[HN Gopher] Launch HN: Ancana (YC S21) - Fractional ownership of...
___________________________________________________________________
Launch HN: Ancana (YC S21) - Fractional ownership of vacation homes
Hi, we're Andres and Ryan, the founders of Ancana
(https://en.ancana.co/). Ancana is a marketplace for buying fully
managed vacation homes through fractional ownership. Demand for
vacation homes has driven up their price, putting these properties
out of reach for most buyers, who only plan to use the home a few
weeks a year. This pushes many people into timeshares, which are
notorious for hidden fees, pushy sales tactics, and difficulty to
sell. With Ancana, you can own a 1/4 or 1/8 share of the home and
split expenses with the other co-owners. If you buy a 1/4 share of
a home, you have access to it for 3 months of the year. For each
property we set up the investment trust, find qualified co-owners,
and handle the entire real estate purchase transaction. Costs are
split amongst the co-owners, and we take care of the furnishing and
ongoing property management. We accomplish this by creating an
investment trust for each property and dividing it into individual,
purchasable shares that represent ownership in the property. We
furnish each home and find and vet the co-owners. Once all of the
shares of the property are sold, we retain no ownership stake in
the property and transition into the role of property manager,
ensuring the home is well maintained and handling any issues that
arise. Unlike a timeshare, Ancana owners own a real asset (the
property) versus a block of time. If you decide you want to sell
your share, you are free to do so at any time, either through us or
on the open market, and capture any appreciation the property has
accrued. Once you own one of these homes, our goal is to make
scheduling visits to the property as easy and equitable as
possible. Our scheduling system breaks a 12-month booking window
into "high-demand" dates/seasons and "general" stays. Each co-owner
selects 1 high-demand date before additional bookings are
permitted. Priority order is determined by the owner's purchase
date (1st buyer gets 1st choice, 2nd buyer gets 2nd choice, etc),
with the order rotating each year (2nd buyer gets 1st selection in
year 2, 3rd buyer gets 1st selection in year 3, etc.). Outside of
the initial high-demand selection process, co-owners are free to
book the property anywhere from 2 days to 12-months in advance, up
to their allotted days per year. We'd love to speak to any of you
that are curious about fractional ownership or have any ideas for
where we should go next or how to improve our offering!
Author : rblack44
Score : 63 points
Date : 2021-08-20 15:48 UTC (7 hours ago)
| jdkee wrote:
| The documentary "The Queen of Versailles" documents the wife of a
| time-share mogul.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQW9Ks0GZUQ
| kiddz wrote:
| I've looked into getting a place in Mexico and one thing is
| financing. The only option is 50% down -- which is a big bummer.
|
| Are you offering any financing that's more similar to a 15 yr or
| 30 yr mortgage?
| rblack44 wrote:
| Ya financing in Mexico is a big challenge. We do offer a
| financing option, but not for the entire amount unfortunately.
| We are actively looking to partner with banks and funds to be
| able to offer longer financing options. Stay tuned!
| encoderer wrote:
| How are you going to be different than Pacaso which has a lot of
| Zillow execs?
| slumdev wrote:
| If you ever relinquish majority ownership of this company in
| exchange for funding, it will eventually become "Timeshares But
| As An App".
|
| Your approach might be more principled than the way timeshare
| companies operate. But it also sounds like you're leaving a lot
| of money on the table, compared to the way timeshare companies
| operate. And investors won't let that continue if you can't
| convince them that your approach will somehow make more money
| than timeshare companies.
| rblack44 wrote:
| We believe the market for fractional ownership will soon be
| much larger than the timeshare market. People want to own a
| real asset and with the trend towards remote work, demand for
| homes in desirable places is only going to increase. Our
| differentiation from timeshares is one of our biggest assets,
| so while I agree some may push us more towards this model, it
| is not in line with our goals or vision for Ancana.
| santaskeptic wrote:
| Nice, I believe in Santa. Never let small minds tell you that
| your dream is a fantasy.
| rblack44 wrote:
| Your name implies otherwise :)
|
| We started this company with a mission of making the
| vacation home market more accessible to people who are
| typically priced out. We're excited to see where Ancana
| goes, but pivoting into a timeshare company is not a
| direction we'll ever go.
