada Eastern (2)
Canada Westem (l)
Canary Islands (2)
Finland (2)
France (2)
Germanyi A ustria/Switzerland (2)
Greece ( I )
lndia ( I )
Indonesia (l )
Israel ( I )
Italy (2)
Japan ( 1)
Korea (l)
Mexico (3)
Portugal (2)
Scandinavia ( I )
South Africa(l)
Southeast Asia (2)
Spain (3)
Thailand ( l)
United Kingdom (l)
United States
! el!:-uela/Colombia (2)
Average
l5Vo
13Vo
lOVo
lOVo
51o/o
I lo/o
8o/o
l0o/o
lOVo
l3o/o
7o/o
lOVo
25Yo
6o0/o
l0o/o
l9Yo
nla
s%o
24Vo
20Vo
60o/o
lzYo
12%
9Yo
lzYo
lSVo
lOVo
) <o/^
icl,'-
2o/o
7o/o
28o/o
5%
lSVo
7o/o
10o/o
20o/o
13o/o
5oo/o
23%
25Yo
2o/o
30o/o
l2o/o
2o/o
nla
l5Yo
l7o/o
48o/o
20o/o
5o/o
lOVo
25o/o
l0o/o
40o/o
20%
13"/o
lE"/"
25o/o
35o/o
43%
45o/o
38o/o
49o/o
47Vo
58o/o
45o/o
48Yio
40%
43Vo
28%
30%
35%
38%
l0o/o
l5o/o
40o/o
4sVo
35%
45o/o
25Yo
52o/o
30%
48%
450
38o/o
38o/o
-LNumben in parentheses refer 1o number ofrespondenrs from that area'
O;;;;,;; [i "f "ii", "f t*ena! Internatioia! and Resort Condominiums Inrernational bv Ragatz Associates, January 1995'
The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industrl' 27
widely, from five percent or less in ltaly, India" South
Africa and Southeast Asia to 20 percent or more in
Ausnalia, New Zealand, Scandinavi4 Spain, and other
countries in western Europe (Table I I ).
The overall unweighted average net close rate was
reported to be about l8 percent, and the overall unweighred
average cancellation rate also was reported to be about l8
percent.
Marketing and sales costs were stated to be 45 percent or
more by about halfthe respondents (Table ll). Lowest
eslimates were given by respondents representing Japan,
Korea and Southeast Asia. Here, the average was only
about 20 percent. In Mexico and the European and South
American countries/areas, the average was about 35
percent. The overall unweighted average was roughly 35 to
40 percent.
Respondents also were asked to identiff potential
problems (Table l2) and potential opportunities (Table l3)
facing the future of the timeshare industry in their areas. For
the most part, stated problems centered on resales,
inappropriate sales practices leading to a poor public
image, and lack of consumer awareness. Oppomrnities
centered on an improving public image, the entry of major
companies into the industry, and a large remaining
untapped market.
Finally, field representatives were asked their opinions
about future timeshare demand in their areas. Answers are
shown in Table 14. When asked the percentage of
remaining untapped market demand in their area" the
average response was about 65 percent. It was highest in
most European and Southeast Asian countries. All but one
of the respondents checked "very positive" or "positive"
when asked, "How positive zue you about the future of the
timeshare market in your region?"
In summary, it appears that both similarities and
variations exist in timeshare practices throughout the
world. A common thread, at least among the exchange
companies' field representatives, is a positive anticipation
about the industry's future.
28 The 1995 \Vorldwide Resort Timeshare Industrv
PotentialProblemsa"l{tilt""Timesharelndustrv
lbic Nations (l)
lZack of professional marketers (l)
:. No rru* between marketers and developers (l)
a,rgentina (2)
l.-i".f of diversiry in marketing' Old sales methods are"
,unning out. telemarketing is causing a bad image and
low conversion. Every citizen in Buenos Aires has been
called. No market segmentation, just random cold
calling (2)
2. Cancellation r:rtes are going up due to a lack of
professional sales teams, poor product image' high
marketing costs and no long-term strategies (l)
3. No productpositioning. Seryices are notbeing taken into
account as a way to consolidate sales. ( I )
4. Lack of real commitment of Product under construction
(1)
5. Lack of timeshare legislation (l)
AustraliaAlew Zealand (3)
l. Lack of marketing expertise in general (1)
2. Lack of consumer and developer financing (2)
3. Bad image (1)
;\ Over-regulated ( I )
Jt-ack of resale market (2)
6. No new projects being developed (l)
7. No more developers entering industry (1)
8. Very mature market (high ownership ratio) (l)
Benelux (l)
l. Negative press (l)
Brazil (2)
l. Reaching a critical mass of resort owners in 1994-95'
now number of owners and resorts is much more
comfortable (l)
2. Some aggressive and wrong sales and marketing tactics
resulting in some bad press. Counteracted the effect by
doing some press work' and the crisis helped to betterthe
industry (2)
3. An important problem is that timeshares are often
confusid with the older and very large "vacation clubs'"
They sell inexpensive memberships and have about one
million members worldwide, but have little inventory'
They are only able to satiu;' the demands oi 30 percent
to 4b petceni of their members, leaving over 600'000
unsatisfied consumers complaining to the consumer
I ptot."tion agencies. (l)
-4. Lack of specific legislation (l)
Canada Eastern (2)
i.;;J of t"girtution in Ontario attracts unethical
marketers (2)
2. Industry has a poor image' Press is very negative agarnst
industry (l)
:. Oifn.uitv in obtaining consumer and developer
financing (l)
4. il;;t;;ers are being ripped offbv marketers who
sell thin air (l)
S. tuto.e and more marketers are selling vacation pack-
ages (mostlY exit Programs) ( I )
Canada Western (l)
i. CirU and other product configurations that skirt the
regulatory environment ( I )
CanarY Islands (2)
i. r"tuin,"n.n.e fies not being paid, resulting in problems
for management comPanies (2)
z. Legistatiin to prohibit deposits and mandatory cooling
offperiods (2)
Finland (2)
1. Ban on dePosits (l)
2. VAT on commissions (l)
3. Legislation(l)
France (2)
l. E.C. Directive about timeshares (1)
). t*U of professional, serious, effrcient marketing
comPanies(1)
3. Hard sell marketing methods (l)
Germany/Austria/SwiEerland (2)
l. Qualiry of UPs (l)
2. Excessive consumer protection ( 1)
;.;;;fi find big projects (from 130 units) because of
environmental concerns and zoning laws (l)
+. [uality and integrity of marketers and developers (2)
5. Bad press and poor media image (2)
6. Low productrecognition (l)
7. Tighter legislation (EC guidelines) (1)
Greece (l)
L EC legislation (1)
2. Bad marketing Practices ( 1,1
3. Political instabilitY (1)
The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry 29
Table 12 (continued)
Potential Problems Facing Resort Timeshare Industry
India ( I )
_1. Hard selling techniques ( I )
}'. Spur, of poisibie fiy-by-nighr operators 1i ,1
-3. No self regulatory body firmly established (l)
Indonesia ( I )
l. No proper legislation or guidelines ( I )
2. No real consumer protection ( l )
3. Impossibte marketers, misrepresentation, lack of
education on timeshares ( l )
Israel ( I )
l. Many hotels wish to sell rooms as timeshares which
reduces the exchange value (l)
Italy (2)
l. The success of the big operators is attracting many less
professionaUserious people (l )
2. The new tends toward flexibility in an industry without
specific legislation hold potential for dubious schemes
and thereby for damage to the relatively good image that
timeshare has (l)
3. EC Directive (l)
4. No deposits can be made until after cooling offperiod ( I )
lapan (2)
-1. Lack of knowledge and information in local language
among both industry and consumers (l)
2. Resales (l)
3. Intensified sales competition (l)
Korea (l)
1. Quality improvement is slow due to the regulated sales
prices (l)
2. Relative high price due to fractional system (slowly
changing to a week-based system) ( I )
3. Inability to use the space due to all-floating system (l)
Mexico (3)
l. High cost of project and buyer financing. Cash flow
problems (2)
2. Competition/lack of product differentiation ( I )
3. The economic situation makes the timeshare Durchase
for nationals difficult (3)
4. forergri tcurists found destination areas too
prior to devaluation ( I )
5. Government promotion of Mexico as
destination is poor ( I )
expenslve
a tourist
Portugal (2)
1. 1993 legislation allows only 60 percent of resort's
inventory to be sold in timeshare (l)
2. European legislation banning deposits (l)
3. The new law in Portugal (one of the most difficult in the
world) makes it difficult for developers who want to go
into timeshare - so difficult that they are looking for
other alternatives to sell their product (l)
Scandinavia ( I )
l. Poor timeshare image due to aggressive sales methods
(l)
South Africa (l)
I . Telephone lead generation offering prizes ( I )
2. Imbalance of stock in areas of low demand in points
clubs' portfolios placing undue pressure on the exchange
system to deliver ( I )
3. Major clubs with different rules and cunencies (l)
4. Bad image of timeshare industry (l)
Southeast Asia (2)
1. The imbalance between maturity of industry in Asia and
Western markets (l)
2. Consumers are getting more sophisticated in taste than
developers ( 1)
3. Unethical marketing practices ( I )
4. Legislation requiring recision periods ( 1)
5. Undercapitalized developers seeking industry involve-
ment (2)
Spain (3)
l. Approval ofthe European Directive that does not allow
deposits and how the Directive will be implemented in
the Spanish legislation (3)
2. Aggressive sales techniques that create bad press (2)
3. Difficult situation for club. trustees in new draft of
Spanish legislation and taxes ( I )
Thailand (l)
L Public knowledge and understanding of timeshare
industry (l)
2. Lack of marketers (l)
3. Reson qualiry (l)
4. Timeshare reputation, bad image (1)
30 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Indusrrv
Table 12 (continued)
Potential Problems Facing Resort Timeshare Industry
United Kingdom (l)
L-NIew EuroPean legislation (l )
Eezuela"/Colombia (2)
I . Some developments have stopped due to financial
problems ( I )
2. Aggressive marketing techniques (l)
3. Bad experiences from unscrupulous, foreign dealers in
the past (l)
4. Low sales mainly due to highly inflated rates (l)
5. Fierce competition ( I )
t Numbers in parcntheses rcfcr to number of respondens from that area
Source: Survey of ofices of Interval International and Resort Condominiuns International by Rdgdtz Associates, January 1995.
The 1995 Worldwirie Rcsort Timeshrre Industry 3l
Table 13
Potential Opportunities for the Resort Timesharing Industry
Arabic Nations (l)
l. The peace agreement has encouraged development in
Eg1pt, Jordan and Israel ( I )
Argentina (2)
1. Virgin markets of many millions of prospects (l)
2. Loose credit and consumerism avalanche (1)
Australia/IYew Zealand (3)
l. Mixed use opportunities (1)
2. Foreign (Asian) investment in Australia and New
Zealand (l)
3. Establishment of a national industry body aiming for
self regulation, positive media, and code of ethics (1)4. Flexi-point system (l)
5. Emergence of effective resale operations (l)6. No negative publicity for several years (l)
Benelux (l)
l. High local resort potenrial (l)
Brzzil (2)
l. Brazil is still a virgin market and a very large one (l)2. Authorities look positively upon timeshare ( I )3. Opportunity to create a positive legislation that will
protect the consumer and stimulate the industry ( I )4. New developers getting interested ( I )5. New marketers coming into the arena (l)6. Creation of a Brazilian timesharing association (l)
Canada Eastern (2)
l. Excellent dialogue with the government (l)2. CDRA is getting stronger which might help police the
industry (2)
3. Weakness of the Canadian dollar is attracting U.S.
purchasers (l)
Canada Western (l)
l. Growing demand for the area and growing interest
among developers in timesharing ( I )
Canary Islands (2)
l. Credibility once legislation is in place (l)
Finland (2)
l. Legislation has increased the credibiliw of the
industry (l)
Frauce (2)
l. Entry ofbanks in the market as developers (l)
2. Interest from major hotel chains (2)
3. New distribution channels for timeshare products (3)
4. European Directive will change marketing methods
(l)
Germany/Austria/Switzerland (2)
l. EC Directive first a downturn to business then srone
growth (l)
2. Tighter legislation (l)
3. Entry of major players (l)
4. Growing professionalism across the board (l)
Greece (l)
l. Greeks enjoy travel (l)
2- Possible improvement of Greek economy in the near
tuture (1)
3. Positive public image, so far (l)
India (1)
l. Overall increased awareness about timesharing ( I )2. Timeshare federation being set up ( I )3. Well-known companies interested to diversifu into
timeshare (l)
Indonesia (I )l. Timeshare association to be estabiished in a few
months (l)
2. Recognition from the Ministry ofTourism in the form
of legislation will be out very soon ( I )
Israel ( I )
I . Timeshare industry is booming and strong companies
are joining it ( 1)
Italy (2)
l. The big players are new more experienced and better
economically funded than in the past (l)
2- The concept is now sold more as "tourism" and less as
investment in real estate ( I )3. EC Directive could be an opportunity for the industry
to improve its image particularly if steps are taken in
this direction before the Directive becomes law (2)
Japan (2)
| . Time is perfect consumers are more price conscious
cons::ners have longer i,oliday time and family travel
isup(l)
32 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industrv
l.
2.
t
Korea ( I )
L Korea's globalization drive (WTO, Korea's joining
I OgCp in 1995) will force the industry to competeU *111t the high-quality, low-priced foreign products,
thus pushing their qualit-v uP (1)
Mexico (3)
I . Expected major recovery in non-Mexican market ( 1 )
Z. Specific destinations poised for market growth with
reduced timeshare supply ( I )
3. Los Cabos will be considered one of the top l0
destinations on the continent ( I )4. Golf development has finally arrived (l)
5. Tourist industry is modernizing (l)
6. Prior to devaluation, the opening of the country's
markets stimulated foreign invesfinent it will return
with stabilization (1)
7. Government is making foreign panicipation and
outright ownership more accessible (l)
Portugal (2)
Credibility is higher ( I )
Only very good resorts and financially strong
developers can get into the industry ( i 7
New ways of selling are increasing ( I )
ndinavia (l)
A possible change of the current Danish law
prohibiting foreigners from purchasing timeshares in
Denmark (1)
South Africa (l)
L Five day cooling offperiod (1)
2, Re-entry oflarge players in the form ofclubs (l)
3. Consolidation of the industry with France, stronger
developers ( I )
rNumbers in parentheses refer to number ofrespondents from that area-
Source: Sumiy of ffices of Intemal International and Resort Condominiums International by Ragatz Associales' January 1995.
Table 13 (continued)
Potential Opportunities for the Resort Timesharing Industry
Southeast Asia (2)
I . Greater awareness of need for quality service and
resorts ( I )2. Industry self-regulation curbing system abuses (l)
3. Much of Asia rapidly becoming affluent (l)
4. Regional exchange opportunities growing rapidly ( I )
Spain (3)
I . Image changing with incorporation of big banks into
the business (l)
?. The long-term consolidation of the industry by the
legislation (1)
3. Timeshare legislation has increased credibility (1)
4. Well-known "brand names" coming into the industry
which will also strengthen credibility (1)
5. Sales methods are less aggressive due to the new law
to be implemented (2)
Thailand (1)
L lnterest in region from overseas marketers (l)
2. Local resort grouPs are looking into industry (l)
United Kingdom (l)
l. Brand U.S. companies entering the U'K. mariet will
increase legislation (l)
Venezuela/Colombia (2)
l. Still have significant timeshare demand, product
knowledge is fair (l)
2. Timeshare advantages have been accentuated due to
the restrictions imposed on the Venezuela population
by the economic crisis (l)
In Colombiq possible timeshare legislation and a
solid industry association (l)
Colombia's economic situation is prosperous and
tourist activity is in the middle of expansion (l)
High costs of"conventional" vacations (l)
Better products (l)
Higher professional level marketing and sales ( I )
3.
A
).
6.
7.
The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry 33
o
Area
Table 14
Opinions Concerning the Future of the
Percent of Degree of Positiveness
Markct About Future of ResortUatapped Timeshare IndustrJ
in Area in Area Areal
Resort Timeshare Industrv
Percent of
Market
Untapped
in Area
Degree of Positiveness
About Future of Reson
Timeshare IDdustry
in Area
Arabic Nations (l)
Argentina (2)
Australia./New Zealand (3 )
Benelux ( l)
Brazil (2)
Canada Eastern (2)
Canada Western (l)
Canary Islands (2)
Finland (2)
France (2)
Germany/Austria/
Switzerland (2)
Greece ( I )
India ( I )
Indonesia (l)
70Vo Very positive
90% Posiriveivery positive
28Yo Positive90% Very positive99Vo Positive/very positive
60% Positive70o/o Positive/very positive50Yo Very positive
80o/o Positive/very positive
nla Positive./very positive
93% Somewhat positive/positive
85% positive
99o/o Positive98Yo positive
Israel ( I )
Italy (2)
Japan (2)
SouthKorea(l)
Mexico (3)
Ponugal (2)
Scandinavia ( l)
South Africa (l)
Southeast Asia (2)
Spain (3)
Thailand ( I )
United Kingdom (l)
Venezuela/Colombia (2)
Average/lVlode
4ooA positive
50% Posirive
70Yo Positive40vo positive
53o Positiververy positive
507o Somewhat positiverposirive
30o/o Positive
20Vo positive
88% Very positive
73% Positive
80% Positive
sOVo Positive43Vo Posirive
66o/o Positive
I Numbers in parentheses refer to number ofrespondents from that area.
Source: Sumey of offices of Interval Internatioial and Resort Condominiums International by Ragatz Associates, January 1995.
34 The 1995 Worldrvidc Resort Timeshare Inclustrv
Comparison of Timeshare Owners
jhile the primary purpose of this report is simply to
lment the extent of the worldwide resort timeshare
indusrry, it is also possible to offer a few insiehts on the
types of households who purchase timeshare an'd for what
reasons. Table l5 contains some brief summary resultsfrom several consumer surveys conducted bv Ragag
Associates over the past 12 years in seven'diffeient
countries or regions. Even though dates are different. some
very close similarities exist.
Typical timeshare owners have high socio_economic
profiles. Most are middle and upp-r_middle income,
married households in their 40s and 3bs. Most are college
graduates without children still living at home.
Integrated results of the seven recent timeshare
consumersurveys in North America are shown in Table 15.
On the average, about one-half(51.2 percent) oftimeshare
owners in this part of the world hive incomes between
$50,000 and $100,000, with the median beine about
$6q,990_. Only 29.0 percent have incomes under $i0,000,and 19.7 percent have incomes over $ I 00,000. Incomes of
owners in the Caribbean are especially high, with 49.5
percent having incomes in excess of $ t OO.OOI-
Over one-half (52.8 percent) of the heads_of-household
of timeshare owners are between 35 and 55 years ofage..lnther 22.2 percent are berween 55 and 6j. At the two
? {-tr..lge _r_an_ge, we find that only I I .9 percent are
under 35, while 13.5 percent are over65. The avirage age is
49 years, with the range being from 46 in Canada-to 53 inCalifornia and Hawaii.
The vast majority (85.2 percent) of owners reDresent
married households. Some 6.9 percent are single males and
8.2 percent-are single females. Only in Caiifomia (17.6
percent) and Puerto Vallarta (19.6 percent) are more than
15 percent of the owners single individuulr. Sin.. rnorttimeshare owners are over 45 years of age, onty 33.2percent still have children under lg y"*, oI"g. living at
home.
. When compared to all households in the United Sutes,
timeshare owners:
l. have higher incomes, e.g.,62 percent have incomes over
^ $50,000 compared to only 25 percent ofalt households;
2. are more in the middle-age category, e.s..74 percent of
the household heads are bet*een 3j ani65 compared to
^ only 52 percent ofall household heads;
3. are more highly educated, e. g., j. i percent of the heads ofhouseholds have
"-arlu41gd
fro-' college .o,no"r"O to
. onry i{ p:;rcent of all heads of househol-ds; and4. are more in married households, ,.g.,' gi percent
compared to 58 percent ofall householdl.
f summary, seven recent surveys of timeshare ownerstfttghout North American indicate the majority ofconsumers have relatively high incom"r. ur.- married
households, middle age and highly educated. Based on
other timeshare consumer surveys conducted by Ragatz
Associates in Europe, Asia and Australia, it is evident that
this high socio-economic profile holds true around the
world.
Among demographic trends, probably the most
important affecting future timeshare demand is the aging of
the post-war "baby boom" generation, such that the number
of households headed by someone aged 35 to 54 will jump
50 percent in the 1990s. The economic impact of this baby
boom generation is enhanced by a dramatic increase in the
proportion of working women in this age group: a near
doubling of work force participation in 20 years. This
generation, through higher education levels and general
awareness, also spends more on vacation travel and outdoor
recreation than any previous generation. And, as previously
shown, the 35 to 55 year age group has the highest
propensity to own timeshare. Thus, demand is increasine
rapidly, and should continue to do so throueh the 1990s anl
beyond.
