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 properly 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 suppose anybody else did both…

Feedback about service degradation had been new.

However as I stated, these are arguably common considerations…

As a whole apart, not a lot totally different than somebody who would possibly spend extra to construct “loyalty factors” for a selected “model” (resort/airline/and so forth.), 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 one of these enterprise mannequin…

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

illumination wrote: ↑Tue Might 21, 2024 6:53 pm
These dangers are all magnified as a result of you’ve given an unlimited lump sum, early. You’ll be able to’t simply take your ball and go house. 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 could be out a paycheck. You are not compelled to work for the corporate for “free” for the remainder of your life as a result of they went BK.

OK, let’s strive a special 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 recreation library?

And so on.

Granted you seemingly did not “pre-pay”, and hopefully would not be out a whole bunch of 1000’s of {dollars} (though some individuals could be shut over their lifetime), but it surely’s additionally an actual danger…

Are individuals who use these providers foolish?

illumination wrote: ↑Tue Might 21, 2024 6:53 pm
I am kind of mystified how anybody cannot see how excessive danger that is for such little payoff. It appears what persons are hoping for right here is that they rating some deal of a lifetime, that is often a nasty signal. If you wish to go on frequent cruises, why not pay as you go? In case you suppose it is as a result of this technique goes to supply some big price financial savings, that often means its a flawed enterprise mannequin or your not seeing all of the angles.

Once more, do not suppose anybody – or at the least I have never – argued this is not “excessive danger”. It’s. Absolutely agree there.

Sky diving, swimming with sharks, base leaping, and an entire host of different actions are additionally excessive danger. Possibly a few of these I do suppose are foolish in that I would by no means contemplate them… So perhaps my concentrate on 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 will ever do – once more, I will by no means get my partner on board – actually – with a multi-year cruise…)

However I will return to my prior analogy of a “2nd house”. Once more, most individuals make comparable arguments… “Why purchase and be locked down to 1 property…” “Get monetary savings and simply lease when/the place you need…”

Those that purchase a “2nd house” (aka trip property) accomplish that as a way of life buy. These aren’t all the time made to optimize cash or danger. They’re executed as a result of they’ll afford to take action, afford the dangers/prices, consider they’d profit by that way of life.

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

I am not all the time going to agree with how they spend their cash, but when they can afford to spend it in issues they need, then it isn’t my place to evaluate…

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 – partially as “lifetime” would 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 completely viable enterprise mannequin with at the least one 20+ 12 months firm already doing so.

However I do not discover their underlying enterprise mannequin “doomed to fail”, as such I feel they’ve the skill 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 shall 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 feel most 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 contemplate… However the “possession” facet, that is still interesting to me…

illumination wrote: ↑Tue Might 21, 2024 6:53 pm
What’s harmful about that is, for a lot of retirees, this properly might signify their life financial savings. It could 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 go away somebody homeless.

Right here I will absolutely agree! I’ve identified repeatedly that “lifetime” doesn’t imply your lifetime. I’ve famous this must be considered a “way of life” buy.

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

To reiterate, I feel the “goal market” for it is a area of interest group of people that can afford a “way of life” buy.

I will use myself for example… After we retire, we’ll seemingly have “sufficient”, in all probability greater than “sufficient”… Assuming we do not catch a nasty SORR, we’ll seemingly have extra money than we have to pay for our retirement bills. Our [current] focus is not on attempting to go away a pile of cash for our heirs, however we aren’t prone to drastically change our “day by day” spending habits both. In different phrases, we seemingly might afford a “way of life” buy like a “2nd house” (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 could be my ultimate way of life!, 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 could be the “greatest” use of our cash, not the “wisest”, and undoubtedly not the “least dangerous”. Heck, I will even settle for this may very well be a foolish use of our cash to some individuals (our siblings – some who will in all probability by no means have the ability to afford to retire – could be in addition to themselves if we did this, I am fairly positive they’d suppose it “foolish”)… However since I can not get my partner on board, if we get SORR, guess we’ll be compelled to search out one thing else foolish to spend our cash on (or find yourself leaving an enormous pile for our heirs).