| michaelbuckbee wrote:
| Timeshares have a weird mix of goals:
|
| - Investment opportunity
|
| - Potential rental income
|
| - Personal enjoyment
|
| and as a result seem like they don't really achieve any of those
| cleanly and this just seems like it kinda swirls those three
| around in a slightly different manner.
|
| I was really hoping for something that was more of a larger scale
| investment business or something.
| anonymousiam wrote:
| Don't forget there there's a whole industry associated with
| getting unhappy timeshare owners out of the deal. It's almost
| always a losing prospect, it's just a question of how much one
| has to pay to get out.
|
| https://www.ramseysolutions.com/debt/how-to-get-rid-of-a-tim...
| Jorge1o1 wrote:
| What inspired you guys to go with such a long time window? Most
| of the timeshares I know are like 2 weeks out of the year, but
| here it looks like you get (for most properties) almost 3
| months!! Do people really take 3 month vacations? And even if you
| broke it up into what seems like a more manageable vacation
| (something like a month max) that's still 3 vacations a year!
|
| Also, are the prices on your site the entire price of the house
| or the price of the share? Because if that's the price of the
| whole house that is an insane commentary on how ridiculous US
| urban housing markets are!!!
| outside1234 wrote:
| It will be interesting to see what the remote first movement
| does to this. You could certainly see someone from Seattle
| spending 3 months in Mexico between Jan 1 and April 1 as a
| "working vacation"
| rblack44 wrote:
| Definitely. We've seen a lot of interest from people looking
| at these homes as remote offices. We're optimistic this trend
| will continue as people take advantage of no longer being
| tied down to a certain geography
| rblack44 wrote:
| As a co-owner, you get access to the property based on your
| ownership %. So if you own 1/4 of the property, you can use it
| for 1/4 of the year. This ownership model provides flexibility
| to book stays throughout the year vs. being locked into 1-2
| week windows annually. You don't have to take all 3 months at
| the same time. In fact our scheduling platform does not allow
| for stays this long to ensure all co-owners get equitable
| access to the property on the dates that are important to them.
|
| All prices are per share and based on the ownership %. Even
| still, the US housing market is bananas
| devoutsalsa wrote:
| Digital nomads.
| rbobby wrote:
| > Priority order is determined by the owner's purchase date (1st
| buyer gets 1st choice, 2nd buyer gets 2nd choice, etc), with the
| order rotating each year (2nd buyer gets 1st selection in year 2,
| 3rd buyer gets 1st selection in year 3, etc.).
|
| That's pretty awful.
|
| Do early buyers pay a premium? Do late buyers get a discount?
|
| Why not do a lottery? Or an actual cash based auction (proceeds
| go to maintenance fees... which is good for everyone)?
| rblack44 wrote:
| Curious why you think this is awful. The order rotates each
| year so for a home sold in 1/4 fractions, every owner would get
| 1st choice once in a 4 year period. Then it starts over again.
| All buyers pay the same rate, the priority selection rewards
| people who buy first, it's a benefit for moving fast.
|
| We are contemplating a snake draft system if we decide to allow
| people to schedule more than 1 priority date each year. So if
| you go last on your 1st choice, you'd get 1st pick on your 2nd
| choice. Does that seem more fair from your perspective?
|
| A lottery is an interesting concept, but it's only really
| equitable over a long time horizon. What if I got a bad luck fo
| the draw 3 years in a row? Scheduling is hard, and we are
| constantly looking for ways to improve so we really appreciate
| the feedback!
| outside1234 wrote:
| How do you handle the situation where one owner refuses to make
| any investment in the property or doesn't pay for investments /
| costs?
| rblack44 wrote:
| My bad, I think I misinterpreted your question! Each home has a
| reserve fund that is paid into by all co-owners. For standard
| fixes/improvements, Ancana will handle the work and pay for it
| out of the reserve fund.
|
| If a co-owner stops paying their monthly fees, they are in
| violation of the real estate contract and liable to forfeit
| their ownership in the home. Similar to someone defaulting on
| their mortgage.
| DonHopkins wrote:
| What is unique and refreshing about your pitch is that you're
| using contracts, but you don't use the blockchain! The
| environment thanks you, and you don't automatically sound
| like a charlatan shilling a get-rich-quick pyramid scheme.
| And you used a nice word like "bananas" to aptly describe the
| US housing market instead of cussing.
| fuzzer37 wrote:
| > you don't automatically sound like a charlatan shilling a
| get-rich-quick pyramid scheme
|
| Well they don't automatically, but this is still very
| clearly just a shady timeshare ad.