Since 1978, Ragatz Associates has conducted lg
timeshare consumer surveys on a national level throughout
the world. During this time, responses have been received
from almost 100,000 timeshare owners. When inteeratine
results from these l8 surveys, it is found that typically: -
l. between 75 and 85 percent of owners are either very
satisfied or satisfied with their purchase;
2. between 80 and 85 percent say that their purchase has
either matched or exceeded their expectations;
3. between 65 and 75 percent say timeshare has had a
positive impact on their lives; and
4. between 55 and 65 percent say timeshare has saved them
money while on vacations.
Some of the preceeding information is summarized in
Table l6 from the seven recent surveys in North America.
People buy tirr.eshare for a wide variety of reasons.
However, the most fiequently stated reason is the
opportunity to exchange one's own timeshare with other
timeshare resorts throughout the world.
This finding dates back to the first national survev ever
conducted of timeshare owners in the United States in t gZg
(Timeshare Owners: Who They Are, Why They Buy,Ragatz
Associates and the CHB Company). It has held true in all I 8
national surveys conducted by Ragatz Associates around
the world.
We find in Table I 7, "vhen integrating results from the
seven recent surveys in North America, that on the average,
about 72.0 percent ofowners say that exchange was one of
their most important reasons for purchasing timeshare.
Other frequently stated reasons include the cenainty of
having quality vacation accommodations (62.3 percent),
Iiking the resort, the unit and/or the amenities (58.3
The t9o5 \\'orldrr.idc Resort Time.h:rre 'rrirrr:-..
Table 15
Demographic Characteristics of Resort Timeshare Owners in North America
Percent of Resort Timeshare Owners
O.,.1I'",*
United
States Canadar Mexico2 Caribbean Hawaii California
Puerto
Vallartar Average
Household Income
Under $30,000
$30,000 to $39,999
$40,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to 574,999
$?5,000 to $99,999
$100,000 or more
Total
Median
Age of Ilousehold
Under 35
35 to 44
45 to 54
55 to 64
65 or over
Total
Av€rage
Housebold Type
Single male
Single female
8.4
14.3
15.6
35.2
t4.7
I 1.9
100.0
$55,900
tt.7
26.1
26.7)t)
rd't
100.0
50
5.4
8.3
85.3
r00.0
61.9
JU.b
7.5
100.0
o.7
)Al
20.1
28.3
t< 5
100.0
6.5
8.9
15.0
7)1
19.4
t7 .5
100.0
$65,000
15.2
28.6
29.7
19.0
100.0
46
4.6
6.9
88.5
r00.0
57.6
34.3
8.0
100.0
0.8
Head
27.1
33.8
20.6
r 8.5
100.0
/.o
t0.8
Jt.t
20.0
24.7
100.0
$70,000
tl.I
77 ')
28.7
tl I
14 ?
100.0
49
(inc)
86.8
100.0
61.5
32.1
6.4
100.0
0.7
J1 1
:3.8
36.8
)1 1
100.0
5.1
t-o
9.8
?ql
zt.3
2,J.5-
100.0
$74,500
t)1
at I
32.9
al .,
ql
t00.0
49
4.9
9.9
85.2
100.0
69.3
26.2
4.6
100.0
0.5
2t.0
I I .,!,
32.r
29.7
r00.0
f-)
10.0
l3.l
32.8
19.0
19.6
100.0
s66,000
7.4
24.1
26.4
26.r
t 6.l
100.0
53
4.9
8.1
87.0
100.0
74.r
'rt 1
A'
100.0
0.5
18.4
20.7
30.6
30.3
100.0
4.5
l0.l
l5.l
JJ.)
18.7
r 8.2
100.0
$65,000
8.4
tt ?
zt.J
?( ?
21.8
r00.0
53
<o
I 1.6
82.6
100.0
't) <
22.1
4.8
100.0
0.5
16.6
20.3
30.2
33,0
100.0
5.6
I 1.4
lAl
31.0
1fl1
17.6
100.0
s65,000
l< ?
23.r
28.5
| 1.5
100.0
48
9.2
10.4
t0.5
100.0
70.8
'r1 )
4.0
100.0
0.5
t7.3
19.7
33.9
2a.l
r00.0
).t
10.0
I J ..t
?)1
19.0
19.7
100.0
s66,000
I1.9
24.E
28.0
'r. 7
l? s
100.0
49
6.9
8.2
Rc ')
100.0
66.8
)1 <
<K
t00.0
0.6
22.0
20.8
30.4
26.8
r00.0
Educatiotr Attainment of Househotd
High school or less
Technical school
Bachelor degree
Graduate dcgree
Total
I Converted to U.S. $.
'z Only for U.S. owners.
Source: See listing ofvarious reports in lext.
a;:rxi"
Children at HomG
0
I or2
3 or more
Total
Averagc
36 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare lndustrv
percenQ and saving money on future vacation costs (55.7
Dercent).' In concluding comments of the exchange opportunity, it
is shown in Table 18 that the vast majority of timeshare
owners are satisfied both with their exchange company and
with their most recent exchange vacation. When integrating
lults from the seven recent surveys in North America, it is
ttnd that 80.3 percent of owners are very satisfied or
satisfied with their exchange company and 73.2 percent are
very satisfied or satisfied with their most recent exchange
vacation. Results are remarkably consistent from survey to
survey, lending further credibility to the findings.
Table I 7 shows reasons why timeshare owners perhaps
hesitate before purchasing. On the average, most frequentl)
stated reasons in the seven recent suneys in North America
include: having to pay an annual maintenance fee (39.-l
percent); not sure if would use it enough (36.0 Percent); the
concept was new or unfamiliar (35.3 percent); and had
heard or read something negative about the timeshare
concept (34.9 percent).
The resort timeshare industry generates tremendous
economic impacts for communities in which they are
located. Such impacts are especially important for reson
communities, since most depend heavily on the tourism
industry, having limited manufacturing and other
industries to support them. It is revealing to look at a fe*'
Table 16
Satisfaction Among Resort Timeshare Owners in North America
Percent of Resort Timeshare Owners
Characteristic
United
States Canada Mexicor Caribbeen California
Puerto
Vallartat Average
zo-o
40.6
)1 i
<7
{6
100.0
l* erp..i.nces Have Matcbcd Expectetions
(on scale of I "not matched" ro l0 "exceeded")
General Satisfaction
Very satisficd
Satisfied
Neutral
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Total
IIOJ
4to5
7to9
Total
Average
Very positive
Positive
No impact
Negative
Very negative
Total
Yes, a great deal
Yes, somewhat
No effect
Cost more
[.,. r".t know
Total
I Only for U.S. owners.
How Timeshare Has Impacted Lives
71.0
18.5
10.4
100.0
77 A.
38.4
19.5
),J
r00.0
39.1
43.1
t00.0
5,7
45.6
36.4
t2.4
2.8
2.8
100.0
10.5
41.6
47 .a
100.0
n.a.
15.6
57.7
20. t
5t
1.3
t 00.0
48.8
17.6
l3.9
).:
100.0
41.8
35.8
16.6
--.aE
100.0
10.9
41.9
{ /.J
100.0
6.0
14.9
<7 ?
20.3
5.1
1.5
100.0
13.6
45.8
15.7
t Y..r
100.0
29.4
37.4
20.7
b-f
6.0
t00.0
18.9
44.9
36.2
100.0
5.4
9.0
50.4
.A '
11.9
4.0
100.0
9.6
?7n
23.3
t< ?
4.9
100.0
su.z
JO. /
20.6
5.8
5.7
t00.0
15.5
48.3
3s.3
t00.0
5.4
8.7
51.9
?? 5
I1.2
4.7
100.0
8.4
40.8
19.4
24.6
7.1
100.0
29.4
.tz.J
18.6
{6
4.0
100.0
14.9
43.2
41.9
100.0
s.7
t', 1
54.1
22.4
8.5
'R100.0
rJ )
42.9
18.7
20.0
6.2
i;:.0
IIes Owning Timeshare Saved Money ou Vacations
16.8
40.6
42.5
100.0
1.1
12.6
)J.O
22.0
o?
ro
100.0
14.8
42.9
17.6
19.8
s?
100.0
45.7
at ?
100.0
<,f
12.5
53.8
23.7
7S
'r<
100.0
12.3
41.8
r9.0
17.5
9.4
100.0
: See listing ofvarious repons in text.
The t995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry 37
2.
findings from the seven recent studies in North Amerrca.
l. Employment. When,including full-time and pan-time
and direct and indirect (from the multiplier effect)
employment, it is estimated that the timeshare industry is
responsible for:35,000jobs in the United States;9,350
jobs in the Caribbean: and 16,000 jobs in Mexico. In the
small resort town of Puerto Vallarta, where unemploy-
ment is high and the poverry level is even higher, the
timeshare industr,v is responsible for more than 3,000
jobs and more than $32 million of payroll.
Consumer expenditures. When comparing results of
the seven studies with tourism studies in the same areas,,
it is estimated that timeshare owners spend about 20
percent more while on their timeshare vacations than do
hotel guests and other types oftourists. This is perhaps
because once they already have their lodging paid for,
they can spend more on other discretionary items such as
shopping, taking tours, eating in restaurants, etc. Annual
consumer expenditures, including both direct and
indirect (from the multiplier effect) are estimated to be
more than $3 billion in Mexico and almost $6 billion in
the United States.
In the Caribbean, while on a timeshare vacation, the
average visitor parry spends about $2'100 on consumer
expenditures, excluding the timeshare price. About one-
half (46 percent) of this amount is spent on restauranls
(25 percent) and shopping (20 percent)' This totals to
over $575 million of direct consumer expenditures
alone. About another $290 million is annually spent on
travel expenditures. It is estimated that timeshare
vacationers on Aruba and St. Maarten generate over 40
percent ofall consumer exPenditures made by all tourists
on these two islands.
3. Total economic contributions. When including
indirect expenditures created by the multiplier effect,
marketing and sales expenditures, proP€rty tares and
other taxes. it is estimated that the resort timeshare
industry annually contributes almost $8.6 billion to the
economy of the United States. This represents an annual
contribution of over $180,000 by every existing
timeshare unit in the country.
Such figures are even more dramatic when analyzed
on a communiry-specific basis. For example, every
timeshare unit in Puerto Vallarta annually contributes
Table 17
Purchase Decision of Resort Timeshare Owners in North America
Char.cteristic
Percent of Resort Timeshare Owners
United Pucrto
States Canada Mexicor caribbeau Hawaii california vallartat Avcrage
Q::;ly#"Hlt*
Save money on future vacation costs
Liked resort, am.:nities, and/or unit
Certainry of qua.rry accommodarions
Opportunity to own at an affordable price
Invcstment or resale potential
Relsons for Hesitating
Disliked idea of maintenance fee
Concept was new or unfamiliar
Was not sure would use it enough
Had heard or read somethine negative
about timesharing
Cost too much
Wondered if "too good to be true"
Sales presentation too high pressured
Did not want to be tied down to fixed annual
use period
Travel to unit too expensive or inconvenient
Did not want to be tied down to one
resort location
Concept too complicated to understand
Havins to share with others
I Only for U.S. owners.
Source: See listing of various reports in text.
8l .6
64.9
49.4
sz. t
2t.7
18.2
40.3
37.7
34.6
33.9
28.9
28.4
)1 1
?? <
I 1.8
It n
77.3
s4.6
54.8
68.3
35. r,)o(
n.a.
i'
,*
Y
18.0
16.8
*.lJ.o
13.8
67.0{t o
69.7
71 )
45.6
)s4
4t.7
38.7tol
34.8
18.2
34.5
t( t
21.9
39.0
13.7
J.l
70.5
51.0
57.9
64.1
45.2
31.4
39.3
?< I
40.8
32.0
?,5.7to?
20.6
14.2
41.0
rr o
.'<O
54.6
59.4
71.9
42.0
?{ t
39.9
38.3
48.3
35.8
32.0
JU.U
??5
z+.L
8.4
17.0
10.8
?5
70.7
53.3
58.4
64.7
38.8
)z.J
36.0
40.6
45.4
38.1
27.3
Jl.+
27.3
33.6
20.4
to4
3.7
72.0
55.7
583
523
38.1
28.1
39.4
a<1
36.0
34.9
25.0
29.4
28.3
tt<
25.8
16.4
6.1
J.)
7.0
2.9
10.5
3.J
3E The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry
about $240.000 to the local and national economl'. This
means that annual contributions from a 100-unit
timeshare project in Pueno Vallarta are about $24
million.
4. Stability of expenditures. Timeshare resorts on the
_average experience about 85 percent year-round
f""upin.y rates. Such rates in the iesort hotll industry
-are usually only about 55 to 60 percent, or lower. Higher
year-round occupancy rates mean more stability for the
work force and for local service industries such as
restaurants, shops, etc.
5. Repeat visitation patterns. It also is important to note
that local economic impacts generated by the timeshare
industry are not short-term. For example, in the United
States during the next l0 years, the average timeshare
owner expects to return 4.5 times to the resort area where
they purchased a timeshare. This average would have
been only 1.8 times if they had not owned a timeshare in
the area. In the Caribbean, these averages are 7.2 times
and 3.6 times, respectively.
When multiplied by the average length-of-stay,
average visitor-party size and average consumer
expenditures, it means that in the one community of
Puerto Vallarta, such incremental visitation patterns by
timeshare owners over the next I 0 years will result in
about $465 million more of consumer expenditures than
ifthey did not own in the area. Such expenditures do not
include those made by exchangers or renters or indirect
expenditures caused by the multiplier effect. These
patterns of frequent-retum also mean that:
a. timeshare vacationers bring along friends and
relatives, thus innoducing more people to the local
community;
b. they recommend the area to others back homel and
c. local tourist authorities can spend less money in an
attempt to attract new people to the area every vear
due to the allegiance of frequently-retuming
timeshare vacationers.
6. Total visitors. In the U.S., the average timeshare-
vacationing party spends 8.I nights while on their
timeshare vacation, including occupancy of their
timeshare unit and other forms of overnight accommo-
dations before and after their stay in a timeshare unit.
Their average visitor parly size is 3.6 persons. These
figures mean the timeshare industry generates about 60
million visitor-days in the U.S. every ye:u. The total is
about six million in the Caribbean, 25 million in Mexico,
2.5 million in the one state of Hawaii. and 2.6 million in
the one community of Puerto Vallarta.
The preceding information documents the significant
economic impacts made by rimeshare resorts to their local
communities, states, regions and countries. Consumer
expenditures are extensive and are more so than by hotel
guests and other tourists; numerous jobs are created; and
high year-round occupancy rates assist in stabilizing local
employment, to<es and retail and other service industries.
Further, such extensive impacts are long-term.
The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industrv 19
Table 18
Exchange Use Among Resort Timeshare Owners in North America
Percent of Resort Timeshare Owners
C".""r."i.,i"
United
States
Puerto
Canada Mexicor Caribbeen Hewaii California Vallartar Average
Satisfaction With Most Recent Exchange
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Total
Satisfaction With Exchange Company
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Total
I Only for U.S. owners.
Source: See listing of various reports in lert.
.+J.J
?( ?
1 1.8
5.8
?o
100.0
30.9
t6.4
5.7s{
100.0
\o ?
30.6
10.5
4.4
4.4
100.0
JO.J
36.8
t6.7
5.5
4.6
100.0
40.5
46.3
l? ?
:
100.0
28.2
5l .E
19.9
:
100.0
50.0
3l .6
10.5
3.1
4.7
100.0
37.8
38.1
rs.2
5.0
?o
100.0
{n5
J1. I
10.4
3.5
3.5
100.0
36.9
38. r
t7.2
4.0
3.8
100.0
48.7
,EA
12.4
5.1
5(
100.0
JJ.'+
5I.l
19.4
4.6(6
100.0
A.7 <
27.3
r 1.7
4.8
8.7
100.0
1l o
34.9
to ?
6.9
7.6
100.0
47,2
33.r
9.6
<1
4.4
100.0
33.5
39.7
r4.9
7.4
4.4
t00.0
Characteristic
Table 19
Use of Purchase and Consumer Expenditures by Resort Timeshare Owners in North America
Percent of Resort Timcsbare Owners
United Puerto
stetes Canada Mexicor caribbean Ilawaii california vallartal Averege
Average Length ofstay 6.9
Average Visitor Party Size 3.6
Number of Times To Return in Next l0 Yeers
4.5
1.8
5.8
2.8
5.3
5.9
3.1
t:
9.3
10.4
J.l
4.3
1.5
.1.)
/-)
5.4)1
14.0
I t.5
8.8
J.t
A'
t7
I-5
it
6.9 9.0 6.9
3.5 3.2 2.9
'f ')
?6
6.1 7.9
3.2
5J
t1
1.8
4.8
Now that own timeshare
If did not own timeshare
Average Vacation Days in Area
Now that own timeshare
Before purchasing timeshare
t Only for U.S. owners.
Source: See listing ofvarious reports in letl.
{0 Thc 1995 \Yorldu'ide Resort Timeshare Industrl
Appendices
The 1995 lVorldwide Resort Timeshare lndusrrr. {l
APPendix A
Location of Resort Timeshare projects and nesort Timeshare Owners, December 31' 1994
Coutrtry
Resort
Timeshare
Projects (l)
Resort
Timeshare
Owners
Owning in
Country(2)
Reso rt
Timeshare
Projects (l)
Resort
Timeshere
Owners
Owning in
Counrry(2)
Resort
Timeshare
Owners
Residing ia
Countr-v (3)
Resort
Tiineshare
Owners
Residing in
CounrrT (3) CountrY
Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
American Samoa
Andorra
Angola
Antigua & Barbuda
Argentina
Armenia
AusEalia
Ausria
Azerbaij an
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belarus
Belgium
Belize
Benin
Bermuda
c:litl"
Brazil
Brunei
Burkina
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Cayman lslands
Chad
Channel Islands
Chile
China
Colombia
Congo
Cook Islands
Costa Rica
Cdte d'Ivorie
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Demark
Djibouti
Dominica
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
0
0
0
0
2
0
I
lt6
0
/o
52
0
40
0
0
0
5
0
0
2
0
0
45
0
0
I
0
93
l
0
I
4
0
0
0
0
214
0
3,403
18,219
0
56,105
15,959
0
28,7?6
0
0
4,871
0
607
0
0
I,918
0
0
8,007
0
0
0
0
56,853
6,100
0
28E
64
168
1,961
0
0
t roR
0
0
2,630
0
1,905
0
8,s94
273
o or1
0
0
0
0
I
I
7l
l9
2
35
46,049
6
56,967
6,070
1114
ll5
-l
146
z8
l1,817
3l
1
t,826
263
/6
8,408
199
2
I)
127,050
170
2
602
2,r61
30
5,665
I
I
) 715
A'
1,087
306
1 0)1
( o?{
J
I,098
I ?',lt
6,081
402
I
381
Equatorial Guinea
Estonia
Ethiopia
I
ll
0
0
l0
0
0
7
0
l5
0
0
4l
7
z6
0
0
0
0
{2 The 1995 Worldrvide Resort Timeshare Industrv
6l
I
Falkland Islands
Faroe lslands
FUi
Finland
France
French Guiana
French PolYnesia
Gabon
Gambia
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Gibraltar
Greece
Greenland
Grcnada
GuadelouPe
Guam
Guatemala
Guinea
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Hong Kong
Hungary
lceland
India
lndonesia
Iran
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Korea (South)
Kuwait
Lawia
Lebanon
Libya
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macau
Madagascar
Malawi
MalaYsia
Mali
Malta
Maninique
0
0
JU
143
0
0
I
0
43
0
0
7)
0
0
9
0
J
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
to
?n
0
l6
l <t
It
't',
0
0
J
ll
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
0
0
0
431
o n?5
r< o71
0
| ?o5
0
663
0
68,73s
0
0
13,620
0
0
1,501
0
3,496
0
0
0
0
0
4,1 l8
0
7,678
J,TJJ
0
853
13,445
41,884
1,850
ro 175
0
0
l16
864
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
13,168
0
13,300
453
5
l0
)
17,849
54,t59
7
39
45
2
t0
80,024
l
75
10,6 r 6
30
5
251
49
4,457
2
TJ
8
r67
520
5,960
165
8,248
J,l lo
2,r1s
16,626
56,986
128
{o ll15
56
2l
39
965
)o/
404
l6
l6
JJ
1n/l
815
11
1
12
12,176
5
134l4
6
Appendix A. (continued)
Location of Resort Timeshare Projects and Resort Timeshare Owners, December 31,1994
Country
Resort
Timeshare
Projects (1)
Resort
Timeshare
Owners
Owning in
Country(2)
Resort
Timeshare
Projects (l)
Resort
Timeshare
Owners
Owning in
Country(2)
Reso rt
Timeshare
Owners
Residing it
Country (3)
Resort
Timeshare
Owners
Residing in
Country (3) Country
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mexico
Monaco
Morocco
Mozambique
Namibia
Nepal
Netherlands
Netherlands Antilles (4)
New Caledonia
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigcria
Northem Mariana Islands
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Panarna
Papua New Guinea
Paraguavl'-'
trlippines
Poland
Ponugal
Pucrto Rico
Qatar.R6union
Romania
Russia
St. Lucia
St. VincenVGrenadines
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia and Montenegro
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
0
I
?91
0
J
0
2
0
2
)ta
0
37
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
J)
4
0
ll8
3
0
o
0
5
a
0
2
0
I
I
0
0
3 19,346
0
l,189
0
0
0
68,308
0
27,574
0
0
0
0
t55
0
0
0
0
4
316
189
0
75,043
5,475
n
7A
0
0
441
16
0
35
0
0
0
7
l0
l?t on{
35
1,436
6
E
2
6,393
2,541
25
26,894
'r<
I
23
4
7,513
t)
23
438
l0
199
905
2,589
28,481
n.a.(5)
79
2l
632
6,889
E5
4
2,102
25
oot
0
0
0
0
108
l,546
)1
0
0
66
0
r,076
0
0
tAl 11''
3?7,064
0
0
0
0
t,974
r,694
0
624
0
I,054
586
<tt
4,63 t
0
0
0
0
62,169
1,537,786
9,574
0
0
65,480
0
6,359
0
0
0
79
3,143,594
75
3,728
434
599
162,339
51,214
5
44
4
10,458
8,586ll
796
4
526
598
753
5,2r5
I
3
494
1,567
285,259
l,648, r 39
2,302
15
l0
70,671
4
377
l0
I
8
22
3,143,594
174
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Aftica
Spain (5)
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Suriname
Swaziland
Sweden
Switzerland
Syria
Taiwan
Tanzania
Thailand
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
)
0
0
142
401
0
0
0
0ll
.,.7
0
5
0
IJ
)
25
Turks and Caicos lslands I
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom (7)
United States
Uruguay
Uzbekistan
Vanuatu
Vencanela
Viemam
Virgin Islands (US and UK) 13
Yemen
Zate
Zutbia
Zimbabwe
Total 4'1.5
Numbcr of Countries 8l
0
0
0
J
(l) From II and RCI.(2) Derived by increasing number of timeshare owners affiliated with II and RCISy 25 percenr
(3) Derived by increasing number oftimeshare owners affiliated with II and RCI by 25 percent.
