lifetime entry to an oceanview villa (ship) $300k - Web page 2

illumination wrote: ↑Tue Might 21, 2024 6:53 pm
So now you are conceding chapter is an actual danger and repair might very nicely fall off a cliff (as you’ve got seen in different examples) however the phrase “foolish” nonetheless appears complicated to you?

I by no means stated chapter wasn’t a danger… Do not assume anybody else did both…

Feedback about service degradation had been new.

However as I stated, these are arguably common issues…

As an entire apart, not a lot totally different than somebody who would possibly spend extra to construct “loyalty factors” for a selected “model” (lodge/airline/and so on.), or choose a tech ecosystem (like Apple). Any of these might find yourself bankrupt and/or having service (or loyalty program) degradation. Once more, common, not distinctive to this kind of enterprise mannequin…

So sure, I discover using phrases like “foolish” – nicely frankly, foolish.

illumination wrote: ↑Tue Might 21, 2024 6:53 pm
These dangers are all magnified as a result of you will have given an unlimited lump sum, early. You’ll be able to’t simply take your ball and go residence. All the opposite examples are simply dismissed since you did not “prepay” for a lifetime. If the enterprise you’re employed for goes bankrupt, you is likely to be out a paycheck. You are not pressured to work for the corporate for “free” for the remainder of your life as a result of they went BK.

OK, let’s attempt a unique analogy…

If Apple goes bankrupt – what occurs to your audio/film/app library?

If Microsoft (Xbox), Sony (PlayStation), Valve (Steam) go bankrupt – what occurs to your digital sport library?

And many others.

Granted you seemingly did not “pre-pay”, and hopefully would not be out a whole bunch of hundreds of {dollars} (though some individuals is likely to be shut over their lifetime), but it surely’s additionally an actual danger…

Are individuals who use these companies foolish?

illumination wrote: ↑Tue Might 21, 2024 6:53 pm
I am type of mystified how anybody cannot see how excessive danger that is for such little payoff. It appears what individuals are hoping for right here is that they rating some deal of a lifetime, that is normally a foul signal. If you wish to go on frequent cruises, why not pay as you go? For those who assume it is as a result of this methodology goes to supply some enormous price financial savings, that normally means its a flawed enterprise mannequin or your not seeing all of the angles.

Once more, do not assume anybody – or not less than I have never – argued this is not “excessive danger”. It’s. Absolutely agree there.

Sky diving, swimming with sharks, base leaping, and a complete host of different actions are additionally excessive danger. Possibly a few of these I do assume are foolish in that I would by no means take into account them… So perhaps my deal with the phrase “foolish” is getting us astray…

However individuals clearly have totally different danger tolerances…

And as for why not use pay as you go choices, I’ve already addressed that above… (And for readability, it is all I am going to ever do – once more, I am going to by no means get my partner on board – actually – with a multi-year cruise…)

However I am going to return to my prior analogy of a “2nd residence”. Once more, most individuals make related arguments… “Why purchase and be locked down to at least one property…” “Get monetary savings and simply lease when/the place you need…”

Those that purchase a “2nd residence” (aka trip property) accomplish that as a life-style buy. These aren’t at all times made to optimize cash or danger. They’re achieved as a result of they will afford to take action, afford the dangers/prices, consider they’d profit by that life-style.

You would embrace these buying “luxurious automobiles” and/or “toys” (boats, RVs, and so on.) on this group too…

I am not at all times going to agree with how they spend their cash, but when they can afford to spend it in issues they need, then it is not my place to guage…

And I ought to make clear/reiterate that there are two distinct “fashions” in play right here…

OP’s put up was to a nonetheless poorly outlined “lifetime entry”, which IMHO has a better danger – partly as “lifetime” does not appear as outlined and there’s no readability on if issues like “buyback” apply. Far more readability/due diligence could be wanted earlier than I would be comfy…

However the firm’s preliminary enterprise mannequin is concentrated on an “possession” idea, which nonetheless has danger, however has extra readability, and to my thoughts is a wholly viable enterprise mannequin with not less than one 20+ yr firm already doing so.

However I do not discover their underlying enterprise mannequin “doomed to fail”, as such I believe they’ve the potential to outlive for years, thus aren’t “doomed to chapter”, so whereas the danger of chapter is not 0%, I do not discover it to be 100% both, so the “lifetime entry” factor won’t be “doomed to fail” both. (Once more that does not imply “this” firm might be profitable, however I discover the FUD provided as to why this mannequin is “foolish” to be not compelling… Is there danger, sure. Is it excessive danger, sure. Is it doomed to fail, not so far as I can inform… However I am nonetheless ready for somebody to clarify what I am lacking…)

FWIW I believe lots of the posts do not acknowledge these are two various things. As I’ve beforehand famous, I do not discover the “lifetime entry” to be one thing I would take into account… However the “possession” facet, that continues to be interesting to me…

illumination wrote: ↑Tue Might 21, 2024 6:53 pm
What’s harmful about that is, for a lot of retirees, this nicely might signify their life financial savings. It will be one factor if this was prepaying for a lifetime of oil adjustments, or another foolish hack promotions I’ve come throughout, however this might depart somebody homeless.

Right here I am going to totally agree! I’ve identified repeatedly that “lifetime” doesn’t imply your lifetime. I’ve famous this needs to be considered a “life-style” buy.

But when that wasn’t clear sufficient, anybody prepared to danger their life financial savings on one thing like this might in actual fact be foolish!.

To reiterate, I believe the “goal market” for this can be a area of interest group of people that can afford a “life-style” buy.

I am going to use myself for example… After we retire, we’ll seemingly have “sufficient”, in all probability greater than “sufficient”… Assuming we do not catch a foul SORR, we’ll seemingly have extra money than we have to pay for our retirement bills. Our [current] focus is not on making an attempt to go away a pile of cash for our heirs, however we aren’t more likely to drastically change our “day by day” spending habits both. In different phrases, we seemingly might afford a “life-style” buy like a “2nd residence” (not interesting as we would not wish to be restricted to a location) or one thing like an “possession” on a ship like this (this might be my perfect life-style!, my partner would hate it, go determine). Even when the dangers manifest and we lose the cash, our retirement will not be in danger. I am not saying this might be the “greatest” use of our cash, not the “wisest”, and positively not the “least dangerous”. Heck, I am going to even settle for this might be a foolish use of our cash to some individuals (our siblings – some who will in all probability by no means be capable of afford to retire – could be apart from themselves if we did this, I am fairly positive they’d assume it “foolish”)… However since I am unable to get my partner on board, if we get SORR, guess we’ll be pressured to seek out one thing else foolish to spend our cash on (or find yourself leaving an enormous pile for our heirs).