| DonHopkins wrote:
| Now where did I put my Buzzword Bingo card? I think I
| have a winner! What a singularly awful name, that didn't
| age well in the COVID era:
|
| Crowdvilla will leverage blockchain to rejuvenate the
| timeshare industry
|
| https://venturebeat.com/2018/03/20/crowdvilla-will-
| leverage-...
| rblack44 wrote:
| This is a great question and we think one of the real
| advantages of our model. Because each co-owner owns an
| independent share of the home, they are protected if one of the
| other co-owners defaults on their payments. Ancana assumes
| responsibility in this case and if necessary we will take over
| the fraction and find another co-owner to purchase. The terms
| are laid out in the contract each co-owner signs
| avs733 wrote:
| I don't believe this answers the question that was asked.
|
| They are asking about upkeep not default
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| And if that owner of an "independent share" decides after
| purchasing the share that they don't want to do business with
| you? What about if they can't make it out to Mexico that
| year, and they want to AirBnB the property for those weeks?
| joshuaheard wrote:
| I think he means maintenance costs. I own several rental
| properties, and I'm always coughing up large chunks of cash
| for water heaters, furnaces, AC units, rotting decks, and the
| like. What if an owner can't pay? Is there some sort of
| management reserve?
| renewiltord wrote:
| A question to you for something you surely must have considered:
| why as vacation homes and not as investment properties? Is it a
| mortgage thing? I'd be happy to consider investing in a small
| bucket of houses, in some sort of tranche sense to diversify my
| portfolio but REITs are too large in general for me to understand
| the bucket and single homes are too illiquid.
| rblack44 wrote:
| We want people to use the home! Our goal in founding Ancana was
| to open up the vacation home market to more people. We see
| these homes as places to make lifelong memories with friends &
| family. A net benefit of our model is that your home is an
| investment - if you decide to sell and the property has
| increased in value, you capture that appreciation. There are
| other companies that make it possible to invest in a REIT-like
| vehicle, but that's not our focus :)
| renewiltord wrote:
| Okay cool. Just a product vision thing, then.
| nicklo wrote:
| Your testimonial section of "happy customers" are just the stock
| headshot photos from this wix template. It's probably safe to
| assume that the testimonials themselves are fake as well? I'd
| suggest removing this section entirely as it comes off as
| dishonest and misleading.
| rblack44 wrote:
| Thanks for the feedback, this is an embarrassing oversight and
| was not meant to mislead. The testimonials are from actual
| Ancana buyers but we did use the Wix stock photos. Andres and I
| are non-technical founders and tried our best to stand up this
| Wix site as quickly as possible while we worked to develop a
| new website. Getting customer photos is a challenge, but we
| should not have made it look like these were our actual buyers.
| I've removed them while we fix this and apologize for the
| misrepresentation. And it won't happen again.
| aparsons wrote:
| Very dishonest indeed. Does YC not do any due diligence
| anymore? They seem like they've become a quantity-over-quality
| investment firm now, casting the widest net possible based on
| the strength of their reputation.
| 101008 wrote:
| It is worse considering this startup got its own Launch HN
| thread, instead of going to those threads where many startups
| are shared in batches.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Seriously. Too many SaaSes getting greenlit, seems like their
| board of investors realized that rent collection is far more
| profitable than making good products.
| mimifriends wrote:
| I would suggest looking closely at making shared ownership easier
| for friends and family, rather than a complex partnership of
| strangers. We know of people that would buy a vacation home
| together, but the purchase, management, maintenance and use
| scheduling is complicated enough to shelve the idea.
| rblack44 wrote:
| Really love this idea. We started Ancana to make this
| opportunity available to everyone, even if they didn't have a
| group of people they knew who wanted to co-own a home. But
| there is absolutely room to tailor a product for people who
| already have a group and just don't want to deal with the
| overhead of setting up the fractional model and ongoing
| maintenance. We're going to look into this, thank you for the
| feedback!
| dragonwriter wrote:
| As someone who has sat through several of them (and has bought a
| few), this is exactly, almost word-for-word (right down to the
| references to the complaints about the rest of the industry) the
| elevator pitch for every timeshare/vacation ownership scheme
| ever.
|
| > Unlike a timeshare, Ancana owners own a real asset (the
| property) versus a block of time.