(4) lncludes Aruba. Bonaire, Curacao and St. Maanen.(5) lncluded with United States.(6) Includes thc Canary Islands.(7) lnclud": trnsland, Isle of Man, Isle of Wright, Northem lreland, Scotland and \*.r's.
Source: (Jnpublished information obtained from Intemal Inlernational and Resort Condominiums Inlernational.
The f995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry {3
Appendix B
Rankings of Resort Timeshare Owners Owning-in Country and Resort Timeshare
Owners Residing in Country, December 3l' 1994
Resort Timeshare
Owners Owning
in CountrY
Resort Timeshare
Owners Owzizg
in CountryCountryCouBtry
United Stares
Spain (3)
Mexico
South Africa
Pomrgal
Germany
Netherlands Antilles (l)
Venezuela
United Kingdom (4)
Canada
Australia
Italy
Bahamas
New Zealand
Japan
Argentina
France
Austria
Greece
Israel
Malta
Malaysia
Uruguay
Finland
Egypt
Dominican Republic
Brazil
India
Virgin Islands (US and UK)
Cayman Islands
Puerto Rico
Barbados
Turkey
Hungary
Guatemala
Antigua and Barbuda
Indonesia
Cyprus
Costa Rica
Sweden
Colombia
Bermuda
Denmark
Jamaica
Switzerland
GuadelouPe
French PolYnesia
Morocco
Singaporc
Thailand
Korea (South)
Ireland
Gambia
Taiwan
Belgium
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Martinique
St. Lucia
Frji
Peru
Channel Islands
Ecuador
Norway
Netherlands
Andorra
Philippines
China
Kenya
Zimbabwe
Chile
Senegal
R€union
St. Vincen/Grcnadines
ParaguaY
Total
t,537 ,786
327,064
319,-146
lol,J/,
75,043
68,73 5
68.308
65.480
62,169
56,853
56,105
41,884
28,726
27,574
19,175
18,219
r< o7l
r< O<O
13.620
13,445
13,300
13,168
o s1l,
9,075
o nt?
8,594
8,007
7,67E
6,359
6,100
5,475
4,871
4,631
4,1 l8
3,496
3,403
3,133
r K?n
2,29E
I a1L
I,961
l,918
r ans
I,850
t,694
1,501
1,395
1,I89
1,076
1,054
864
853
obJ
624
607
586
512
453
441
431
316
288
273
t{{
214
189
168
115
79
64
35
l6
4
3,143,594
(1) lncludes Aruba" Bonaire, Curacao and St' Maarten'
(2) Included in the United S::res.
(3) Includes the Canary lslands.
iCi Includes England, Isle of Man, Isle of wright' Northem
Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
Source: Appendix A.
{{ The 1995 Worldrvide Resorl Timeshare lndustrv
Appendix B (continued)
Rankings of Resort Timeshare Owners Owning in Countra and Resort Timeshare
Owners Residing in Countrl, December 31' 1994
o
Country
Resort Timeshere
Owners Residing
in Country Couutry
Resort Timeshare
Owoers Residing
in Country
United States
United Kingdom (4)
Mexico
South Africa
Canada
Germany
Venezuela
Japan
Italy
Australia
France
Spain (3)
Argentina
Porrugal
New Zealand
Finland
Israel
Malaysia
Belgium
Greece
Sweden
Switzerland
Brazil
-NorwayRussia
Netherlands
Egvpt
Austria
Hungary
Denmark
Colombia
Turkey
Guatemala
Singapore
Indones;a
Costa Rica
Poland
Netherlands Antilles (l)
Uruguay
Chile
lreland
Saudi Arabia
Czech Republic
Bermuda
United Arab Emirates
Morocco
Ecuador
Bahamas
Dominican Republic
d'J:.:,Ti[;n,"n"g,o
r,648, r 39
286,259
l7 |,905
162,339
127,050
80,024
70,67r
5q a?5
56,986
56,967
54,259
51,2t4
46,O49
28,481
26,894
t7,849
16,626
12,176
I1,817
t0,616
10,458
8,586
8,408
8,24E
7,513
6,889
K ?O?
6,081
6,070
5,960
5,93 5
5,665
< rl s
4,457
3,728
3,1l6
', 11\
2.589
2,541
) 1rl','
2,t61
t rl{
2,102
) n'r')
1,826
| <a'1
t,436
| 11)
| )'r'a
I,098
I,087
aa?
965
Peru
Luxembourg
Taiwan
Tunisia
Romania
Hong Kong
Channel lslands
Slovsnia
Trinidad and Tobago
Kuwait
Thailand
Martinique
Ukraine
Panama
Slovakia
Lawia
El Salvador
Estonia
Virgin Islands (US and UK)
Philippines
Cyprus
Bolivia
Guadeloupe
Lithuania
Brunei
Paraguay
Cayman Islands
Honduras
Iccland
Barbados
Malta
Jamaica
Bahrain
St. Lucia
Qatar
Gibraltar
Oman
Algeria
Jordan
Guam
Gabon
Suriname
C6te d'Ivorie
Kenya
French Polynesia
Antigua and Barbuda
Monaco
l;echtenstein
Belize
Greenland
China
Belarus
B otswana
905
815
796
753
A?)
620
602
599
598
)o/
526
<)')
494
438
434
404
402
381
377
?? 5
306
263
25r
204
199
199
170
r67
165
146
134
128
ll5
85
79
75
IJ
7l
56
49
45
M
42
39
39
36
JI
30
30
28
26
Timeshare Industry .15The 1995 Worldwide Resort
Rankingsof Resorttro,"ro"lndri,Xl?rtof ffi !"rntry-andResortrimeshare
Owners Resr'di,tg in Country, December 3l' 1994
Resort Timeshare
Owners Residing
in CountrY Country
Resort Timeshare
Owners Residing
in CountrY
Country
Senegal
New Caledonia
Nicaragua
Macau
Nigeria
Pakisran
Zimbabwe
R€union
Kazakhstan
Andorra
Lebanon
Libya
Uzbekistan
Guyana
Malawi
Syria
Vanuatu
Yemen
Mauritius
Faroe Islands
Papua New Guinea
Georgia
Haiti
Zanbia
Namibia
Iran
French Guiana
Armenia
Ethiopia
Mozambique
Ghana
Grenada
Mali
Falkland lslands
Fiji
St. Vincent/Grenadines
Swaziland
Tanzania
Vietnam
Dominica
Azerbaijan
Northem Mariana Islands
American Samoa
Sri Lanka
Uganda
Benin
Djibouti
Bangladesh
Sierra Leone
Guinea
Sudan
Mauritania
Burkina
Angola
Nepal
Camcroon
Gambia
Chad
Albania
Congo
Cook lslands
Afghanistan
Turks and Caicos Islands
Zaire
Madagascar
Equatorial Guinea
Cambodia
Niger
Puerto Rico
Totel
25
25
25
?3
23
23
22
'rl
2t
l9
t6
l6
l5
IJ
t2
ll
l0
l0
l0
l0
l0
l0
8
8
8
6
6
6
5
5
)
)
f
4
J
-t
J
')
.,
'l
.)
)
)
)
a
2
n.a-(2)
3,143,594
(l) Includes Arubq Bonaire, Curacao and St. Maarten'
(2) Included in the United States.
(3) Includes the Canary Islands.
i+i Includes England, isle of Man, Isle of Wright, Northem lreland' Scotland and Wales'
Source: Appendix A.
.t6 The 1995 Worldrlide Resort Timeshare Industry
Countr_v
Appendix C
Trends in Number of Resort Timeshare Projects, 1990 to 1994
Reson Timeshare Projccts
1990 t992 r994
Change
1992 to 19942
A.ndorra
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Ausrralia
Austria
Bahamas
Barbados
Belgium
Bermuda
Brazil
Cambodia
Canada
Cayman Islands
Channel Islands
Chile
China
Colombia
Costa Rica
Cyprus
Denmark
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Egypt
FUi
Finland
France
French Polynesia
Gambia
Germany
Greece
Guadeloupe
Guatemala
Hungary
India
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Kenya
Korea (South)
Malaysia
Malta
Martiniquc
Mauritius
r4exico
Morocco
Namibia
Netherlands
Netherlands Antilles (l)
New Zealand
Norway
64
)
l5
5
5
I
0
I
9
0
0
3
9
2
6
l5
5
II
1l
60
0
0
l0ll
E
J
E))
l1
l3
67
9
20
2
J
l7
I
6
I
90
4
0
0
2
I
0
6
"Q
OJ
26
JI
)
0
2
1l
0
4E
6
I
I
2
I
16
I
2
J
50t
0
.,.,
ll
I
0
4
2
6
J
40
It
36
0
6
r0ll
0
0
149
I
0
0
25
3l
J
0
J
52
7l
35
4
2
l3
0
84
)
I
I
2
2
6
)
9
26
l;
J
l9
83)
I
.'J
2l
I
2
0
4
)
f
J
E5
8
s,
I
8
l0
IJ
0
0
201
I
2
.,
35
35
)
2
I
l16
76
<)
40
l3
f)
45
I
93
I
4
Ill
l0
7
l5
4l
26
4
30
t43
I
43
9
{
8
26
)i
l6
t(t
17
72
J
ll
27
I.+
6
I
291
5
)
7
)t
The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare lndustry .17
' Appendix C (continued)
Trends in Number of n"*tt Timeshare Projects' 1990 to 1994
Change
1992 to 19942
Countr,v
Resort Timeshare Plejg:E
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poftugal
Puerto Rico
R€union
St. Lucia
St. Vincent/Grenadines
Senegal
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Singapore
South Africa
Spain (2)
Swedcn
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Turks and Caicos Islands
United Kingdom (3)
United States
Uruguay
Venezuela
Virgin lslands (US and UK)
Zimbabwe
Totsl
Number of Countries
I
I
J
50
.,
0
',
'|
0
0
0
96
161
ll
I
7
I
I
2
0
70
1,200ll
9
0
2As7
61
1
)
J
Itn
a
0
I
I
0
0
A
135
245
9
12
-t
8
I
I
9
I
89
r,329
9
J.t
J
3,050
,/J
J
a
ll8
J
7
)
7
a
I
I
a
407ll
'r1
l3
a
J
,5
I
108
1,546
)'l
66
IJ
J
4,145
8t
a
r62,
l5)
I
?
l6
0
l9
2t7
l3
l0
I
1,09s
I
0
I
;
)
J
(l)
(2)
(3)
lncludes Arub4 Bonaire, Curacao and St' Maarten'
Includes thc Canary Islands.
ilil;; ingl"nC isle and Man, Isle of Wright' Northem lreland' Scotland and Wales'
Source:AppendixA,unpublishedinformation.obrainedf,omlnrervallnternationalandResortCondominiuns
Inrernarional, The 1990 w"riiiii iiit fimeshariig Iniurrry, ond An Annua! Repott of the |l/orldwide
Resort Timesharing Industry: 1992'
48 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare lndustr-v
APPendix D
Trends in Number of Resort Timeshaie Owners Owning in Country, 1990 to 1994
Countr.v
Resort Timeshare
Owners Owning in CountrY
1990 1992 1994
Cbenge: 1992 to 1994
Number Percent
Andorra
Antigua and Barbuda
Argenllna
Australia
Austria
Bahamas
Barbados
Belgium
Bermuda
Brazil
Canada
Cayman Islands
Channel Islands
Chile
China
Colombia
Costa Rica
Cyprus
Denmark
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
EgvPt
Frji
Finland
France
French Polynesia
Gambia
Germany
Greece
Guadeloupe
Guatemala
Hungary
India
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Kenya
Korea (South)
Malaysia
Malta
Martinique
Mexico
Morocco
Netherlands
Netherlands Andlles (l)
New Zealand
Norway
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
00900 9094,850 7,903
56,200 5l,236
5,630 18.661
24,4EO 26,8801,940 3,2990 263
I,920 I,941I,040 I,210
21,190 38,194
760 2,446160 244
0l
380 376
700 3t4
I ,300 1,488130 1,034
I,190 l,16l
1,980 3,378
ll0 106
t,000 3.536
50 330
530 2,724
9,840 10,943
I,l l0 1,295
0 344
6,820 t2,536
3,000 4,776
20 99
2,110 2,235
00
l0 1,260
30 327
620 835
150 834
rr,220 24,498
2,720 1,880
44,820 51,599
00
1,360 1,863
2,600 5,775
8,5 10 1 1,988
00
133,540
30
0
32,250
15,000
200
0
I
JU
242,458
0
228
55-590
25,298
225
l2
0
304
214
2,494
10.3 l6
4,869
-2,702
I,846
344
-z)
6,797
18,659
3,654
44
63
-208
1,647
810
l,596
744
5,216
t67
5,487
l0l
6,351
5,02E
100
3t9
56,199
8,844
1,402
1,26r
4,1 18
6,418
2,806
l8
12,61 I
17,386
-30
-32,424
116
-999
'I ?tt
453
76,888
I,189
)
12,718
?.276
30
-8
316
-lr5
The 1995 Worldwide
130.5o{
t, <
6.9
47.7
130.8
It
561.7
48.9
149.4
18.0
6,300.0
-{5 ?
524.5
54.4
15.A A
64.1
154.4
| (t <
155.2
30.6
233.1
45.9
7.7
o)1
448.3
185.2
1,416.2
56.4
509.4
E5 8.1),
1,512.1
71.0
-1.6
-52.8
-53.6
128.0
10.9
3t.7
;
22.9
9'0
13.3
'66-7
-37.8
Resort Timeshare Industrl {9
a1a
3,403
r 8,2 l9
56,105
15,959
28,726
4,87 |
607
1,91 8
8,007
56,853
6,100
288
64
168
1,961
2,298
z,oJv
1,905
8,594
)17
9,023
431
9,075
15,971
1,395
663
68,735
13,620
I,501
3,496
4,1l8
7,678
853
13,445
41,884
1,850
19,r75
116
864
13, 1 68
13,300
453
319,345
1,t89
.t) )
68,108
)1 \74
255
Jlo
189
Appendix D (continued)
Trends in Number of Resort Timeshare Owners Owning in Countr-v, 1990 to 1994
Country
Resort Timeshare
1990 t992 1994
Change: 1992 to 1994
Number Percent
Portugal 32,650 63,103 71'0!3
Puerto Rico 5,000 5,238 5,475
Riunion o 0 24
st. Lucia 50 98 441
St. Vincent/Grenadines 30 29 16
Senegal l0 0 35
Singipore I O0 1,237 1,07 6
South Africa 82,700 I 18,048 161'372
Spain (2) 139,900 225,306 327,064
Sweden 370 543 l'974
Switzerland 310 523 1,694
Taiwan 560 979 624
Thailand 950 1,355 l'054
Trinidad and Tobago 310 390 5E6
Tunisia 3t0 603 512
Turkey 300 1,067 4,631
United Kingdom (3) 36,680 46'725 6?J-69
United Statis 1,081,700 1,257,525 1,537,786
Uruguay 0 1,758 9'574
Venezuela 200 12,475 65'480
Virgin lslands (US and UK) 6,590 6'160 6'359
Zimbabwe 0 ll5 79
Total (4) 1,796340 2362,698 3'143'594
Number of Countries 67 75 75
(l) lncludes Aruba, Bonaire, Curacao and St. Maarten'
(2) Includes the Canary Islands.
i3t Includes England, isle and Man, Isle of Wright, Northem lreland, Scotland and Wales.
ici Totals do no1 add correctly because change i-n listing ofseveral counries between the 1990' 1992
and 1995 studies.
Source: Appendit A, unpublished information oblainedfrom lntemal International and Resort Condominiums Interna-
tional, The 1990 llorldwide Resort'fimesharing Induitry, and An Annual Report of the Worldwide Resort Tinesharing
I I,940
)77
)A
343
-13
1S
-l6l
43,324
l0l,75 8
1,431
I,l7l
-355
-301
196
-9t
3,564
t5,444
280,261
7,816
53,005
199
-36
780.895
-lJ-U
JO. t
A\7
263.5
7'r1 g
-36.3
-zL.a
50.3
-15.1
334.0
JJ.I
)) "l
444.6
424.9'\)
-J I.J
$.r
18.9
4.5
3J0.0
44.8
Iadustry: 1992.
50 The 1995 \\'orldwide Resort Timeshare lndustry
Appendix E
Trends in Number of Resort Timeshare Owners Residing in Country, 1990 to 1994
Country
Resort Timesharc
Owners Residing in Country
1990 1992 1994
Change: 1992 to 1994
Number Percent
Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
American Samoa
Andorra
Angola
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belarus
Belgium
Belize
Benin
Bermuda
Bolivia
Botswana
B razil
Brunei
Burkina
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Cayman Islands
Chad
Channel Islands
Chile
China
Colombia
Congo
Cook Islands
Costa Rica
C6te d'lvorie
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominica
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea
Esronia
Ethiopia
Falkland Islands
Faroe Islands
F'ji
0
0
l0
0
l0
0
l0
3,260
nla
52,700
l"l4o
nJa
2r0
20
JU
nla
4,700
l0
0
I,080
l0
l0
40
l0
0
0
1n
57,450
60
0
JJU
20
l0
900
I
0
1,2r0
30
nJa
20
nJa
3,740
:)
)'rn
100
780
180
I
0
0
I
l0
2
0
0
9
0
8
0
)J
4,7 tl
0
476
40
J
6U
0
IJ
0
I,588
50
6
825
l-)
I
0
I
I
o!
.,
ll
.)
35,199
6
4,188
1,359
4
747
75
0
85
28
2,161
l8
3
238
,11
JA
7,583
186
I
I
32,85;
59
ll9
) n))
t5
4,801
-l
I
1,009
0
1,087
263
2,013
29
0
885
1,041
1,264
296
381
6
0
4
3
68;
137.5
;
;
28.8
156.9
187.5
0.0
l.tJ.J
."
138.5
15.0
426.0
JJJ.J
919.2
1,430.8
100.0
-50.0
34.9
53.2
24.6
t,454.7
I 14.3
<< { 7
-50.0
58.5
0.0
5l 1.5
22,366.7
' 0.5
0.0
-JJ.J
415.5
545.0
1 15.9
i10 )
-oo.,/
;
-28.5
150.0
I
I
7l
3
t9)
36
t 0,850 46,049
06
52,,779 56,967
6,070
4
t,223
ll5
146
28
9,656 I1,817
3t
J
1,826
)(,1
26
8,408
199)
I
94,198 127,050
lll
0
483
139
l4
864
7
0
1,726
0
43
9
< on6
J
6
ZLJ
t9l
2,817
106
J
0
0
)
l4
')
170
')
602
2,t61
30
5,665
I
I
) 17<
42
I,087
306) r|a',
< o?{
J
4
l,098
| 111
o,081
402
I
381
6
f
l0
)
The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industrv 5l
rrends in Number of Resort'fiH""."t"I"ff::3ft:3kg in country, 1ee0 to lee4
Country
Resort Timeshare
Owrrers Residiog in Country
1990 t992 1994
Change: 1992 to 1994
Number Percent
Finland
France
French Guiana
French Polynesia
Gabon
Gambia
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Gibraltar
Greece
Greenland
Grcnada
Guadeloupe
Guam
Guatemala
Guinea
Guyana
Haiti
Hondums
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
india
Indonesia
Iran
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Korea (South)
Kuwait
Lawia
Lebanon
Libya
Liechtensrcin
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macau
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Mali
Malta
Martinique
Mauritar' .
