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 threat 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 threat… Do not suppose 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 completely different than somebody who may 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 the sort of enterprise mannequin…

So sure, I discover the usage of 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’ve got given an unlimited lump sum, early. You may’t simply take your ball and go dwelling. 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 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 distinct 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 so on.

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

Are individuals who use these providers foolish?

illumination wrote: ↑Tue Might 21, 2024 6:53 pm
I am type of mystified how anybody cannot see how excessive threat 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? If you happen to suppose 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 suppose anybody – or a minimum of I have never – argued this is not “excessive threat”. It’s. Absolutely agree there.

Sky diving, swimming with sharks, base leaping, and an entire host of different actions are additionally excessive threat. Possibly a few of these I do suppose are foolish in that I might by no means contemplate them… So possibly my give attention to the phrase “foolish” is getting us astray…

However folks clearly have completely different threat 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 dwelling”. Once more, most individuals make comparable arguments… “Why purchase and be locked down to 1 property…” “Lower your expenses and simply lease when/the place you need…”

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

You might embody 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 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 the next threat – partly 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 might be comfy…

However the firm’s preliminary enterprise mannequin is concentrated on an “possession” idea, which nonetheless has threat, however has extra readability, and to my thoughts is a completely viable enterprise mannequin with a minimum of 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 means to outlive for years, thus aren’t “doomed to chapter”, so whereas the chance of chapter is not 0%, I do not discover it to be 100% both, so the “lifetime entry” factor may not be “doomed to fail” both. (Once more that does not imply “this” firm will probably be profitable, however I discover the FUD provided as to why this mannequin is “foolish” to be not compelling… Is there threat, sure. Is it excessive threat, sure. Is it doomed to fail, not so far as I can inform… However I am nonetheless ready for somebody to elucidate what I am lacking…)

FWIW I feel 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 might contemplate… 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 symbolize their life financial savings. It might 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 am going to totally agree! I’ve identified repeatedly that “lifetime” doesn’t imply your lifetime. I’ve famous this must be regarded as a “life-style” buy.

But when that wasn’t clear sufficient, anybody keen to threat their life financial savings on one thing like this may in truth be foolish!.

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

I am going to use myself for instance… Once we retire, we’ll doubtless have “sufficient”, most likely greater than “sufficient”… Assuming we do not catch a foul SORR, we’ll doubtless have more cash 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 more likely to drastically change our “every day” spending habits both. In different phrases, we doubtless might afford a “life-style” buy like a “2nd dwelling” (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 may be my best 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 may be the “finest” use of our cash, not the “wisest”, and undoubtedly not the “least dangerous”. Heck, I am going to even settle for this might be a foolish use of our cash to some folks (our siblings – some who will most likely by no means have the ability to afford to retire – could be apart from 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 a superb 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).