|
| Like literally every timeshare/vacation ownership scheme I've
| seen other than in places where there are legal constraints (like
| Mexico's limits on foreign ownership of certain real property)
| that get in the way involves deeded fractional ownership of
| specific real property. This is, again, false differentiation.
|
| The only thing somewhat novel here seems to ve the limitation to
| no less than eighth shares and the initial high-demand date
| guarantee (obviously the former being key to permitting the
| latter.)
|
| Another real point of differentiation is that (at least from your
| pitch, and people that have these features tend to highlight them
| in their basic pitch) is you don't seem to have a relationship
| with a network of exchange properties _besides_ the deeded
| property, which is great for people who want to spend 6+ weeks a
| year, every year, in the same vacation spot, but less so
| otherwise.
| rblack44 wrote:
| Thanks for the feedback. One of our biggest challenges is in
| overcoming the gimmicks timeshares use to hook customers. My
| parents have had a few different timeshares, some of which were
| great, others complete scams. They've been incredibly
| successful in building huge businesses with these tactics. It
| really comes down to what you are purchasing, when you can use
| the property, and how you resell.
|
| With timeshares you are purchasing a block of time in a
| condo/resort with dozens or potentially hundreds of people.
| With Ancana, you are purchasing a share of an actual home with
| a small group of people. You own a piece of the home you are
| staying in, not a deed to a piece of a resort. Co-ownership is
| a concept that has been around for a while (a couple people in
| the comments have shared their experiences), but this has
| typically been limited to friends/family. We aim to make this
| accessible to everyone.
|
| With timeshares you get access to the property for fixed weeks.
| With Ancana you have ongoing access to the home. you can plan a
| vacation 8 months from now, or a last minute getaway this
| weekend. Timeshares do not offer this flexibility.
|
| Selling your timeshare is typically a nightmare. There are
| entire industries built around helping people get out of their
| timeshare contracts. Resorts have a vested interest in keeping
| you hooked, because the more buyers they get the more money
| they make. With Ancana, you are free to sell your share
| whenever and however you'd like. Since there are a limited
| number of co-owners, Ancana has no vested interest in making it
| hard to sell. We'll assist in helping you find a buyer if you'd
| like.
|
| We appreciate your feedback as a timeshare owner. It really is
| helpful for us to understand these different perspectives and
| to try and differentiate ourselves more from a standard
| timeshare
| asah wrote:
| Sigh... Every timeshare starts this way and ends up in the
| same place once they need to get profitable...
|
| Even then they're not all bad: I had friends who owned a $$$
| place on the California coast but liked to travel so they
| bought a Wyndham timeshare and used it all over the world and
| loved it.
| garciasn wrote:
| How do you deal with potential scheduling conflicts if
| timeframes are not dedicated and known across the owners?
| rblack44 wrote:
| This is a top focus for us from a product perspective.
| What's interesting through our research is the overlap is
| probably not as big as we assumed. Some people want to use
| the home for special occasions (bdays, anniversaries),
| which can be spread out throughout the year. Some want it
| for holidays, others have their own holiday traditions. The
| demand is more evenly distributed than we anticipated.
|
| But there will be conflicts no doubt. Our approach is to
| make access to the home as equitable as possible. Each co-
| owner can select their priority dates before the general
| booking window opens. This ensures each owner has access
| during high-demand times. Outside of the priority booking
| window owners are free to book anywhere from 2 days to 1
| year out and can see which dates are available. We also
| limit the length of a stay so that even during high-demand
| times, multiple owners can enjoy the property.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| It's hard to believe a timeshare can really compete with
| keeping the money and then spending it when you want at the
| resort or hotel you want to spend it at when you want to
| spend it.
|
| "Just say no" seems to be the answer for me.
| rblack44 wrote:
| One area we differ from a timeshare is an Ancana home is an
| investment in real estate. If the property increases in
| value, you capture the appreciation and if you decide to
| sell you make a profit.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| People are finally realizing that's not a good reason to
| buy a house. If somebody wants to bet on real estate
| prices going up, shouldn't they just buy shares in a
| REIT?
| ghaff wrote:
| I once stayed at a timeshare that a friend of mine had. I
| think, for her, it was maybe a forcing function to go there
| on a schedule. Earlier I was in a ski house which was nice
| but more bounded.
