Let's
use the exact same argument that I made with
We were vacationing with Barb and Barry in
The argument went like this:
Jim: As an engineer... I am trained to look at things
"in the limit". It often helps clarify the issues at hand. We can
approximate that using the following example.
Jim: The party line is that existing resorts will never go up in point value... so our investment in WM is protected.
John: Agreed
Jim: This is false... let me demonstrate. We are sitting here in a 2BR unit in a downtownVancouver
John: Agreed
Jim: Now let's imagine a WorldMark that is 1000X more popular than today's WorldMark
John: One could only hope (with a smile)
Jim: Now instead of owning one high rise building in downtown Vancouver... we own 1000 high rise buildings here... and all of the new ones cost 20,000 credits. What are my chance of booking this particular 10,000 credit unit that we are currently sitting in?
John: Zero
Jim: So... in order to maintain my initial investment to spend a week here every year... then I must double my investment in WM... in other words... I have lost 1/2 of my value.
Jim: The party line is that existing resorts will never go up in point value... so our investment in WM is protected.
John: Agreed
Jim: This is false... let me demonstrate. We are sitting here in a 2BR unit in a downtown
John: Agreed
Jim: Now let's imagine a WorldMark that is 1000X more popular than today's WorldMark
John: One could only hope (with a smile)
Jim: Now instead of owning one high rise building in downtown Vancouver... we own 1000 high rise buildings here... and all of the new ones cost 20,000 credits. What are my chance of booking this particular 10,000 credit unit that we are currently sitting in?
John: Zero
Jim: So... in order to maintain my initial investment to spend a week here every year... then I must double my investment in WM... in other words... I have lost 1/2 of my value.