Mauritius
Mexico
Monaco
Morocco
Mozambique
3,520 10,364 17,849
10,856 t9,921 54,259
177
30 28 39
20 48 45rt)
nla 0 l0
18,030 36,749 80,024
015
30 49 75
480 1,508 10,616
30 26 30
22520 30 25r
04549
1,550 2,871 4,457
202
3l13
t05820 29 167
380 604 620
3 I 13 5,960
40 49 165
t0 1,269 8,248
20 328 3,116
lll2,150 r,473 2,t15
3,870 805 t6,626
11,560 23,6t6 56,98640 65 t28
45,300 52,216 59,435
l0 13 55
nlz 0 2l
20 31 39
1,400 2,770 965
70 567 567
nla 0 404
016164516
31033nla 0 204
100 399 8150s230013512
2,890 s,209 12,176
15540 68 t34
5 t19 522
002t2l0
59,850 124.393 r7r,905
20 15 35
l0 28 1,436
066
7,485
34,338
0
ll
-3
I
l0
43,275
4
26
9,108
4
J
'r) |
4
1,586)
t2
l3E
l6
5,847
ll6
6,979
2,788
6
642
15,82 r
33,370
63
7,219
43
2l
8
-1,805
0
404
0ll
)1
zo4
4t5
l8
I
6,967
0
66
343
1
I
47,512
20
1,408
0
72.2
t72.1
0.0
)>.)
-O.J
100.0
I 17.8
400.0
53.1
604.0
15.4
150.0
736.7
E.9
<t ?
l,2o;
60.0
475.9
2.6
5,174.3
236.7
550.0
850.0
600.0
43.6
1,965.3
t41.3
96.9
13.8
330.8
2s.8
-65.2
0.0
0.0
220.0
230.0
t 04.3
360.0
140.0
t33.7
0.0
97.r
191.6
400.0
38.2
133.3
5,028.6
0.0
52 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry
Trends in Number of Resort'fitJ""r"r*t {:x:!:{*!r rng in country, lee0 to lee4
Resort Timeshare
Owners Residing in Country
Country 1990 1992 t994
Chgnge: 1992 to 1994
Number Percetrt
Namibia
Nepal
Nethcrlands
Netherlands Antilles ( l)
New Caledonia
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
Nonhem Mariana Islands
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Panama
Papua New Guinea
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Pomrgal
Qatar
Riunion
Romania
Russia
St. Lucia
St. Vincent/Grenadines
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia and Montenegro
Siena Leone
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain (2)
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Suriname
Swaziland
Swcden
Switzerland
Syria
Taiwan
Tanzania
Thailand
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Turks and Caicos lsl.nds
Ug".^.t"
Ukraine
United Arab Emirares
United Kingdom (3)
United States
Uruguay
I
0
3,010
430
17,600
5
4
l0
t
6,080
20
J
60
4
l0
.,)^
50
I
5 S? r
l0
2
0
nla
l
2
340
l0
nla
640
nla
nla
82,100
720
0
0
t0
l0
6,120
I,080
I
600
0
670
370
300
zi
2
0
nla
70
179,400
r,198,390
146
8
I
4,558
t,976
l0
24,894
J
2
l6
7,694
30
0
438
5
26
t29
250
34
19,685
a
I
0
6
2
810
lt
0
I
2,816
0
0
r 19,703
13,93 5
0
J
43
t
14,41I
3,15 8
I
I,148
I
1,273
463
575
850
J
0
0
166
)4) 1)<
l,4r 0,973
t)
8
2
6,393
2,541
'r<
26,894
25
I
4
? <l,l
t5
23
438
l0
199
905
2,s89
28,481
79
2l
632
5,889
85
4
7 trl't
)\
oot
)
3,728
434
599
r62,339
51,214
J
2
44
4
10,45 8
8,586ll
796
4
<', A
598
753
{ tl <
I
494
t.)0 /
286,259
l,648,139
Z,JVJ
0
I
1,835
565
t5
2,000))
I
7
-)
-I8l
43
)7
0
)
173
776
99, <<<
8,796
<6
l9
631
6,889
79
2
r,292
t4
992
I
912
434
599
42,636
37,279
3
-l
J
-3,953
5,428
IO
-352
J
-747
135
178
4,365
494
1,40t
43,934
237,t66
) all
0.0
100.0
40.3
28.6
150.0
8.0
-50.0
43.8
42.9
143.3
0.0
100.0
655.4
60 t.6
41.9
7,514.7
44.7
243.5
950.0
63,100.0
1,316.7
100.0
r59.5
t27.3
100.0
)2.+
35.6
267.5
.;-JJ.J
2.3
300.0
ant
17t.9
1,000.0
-30.7
300.0
-58.7
?9.2
31.0
513.5
-663
844.0
18.1
16.8
2,969.3
The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industn 53
Appendix E (continued)
Trends in Number of Resort Timeshare Owners Residing in Country, 1990 to 1994
Country
Resort Timeshare
Owners Residing in CountrY
1990 1992 1994
Changc: lg!tol99!-
Number Percent
Uzbekistan
Vanuatu
Venezuela
Vietnam
Virgin Islands (US and UK)
Yemen
Zafte
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Total (4)
dla 0 15
ll0 l0
350 15,520 70,671
004I l9l 377
nla 2 l0
201
to I 8
30 22 22
l5
0
55,l5l
4
186
8
I
0
0
0.0
355.4
97.4
400.0
0.0
0.0
33.rt,1g6340 2,362,698 3,143,594 780,896
Number of Countries 143 t57 174
(t) Includes Aruba, Bonaire, Curacao and St. Maanen'
(2) Includes the Canary lslands.
i3t lncludes England, islc and Man, Isle of Wright, Northcrn lretand, Scotland and Walcs.
(4) Totals do not add conectlyilil of chanies in listings of several countrics bctwcen thc 1990' 1992
and 1995 studies.
Source: Appendix A. unpubtished informarion obrainedfrom Intemal International and Resort Condominiums
Inrernational. The 1990 Wortiiiai n"tort Timeshariig Industry, andAn Annual Repoa of the Wotldu'ide
Resort fimesharing Industry: 1992,
5;l The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry
Appendix F
Comparison of Resort Timeshare Owners Owning in CountrT and Resort Timeshare Owners
Residing in Country, December 31,1994
Countrv
Resort Timeshare
Owners Owning
in Country
Resort Timeshare
Owners Residing
in Country
Percentage of Resort
Timeshere Owners
Owuing in Country Per
Resort Timeshare Owuers
Residiog in Country
Afghanisun
Albania
Algeria
American Samoa
Andorra
Angola
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaij an
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belanrs
Belgium
Belizc
Benin
Bermuda
Bolivia
Botswana
Brazil
Brunei
Burkina
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Cayman Islands
Chad
Channel Islands
Chile
China
Colombia
Congo
Cook Islands
Costa Rica
C6te d'Ivorie
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominica
Donlnican Republic
Ecuador
Egypt
EI Salvador
Equatorial Guinea
Estonia
0
0
0
0
214
0
3,403
t8,219
0
56, r 05
15,959
0
28,726
0
0
4,871
0
607
0
0
1,918
0
0
8,007
0
0
0
0
56,853
6,100
0
288
64
168
1,96 I
0
0
2,298
0
0
2,630
0
1,905
0
0
8,594
'r11
0
U
0
I
I
7l
l9)
36
46,049
6
56,967
6,070
4
l'r1a
ll5
J
146
28
l1,817
3l
J
1,826
zoJ
26
8,408
199
2
I)
t27,050
170.,
602
2,161
30
s,665.l
I
t 1'ts
42
1,087
306
', 6))
4
1,098
l,)??
6,081
402
I
381
The 1995 Worldwide
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
lt.263
0.000
94.528
0.396
0.000
0.985
2.629
0.000
23.488
0.000
0.000
JJ.JOJ
0.000
0.051
0.000
0.000
1.050
0.000
0.000
0.952
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.447
35.882
0.000
0.478
0.030
5.600
0.346
0.000
0.000
0.840
0.000
0.000
8.595
0.000
0.321
0.000
0.000
7.827
0.222
1.484
0.000
0.000
0.000
Resort Timeshare Industry 55
APPendix F (continued)
Comparison of Resort Timeshare Owners Owning in CountrT and Resort Timeshare Owners
Residing in Country, December 31,1994
Country
Rcsort Timeshare
Owners Owning
in Country
Rcsort Timeshare
Owners Residing
in CountrY
Percentage of Resort
Timeshare Owners
Owning in CountrY Per
Resort Timeshare Owners
Residing in CountrY
Ethiopia
Falkland Islands
Faroe islands
Frji
Finland
France
French Guiana
French Polynesia
Gabon
Gambia
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Gibraltar
Greece
Greenland
Grenada
Guadeloupe
Guam
Guatemala
Guinea
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran
Ireland
Israel
Itdy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Korca (South)
Kuwair
LaWia
Lebanon
Libya
Liecht-nstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macau
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Mali
0
0
0
431
9,075
15,97 |
0
1,395
0
663
0
68,73s
0
0
13,6?0
0
0
1,501
0
3,496
0
0
0
0
0
4,1 l8
0
7,678
? | ??
0
853
13,445
41,8E4
1,850
19,175
0
0
ll6
864
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13,168
0
6
)
l0
5
t7,849
54,259
7
39
45
a
l0
80,024
75
10,616
30
251
49
4,457
1
l3
8
167
620
5.960
165
8,248
3,116
7
2,1 l5
15,626
56,986
128
59,435
)0
)l
39
955
567
404
l6
l6
JJ
),04
8l)
I
l2
t,,!,, | | o
5
0.000
0.000
0.000
86.200
0.508
0.294
0.000
35.769
0.000
331.500
0.000
0.859
0.000
0.000
1.283
0.000
0.000
5.980
0.000
0.7E4
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.691
0.000
0.931
1.005
0.000
0.403
0.809
0.735
t4.453
0323
0.000
0.000
2.974
0.895
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.00u
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
I.08 1
0.000
56 The 1995 Worldrvide Rcsort Timeshare Industrv
Appendix F (continued)
Comparisou of Resort Timeshare Owners Owning in Country and Resort Timeshare Owners
Residing in Country, December 31, 1994
Couutry
Resort Timeshare
Owners Owniog
in Country
Resort Timeshrre
Owners Residing
in Country
Perccntage of Rcsort
Timeshare Owners
Owning in Country Per
Resort Timcshare Owners
Residing in Country
Malta
Maninique
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mexico
Monaco
Morocco
Mozambique
Namibia
Nepal
Netherlands
Netherlands Antilles (l)
New Caledonia
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
Northern Mariana lslands
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Panama
Papua New Guinea
Panguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Pomrgal
Pueno Rico
Qatar
Riunion
Romania
Russia
St. Lucia
St. Vincent/Grenadines
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia and Montenegro
Seychelles
Sicrra Leone
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Africa
Sp;; (3)
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Suriname
Swaziland
Sweden
Switzerland
13,300
453
0
0
3t9,346
0
1,189
0
0
0
68,308
0
27,574
0
0
0
0
?55
o
0
0
0
4
316
189
0
75,043
5,475
0
24
0
0
441
l6
0
35
0
0
0
1,076
0
0
t61,372
327,064
0
0
0
0
t,974
I,694
134
<)',
)
l0
r71,905
35
r,436
6I)
6,393
2,541
'r<
26,894
?<
I
4
7,513
t5
438
l0
199
905
?? {
2,589
28,4E I
n.a (2)
79
2l
o5z
6,889
85
.4
2,t02t(
oot
0t
3,i28
434
599
r 62,339
51,214
J
)
r 0,45 8
8,586
The 1995 Worldwide
99.254
0.868
0.000
0.000
1.E58
0.000
0.828
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.036
26-882
0.000
1.025
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.034
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.020
0.349
0.564
0.000
2.635
0.000
l.l43
0.000
0.000
5.188
4.000
0.000
1.400
0.000
0.000
0.289
0.000
0.000
t.9i4
6.386
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.1 89
0.197
Resort Timeshare Industrv 57
comparisonorRtv,4.rimesharefJI"":T*\Wt:#"r"
Residing in CountrY, December 31,
and Resort Timeshare Owners
1994
Percentage of Resort
Timeshare Owners
Owning in Country Per
Resort Timcshare Owoers
Residing in Countr.vCountry
Resort Timeshare
Owners Owning
in CountrY
Resort Timeshare
Owners Residing
in CountrY
Syria
Taiwan
Tanzan ia
Thailand
Trinidad ano : ,..t,;t,r()
I Unlsra
Turkey
Tlrks and Ca-,,a J.1-6,
uganoa
Ukraine
United Arab , r,r rratcs
United Kingo,,11, 14,
United State:
Uruguay
Uzbekistan
Vanuatu
Venezuela
Vietnam
Virgin Island: rr;i and UK)
Y emen
Taire
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Total
0
624
0
l,054
586qlt
4,631
0
0
0
0
52,169
r,537,786
9,574
0
0
65,480
0
5,359
0
n
0
79
3,143,594
ll
796
4
526
598
/:J
< tl{
I
'J
494
1,557
2E6,259
I,648,139
2,302
l5
l0
70,67 |
377
l0
I
8
,,.,
3,r43,594
0.000
o.784
0.000
) oo/l
0.980
0.680
0.888
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.217
0.933
4.159
0.000
0.000
0.927
0.000
16.867
0.000
0.000
0.000
3.591
5.19E
!1) lncludc: Atrrha. Bonaire, curacao and st. Maarten.
lll lncludc'l rrr thc united stares.
!:, lncluoc: llrc t'anarv lslands.(4) Includc: I rrp.land, isle of Man, Isle of wright, Northem lreland. Scotland and Wales.
Source: Appctt,ltt ,.1
58 The 1995 worldwide Res.r r t.inrr.share lndustrv
Resort Timeshare owners Residing in tlffHi;t" to,ooo poputation, December 31, 1994
Country
Resort Timeshare Owners
Residing in Country Population
Resort Timeshare Owners
Residing in Country
Pcr 10,000 Population
Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
American Samoa
Andorra
Angola
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belanrs
Belgium
Belize
Benin
Bermuda
Bolivia
Botswana
Brazil
Brunei
Burkina
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Cayman Islands
Chad
Channel lslands
Chile
China
Colombia
Congo
Cook Islands
Costa Rica
C6te d'Ivorie
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominica
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Egvp.
El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Falkland tslands
Faroe Islands
Frji
16,903,400
3,374,O85
27,895,068
55,223
63,930
9,803,576
64,762
33,912,994
3,52t,5r7
18,077,4r9
7,954,974
7,684,456
273,055
585,683
125,t49,469
255,827
1o,404,862
10,062,836
208,949
5,341,710
61,158
7,7t9,445
1,359,352
t58,739,257
284,653
10,134,661
10,264,628
t 3, t 32,l9l
28,113,997
31,790
5,466,771
t49,767
13,950,557
I,190,431,106
35,577,556
2,446,902
19,t24
3,342,t54
14,295,501
4,697,6t4
730,084
10,408,280
5,r87,821
4r2f99
87,696
7,826,075
1o,677,067
60,765,028
t,7 i2,511
409,550
I,616,882
54,927,108
2,261
48,427
764,382
I
I
7l
5
l9
36
46,049
6
56,967
6,070
4
1111
ll5
J
146
28
I I,8t7
JI
J
I,826
263
)A
8,408
199
)
I
127,050
t70
2
602
2,161
30
5,66s
I
I) 17<
42
I,087
306
2,022
< o?<
J
4
1,098
| )77
6,081
402
I
381
6
)
l0
0.0006
0.0030
0.0255
0.5433
) a'1)i
0.0020
5.5588
13.5786
0.0170
31.5128
7.6304
0.0052
44.7895
r.9635
0.0002
5.7070
0-0269
1t.7432
1.4836
0.0056
298.5709
0.340?
0.1913
0.5297
6.9910
0.0020
0.0010
0.0015
45.1910
53.4759
0.0037
40.1958
1.5490
0.0003
t.s923
0.0041
0.5229
8.1833
0.0294
2.3139
4.1913
t.9427
I 1.4403
o.0727
0.4561
1.4030
1.1539
1.0007
0.6988
0.0244
2.3564
0.001I
22.lt4l
2.0650
0.0654
Resort Timeshare lndustry 59The I995 Worldwide
Appendix G (continued)
Resort Timeshare Owners Residing in Country Per 10,000 Population, December 3l' 1994
Country
Resort Timeshare Owuers
Residing in Country Populetion
Resort Timeshare Owners
Residing in Country
Per 10,000 Population
Finland
France
French Guiana
French Polynesia
Gabon
Gambia
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Gibraltar
Greece
Greenland
Grcnada
Guadeloupe
Guam
Guatemala
Guinea
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Korca (South)
Kuwait
Latvia
Lebanon
Libya
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macau
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Mali
Malta
Martinique
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mexico
Monaco
Morocco
Mozambique
1995 Worldwide Resort
17,849
5d t50
7
39
45
2
l0
80,024
)
t)
10,616
30
5
251
49
4,457,
l3
8
167
620
5,960
165
8,248
3,1l6
1
2,1t5
t6,626
56,986
t28
59,435
56
)l
39
965
567
404
l6
l6
JJ
204
815
I
It
12,t76
\
134
\1)
7
l0
171,905
1{
1,436
5
Timeshgre Industry
5,068,931
57,840,445
r39,299
tlS lto
1,139,006
959,300
5,681,025
8l,087,506
t7,225,185
31,684
10,564,630
57,040
94,109
428,947
149,620
t0,72t,387
6,391,536
729,425
6,491,450
5,314,794
5,54E,754
10,3r9,1 l3
253,599
919,903,056
200,409,741
65,615,474
3,539,296
s,050,850
58,138,394
255,064
125,t06,937
3,961,t94
17,267,554
28,240,658
4i,082,880
t,819,322
2,7t9,2t1
3,620,395
5,057,392
30,28 t
3,848,389
401,900
484,557
t3,427,758
9,732,409
19,283,157
9,112,950
JOOr, 'l /
392,362) ta) 117
l.l16,923
92,20?,199
3t,278
28.s58,635
17,346,280
?< trt(
9.3808
0.5025
I.8r29
0.3951
0.0208
0.0176
9.8688
0.0029
23.6713
10.0485
< t(o{
0.5313
5.8515
3.2750
4.1571
0.0031
0.t782
0.0123
0.3142
1.1 t74
< 't't <'l
6-2s95
0.0897
0.1555
0.00r 1
5.9758
32.9r72
9.8018
5.0183
4.7507
0.1414
0.0122
0.0138
0.214r
3.1165
t.4695
0.0442
0.0315
10.8979
0.530t
20.2787
0.4747
0.0007
0.0123
6.3143
0.0055
? 65?{
t 3.3040
0.0091
0.0895
18.6443
I 1.1900
0.5028
0.0035
60 The
ResortTimeshareowners*"r,u,ill""to"t:":r#"{:ff 3r0popuration,December3r,le94
Country
Resort Timeshare Owners
Residing in Country Population
R$ort Timeshsre Owners
Residing in Country
Per 10,000 Populatioo
Namibia
Nepal
Nerherlands
Netherlands Antilles (l)
New Caledonia
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
Northem Mariana Islands
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Panama
Papua New Guinea
Paraguay
Peru
Philippincs
Poland
Pomtgal
Qatar
Riunion
Romania
Russia
St. Lucia
St. Vinceny'Grenadines
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia and Montenegro
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain (2)
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Suriname
Swaziland
Sweden
Switzerland
Syria
Taiwan
Tanzania
Thailand
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Turks and Caicos Islands
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom (3)
United States
Uruguay
1,595,567
21,041,527
ts,367,928
251,335
181,309
3,388,737
4,096,589
8,971,605
98,091,097
49,799
4,314,604
t,701,4?0
128,855,965
2,630,000
4,195,806
s ) t1 77''
23,650,67r
69,808,930
38,654,561
t0,s24,2t0
sr\779
652,857
23,l8l,415
149,608,953
145,090
115,437
18,196,783
8,730,508
t0,759,897
4,630,037
2,8s9,t42
5,403,505
t,97?,227
43,930,63 r
39,302,665
t 8,r29,850
29,4t9,798
44t40
936,359
8,778,461
7,M0,1r9
t4,886,672
2t,298,930
27,985,660
59,510,471
1,328,282
8,726,562
62, r 53,E9E
t? <(t
19,12t,934
5l,846,958
2,79t,t41
58,207,r27
260,713,585
3,198,910
8
..oi
2,541
t<
26,894
)s
I
7,513
t)
438
l0
199
90s
2,589
28,481
79,,I
632
6,889
85
4
2,to2
?5
992
3,728
434
599
162,339
st,2t4
44
4
10,458
8,586
ll
7o,A
4
\)6
598
tJ3
s tl {
I
3
494
1,567
286,259
1,648,139
t lnt
0.0501
0.0010
4.1 600
10 t.1001
r-3789
79.3629
0.0610
0.001I
0.0023
0.8032
17.4130
0.4290
0.0018
1.6654
0.0238
0.3817
o.3827
0.0480
0.6698
27.0624
1.5406
0.3217
0.2726
0.4605
5.8584
0.3465
l.t55 t
0.0285
0.9219
0.0043
13.0389
0.8032
3.0372
36.9535
13.0307
0.0017
0.0007
1.0406
0.0427
l1.9132
12.1958
0.0074
0.3737
0.0014
0.0884
4.5021
0.8629
0.8390
o.7379
0.0016
0.0953
5.6142
49.1794
63.2165
7.t962
Appendix G (continued)
Resort Timeshare Owners Residing in Country Per 10,000 Population, December 31, 1994
Countrv
Resort Timeshere Owners
Residing in Countr-v Population
Resort Timeshare Owners
Residing ia Country
Per 1O,000 Populatioo
Uzbekistan 15Vanuatu l0Venezuela 70,671Vietnam 4
Virgin Islands (US and UK) 377Yemen t07afte I
Zambia 8
Zimbabwe 22
Total 3,r43J94
22,608,866
169,776
20,562,405
73,103,898
I 10,428
r l ,105,202
42,684,091
9,188,190
10,975,078
5,45r,843165
0.0066
0.5890
34.3690
0.0005
34.t399
0.0090
0.0002
0.0087
0.0200
83299
(l) Includes Aruba, Bonaire, Curacao and St. Maarten.(2) Includes the Canary Islands.(3) Includes England, Isle of Man, Isle of Wright, Nonhern lreland. Scotland and Wales.