|
| But personally I've never seen the attraction in a vacation
| house. Maybe it can be temporarily more cost effective but
| even if you have exclusive use of a room--which isn't the
| case with a traditional timeshare--I'm really skeptical
| that any potential savings are balanced by "Where do you
| want to go this month/year?"
| lordleft wrote:
| Intriguing idea. What does "property management" entail? Does
| Ancana take on the costs of major property failures, like a pipe
| bursting?
| rblack44 wrote:
| Property management = upkeep of the property, cleaning the home
| after each visit, handling of any issues that arise with the
| home or between owners. Each property has a reserve fund that
| all co-owners pay into (somewhat similar to an HOA). For small
| improvements and repairs, we'll take care of the work and pay
| for it out of the reserve fund. For larger home improvements,
| co-owners can put the issue up for a vote and if necessary will
| contribute their pro rata share of the costs.
| exdsq wrote:
| Someone's reinvented timeshares :)
|
| Reminds me of when I accidentally reinvented a recruitment
| company
| rblack44 wrote:
| I'd say we are streamlining the decades-old co-ownership model
| more than we are reinventing timeshares :)
| jsdwarf wrote:
| Oh no, another company that creates ghost houses full of vacation
| Appartments that nobody uses because they are "investments". Has
| it come to your mind that an increasing number of European
| municipalities issues punitive taxes if the Appartment stays
| empty for n days per year?
| rblack44 wrote:
| We actually think we'll have the opposite effect! Single-owner
| vacation homes are used less than 60 days a year and often sit
| vacant. With Ancana each owner purchases the number of shares
| that corresponds to how much they'll use the home. With
| multiple co-owners the home will be in use far more frequently
| TruthWillHurt wrote:
| YC shooting in all directions, not caring about brand at all it
| seems..
| quickthrowman wrote:
| How do you plan to handle maintenance, especially maintenance
| that can be deferred until it suddenly cannot, like
| foundation/slab issues, sewer line/septic replacement, site
| drainage problems, roof replacement, etc. The interests of the
| owners may not be aligned.
| hifriends wrote:
| My family owns 1/4 of a vacation house through an LLC. Some
| issues that come to mind are:
|
| - Can an owner rent out their time? Who gets the rent money? How
| much is reserved for maintenance because renting will incur
| higher maintenance costs.
|
| - What happens if one owner can't carry their weight on taxes or
| insurance? Our house is beach house so insurance is ridiculous --
| we rent it out during the summer to cover it and use the house
| during the rest of the year.
|
| - What if there are disagreements about how much to invest in the
| house for upgrades, maintenance, etc?
|
| - Is there a system through which owners can buy or trade time
| with other owners?
|
| - If you need to sell, how do you do that?
|
| - What happens if one owner passes away and their share is now
| owned by multiple people?
| hardtke wrote:
| I've always heard this is a great way to doom a friendship. Are
| you ever at odds with the other owners? I can imagine if you've
| planned your summer around a family vacation and the previous
| guest trashes the place (or breaks something making the place
| unusable) it could get ugly. Or worse yet, it is no pets and
| one owner starts bringing their dog.
| rblack44 wrote:
| Thanks for sharing! The co-ownership model has been around for
| a while, but usually has been limited to friends & family.
| Really great feedback on some of the challenges you've faced.
|
| - Rentals: this is property dependent. Some of our homes are
| located in communities that have explicit rules regarding short
| term rentals. For homes not governed by these rules, the owners
| are free to vote on whether they'd like to allow renting the
| home when it is not used. We leave it up to the owners for the
| exact reason you highlighted above - renting can lead to higher
| maintenance costs and other issues. Proceeds from the rental go
| to the owner putting their time up for rent. The income is
| first used to defray an owner's monthly costs, and the rest is
| given directly to them.
|
| - Costs: Property costs are split amongst co-owners based on
| their ownership stake in the home with no markup. This tends to
| keep costs fairly low for each owner, but in the event an owner
| does not pay their portion they are in violation of the
| contract and subject to forfeiture of their share. Again, the
| fees for these homes in mexico are reasonable compared to the
| US and the costs are made clear and transparent to the buyer at
| the time of purchase.
|
| - investments: routine maintenance is handled by Ancana using
| the reserve fund. For other upgrades, the owners put it up to a
| vote. Depending on the size of investment, there are different
| vote thresholds that need to be met to move forward.
|
| - buying/trading: currently we make it easy for co-owners of
| the same property to trade scheduled visits. We do have plans
| on opening this up for all Ancana properties, but it is not
| something we have built out yet. Stay tuned!
|
| - selling: An owner is free to sell at any point after owning
| the home for 1 year. We are happy to assist in this process and
| list the fraction for sale to our network of qualified leads.
| But if an owner prefers to use their own agent or sell it
| through their own network, that is great too. Once a buyer is
| found, we take care of the vetting and legal process for
| transferring ownership.
|
| - Similar to other real estate, your ownership of an Ancana
| property can be passed on to beneficiaries. In this case the
| new owner(s) are still bound by the original investment trust
| and responsible for payments. We don't limit ownership in a
| fraction to a single person, so it is up to the new parties to
| decide how they want to handle ownership and using the property
| fuzzer37 wrote:
| > For other upgrades, the owners put it up to a vote
|
| 2 vote for, 2 vote against. What now? All of the examples you
| listed are even splits (2 vs. 2 or 4 vs 4). Who resolves a
| dispute in the case of a tie?
| rblack44 wrote:
| A majority of owners need to agree before moving forward
| (so 3-1 or 5-3 in the examples you gave). The threshold
| increases for more costly expenses
| ezconnect wrote:
| What if they don't put out the money for the cost of
| upgrade because they didn't vote for it?
| fuzzer37 wrote:
| So 2 people in agreement can just gridlock everything in
| a 4 person unit forever? That seems broken.
| koolba wrote:
| If all it takes is two (out of four) to decide something,
| the other two could immediately rescind the decision. It
| has to be a majority.
|
| In most bureaucracies gridlock is not a bug, it's a
| feature. It forces wider consensus.
| LivelyTortoise wrote:
| Quick UI issue I noticed - on the English version of the site,
| some of the text is still in Spanish. For example the banners on
| the top-right of the photos at https://en.ancana.co/properties
| say '30% vendido' etc, and the property description on
| https://en.ancana.co/properties/seis-encantos is in Spanish.
| (Also, the column title 'Completion Date' is repeated twice in
| the property details table).
| rblack44 wrote:
| Thanks for taking a peek! As two non-technical founders, we ran
| into some limitations using Wix. Fortunately, we have a new
| site launching in a week or so that we are pretty excited about
| that fixes the bugginess of the current site. Stay tuned!
| [deleted]
| mrb wrote:
| I wonder if there is a way to game your system. For example
| instead of buying a 1/4 fraction, someone could set up two LLCs
| each owning two 1/8 shares. With the way you rotate the priority
| order from year to year, the person would get "first choice" two
| times within one cycle. Getting first choice two times for 1/8
| each is superior to first choice one time for 1/4. For example
| the weeks around very popular vacation dates (Christmas) would
| get picked out twice each cycle by the same person.
|
| That aside, I wonder if this model would open up some interesting
| rental opportunities: instead of occupying the property, co-
| owners could rent out their blocks of time, and get a return on
| their investment in the fully-managed property.
|
| Unrelated: you say: << _Ancana owners own a real asset (the
| property) versus a block of time_ >> But I wouldn't emphasize
| this too much. After all, on the surface co-owners get the same
| utility as a time share: they have to reserve their "block of
| time".
| rblack44 wrote:
| Love the creativity! Fortunately (or maybe unfortunately from
| your perspective), Ancana creates the LLC for each home so
| people can't game the system. We do allow people to buy more
| than 1 share of any home, so that would get you access to
| additional dates.
|
| In terms of rentals, we 100% agree. Some of our rentals are in
| communities that have their own short-term rental rules. But in
| other properties we let the co-owners decide if they'd like to
| allow rental of the property when it's not in use. In this case
| the rental income could defray the monthly costs or go straight
| to the owners.
|
| There is a sublte but important difference between how you can
| book time in an Ancana home vs. a timeshare. With Ancana you
| have the flexibility to book stays throughout the year,
| anywhere from 2 days to 1 year in advance. With timeshares you
| are typically locked into a block of time and oftentimes the
| same dates year after year. But this is great feedback on how
| we can further differentiate ourselves, thanks!
| smabie wrote:
| Nice arb!
| coverband wrote:
| Are any of these properties available for U.S. buyers, or only to
| those that live in Mexico?