Source: Appendix A and The lforld FaAbook, 1991.
62 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industrv
Appendix H
Ranking of Resort Timeshare owners Residing in country Per 10,000 Population
Compared With Gross National Product Per Capita, December 31, 1994
Country
Resort Timeshare Owners
Residing in Couutry
Per 10,000 Populetion
Gross
NationalProduct
Per Capita
Afghanisan
Albania
Algeria
American Samoa
Andorra
Angola
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Armenia
Ausnalia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belarus
Belgium
Belize
Benin
Bermuda
Bolivia
Botswana
Brazil
Brunei
Burkina
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Cayman Islands
Chad
Channel Islands
Chile
China
Colombia
Congo
Cook Islands
Costa Rica
C6te d'lvorie
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Djibouti
Doninica
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Egypt
EI Salvador
Equatorial Guinea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Falkland Islands
a
$ 1,100
$3,300
$2,600
$ 14,000
$600
$5,800
$5,500
$2,040
$ r 9,100
$17,000
s2,040
$ 16,500
$12,000
$ I,000
$8.700
$s,890
$I7,700
s2,700
$ I,200
$27,100
$2,100
$4,500
s5,000
$9,000
$700
$600
$ I,500
s22,200
$23,000
$500
nla
$7,000
$2,200
$5,500
s2,900
$3,000
$s,900
$1,500
$4,500
97,260
s7,200
$ 18,500
$1,200
$2,100
$3,000
s4,t;a
s2,400
$2,500
$700
$5,480
$400
nla
Tim€share lndustrv 63
0.0006
0.0030
0.0255
0.5433
2.9720
0.0020
5.5588
13.5786
0.0170
3l.5128
7.6304
0.0052
44.7895
1.9635
0.0002
5.7070
0.0269
rt.7432
r.4836
0.0056
298.5709
0-3407
0.19 t 3
o sro?
6.99 r 0
0.0020
0.0010
0.0015
45.1910
53.4759
0.0037
40.1958
1.5490
0.0003
1.5923
0.0041
0.s229
8.1 833
0.0294
2.3t39
4.1913
1.9427
I t.4403
0.0727
c. :5( |
1.4030
1.1539
t.0007
0.6988
0.0244
2.3564
0.001I
22.tl4l
The 1995 Worldwide Resort
Ranking of Resort r,-"ro.ri3l,1Xu.l'x"{:!{:{r:"!"unrry per 10,000 popuration
Compared With Gross National Product Per Capita, December 31, 1994
Country
Resort Timeshare Owners
Residing in Country
Per 10,000 Population
Gross
NatioualProduct
Per Capita
Faroe Islands
FUi
Finland
France
French Guiana
French Polynesia
Gabon
Gambia
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Gibraltar
Greece
Greenland
Grenada
Guadeloupe
Guam
Guatemala
Guinea
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Hong Kong
Hungary
lceland
India
Indonesia
Irart
lreland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kcnya
Korca (South)
Kuwait
Latvia
Lebanon
Libya
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macau
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Mali
Malta
Martinique
Mauritania
Mauritius
1995 Worldwid€ Resort Timeshare Industrv
2.0650
0.0654
35.2t26
9.3808
0.5025
1.8129
0.3951
0.0208
0.0176
9.8688
0.0029
23.6713
10.0486
5.2595
0.5313
5.8515
3.2750
4.1571
0.0031
0.t782
0.0123
0.3142
t.tl74
5.7757
6.2595
0.0897
0.1555
0.001l
5.9758
32.9t72
9.8018
5.0r 83
4.7507
0.1414
o.0122
0.0138
0.2141
3.t 165
1.4695
0.0442
0.0316
10.8979
0.5301
20.2787
0.4747
0.0007
u.u l.a.'
6.3t43
0.0055
3.6535
13.3040
0.0091
0.0895
$14,000
$4,000
s 16,100
$18,200
$4,390
$7,000
$4,800
$800
$1,390
$ 16,500
s1,500
$4,600
$8,900
$9,000
s3,000
s8,400
$14,000
$3,000
$500
s1,900
$800
$1,950
s21,500
$5,500
s16,000
$1,300
$2,900
$4,780
$r3,100
sl3,3s0
t16,700
$3,200
$20,400
$3,u00
$3,510
$1,200
s9,500
$15,100
$4,810
sr,720
$6,600
s22,300
$3,240
s22,600
$7,300
$800
$600
;7,500
s650
$6,600
$9,500
s1,050
$7,E00
64 The
Appendix H (continued)
Resort Timesherc Owners
Residing in Country
Per 10,000 Population
Gross
NationalProduct
Per Capita
Ranking of Resort Timeshare owners Residing in country Per 10,000 Population
Compared With Gross National Product Per Capita, December 31, l9g4
Country
Mexico
Monaco
Morocco
Mozambique
Namibia
Nepal
Netherlands
Nethalands Antilles (1)
Ncw Caledonia
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
Northem Mariana Islands
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Panama
Papua New Guinea
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Puerto Rico
Qatar
Riunion
Romania
Russia
St. Lucia
St. Vincent/Grenadines
Saudi Arabia
Scncgal
Serbia and Montenegro
Sierra Lcone
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovcnia
South Afiica
Spain (3)
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Suriname
Swaziland
Swedcn
Switzerland
Syria
Taiwan
Tanzania
Thailand
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
t 8.5.143
It.t900
0.5028
0.0035
0.050 t
0.0010
4. 1600
101.1001
t.3789
79.3629
0.0510
0.00r l
0.0023
0.8032
t7.4130
0.4290
0.00 r I
1.6654
0.0238
0.3817
0.3827
0.0480
0.6698
27.0624
n.a-(2)
1.5406
0.3217
0.2726
0.4605
5.8584
0.3465
l.l55l
0.0285
0.9219
0.0043
13.0389
0.8032
3.0372
35.9535
13.0307
0.0017
0.0007
1.0406
0.0427
lI.9r32
12.1958
0.0074
0.3737
0.001 4
0.0884
4.5021
0.8629
0.8390
$8,200
$16,000
$2,500
s600
$2,500
s I,000
s17,200
$13,550
$6,000
s15,700
$1,600
$650
$1,000
$l1,500
s20,800
$10,000
$1,900
s4,500
$2,000
$3,000
$3,000
s2,500
$4,580
$8,700
$7,100
$ 17,500
$3,900
$2,700
$5,190
s3,000
$2,000
$l1,000
s1,400
$1,000
$1,000
$15,000
$s,800
s7,600
s4,000
$r2,700
$3,000
$750
$2,800
$2,500
$ 17,600
$21,300
s5,700
s 10,600
$600
s5,500
$8,000
$4,000
$5,100
Resort Timeshare Industry 65The 1995 Worldwide
Appendix H (continued)
Ranking of Resort Timeshare O*o"* Residing in Country Per 10'000 Population
Colpared With Gross National Product Per Capita, December 31' 1994
Country
Resort Timeshare Owne rs
Residing in Country
Per l0'000 PoPulation
Gross
NstiooslProduct
Per Capita
Turks and Caicos Islands
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom (4)
Unired States
Uruguay
Uzbekistan
Vanuau
Venezuela
Vietnam
Virgin Islands (US and UK)
Yemen
Taire
Zanbia
Zimbabwe
Total/Average
o.7379
0.0016
0.0953
5.6142
49.1794
63.2165
7.1962
0.0056
0.5890
34.3690
0.0005
34.1399
0.0090
0.0002
0.0087
0.0200
8.3299
$6,000
$1,200
s3,950
$24.000
$16.900
$24,700
$6,000
i2,430
$1,050
$8,000
$1,000
$10,800
$800
$500
$800
$1,400
$6,847
(l) Includes Aruba" Bonaire, Curacao and St. Maarten.
(2) Included in the United States.
(3) Includes the CanarY Islands.
i+i Includes England, isle of Man, Isle of Wright, Northem lreland, Scotland and Walcs.
Source: Appendix G and The tYorld Factbook, 1994'
66 The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry
APPendix I
Resort Timeshare Owners Owning in Country Per 11000 Tourists From Abroad,
December 3l' 1994
Country
Resort Timeshare Owners Tourists
Owning in CountrY From Abroad
Resort Timeshare
Owners Owning in
Countr-v Per l'000
Tourists From Abroad
Andorra
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Australia
Austna
Bahamas
Barbados
Belgium
Bermuda
Brazil
Canada
Cayman Islands
Channel Islands
Chile
China
Colombia
Co*a Rica
Cyprus
Denmark
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Egypt
Frji
Finland
France
French Polynesia
Gambia
Germany
Greece
Guadeloupe
Guatemala
Hungary
lndia
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Kenya
Korea (South)
Malaysia
Malta
Martinique
Mexico
Morocco
Netherlands
) l::herlands Antilles ( I )
New Zealand
Norway
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
l 8,219
56,105
l<o<o
28.726
4,E71
607
I,918
8,007
56,853
6,100
288
64
168
1.961
2,298
2,630
r on{
8,594
273
9,023
431
9,075
15,971
1,395
ooJ
68,735
13,620
I,501
3,496
4,1 l8
7,678
853
13,445
4l,884
I,850
19,175
lt6
864
13, r 68
13,300
453
3 19,346
I,189
tr.'-'
68.308
11 474
255
A
316
189
nla
210,000
3,031,000
2,603,000
19,098,000
1,399,000
385,000
3,220,000
375,000
1,475,000
t4,741,000
242,000
nla
l,283,000
t6,5 t2,000
1,076,000
610,000
1,991,000
1,543,000
r,524,000
403.000
2,944,000
279,000
790,000
59,590,000
124,000
95,000
15,147,000
9,331,000
300,000
541,000
20,l 88,000
1,868,000
3,064,0C0
3,666,000
I,502,000
25,113,000
909,000
2.103.000
699,000
3,231,000
6,016,000
.1,002,000
321,000
17,271,000
4,390,000
6,049,000
ctl 000
I,055,000
2,375,000
334,000
217,000
l,043.000
nla
16.20
6.01'tl <<
0.84
to (?
12.65
0.19
5.1I
5.43
3.86
t< ?l
oJa
0.05
0.01
1.82
3.77
| ??
1.23
5.64
0.68
3.06
1.54
I1.49
0.?7
I 1.25
6.98
4.54
1.46
5.00
6.46
0.20
4.1I
1.02
0.23
8.95
1.60
2.O4
9.r2
u.l/
0.27
2.19
13.21
l.4l
l8.49
n11
0.04
I tJO
26.11
0.1 I
0.01
1.46
0.l8
The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry 67
Appendix | (continued)
Resort Timeshare Owners Owning in Country Per 11000 Tourists From Abroad,
December 31' 1994
Country
Resort Timcshsre Owners Tourists
Owning in Country From Abroad
Resort Timesbare
Owners Owning in
Country Per 1,000
Tourists From Abroad
Portugal
Pucrto Rico
Riunion
St. Lucia
St. Vincent/Grenadines
Senegal
Singapore
South Africa
Spain (2)
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
United Kingdom (3)
United States
Uruguay
Venezuela
Virgin lslands (US and UK)
Zimbabwe
Total
7s odi
5,475
441
lo
'ts
1,076
16t,372
327,064
r,974
1,594
624
I,054
586
tt,
4,631
62,169
1,537,786
9,574
65,480
6,359
79
3,143,594
8,884,000
2,640,000
217,000
177,000
53,000
246,000
5,,146,000
2,892,000
39,638,000
650,000
12,800,000
nla
5,136,000
235,000
3,540,000
6,549,000
| 8,535,000
u,647.O00
t,802,000
434,000
604,000
738,000
421,025,000
8.45
2.07
0.1 I
2.49
0.30
0.14
0.20
55.80
8.25
3.04
0.13
nla
0.21
2.49
0. t4
0.71
3.35
34.44
5.3 r
150.88
10.53
0.1 I
E.92
(I) Includes Aruba, Bonaire, Curacao and St. Maanen.(2) Includes the Canary lslands.(3) lncludes England. Isle and Man, Isle of wright, Northcm lreland. Scotland and wales.
Source: Appendix A and The 1992 Stattsticat yearbook. 1991.
68 The I995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industrv
'ffiARDA
March 28, 1996
Dear ARDA Leader:
We are pleased to present to you the new ARDA vacation ownership information kit.
Included in the kit are a variety of statistical and descriptive background pieces which
illustrate the current impressive state of the vacation ownership industry and highlight the many
positive characteristics and benefits ofour products. Information presented in the kit draws from
industry data collected through the numerous industry studies which ARDA and the Alliance for
Timeshare Excellence (ATE) have sponsored over the last few years'
The kit can be used tbr a variety of purposes, including outreach efforts to the media as well
as financial and regulatory audiences. As you work to positively position your company and.its
-
resorts amongst your critical target groups, please avail yourself ofthe ARDA information kit. It
wiil help to place your company in tit" context of the fastest-growing sector ofthe worldwide
travel and toudsm industry.
Additional kits are available to ARDA members for 52'50 per coPy'
Sincerely,fl *_..-#tr-D%fu'l PeterN. Brown William J. Hoag
Chairman ATE Chairman President
PETER N. BnowN. Cnatnvteru 'Tnoue's C. FRANKS. PRESIDENT
ARDA
Contast:
VACATION OWNERSEIP: A GLOBAL EXPLOSION
With annual gross sales approaching $5 billion and the number ofhouseholds around the world owning a
vacation surpassing 3 millioq the worldwide vacation ownership industry has experienced close to 900
pe:cent grofih since 1980, positioning it as the fastest-growing segment ofthe travel and tourism industry.
Based on 1994 reports, there are 4,145 vacation ownership resorts located in 8l counuies and vacation
owners residing in 174 countries. With 384,000 new owrers purchasing 560,000 vacation intervals and
worldwide gross sales of $4.76 billion, 1994 proved a record year for the industry.
Sales Increased Nine-fold Since 1980; 75% Industry Growth Since 1990
A recent study which examined industry performance from 1980 through 1994 revealed that sales in 1994
reflected an increase of 870 percent over the M90 million in worldwide sales reported in 1930. In
addition, the 560,000 vacation intervals sold in 1994 reflected a jump of 460 percent over the interval sales
rePorted in 1980, which were approximately 100,000. At year-end 1994, rougbly 4.9 million vacation
intewals had been purchased since 1980, rezulting in a sales volume of over $36 billion during the l5-year
period.
The rapid acceleration of growth in the vacation ownership industry has been most dramatic in recent
years. From 1992 to 1994, over 780,000 households purchased a total of almost 1.2 million vacation
intervalg producing a sales volume of over $9 billion in just two year Since 1990, the industry has grown
75 percent in terms ofboth vacation ownership resorts developed, * 1,788 new resorts, and households
purchasing a vacation interval, with 1,344,000 additional households ^rom 1990 to 1994.
Chris Larsen or
ARDA
20u371-6700
Ellen Yui
YUI+COMPA}TY
301/585-0298
$5,@O
s4,500
s4,m0
53,500
t Millions $3'60
sa5m
szoo
s1,500
$1,m0
$500
$0
Source: The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Inertry,
@ 1995 by the Americot Resort Development Association
Vacation Ownerchip Industry Global Sales Volume
1980 to 1994
1980 1981 1982 1983 1$zt 19t}5 t986 1987 1988 1989 1990 l9E,1 1S2 1SB 19S4
Trends in the Worldwide Vacation Ownership Industry
1980 to 1994
Year
@ec.3r)
1980
1981
t982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
l9E8
1989
1990
t99r
1992
1993
1994
Resort
Projects
506
631
950
1,200
1,550
1,774
1,779
1,822
1,899
2,132
2,357
2,687
3,050
3,553
Vacation
Owners
155,000
220,000
335,000
470,000
620,000
805,000
970,000
l,l25,0oo
1,310,000
1,530,000
1,800,000
2,070,000
2,363,000
2,760,000
Intervals
Sold
100,000
175,000
205,000
225,000
275,000
245,000
240,000
280,000
300,000
395,000
405,000
440,000
500,000
530,000
SaIes
Volume
$490 mil
$965 mil
$r.165 bil
$r.340 bil
$1.735 bil
$1.580 bil
$1.610 bil
$1.940 bil
$2.390 bil
$2.970 bil
$3.240 bil
$3.740 bil
$4.250 bil
$4.505 bil
$4.760 bil4.145 3.144.000 560.000
Industry Resort Development Escalating Worldwide
There are 4,145 vacation ownership resorts around the world. The n[nber of industry resorts has risen
rapidly, having climbed from only jOO io 1SAO. Vacation Ownership resorts are located in 8l counties,
with 64.6 percent ofthem found in sh countries.
1500
Saurce: The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshqe Indu4,
@ 1995 by the American Resort Development Association
Vacatlon Ownership Resort Proiects Worldwide
1980 to 1994
too
3.
Over 3 Million Eouseholds Enjoy Vacation Ownership
At year-end 1994, approximately 3,144,000 households in 174 counties owned a vacation interval, having
risen fiom 155,000 households in 1980. The industry demonstrated relatively consistent annual worldwide
growth in vacation owners over the eight-year period from 1986 to 1994, averaging 15.8 percent, with a
naoow range from 13.9 to 17.6 percent. The widespread and rising popularity ofvacation ownership
arnongst consumers has been underscored by the rapid escalation ofowners in recent years; from 1990 to
1994, the absolute increases in owners were the highest in the history of the industry.
3,5m,0o
3,0m,000
2,5m,(m
aom,0q,
1,5@,000
1,0Q0@
sqc,0m
0
United States
Europe
Mer<ico
South America
Caribbean
SE Asia/Japan
South Africa
Australia
os,#;",.
TOTAL
Vacation Ownenhip
Resort Projects
Vacation Owners Worldwide
1980 to 1994
U.S. is Global Leader with Nearly 407o of Resorts and 507o of Owners
3.1114.000
The U.S. is the leader in the worldwide vacation ownership
resort market, with 1,546, or 37.3 percen! ofthe resorts,
1,538,000, or 48.9 p€rcent, of the *owners owning in the
areq' and 1,648,000, ot 52.4 p€rc€nt, of the *owners
residing in the area-"
The second most dominant area for vacation ownership is
Europg which contains 29J percent ofthe resorts, 20.9
percent ofthe ownen owning in the are4 and 21.6 perce[t
of the owners residing in the area. Collectively, the U.S.
and Europe contain 67.0 percent ofthe resorts, 69.8 percent
ofthe owners owning in the area' and 74.0 percent ofthe
owners residing in the area-
Number % ofTotal
1,546
1,188
291
29r
276
160
t42
ll7
93
130
tt.5
28.7
28.7
7.0
6.7
3.9
3.4
2.8
2.2
3.1
4,t45 100.0
Source: The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshare Industry,
@ 1995 by the American Resort Development Association
4
Some 52.4 percent of all vacation owne$ in the wortd reside in the U.S., although this rumber is
decreasing as the rnarket takes firmer hold in other countries. The second-ranked country is the United
Kingdor4 with 286,259 owners, or 9.1 percent of the world total. Tlree other countries have over
OI00,0OO
owners, including Mocico, with 171,905, South Afiic4 with 162,339, and Canad4 with 127,050.
Industry Growth Is Accelerating in Europe and South America
Recent growth in the United States has been complemented by a boom in the'racation ownership market
elsewhere in the world, especially in Europe, Morico aad South America. Between 1992 and 1994, on an
area-wide basis, greatest absolute growth was in the U.S., Europe and South America. ltese tbree areas
accounted for 66.4 percent ofthe new resorts, reported at727,75.5 percent ofnew ownerc owning in the
area, .-eportd at 590,000, and75.7 percent of the new ov/neni residing in the area' rePortd at 591,000.
Over one-third (36 percent) of the new resorts were in Europe with 394. Europe also re'alized a47
percent increase in its number ofvacation ownership resorts. The greatest relative insrease was in South
Arrericq where the number of resorts grew 100.9 percetst, from I 15 n 1992 to 231 in 1994. The U.S.
gained 217 resorts during the period.