| tchen wrote:
| How does Ancana mitigate the low liquidity that is traditionally
| associated with fractional ownership models? How does an owner
| get out of a deal?
| rblack44 wrote:
| The fractional ownership model is taking off, look at Pacaso's
| success in the US. Just as there is strong demand for the
| primary sale, the secondary market will also likely see a a big
| uptick.
|
| An owner is free to sell anytime after owning the property for
| a year. You can list this like any other real estate holding.
| We can also assist in the sale if you'd like to tap into our
| growing network of interested buyers
| thiscatis wrote:
| If it looks like a timeshare and smells like a timeshare, it's a
| timeshare. If there's no secondary free market to sell these
| "fractional ownerships" it's just forced rent I can't resell.
| dmos62 wrote:
| You should have read the post before commenting.
|
| > Unlike a timeshare, Ancana owners own a real asset (the
| property) versus a block of time. If you decide you want to
| sell your share, you are free to do so at any time, either
| through us or on the open market, and capture any appreciation
| the property has accrued.
| thiscatis wrote:
| "Open market" yeah right
| Dobbs wrote:
| and as others have pointed out many timeshares say this exact
| same thing.
| MattGaiser wrote:
| That doesn't mean there is someone willing to buy it on the
| other end.
| rblack44 wrote:
| demand for this model of ownership is exploding. From a
| buyer's perspective there is no functional difference
| between the primary and secondary market. It is certainly
| more liquid than a timeshare and in most cases easier to
| sell than an entire home given the lower upfront and
| maintenance costs
| smabie wrote:
| What open market? There's no liquidity there.
| DonHopkins wrote:
| At least the Incompatible Timesharing System offered free
| tourist accounts.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incompatible_Timesharing_Syste...
| rblack44 wrote:
| One way to look at this is unlike a timeshare, Ancana has no
| ownership interest in the property. Resorts own the property
| and sell you access to that property. At the point all of the
| shares are sold, we become property managers. You don't have to
| sell the share back to us like you do with timeshares - in
| fact, we don't purchase shares back. You are free to list your
| fraction with an agent of your choosing or sell to your own
| network at whatever price you desire. Given that we have a
| large list of qualified leads, we are happy to list your
| fraction for sale, but that is not a requirement.
|
| Curious why you think there is no secondary market for these
| homes. The primary market is exploding for this model of
| ownership and given the limited inventory of vacation homes on
| the market, we think the secondary market is also going to be
| very large
| benatkin wrote:
| It's already a thing, though. "Fractional ownership" is a
| mouthful. I would probably call it a "timeshare" unless I
| needed to be specific, when I'd call it a "fractional
| ownership timeshare".
|
| https://luxuryfractionalguide.com/fractional-ownership-vs-
| ti...
| rblack44 wrote:
| Right, the fractional ownership model has been around for
| decades. We are making it more accessible and streamlining
| an otherwise complicated process.
|
| As you can see from this thread, the assumption by many is
| that we are a new take on a timeshare. But like your linked
| article demonstrates, there are many important differences
| between fractional ownership and timeshares. So while it
| rolls off the tongue easier, we want to distance ourselves
| as much as possible from a timeshare. Appreciate the
| feedback, we'll continue to refine how we talk about our
| model!
| [deleted]
| azinman2 wrote:
| To me it just sounds like you're trying to avoid a 4
| letter word. Even if your model is completely different,
| it's so on the periphery of timeshares that I think you
| really need to find a different term. Maybe one that's
| less "accurate" and one that's a brand all its own. Might
| be worthwhile to learn how AirBNB has described
| themselves over time. Their name at least plays on
| something familiar but makes it different. Ancana means
| nothing to me. Maybe there's something in between? Or
| another metaphor you could pick?
|
| I propose: CloudHomes.
| kfrzcode wrote:
| Nomadomicile
| rblack44 wrote:
| haha love it
| everybodyknows wrote:
| > free to list your fraction with an agent of your choosing
| or sell to your own network at whatever price you desire.
|
| What if one co-owner chooses to sell to someone whose
| intention is to sub-let as a party house?
| benatkin wrote:
| That's what Ancana takes care of, and what you entrust them
| to take care of. Some would involve lawyers instead. I
| certainly would.
| tmp_anon_22 wrote:
| You can't lean on a start-up to provide prudent legal
| advice and protection. Its not what start-ups are good
| at.