Europe zurpassed the U.S. as the leader with respect to growth of new owners residing in the area. From
l992to 1994, m additional 245,000 households residing inEurope purchased vacations, compared to
237,OOO in the U.S. Collectively, tlrese two areas accounted for 61.7 percent of all new owners residing in
any given area-
The penetration rate is over 50 owners per 10,000 in only two countries: New Zealan4 at79.4 to 10,000,
and the U.S., at 63.2. The overall average figure for all countries is 8.9 vacation owneni per 1,000 tourists
^from abroad. This ratio is significantly higher in countries with warmer climates, such as Mexico, the
!c.rroo* ano sournern Europe.
Number of Vacation Ownership Resorts Per Country (Thc Top 15)
# of Projects % of Global
Industn
Cumulativc 7o
oflndustry
I
2
3
4(
6
7
E
9
10
l1
t2
13
t4
15
United Stues
Spain
M$rico
Itdy
France
South Afiica
Pornrgal
&gentina
U.K.
Canada
Australia
Japan
Veneanela
Austria
Brazil
Elsewhere
Total
1,546
407
29r
152
143
142
u8
l16
105
93
76
72
66
52
45
721
4145
37.3
9.8
7.0
3.7
3.4
3.4
2.8
2.8
2.5
'r)
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.3
l.l
t7.4
100.0
37.3
47.t
54.1
57.8
6t.2
&.6
67.4
702
72.7
74.9
76.7
78.4
80.0
El.3
82.4
100.0
Source: The 1995 Worldwide Resort Timeshoe Inetstry,
@ 1995 by the American Resort Development Association
'ru
Ellen Yui
YUI+COMPAI iY
301-585-0298
'1796 So-
s{,
8% Dis-
satisfied
St96 Very
3etisfed
ARDA
CONTACT: Cbris Larsen or
ARDA
202-37r-6700
VACATION OWI\ERSEIP: SCORING ATSVISATISFACTION RATING BY OWNERS
With over 1.? million resort vacation owners in the U.S. and nearly 120,000 new buyers each year,
tle vacation ownership industry is enjoying slryrockaing approval ratings froo its owners and achieving
lwels of satisfaction unequaled in the hospitality industry.
Owner Satisfaction Ratin gs
Ofthe vacation owners zuneyed 30.9 percent had
Epechtions Matched
Recommend to Olhers
Satisified with Purciese
Pcitive lmpad on Ufe
o 10 a * ,*;*n"tr1***"fl^"" to 80 so l.')
purchased additional time beyond that which they obtained through their original purchase. This
proportion jumps to 41.2 percent among long-time owners, or those who first purchased at least eight
years ago. In addition, 22.8 percent erpressed interest in purchasing additional weelc.
A recent study rwealed that 75.3 percent of U.S. vacation
owners are satisfed with their vacation purchases, with
76.6 percent ofsnrdy participants responding that their
ergectations at the time ofpurchase have been "matched or
exceede4" and75.4 percent reporting that they
recommend vacation ownership to others. Ofthe more
than 2,000 owners surveyed, 67.5 percent responded that
vacation ownership has had a positive impact on their lives.
Number of Intervals Ovrned
lncreases with Length of Owncnrhip
2
IJ
1
05
0
E O5 to 7 El8 or
Yearc Since R$has€d Fit$ lrnet\€l
Vacation Owner Satisfaction lndicatoF
Most Multi-lAleek Ornerc Purchased
Additional Time Afler Experiencing
Vacation Orvnership
m
Purclreed
all at once
7%
Pudused
more time
later
-giDir}{:Eoo
a
O ,-rn": Timeshte Ownership Benefirs: Results From a Natiomvide Surtey of Timeshoe Owners 1995,
1995 by the Americqr Resort Deve
2
Why They Buy: Eigh Standards of Rcsorts, Fleribility and Vdue
| "foo
important among the motivational factors cited by the owners surveyed in their decision to purchase
vacations were the high standards ofthe resorts at which they own and orchangq followed by the
flo<ibility ofered ttrough vacation oxchange oppornrnities, and tlre vdue of vacation ownership. Of those
surveye4 83.1 percent responded that the "certainty ofquality accommodations'was a \ery important"
frctor in their vacation ownership pr.rchase.
Quali$ Accomm odatiors
BGtar€e OpportLnity
cood Vdlt
Rcco.t, Aienitia3, Utit
Company cndibilily
Saw 5 on Vacatim Costs
Letion of thc rcrort
3r1o50e'7D
Pcrconlage of Pesiliw Rcsponscs
The orchange opiou which allows owners to trade a week at their home resort for any of thousands of
resorts worldwidg was ranked second by owners as a perceived benefit at the time of purchase. Ofthose
surveyed 80.6 percent rated the €r(cbange oppornrnity as a *very inportant frctor in their satisfaction
lwel." Sun'ey participants also cited the value ofvacation ownership as a motivation to purchase and a
reason for satisfaction with rracation ownership products. Some 77.2 percent indicated tbat they felt it
'very imporanf that vacation offered "good value for the money."
Owlers Claim Imprcved Vacation Erperiences, Emotion:.. and Lifestyle Advantages
Vacation owners overwhelmingly agrce th4 they have enjoyed enbanced vacation orperiences as well as
einotional and lifestyle as a direct resrlt ofvacation ownership- Ofthose surveyed, 77.1
perc€ut beliwe the vacation oumership erperience bas bad a positive impact on their'looking forward to
vacations,' end 69.2 perceot attest they have'enjoyed vacations more' since becoming vacation osrners.
tsking ibrwad b vacalioru
Leanirg elgedcrrca
Gercral lifestylc
tl/lentrl hdt't
Fanrily conmunicdiorr
40 50 e)
Pcr€Gdag€ of Po{tive R€apons€s
Soarce: Timeshse Ownerchip Benefi*: Results From a Natiomuide Survey of Timeshoe Owners 1995,
@1995 by the Americor Resort Development Association
Motivations for Vacation Ownership Purchase
Positive LlfesQy'e lmpast of Vacation Ownership
In additioq 67.8 percent of owners have enjoyed a'wider range ofr"acation eoperiences" as a renrlt of
^ vacation ownership, znd 67.1percent have "experienced more rracation destinations' than were available
Jo urem as non-owners.
Owners also derive positive ernotional and lifesryle advantages tbrough vacation ownership, as indicated
by the study's findings. Of those suweyed 66.3 percent responded that their vacatioil; are now "more
restfirl and reviteli?ing" than was true prior to ownership; 64.E percent beliwe that their lives have been
"generally positivdy impacted" by vacation ownership; and 64.6 percent reportd having obtained "greater
peace of mind in planning vacations" as compared with before purchasing a vacation
Personal Benefits of Vacation Ownership
Sbyed in higherquality resorG
Erioycd vacations more
Wider nnge of rraoation
clgcrierres
Erperierred moa€ deslirEtions
Itlbre restfti & evitalizing
vlcations
Sarred $ on @mmodatbnc
Certainty of good e,eeriera
tbre vacatiom away liom
home
Oonfidence of wory-fiee tnwl
Eperiencad moe fi,n &
€rcitemert
More idividrslized treatmert
,O5060
PercenLgr of Po$ti\,! Rcgortsel
The statistics presentd above are based on a suney 6f6sre -rran 2,000 rzcation ownen which was
spot$ored by the Arnerican Resort Development Association (ARDA) and conducted by Ragau Associates
ofpug*g Oregon. Ilalf ofthe respondents to the srvey have owned one or more nacations for at least
seven years. The snrdy participants were drawn from a random sample ofvacation ownerc residing in the
U.S. who belong to at least one of the nvo major U.S. vacation ownersbip ercbange companies.
Source: Timeshqe Ownership Benefits: Results From a Natiomvide Sumey of Timeslure Owners 1995,
@1995 bv the American Resort Development Association
e%
59.1%
ARDA
CONTACT: Chrislarsen or Ellen Yui
ARDA YIJI+COMPANY
202-3714700 301-585-0298
VACATION OWNERSffi: FLEXIBILITYAIII) CEOICE IN TRA\'EL
One of the most popular featr:res of vacation ownership is the flo<ibility offered tbrough the orchange
opportunity. exchange allows the purchaser ofa nacation interest at one resort to orchange it for another
*eet o*niO by someone else at anotbertime or place. Vacation ownership resorts are affiliated with an
exchange "o.p-y, which administers the occhange service for owners at the resofi. Owners individually
eled tJbecoml members of the occhange service company. At many resorts, the doreloper pays for each
new owner's first-year monbership in the orcbange company; thereafter, the exchange company directly
solicits renewals of its consumer memberships.
Confirmed Vacation Erchanges Worldwide 1,47,W 1,4%7s1
1,ffiJ,r21'13J52
1Sn 1991
Dominating the vacation exchange business are two major companies: Interval International (II), based in
Miami, noriaa, and Resort Condominir.rms International @CI), based in Indianapolis, Indiana. Worldwide,
tr and RCI together have approximately 4,000 efFli4sd resorts &- nore than 2.2 million consumer
members. To datg over eight milliga occhanges have been confir-..:d worldwide.
Both RCI and II have U.S. and overseas ofrces and sophisticated computer systems with databases that
store information and match members' desires with available exchange weels. Each orchange company
publishes an annual directory of resorts complete with full-color illustrations from which membe$ can
make orchanse selections.
1,6m,0@
l,,|d).0@
1,2m,(m
1,06,m
8(n,(m
du,0@rm,(m
2m,(m
0
1O4.S34 156.073 ZfZ n1,517
't$81987ls{t1984
esD,0@
2,0@,(m
1,sm,(ID
1,m,o(p
5@,m
o
tgt 1$4 1$5 1986 1987 1g!
Source: Timeshse Pwchasers: llho They Are, WIry Thcy Buy, 1995 Hition
@ 1995 by ke American Resort Developnent Association,
otd data npptied by Intemal Internotional (II) od Resort Condominiums Intenational (RCI)
Vacation E(change Gompany Members Worldwide
Eow the vecation exchange worlis. The vacation owner places hisitrer unit into the occhange company's
pool of weeks available for exchange, and in turn takes another week from that pool. The orchange
companies charge a small transaction fee in addition to an annual membenhip fee, for performing a
computer search to complete an enchange.
Two qpes of exchanges evix: internal and external. An internal exchotge takes place when an owner
orchanges a week at his/her home resort for another at the same resort, or at a different resort dweloped
aut1rt/sr maneged by the same company. An external exchange occurs when au owner grves up his/her
week at tle home resort in return for a week at a different resort with which the owner has no connection.
External exchanges make up the vast majority of the thousands of erchanges which occur each year
worldwide.
11t/.1
3 crclL
Number of E<change Vacations
Taken by U.S. Orners
(as of 1994)
(e/l l2ffLl
6ornplr
Steady Rise in Use of Vacation Erchange
According to a recent surv€y, the average vacation
owner has made 4.8 orchange requests and has taken 4.0
cxchange vacations. These figures indicate a
confrmation rate of85 percent for all orchang€ requests.
Over tbree-quarten (81.0 perceut) of aII current U.S.
timeshare owners have taken an orchange vacation,
hal ing risen from 50.3 percent in 1989 and 44.5 percent
in 1982.
Ofthe more than 2,000 U.S. vacation owners surveyd
73.5 percent responded that they have belonged to an
crchange company since they purchased and that they
plan to maintain th' nembership.
fu of year-end 1994, 25 -2 perce* of U.S. vacation
or rners had taken six or more ecrchange vacations.
Approximately 31.6 percent ofU.S. oumenl have taken
five or more orchange vacations.
(19/.)
no erdr.
Erchange Company Resort Amliations Worldwide
1*7 1988 1gx'
Source: Timeshsre Purchasers: Who They Are, Why They Buy, 1995 Hition,
@ 1995 by the American Resort Development Association,
and data npplied by Intemal Internafional (II) od Resort Condominiums International (RCI)
(r37.1
067.1
I erch.
ARDA
CONTACT: Chris Larsen or Ellen Yui
ARDA YIJI+COMPA}IY
202-3714700 301-585-0298
VACATION OWDIERSEIP: DTVERSE PRODUCTS,
QUALITY ACCOMMODAfiONS AND FLEXIBILITY
Consumer demand for the vacation ownership product has never been higber, as evidenced by the more
than 3 million households woddwide who have joined the ranks ofvacation ownen;, with customer
satisfaction ratings that surpass 75 perceng according to a 1995 zuwey of owners. As the fastest-growing
segment of the global travel and tourism industry, vacation ownership is redefining consumer travel by
setting higher standards in hospitality, ssvilali;ng travel and leiswe tbrough new products and services,
and elevating consumer expectations ofthe vacation orperience.
When asked during a 1995 survey to rank motivational factors in their purchase decision and reasons for
their satisfaction with the product, more than 2,000 U.S. vacation owne$ cited the higb standards of the
resorts at which they own and orchange, the flo<ibility offered through vacation orchange opportunities,
and the value ofvacation ownership as the top tbree. Ofthose surveyd 83.1 percent responded that the
*certainty of quality accommodations" was a'ver,r important" factor in their vacation ownership
purchase; 80.6 percent rated the exchange oppornrnity, which allows owners to trade a week at their
home resorts for any ofthousands of resorts worldwide, as a nery important factor in their satisfaction
level;" and 77.2 percedt indicated that they felt it "very important" that vacation ownership offered "good
value for the monsy."
Divene Products. Com-only referred to as vacation ownership, timeshares, inter%l ownership, and
vacation clubs, today's vacation ownership product equals, and in mary ca:ses sttrpa.ltses, accommodations
at traditional luxtrry resorts and puts corunrme$ in the driver's seat when they vacation. Timeshuingis a
term used to describe a method of use and ownership of red estate where purchasers get title to specific
periods oftime in units of real properry in common interest subdivisions.
On the other hand" the vacation club is a trdvel and use product only. Consumers do not buy a ftred week,
uniq unit sizg season, resort or number ofdays to vacation each year. Instea4 they purchase points which
represent the "currenct'' used to access the various benefits in the club. dn important advantagE is the
tremendous flodbility of the product, especially when tied to a point system. A vacation club is not tid to
real estate ownership in any way. It is tnrly a depreciating asset, just as is an automobilg because its value
declines with each year of use, as there are fewer years Ieft to go in the membership.
A vacation club usually has the following attributes:
--. o It has a finite term and often no fee interest.
t . It provides the use of accommodations in various locations.
. It is higtly flerible aad may be based on the use of "points'' to get accorffnodations or other benefits'
o It offers benefits otherthan lodging such as travel services, hotel discounts, golfpackages, health or
crty club memberships.r It may offer different types of lodging zuch as condominiums, timeshares, hotels, campgrounds or
cnriseships.
The Vacation Ownership Resorl The purpose-built vacation ownuship resort is a product of
architectural engineering and interior desigrr ialents operating io "Jnerg
to create an environrnent designed
specifically tor a rewardlog leisure lif.tryl;. This synergy expresses itself in the spatial organization of the
individual units, choice of furnishings, fixtures and equipment and resort anenities- Individual
chara6eristics of the vacation o*o"lthip product can bL found through the more traditional hospitality
productq what sets the vacation ownership product apart is the combination of quality accomnodations,
ihe spaciousness, comfort and 6:nrry feanro of zuiteg firll-sewice resort amenities and unparalleled
flodbility available to consumers in one resort.
Driven by escalating consumer demand and competition within the industry, the desig!, constnrction and
quality oivacation ownership resorts has improved dramatically since the industry's inception. In the
fgZOj, vacation ownership tisotts were mostly dweloped as conversion projests of old hotels'aPartments
and especially condominiums that had not sold as whole ownership units. Present conversions include all
ofthe above in addition to the recent participation of large hotel cbains in the vacation ownership industry.
In the years sincg product design has become more eirpansive and sophisticated.
The Units. Most vacation ownership units have two bedrooms and trno firll bathl and can sleep up to six
people. One-bedroom units are furnished to sleep up to four people. Studio units typicaily sleep no more
irtri toro people. A recent dwelopmeot is the'lockof' or "lockout' unit. Such rmits may consist oftwo
bedrooms and two batbrooms, or tbree bedrooms and three batbrooms. They are designed so the owner
can occupy the living room and one or two bedroomX and offer the remaining space for rental- Units
uzually incUae fu[ kitchens outfitted with a variety of amenities, including large refiigerators, dishwashers,
microwave ovens, blenders, juicers and informal breaffist nooks or counters. lvlany also bave washers and
dryers in the units.
lvlany units include a variety of hrnrry features, including:
r double-volumeceilines
. telTaces
o balconies
o wood-burningfireplaces
o hot tubs
. whirlpool baths
o saunas
. sumpilous master batbrooms
r home 6sls6ainment centers with
large-scteen TV sets
o VCRs. stereoso premium cable TV service
3
The Public Spaces. Similar to traditional hospitality resorts, the vuiety of public sPaces found in vacation
ownership t"rbrtt include hospitality areas such as the lobby, game roons, restauralfts, and convenience
shops. In 16s-simFle resorts organied as condominiums, these public spaces are the "common elements"
O in which each owner may have an undivided interest.
Resort Amenities. The anenities offered at vacation ownership resorts rival those of many ofthe top-
rated raditional resort properties in the world, and include:
. fully-equippedo<ercise
facilities
o indoor and outdoor swimming
pools
o private beach access
o golf courses
o tennis and racquetball courts
o ski lifts
o bicycles and paths on
proPerry
r equestrianfacilities
e boats and marina facilities
. fishingpiersandtackle
o on-site shopping centers
o gourmet dining
o theaters
o nigbtclubs
o shuttleto of-site attractions
The Owners' Association. A benefit of vacation ownership is that those who buy into a recreational
environment aiso purchase the privilege of ownership ofthat environment. Specifically, the owners of
vacation weeks sold on a fee-simple condominium basis or as shares in a not-for-profit corporation become
members oftheir resort's ownerrassociation, often called the Condominium Owners' Association (COA)
or Homeowners' Association (IIOA). At the time of purchasg wery buyer receives project documents
which set forth the organizational requirements ofthe resort's owners association. These documents
generally include a declaration of condominium bylaws, and, for incorporated associations, articles of
incorporation and bylaws as required under their state's laws.
When a stipulated percentage ofthe unit-weeks in the resort - usuall :bout 75 percent - has been sold,
control ofthe association passes to the owners who elect a board of .--^'ectors to oversee the resort's
operations. The board in nrru may form committees to focus on specific operational altPects. The owners
association of a vacation ownership resort operates in exactly the same menner as any typical whole
ownenhip residential condominium association.
The Erchange Opportunif. One ofthe most popular features ofvacation ownership is the flo<ibility
offered through the orchange oppornrnity. Exchange allows the purchaser ofa vacation interest at one
vacation ownership resort to orchange it for another week owned by someone etse at another time or
place. Resorts il's effili31sd with an exchange company, which administers the o<cbange sewice for
owners at the resort. Owners individually elect to become members of the o<change service company. At
Eany resorts, the dweloper pays for each new owner's first-year membenhip in the orchange comPany;
thereafter, the axchange company directly solicits renewals of its memberships.
4
The vacation owner places hiVherunit into the o<change company's pool ofweeks available for orchange
and in turn takes another week from tbat pool. The exchange companies charge a small transaction fee, in
addition to an annual membership fee, for performing a computer search to complete an orchange. Two
tyaes of orchanges exist: internal and external. An internal exchange takes place when an owner
orchanges a week at hiVher home resort for another at the same resort, or at a diferent resort developed
and/or managed by the same company. fui external occhange occurs when an owner gives up hiVherweek
at the home resort in return for a week at a diferent resort with which the owner has no connection.
External orchanges make up the vast majority of the thousands of exchanges which occur worldwide each
yeaf,.
ARDA
CONTACT: Chtis Larsen or
ARDA
202-3714700
Ellen Yui
YUI+COMPA}IY
301-585-0298
TEEAMERICAI{RESORTDE\TELOPMENTASSOCTATION
'Tt" Aorrri"- Resort Development Association (ARDA) is a not-for'profit trade association representing
the segment of the leisure industry that deals with ownership of resorfand vacation products' Based in
Wasniiglon, D.C., ARDA is tne only international trade association representing all facets of the resort
industry-. ARDA serves more rran Ebo member companies from around the world and represents more
than 1,600 resorts, including timeshare and second-home resorts, comnrunity development properties,
vacation ownership resorts and fractional interests-
ARDA Mission StatemenL It is the mission of ARDA to foster and promote the grourth of the industry
and to serve its mernbers through:
Ethics Enforcement
Education
Legislative Advocacy
Membership D eveloPment
Public Relations
a
a
o:
ARDA Code of Staudards & Ethics. ARDA and its members are cornmitted to the highest stantards
and ethics in resort, vacation, recrcationat, reside,utial, and community development for the benefit of the
public. As an orample of that commitment, ARDA adopted a Codeof Standards & Ethics and strictly
*for"., it amongst its mernbership. The strongest of any found inthe^housing or hospitality indusries'
ARDA,s Code outlines daailed piofessional g,iA.[o.r for a[ frcets of industry practices, fromreal estate
development to marketing to hospitality managernent. It consists ofgeneral requirements, solicitation
requirements and sales requiremenits.
ARDA Resort Ownerc Coalition (ARDA-ROC). Established in 1989, the Resort Owners Coalition
directly represents the needs and concenu of vacation owuers. ARDA-ROC is ftmded tbrough the
voluntary contributions ofindividual owners an4 while affIiated with_4RDA is a separate legal entity'
1.fyough legislative and regulatory advocacy andresearch, ARDA-ROC serves the unique role of placing
the concerns ofowners at the top ofthe vacation ownership industry agenda
The ARDA Education Institute (AEI). The ARDA Education Institute (AEI) creates learning and
professional advancement opportunitiesfor professionals who currently work in the vacation ownership
industry, and professionak wlo seek to entei it. AEI oflers publicaions, study courses, and tests which
assess tur individual's knowledge ofindustry standards and practices'
Once industry professionals have passed the AEI Quali6cation Test,4*R'PA offers them the oppornrnity to
earn the certification ofRegistered Resort Professional (RRP). TheRRP certification is awarded to
individual members of AnOe who have eamed a total of 10 AEI Credits and who have de'nonstrated
long-term professionalism and a commitment to excelletrce and ethics in the vacation ownership industry'
Tiriugtr AEI's Seal ofAchievement program for company designation and the individual resort
profesiional designations, ARDA awardJthe dedication oiits membership to the highest staadards of
resort development and hospitali.ty rlan€ement.
Legislative Advocacy. Established in 1969 as the American Land Dwelopment Associatioq ARDA
began as a lobbying organization and has continued througbout its bistory to emphasize govgrnm:nt
relations. ARDA continues to voice industry concerns at tle Federal and state lwels through an integrated
program of proactive and reactive legislativi initiatives. ARDA's national network of representatives
tp""t for dwelopers and vacation owners across the country on zuch diyerse issucs as tor policy, labor and
emplolment laq and environmental poticy. Central elernents of ARDA's legistative advocacy are its
etrorts to protect the ownership rights of industry consumers and enhance the grorvth of the vacation
ownership industry.
Communications. Communicating the many aspects ofthe vacation ownership industry is a core function
of ARDA Through annuai snrdies otitrarrttry p"rformance and consumer satisfrction with the vacation
ownership orperieirce, ARDA provides up-todate infonnation to coffilrmeni, the medi4 fina:rciers,
legislatori, regulators and others. With the help of the Alliance for Timeshare Excellence (ATE), a self-
zuiporting griup of industry leaden dedicated to the advancement of the industry, ARDA works to
communicate the gourth ofthe vacation ownership industry and its value to and benefits for the colxnrmer'
v Meetings and Membership. ARDA plays an integral role in fostering interactionbetween resort
developirs and industry professionals.-fht*gh itJtfee annual meetings and symposi4 ARDAbrings
togethir leaders anA you"g professionals in thi vacation ownership industry to share inforrration and
orpericnces. Through these mectings, both veterans of and newcomers to the industry learn ofthe many
elements that contribute to success in the vacation ownership industry'
At the core of each ARDA meeting is its volunteer leadership. In addition to the ortensive public
workshops, roundtables and informat disorssions, ARDA's leaders participate on morethantwenty
specialized committees which address conrmon iszues among the membership. From education and
tigistation to sales and marketing to ethicq ARDA's leaders work together to build the industry and to
provide consumers enjoyable ocperienceq quality productg and good value'
ARDA
CONTACT: Chris Larsen or Ellen Yui
ARDA YUI+COMPAI'IY
202-371-6700 301-585'0298
RECREA'TIONAL PROPERTY IN TEE UNTIED STATES
Chances of Purchasing Recreational
Propery During Next l0 Years
100t6
Clrtain
(3*l
Less then
60150
(26%)
Anerican interest in ownership ofrecreational
properly is on the rise. According to a February-
1995 telephone survey of 1,000 U.S. households not
owning recreational proPerty, 60.3 percent of
Asrericans believe they have a chance ofpurchasing
recreational Property of some type during the ne,<t
t€n years.
The srwey results revealed that over one-third (34'6
percent) of Americans rate their chances of
purchasing during the nort ten ysus iul "about 50-50
or b€tter," compared to 15.5 percent in 1990 and
25.5 percent in 1993. Among those optimistic
respondents, strongest interest was found among
residents ofthe West regoq where 40.0 percent
responded their cbaaces were high during the noc l0
years, ils compared ro 33-7 percent in the South
reglon, 33.7 percent in the North Centrd regiorl and
31.4 percent in'.::e Northeas region
Age is Strongest Factor of Estimated Chance of Purchasing
Age is the most significant factor in establishing rates of optimism regarding the possible purcbase of
tit"utionrt property during the next l0 years. Survey respondents under age 40 were by frr thrc most
likely to beliive they wil purchase ,sfth 47 -4 percent of positive respons€s. Interest drops in the 40-to-54
age bracket to 41.8 percent, and declines still further in the 55-and-over bracket to 13.3.percent.
Household income ranls second as a factor. For o<amplg 48.6 percent of households with incomes of
$75,000 or more beliwe they have at least a 50-50 chance of purchasing recreational property within the
next 10 years, rui compared to 26.3 percent of households with incomes under $20,000.
Source: The Americot Recreational Property Sart'ey: 1995'
@ 1995 by The International Timeshoe Foudation
2
Madtal stafirs and gender represent the fit'al demographic variables which affest opimistic attittrdes toward
purchasing recreatinal property. Surprisingly, single males voiced the strongest belief in ao ab_ilily to
purchase iecreational property, with +i.l pJrcent ofthose surveyed responding they had a 50-50 or better
.tr-"" of zuch "
p*.tt"ri. By contrast, this indicator was lowest among single fernales , d only 24'5
percent. It is 34.e percent among married couples. Correspondingly, it is much higber anong all (married
atra riogt") male reipondents than among all female respondents, at45.2 percent and289 Percent'
respectively.
Prcferred Type of Location
Florida and Beaches Rank Fint
as Preferred Site and Location
Americans cite Florida (15.4 percent) more than any other
state or foreigrr country as tlre location ofchoice for a
3(}8% recreational itop"tty iurchase. The ne:<t five most
frequently cited locations are: Calihrni4 at 8.5 percent;
30.1% Colorado, at 5.5 percent; North Carolin4 at 4-9 percent;
Texas, at 4.2percat; and Arizona at 3.4 percent- Florida
and California ranked first and second in similar phone8.7r
surveys conducted in 1993 and 1990. A total of 5.6
percent of survey participants cited a foreign locatiog with
the Caribbean ranking fint anong them at 2.6 percent.
The beach is the most prdened type oflocation for
recreational property, selected by almost one-third (30.8
percent) ofrespondents. It narrowly edges out lake
iocations (30.1 percent) and mountain aras(26-2 percent).
These top three are far preferred over other options, zuch
as the tropics (9.3 percent); golfcourses (5.6 percent),
attraction areas (5.4 ':ent), ski aras (4.7 percent), or tle
desert (1.5 percent). ch type oflocation tends to be
most popular where ir rs available: beach areas are most
popular among Americans who live in the West or
Northeast; lakes among those who live in the North Central
region; and mountains among tlose who live in the West.
Demographics also bave an impact on preferred locations for recreational ProPerty ownership. Beach
areas tini to be most popular among maniea couples, younger pe$ons, and the more afluent. Mountains
and ski areas tend to Jttract tlose who are younger. Golf locations are most attractive to the more
afluent.
Two-bedroom Unit Outrants Others as Prefercnce by Two-to-One
Americar,s interested in purchasing recreational property prefer the standard trro-bedroom unit, sleeping
six, over any other single unit size by more than a two-to-one margn (45.7 perceut). Other preferences
break out as follows: one-bedroom with 22.6 percent; three-bedroom with 15.5 percent; studio or
l,:h
Mo||ntalns
Troplcs
Golf cousc
anla
lfrracdon
atL
Sld arta
Des€rt
Othcr
1) efrciencf with 8.9 percent; and 7.3 percent with more than three bedrooms.
Source: The Americot Recreational Property Suney: 1995,
@ t995 by The International Timeshare Foundation
lvlarried couples and more afluent [6si6ans :ue more interested ''ru, their counterParts in the largest .
units, partiorlarly units with tbree or more bedrooms. Over onethird (35.8 percent) of-respondents with
incomes over $20,000 would prefer a studio or one-bedroom unit as compared to only 21'1 percent of
those with incomes over $75,000. These proportions were 64.2p€rcent and 79'0 percetrt,-r€sPectivdy' for
two-bedroom or larger unitr. Long responients over 55 years of age 41.6 percent would prefer a studio
or one-bedroom unit as compared tiofiy Zt.Zpercent of those under 40. These proportions are 58'4
percent and 71.7 percent, respectively, for trro-bedroom or larger units'
An American Dream: The Sing|e.family Vacation Eome or Cabin
A single-famity vacation home or cabin is the dream of more lnst'isens than any otlertJp-e ofrecreational
prop"iry. Weil over half (61.7 percent) of responding hotseholds expressed some level of interest in this
option, including 23.1 percent who were 'Aery interested." Ra.nking second in popularity was a vacant
parcel ofland foi consr,raion of a second homg cited by 48.9 percent' with 18.0 percent \ery
interested." Third in popularity were resort condominiums, which were cited by 34.7 petcent of zuwey
participants, with 5.0 percent'Aery interested."
The majority sf'Amsrisens (51-7 percent) believe that an attractive and realistic price for recreational
properry is in the $25,000 to SIOO,OOO range. The median desired price is about $48,000. Gven astual
irices for rec.eatioi prop.tty, tlis finding suggests tbat most Americans will need to adjust their
foectations. necreatitnal properties rt" -"rt"ioty available inrhis-price rangg ho'wever they tend not to
U.in".ott popular options, such as a cabin or detached vacation home. More often' they are homesiteE
older or smaller condominiumq timeshares, or canping frcilities.
Soarce: The American Recreational ProperE Sarvey: 1995,
@ lgg| by The Intertntional Timeshse Foundotion
ARDA
CONTACT: Chris Larsen or Ellen Yui
ARDA YUI+COMPAI\IY
202-371-6700 301-585-0298
VACATION OWIIERSEIP: PIIRCEASE TRENDS AltD PRODUCT CEARACTERISTICS
The average vacation owner has purchased 1.7 weeks. Although nearly two-thirds (5S.8 Percent) of
vacation o*ners own a single week oftimesharg the number ofweeks owned increases the longer the
average respondent is invoived with vacation ownership. According to a recent survey of U-S. timeshare
o*o"i., those who first purchased from 1991 to 1994 reported an average ofjust 1.2 weeks apiece.
Average weeks owned ctimbed steadily to 1.8 weeks for those first purchasing between l9E5 and 1990'
andto 2-2 weeks for those first purchasing prior to 1985.
Industry snrdies indicate that as timeshare owners use their purchase and/or exchange it, they are
zufrciently satisfied wi.h the product to purchase a multiple ofweeks at different locations. Ownership of
two or three weeks of rimeshare in multiple locations allows consumers to own just the arnount of time
they can financially aford and have vacation time to usg instead of spending a much larger artount on
whtle ownership of resort properry that sits idle the majority of the year or has to depend on often
unreliable rental programs for a return on investment (and, in most cases, even to cover mortgage
Payments).
Experienced Owners Purchase Multiple Intervals Over Time
The vast majority of owners (73.9 percent) initially purchase just or- -lterval. However, more than one-
quarter (26.1 percent) of those who first pr:rchased between 1992 ro i994 now own more than one
timeshare interval, indicating that many first-time purchasers are purchasing more than one intenal at the
time of initial purchase. Thire is a strong tendency to purchase more intervals over time: more than half
(50.9 percentjof owners who initiaily p*cnusea prior to 1985 cunently own more tlan one intsval' and
22.9 perceot own three or more intervds.
Overall, 58.8 percent ofvacation owners have purchased one interval;41.2 percent have.purchased two or
more intervali; la.S percent have purchased three or more intervals; and 8.6 Percent bave purchased four
or more intervals.
Multiplelocation Ownenhip Increases with Lenglh of Ownenhip
One-quarter (24.2 percent) of all current owners own intervals in more than one location. As with the total
number of intervals owned, the proportion of multiple-location ownership increases with length of
ownership: 6.1 percent for those purchasing Aom l99l to 1994; 26.8 percent for those purchasing from
Source: Timeshare Purchasers: Who They Are, Why They Buy, 1995 Hition,
@ 1995 by the American Resort Developmenl Association
1985 to 1990; and 36.2 perceut for those first purchasing prior to 19E5. In the latter group, the average
owner owili 2.2 weeks of ti-estare in 1.5 locations. Some 10.7 percent own in tlree or more locations.
Goop.
1Slo
Breakout of Vacation Owners
by Type of Ownership
Legal Forms of Vacation OwnershiP
Fee simple ownership is the most common legal form of
vacation ownership. It is held by 78.5 percent ofall current
ownerc urd by 77.1pacert of those who purchased in
1993 or 1994.
The rigbt+o-use interesf reported in 1995 as the type of
ownenhip |n21.6 percent of cases, is increasing anew,
having prwiously dipped to 19.7 percent of owners in 1989
from a 1978 level of3t.2 perced. The cooperative
concept is relativelyucommon, representing only l-9
percent ofowners atyear-end 1994, having risen slightly
from 1.3 percent in 1989.
Two-Bedroom Units Dominate Timeshart Market
An increase in the size distribution of r:nits represents one of the most noticeable trends in the industry,
with two-bedroom units dominating the timeshare marka. For oramplg in 1978, 26.9 percent of owners
bad a snrdio/efficieocy unit; this figure dropped to 17.8 p€rc$t by year-end 1994. Growth has occuned
lprimarilv in two-bedroom units, which are currently owned by more than half (55.8 percent) ofU-S.vo*n"6, h.t,'iog risen from 35-l percent of owners in 1978. As of l99d 33.7 percent of owners purchased
a one-bedroom unit, and 1 l. I percest own a three-bedroom or larger unit.
Single individuals and households without children living at home are more likely to purchase smaller units.
For-enranrplg 18.5 percent of the snrdio/efrciency units are owned by single individlds as compared to
12.6 percintof thJnro-bedroom units. Furthermore, 60.1 percent of the sardio/efficiency units are owned
by households without children rmder 18 years of age living at home compared to only 53.9 percent ofthe
two-bedroom units.
The smaller units also are more frequently owned by yor:nger house,holds. Some 15.9 percent of the
studio/efficiency units are owned by households with a household head under 35 as compared to only 6.5
percent ofthe two-bedroom units. About an equal proportion ofthe two sizes ofunits are owned by older
(OO years or over) respondents - 24.4 percent ofthe srudio/efficiency units and27.4 perc€nt ofthe nro-
bedroom units.
There is little variation between household income and the size ofthe rurit owned. Howwer, 31.7 percent
of the studio/effciency units are owned by households with incomes over $75,000 as compared to 36.5
percent ofthe trryo-bedroom units.
Source: Timeshse Purchasers: Who They Are, Why They Buy, 1995 Hition,
@ 1995 by the American Resort Development Association
Floating Weeks and Split-Week Use Options
- Floating weeks are growing in populuity as a form
of access arrangement. Of owners zurveyed in
1994,41.4 percent owned floating weeks,
including 18.0 percent who own an interval that
floats within a specific season and23.4 percent
who own an intervd that floats on a year-round
basis. Some 5.1 percent ofrespondents reported
they own intervals with various other access
arrangements. As a type of access arrangement,
floating weeks have risen drarnatically in recent
years; in 1982, only 7.1 percent ownedfloating
weeks.
Product Flexibiliry Increasing with Breakout of Vacation Owners
by tnterval Access Anangement
FlodnE
Tlme
Utlthln
9eason
Fe/.|
Flxed
Tlme
l6r/.)
The increasing emphasis on floating time is particularly e\rident in recent years: 48.8 percent
^of
the 1993
and 1994 p*In"r"tr bought this t1,pe of access iurangement. Only one-half (53.1 percent) of the 1993-94
purchasers bought fixed time, as ctmpared to 68.9 percent of all current owners and92.9 percent of
owners in 1982.
The split-week use option, although relatively uncommon, is gaining in popularity as a form of ownership.
Ony ia.O percent of current o*oot own at least one timeshare interyal in a resort that allows them to split
their weehof time into two or more shorter stays. Howorer, the split-week use concept is gaining in
poputarity, as demonstrated by recent purchases: 21 percent ofowners who purchased from 1993 to 1994
own in a resort offering this concept.
Source: Timeshare Purchasers: Who They Are, WIty They Buy, 1995 Hition,
@ 1995 by the American Resort Development Association
/
ARDA
CONTACT: Cbris Larsen or Ellen Yui
ARDA YIJI+COMPA]fl'
202-3714700 301-5854298
VACATION OWIIERSEIP: BEMFTIS FORLOCAL ECONOMIES
The benefits which vacation ownership resorts accrue to the local economy are sipificant and zurpass
those offered by more traditional tlpes of resorts. For instancq vacation ownership resorts bring more
visitors to the resort area on a per-unit fs5is than the typical resort hotel. Vacation owuen; also spend a
considerable zum both in reaching the resort area and while staying there. In addition, the return visitation
patterns ofvacation owneni are high, and their lengths ofstay are edensive.
According to a 1995 survey of U.S. owners, the average timeshare visitor Parry spends $1,157 simPly for
lodgrng and transportatiorl en route to tie resort. This amount represents a 151 percent increase over
figuresreportedinlgSg,urda304.5percentincreaseoverlgT8figures. Thebulkofthe$1,157isspent
on "irf"r"r, with an average of $753 per parry. The nqrt largest category is for automobile travel, at S175
per Parry.
Sipilicant Consumer Erpenditures
While in the local resort are4 the average timeshare visitor party spends considerably more than the
traditional traveler, averaging orpenditures of$I,130 during the course ofthe entire stayr This arnounts to
an average of approximatelyltes per day, based onthe average sta,v '6.9 days. ThisEverage weekly
expenditure has risen 69.2 percent since 1989 and 122.9 percent sinc: )78.
Avg. $
Exoenditure
Vo of
Total
Restaurants, bars
Groceries, zundries, liquor
Car rental gasoline
Entertainmant, sports
Shopping
Movies, attractions, tours
Other
$316
t29
t42
163
2rl
l19
50
2E.0
t 1.4
t2.6
t4.4
18.7
10.5
4.4
Total $1,130
According to the more tharr 2,000 U.S. vacation
owners surveyed in 1995, the largest single
category of ogenditure while in the resort area is
for food and drink connrmed in restaurants, bars
and other hospitality establishments, representing
an average of $316 per party. Shopping for
clothing souvenirs, art, handicrafrs, and similar
items represents an additional $211.
Source: Timeshse Purchasers: Who They Are, Vlthy They Buy, 1995 Edition,
Q 1995 by the Americot Resort Development Associafion
Other expendihres include: groceries, zundries ald liquor purchased in stores and bars' at $129;
entertainment and sports, at $163; rental automobiles and glasoline atSl42; admissions to museums, rides,
tours, movies and other attrastions, at $119; and other items, at $50. The proportion of the to+'al anount
of expenditures allocated to the various individual items bas rcmained relatively constant since 1989'
Longer Lengths of Stay and Larger Visitor Party Size
Vacation ov/ners suweyed in 1995 averaged 6.9 nights in tle resort area during their most recent timeshare
vacation. Over one-half (56.2 percent) tt"V o""tfiswen nights, and 78.3 percent stay between five aad
swen nights. Of those zurveyed 10.6 percent stay more than swen nights'
In additioq vacation owners often ortend their stay in the local resort area by spending uad|f$ nights in
another forur of accommodation. Of those nrweyed in 1995, the average owner spent an addition 4'7
nights in the local resort arezr during his/her moslrecent timeshare vacation by staying in a hotel' sith
friinds or relatives, or elsewhere. The greatest proportion of tbis additional time (an average of 1.9 nights
ofthe 4.7 night$ was spent in a hotel or motel.
The average timeshare visitor party contains 3.6 people. Two sizes ofvisitor parties dominate, including
n ,,o p.oplE, at34.l percent, and four people, at ia.O percent. Approximately oneauarter ofthe parties
(2a. i peicent) are five or more people, I l-.4 percent are tbree Persons, aad2.3 percent are single
individuats.
Travel to Resort Area Incrcascs After Vacation Purchase
The significant and positive economic impact which vacation ownenhip has on the nrrounding area is
unders-cored by the change in travel patterns in the resort area by vacation owners after their purchase ofa
vacation interval. U.S. Jwners zurueyea in 1994 reported that they anticipate r*r.uuing tothe resort area
where their timeshare intenral is locaied an average of 6.4 times during the noct 10 ycars. By contrast
those same ownen; responded that, had ttrey not purchased a timesbare in the are4 thery would have
renrrned to the resort area an average of only f.f times. (Note: vacation owners will exchange several
times dgring a l0-year period; the average anticipated return rate noted above does not include owneni
excbanging-out into other areas or other owners ecrchanging into the area-)
Owners also reported that, on avenge, they spend 9.5 days in the area where the timesbare intervd is
located, as compared to the average-of 5.7-days they spent in the area prior to their vacation purchase.
Source: Timeshare Purchasers: Who They Are, Why They Buy, 1995 fulition,
@ 1995 by the American Resort Development Association
/
ARDA
CONTACT: Cbris Larsen or
ARDA
202-3714700
Ellen Yui
Y-t.[+COMPAITIY
301-585-0298
VACATION OWNERSEIP: A GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Camping Site. A space designated and promoted for the puryose of locating a trailer, tent, tent trailer,
piclctrp €mper or other similar device used for camping. (See aln RV Conpgrond.)
Common Interest Realty Association (CIRA). fui association of real property osneni that is generally
responsfule for providing maintenance services and maintaining repairing and replacing property that the
real property owners share or own in conmon- Exarnples of CIRAs include condominium, cooperativg
timeshare and planned unit dwelopment associations. Membership in a CIRAis generally mandatory for
owners and is a condition of purchase of a condominium unit, single fa.mily home, or share in a cooperative
at the partiorlar development. CIRA members have defined ownership that can be transfened to buyers of
their shares or units.
Common Intercst Subdivision. Increasingly used to describe a variety of ownership interest zubdivisions
where there is a commondity of interest between purchasers. Such subdivisions include planned unit
developments, condominiums, timeshareg townhouse projectC undivided interest nrbdivisions and others.
Condominium. A common interest zubdivision project in which individud ownErs get fee title to the air
space located within the walls oftheir individual units as well as a percentage ownership interest in the
balance ofthe project which rnay include recreational facilities. Itfary timesbare projects are developed as
part of condominium regimes. Condominiums may be either fee interest or leasehold. In the fee interest
condominium, an owner has absolute title in perpenrity to his unit and undivided interest in the common
area facilities. In a leasehold condoninium, the ownersbip interests end when the leasehold is terminated,
often for a t€rrr of40 to 58 years.
Contract for Deed or Real Estate Purchase Agreement A purchase contract by which the seller agrees
at some futr.ue point in time when the purchaser has paid the full price of the real estate,'to cowey title to
the purchaser. Contracts for dccd or real estate purchase agreemffts may be coupled with escrow
arangements where title is held by atr escrow agent to iutstre comteyance to the purcbaser at the end ofthe
tenn, notvrithstanding the status ofthe original seller. Escrow arangements are especially recomnended
in long-term purchase agreements.
Deed. The instrument used to convey interest in real property. The three 6pes of comnon deeds in use
today are general warranty or grant deed, special urarrdrty deed and quitclaim deed.
Fee Simple Ownership is tied to a particular unit and is owned in perpetuity or until sold by the owner.
Owner receives a fee-simple deed with title insurance. Close to 90 percent ofU.S. ti'neshare resorts
ourently sell on a fee-simple basis.
Fee Simple Camp Resort Purchaser receives a deed to a specific campsite and has the exclusive right to
use this canpsite at any time. Most fee simple projects include such common area amenities as swimming
pools, shOwers and recreational centers that are managed by an owners' association.
Fee Title. A common law term used to describe the status of absolute title as opposed to leasehold or
other interest less than a firll ownership interest in real estate. It is commonly used in reference to "fee
simple title" or "fee simple absolutg"
Fired Week Shared Interest A type of Aacdonal ownership in which the owner knows the specific
weeks within a given year that he/shi will have access to the accommodations year after year. Also known
as "fixed ti[re."
Floating Weeks Based on Fixed Week Rotation. A kind of fractional ownership approach that gives
gteater fledbility tbzn a Fixed Week Shsed Interest because key weeks rotate among tle various owners
each year.
Floating Weeks Based on Ownenhip Rotation. An approach to fractioml ownership that offers total
flo<ibility for the owners. Herg the owner actually purchases the Aaction for which the accommodation is
r offered and works out appropriate usage with the other ownerc on a rotating basis each year.
U
Fractional Ownerchip Interest Interrrals longer than a traditional timeshare unit-week Typically one-
quarter, one-eighth, oi one-tenth share in the accommodation. Generaily, fee title ownership is conveyed.
Leasehold Product All ownership rights in the real property are as red for a specified number ofyears.
Membership Camp Resorl The type of camp resort in which owners have rights ofuse based on
membership certificates that are generally effective as long as the member pays the dues and assessments
required. The developer retains ownership of the real property and improvements.
Ownel:' Association (OA). A body of owners created by statute or by filing of articles of non-profit
corporation that administ"ti th" rulei and regulations of a projea. Membership in the orvners' association
is generally mandatory in projects where multiple interests are involved. Such associati6ns are also
sometines known u Homeowterc' Association (IIOA), aCondominhms Associdion (COA), zProperty
awners' Association (POAI or z Common Interest Realty Association (CIRA).
I
Planned Unit Development (PIID). A common interest subdivision in which the individual home sites
and dwellings are owned by purchasers but common areas are included that embrace ttre road systems and
the shared resreational facilities available to residents ofthe PUD. Most PUDs have an ownetrs'
association that holds title to the common areas and administers theor- Such associations may have broad
powers, including the right to require erterior maintenance of individual units in the planned unit
dwelopment.
Private Camp Resorl A camp resort which typically provides a broader range of arnenities and astivities
for campers, more stringent seouity meztsures and a more wholesomg frnily-oriented envAonment than
public campgrounds. Many ofthese canp resorts offer on-site camping trailers and/or cabins.
Property ReporL The legal disclosure document, iszued by the state in which a project is located or sold
which provides information to the buyer regarding the purchase as required by state law. It is also known
u the Public Offering Sntement or Public Report, depending upon the jurisdiction. The inforrration
contained in the report has been decreed by the legislanre of the partictrtar state to be important for a
purchaser to know before making a decision to participate in a resort dwelopment. Such a report
generally sets forth the rig[ts ofpurchaser with respest to rescission and information regarding tie
background orperience ofthe derreloper as well as detailed information regarding the project itself.
Rescission. The period oftime guaranteed under federal or state law during which a purchaser can cancel
thc purchase contract without penalty and receive a complete and fttl refind.
^Right
to Use or Timeshare Usc" A license or contractual or membership right of occupancy in a
ltimeshare or other cornmon interest subdivision which confers no ownership of the underlying real estate.
This form gives buyers access to the property for a specified amount of time.
RV Campground. An area reserved and developed for camping of recreational vehicles, canpers, tents,
tent trailers and other dwices. (See also Membership Conp Resort/
Split tima Allows owners to split their weeks, generally into three-night weekends and four-night
weekdays.
fhreeDay Cooling-Olf Rute. A Federal Trade Commission ruling that applies to non-fee timesharing
(right+o-use) and camping mernbership sales made at a place other than the "place of business ofthe
seller." In these instances, the sales contract must include a threeday right of rescissioq and the seller
must furnish the buyer with duplicate copies ofthe "llotice of Cancellation" with the appropriate
information correctty fiUd in on the form. This rule does not apply to sales made at the seller's place of
business, made totally by mail or phone, or the sale,of real estate, insurance or securities. Nor does the
rule apply to fee timesharing and other sales of interests in real estate.
Timesharing Used to describe a method ofuse and ownership of real estate where purchasers get title to
specific periods oftime in units of real property in common interest zubdivisions.
I
- Timeshare Estate and Timeshare Inten'al. A red property concept that allows an owner of real
Qtop.rty to convey intervals oftime in a specific reat istate projea. '
Timeshare Projecl A project in which a purchaser receives the right in perpetuity for life or for a terrr of
years to the recurrent exclusive use or occupanry ofa loq parcel unit or segnent ofreal property, annually
or on some other periodic basis. Such a timeshare project covers a specified period oftime allotted from
the use or occupancy periods into which the project has been dividd.
Truth-in-Lending. Used to describe Heral and state prograrns that require sellers in a conzumer credit
transaction to reveal to purchasen the total cost ofcredit.
Undivided Interesl The conveyance ofundivided interests in a common interest subdivision Usually,
such subdivisions deed an undivided interest as tenatrt in cornnon to a large parcel ofrecreation property
and the utilization ofthat property is pursuant to tie covenantq conditions and restictions in place.
Sometimes rderred to as a fractioml fee. The bylaws spell out the rights and obligations of the owners,
including usage limitations, resenration requirements and payments of dues. A property owners'
association collects dues for cornmon 2196 mrintslssse and mrn"ges the project.
Vacation CIub. A travel and use product only which offers members great fl€rdbility. The buyer receives
a single owuership interest which carries with it the right to use an accommodation at all projects in the
club's system. Other typical attributes of nacation clubs include: finite term and no fee interest; common
use of "points" to get accommodations or other benefits; benefirc oths tban lodging zuch as travel
services, hotel discounts, golf packages, health or city club menbenhips; and different q'pes of lodging
such as condominiums, timeshares, hotels, campgrounds or cnriseships.
f Vacation Ownership. Used to describe all forms ofvacation property ownership, including resort
timesharing second homes, timeshares, fractional interests, mmbership camping interests and rccreational
zubdivision lots.
ARDA
CONTACT:Cbris Larsen or
ARDA
202-371-6700
TIIE ALLIANCE FOR TIMESIIARE EXCELLENCE
Ellen Yui
YIJI+COMPA}IY
301-585-0298
The Alliaace for Timeshare Excellence (ATE) is a coalition of industry leaders formed to foster the highest
standards of professionalism and fi.gther the grourth of the vacation ownership industry. Members of the
Alliance are listed below:
All Seasons Dwelopment
Sedona, A'r.,tmna
Costamex International Associates
Lafayette, Colorado
Disney Vacation Developmentr Inc.
Orlando, Florida
Fairfield Conmunities' Inc.
Little Roch fukansas
FINOVA
Scottsdale, Arizona
Four Seasons Lakesites, Inc.
Lake Ozarlq Mssouri
Gotd Point Lodging & Realty' Inc.
Breckenridge, Colorado
Eeller Financial
NewYortNewYork
Hilton Grand Vacations Company
Orlando, Florida
Interral Intetaational, Inc.
ffirmi, Florida
Island One, Inc.
Orlando, Florida
La Cabana Resort & Casino
Oranjestad Anrba
Mariott Vacation Club International
Lakelan4 Florida
Orange Lake CountrY Club
ffissimmes, Florida
Polo Towers
Las Vegas, Nevada
Prefened EquitieslRamada Vacation Suites
Las Vegas, Nevada
RCI
lndianapolis, Indiana
Resort Development Intemational
Fort Myers, Florida
The Shell GrouP' Inc.
Northbrook,Illinois
Silver Lake Resort, Ltd.
Kissimmee, Florida
Silverleaf Resorts' Ltd.
Dallas, Texas
The Success ComPanies' Inc
Genoa, Nevada
Vacation Brealq USA
Ft Lauderdale, Florida
Vistana DeveloPment' Ltd.
Orlando, Florida
VACATION OWNERSEIP:
Household lncome of U.S. Ourners
>sl00,000
l1T'lcl
Age of Household Head
ARDA
CONTACT: Chris Larsen or
ARDA
202-371-6700
Ellen Yui
Y1I+COMPA}TY
301-585-0298
A DEMOGRAPEIC PROFILE OF U.S. OWIYERS
Compared to all households in the United States,
vacation owners have higher incomes, are older, and
have higher lwels of formal education than those of the
average American cofftumer. As an aggregate profile,
the q'pical vacation owner is an upper-middle-income,
middle-aged, well-educated couple. Increasingly
important segnents ofthe market include high-income
households, singles, older consumers, and those with
higher educational attainment.
As products have improvd interval prices have
increasd and the vacation ownership concept has
gined credibility and staturg there has been a tendency
for the coruiumerprofile to move up the socio-economic
ladder.
OfU.S. vacation owners, 69.5 percent have incomes
over $50,000, compared to the 3 l. I percent reported
nationally; 67.5 percent are 45 years ofage or older,
compared to 51.3 percent of all Americans; and 55.7
percent have at least a bachelor's degree, while only 23.7
percent ofthe general population has attained that level
ofeducation.
Household Income
Under $50,000
$50,000 to $74,999
$75,000 to $99,000
5100,000 or rnore
Median lrcome
AU U.S.
Owners
1993-1994
Purchasers
AIU.S.
Owners
3.9o/o
9.6
86.5
M.2o/o
199$1994
Purchasers
$53.400
30.4o/o
34.7
lE.0
l5.E
27.2o/o
38.4
17.4
16.9
3.3%
8.6
E8.l
48.7o/o
Household Type
Single Male
Single Fcmale
Couple
Children et Home
Source: Timeshse Purchasers: Who They Are, WTty They Buy, 1995 Hition,
@ 1995 by the Americot Resort Development Association
2
Alr u.s.
Owners
1993-t994
Purchasers
AXU.S.
Owners
23.5Y"
55.7
26.E
t993-1994
Purchasers
Age of Household Head
Under 40
40t0.49
50 to 59
60 or over
18.5yo
30.2
8.2
26.0
32.2o/o
32.E
20.9
14.l
46 vears
Education levd
Higb school or less
Bacbelor's degree
Graduate degree
2l.lo/o
52.s
23.0
A 5l
Average Income of Owners On the Rise
A recent study revealed that the average household income ofvacation owners is over $63,000, having
risen dramatically from 1978 when the average income was $23,000. Over one-half (52.7 percent) of all
curent vacation orilners have household incomes between $50,000 and $100,000. Dracratically above the
national aver€e, 69.5 percent ofvacation owners have incomes over $50,000, compared to the national
average of 3l percent. Only 5.8 percent ofU.S. vacation owners have incomes under $30,000, while 16.8
percent have incomes over $100,000.
Percentage of Consumers by Yeatpflgrvey
t9t2 19r9 1993 1993-94
Purchasers
Eousehold Income
Under $20,000
$20,000-$29,999
$30,000-$3g,gg9
$40,000-$49,999
$50,000-$5g,ggg
s60,000-$74,ggg
$75,000-$99,999
$100,000 or more
Approrimate median
t97E
22.zYr
39.4
20.1
9.0
8.4
inc.
inc.
0.9
$23,000
9.@/o
2t.3
24.r
20.5
22.0
inc.
inc.
3.1
$37,500
2.8o/o
10.7
17.6
19.4
3r.7
inc.
10.6
7.1
s49,700
2-4Yo
6.0
14.3
15.6
16.9
18.3
14.7
l1.9
$56,900
l.4Yo
4.4
10.5
t4.T
15_2
19.5
18.0
16.8
$63,400
l.0Yo
4.3
8.9
13.0
15.9
),, <
17.4
16.9
$65,250
Median lncome of Ourners
563.4(!
Source: Timeshare Purchasers: Who They Are, Why They Buy, 1995 Edition,
@ 1995 bv the American Resort Development Associatian
The average age ofvacation owne$ (i.e.; the household
head) is 51 years. Howwer, it is only 46 years for those
who purchased in 1993 or 1994. Some 45.9 percent of
these most rec€nt buyers are between 40 and 54 years of
age.
Some 86.5 percent ofall vacation owners are couples, and
13.5 percent are single individuals. The percentage of
singles has increased from only 7.4 percent in 1978. Only
44.2percent ofowners have childrenunder 18 years ofage
living at home.
I
Vacation Ownenhip Attracts Consumers From Across the Country
As ofDecemb er 31, 1994, 1,648,000 U.S. households owned a
vacation. Vacation owners reside in all 50 states and the District of
Columbia. The ten leading states in vacation ownership are the
only states with more than 50,000 owners. Together, those ten
states represent 57.8 percent ofowners nationwide.
Three states contain more than 100,000 owners, including:
California, with 243,900, or 14.8 percent of owuers nationwide;
New Yorlg with 126,000 , or 7 .6 percent of owners nationwide; and
Florida with 116,900, or'l.l percent of owners nationwide.
Collectively, these three states contain 29.5 percent ofall vacation
ou,ners in the country.
Penetration rates achieved by the industry, i.e., the proportion of all
households that own a vacation in a given statg difer dranatically by
region of the country. There are interesting comparisons between the
percentage of all U.S. households with all vacation-owning U-S-
households. For instance, regions with proportionately more vacation-
owning households than total households represented in the region include:
the New England region (8.7 percent ofvacation-owning households
compared to 5.2 percent of total U.S. households); the Southeast region
(23.4 percent compared to 19.2 percent); the Mountain region (5.8 percent
compared to 5.2 percent); and the Western region (19.7 percent compared
to 15.9 percent).
The national penetration rate is 1.72 Percent (1,648,000 vacation-owning
households divided by 95,891,900 total households). It is 2-0 percent or
higher in the New England region (2.88 percent), the Southeast region
(2.09 percent), and the Western region (2.13 percent). It is under 1.0
percent only in the South Central region (0.95 percent).
New England and Southeast Regions Eave Eighest Concentrations of Owners
Source: Timesltqe Purchasers: Who They Are, Why They Buy, 1995 Hition'
Q 1995 by the American Resort Development Association
/
U.S. Owners bY State
California 243,900
New York 126,000
Florida 116,900
New Jersey 75,800
Massachusetts 72.,900
Virginia 69,900
Pennsylvania 68,200
Texas 67,600
Illinois 60,100
North Carolina 51.400
Eighest State
Penetration Rates
lvlassachusetts
Rhode Island
New Ilampshire
Vrgnia
Itlaryland
New Jersey
Arizona
Connecticut
California
lvlaine
Washington
Delaware
Florida
Colorado
South Carolina
.t .zt
3.20
3.16
2.89
L.ra
2.66., <7
2.49
2.24
,,
'A2.21
2,15
t1?.
2.09
2.09
4
O Comparison of All U.S. Eouseholds with Vacation-Owning Eouseholds By Region, 1995
Regon All
Households
Vacation-
Owaiog
Households
Peoetation
Rate
(V.)
All House.holds
(US)
(o/o\
Vacation0wning
Households (US)
|r[sw Fngl:nd 4,969,200 143,000 2-88
Mid-Atlanrtic 14,123,400 270,000 l.9lSoutheast 1E,447,700 385,000 2.09
South Cemal 15,138,100 143,100 0.95
North Ceutral 22,991,700 2E5,700 l-24Mouutain 4,994,400 96,900 1.94W€st 15,227,400 324,300 2.13u.s. 95,891.9{Xt 1.643,(X)0 1.72
<,
t4.7
t9.2
15.8
24.0
5.2
15.9
E-7
t6.4
23.4
E.7
t7.3
5.8
19.7
Industry penetration rates vary according to household incomg as follows: 4.41 percent for households
with incomes of $100,000 and over; 37.0 percent for households with incomes between $50,000 and
$99,999;1.73 percent for households with incomes between $35,000 and $49,999; and only 0.39 percent
for households with incomes under $35,000.
Source: Timeshsre Purchasers: Who They Are, Why They Buy, 1995 Hition,
@ 1995 bv the Americon Resort Development Association
/
Vecation Owncrs by Stete and Income Cetegory
State
Totd Vacation-
Ownine Eouscholds
Income of Vacation-Owning Eouscholds
Over$i15.(X)0 Over 350.000
Atabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arlca$as
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delauare
Florida
Georgia
I{awaii
Idaho
Illinois
Tndiaru
Ioq/ia
Kaasas
Kentucky
Louisirna
ldaine
lvfar.vland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Mimesota
Missiscilrpi
Missouri
Monrana
Nebraska
Neyada
New llampshire
New Jeney
NewMocico
NewYork
North C,arolitt'
NortbDakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Orcgon
Penns.vlvania
Rhodc Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Te:ras
Utah
Vermont
Wginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
District of Columbia
12,000
3,900
37,900
3,100
243,900
29,700
30,500
5,600
116,900
49,400
3,700
5,800
50,100
26,100
9,400
9,200
14,900
ll,90o
10,600
49,E00
72,900
42,7W
25,900
4,7W
25,7W
5,000
3,300
9,400
13,200
75,E00
7,2N
l25,0oo
5r,400
1,8@
49,4N
7,90O
It,466
68,200
t2,2W
27,8N
l,@0
25,7W
67,600
9,500
3,700
69,900
45,000
5,800
30,500
I,E00
3.E00
10,700
3,500
33,7W
2,E00
216,800
26,N0
27,IOO
5,000
103,900
43,900
3,300
5,200
53,,100
23,200
E,300
8,200
13,200
10,600
9,80
u,3@
64,800
38,000
23,100
4,2N
22,900
4,500
2,900
t,300
ll,E00
67,N0
5,,100
ll2"00o
45,7N
1,600
43,900
7,100
16,.t00
60,700
10,800
24,7N
1,400
22,800
60,100
8,500
3,300
62,100
40,m0
5,2N
n,tN
1,600
3.300
E 400
2,700
26,N0
\200
169,700
20,600
21,200
3,900
E1,400
34,400
2,600
4,100
4t,800
1E,100
6,500
6,400
10,300
E,300
7,400
34,700
50,700
29,700
18,000
3,300
17,900
3,500
2,300
6,500
9,200
52,E00
5,000
87,7W
35,too
1,200
34,,100
5,500
12,800
47,5N
t,500
19,300
I,100
17,900
47,W
6,6{X)
2,500
48,600
31,300
4,000
2t,200
lro0
2.500
Total / Averaee r.64rJ00 |1.465500 1.146.700
Source: Timeshare Purchasers: Who They Are, Why They Buy, 1995 Mition,
@ 1995 by the American Resort Development Association