| rblack44 wrote:
| Our investment trusts are legally binding and created by
| attorneys. Each prospective buyer is more than welcome to
| have these agreements looked at by their own lawyer if
| they'd like.
| koolba wrote:
| Are the agreements standardized and publicly viewable
| now?
| benatkin wrote:
| I'm not sure they should be. As a customer, I wouldn't
| want everyone poking holes in it. Also, seeing a new
| version of it, could cause unnecessary headaches (it also
| could let me know of stuff that's really important, but
| they should communicate that another way).
|
| That said, I do like standardized agreements in a lot of
| situations. I just am not sure it's best for these.
| koolba wrote:
| Why wouldn't the agreement be standardized at least per
| country or jurisdiction?
|
| For clarity, I'm not asking to see contracts with peoples
| names or addresses. I'm asking to see what I would assume
| to be the actual terms one would be entering regardless
| of which specific property or others involved.
| slumdev wrote:
| Who becomes owner of a person's share if he stops paying
| maintenance fees?
| rblack44 wrote:
| Ancana steps in and takes over the share and finds another
| buyer. Other co-owners are protected in this case.
| [deleted]
| ghostly_s wrote:
| Why are you describing timeshares as if it's some sort of
| innovation?
| rblack44 wrote:
| I understand the confusion, but we are definitely not a
| timeshare. With Ancana you own real property, not a block of
| time. You have the flexibility to book stays throughout the
| year vs. annual bookings with timeshares. And if you ever want
| to sell your interest in an Ancana home, you can do so just
| like a normal home. If the property has increased in value, you
| capture that appreciation. With timeshares you are forced to
| sell your "time" back to the resort at highly discounted rates,
| not at market value.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| That's how you sell timeshares, by describing your particular
| implementation as innovation, often by explicit
| misrepresentation of the existing ones or implicit
| misrepresentation of yours (describing others
| maintenance/management fees as expensive and/or hidden while
| you have and do not highlight your own fees of the same kind
| being a common example of the latter.)
| rblack44 wrote:
| My parents have been timeshare owners for years so I'm very
| familiar with the sales tactics resorts use. Regardless of
| how they spin it, all you really own is a block of time. With
| Ancana your purchase is a deeded right to the property. You
| are an actual home owner. Where the difference becomes clear
| is when you can use the property (fixed weeks vs. on-demand)
| and what happens when you want to sell the property. Resorts
| force you to sell your time back to them and they dictate the
| prices. With an Ancana home, we will help find a buyer from
| our network of qualified leads, or you are free to sell
| through an agent of your choosing or on your own. The market
| dictates what the property sells for, not Ancana. We retain
| no ownership stake in the property once all of the fractions
| are sold.
|
| As for fees, we simply split the ongoing property costs
| amongst the co-owners with no markup. We do charge an annual
| management fee for administering and maintaining the
| property, but this is fixed and transparent.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > My parents have been timeshare owners for years so I'm
| very familiar with the sales tactics resorts use.
| Regardless of how they spin it, all you really own is a
| block of time. With Ancana your purchase is a deeded right
| to the property.
|
| Most modern "timeshares" (the word remains current in
| common use though the technicalities have changed and the
| industry has mostly moved to "vacation ownership") are
| deeded straight to the property and use this as a
| differentiating sales tactic to people's _image_ of
| timeshares not being that way. I _also_ have been a
| timeshare owner for years, and that 's been the case with
| each except on in Mexico sold in blocks of weeks per year
| for a limited term of years because the market was largely
| international and Mexican law limits foreign ownership of
| coastal property.
|
| > Resorts force you to sell your time back to them and they
| dictate the prices
|
| No, they mostly don't; that what is sold is freely
| marketable fee simple ownership is a heavily marketed
| feature of most. There are even real estate brokers that
| specialize in this market.
|
| Though differentiating on the perception that _most other_
| vacation ownership options do this _is_ very common in the
| industry.
| buu700 wrote:
| Would it be accurate to say that Ancana is to timeshares
| as Airbnb is to hotels (a technical distinction without
| major practical differences to the end user), or would it
| be more accurate to say that Ancana is literally just a
| specific type of timeshare?
|
| If the latter, does the elevator pitch of Ancana make it
| at least seem like a uniquely good/interesting timeshare
| implementation, or could the same description be applied
| verbatim to other major timeshare services already on the
| market?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > If the latter, does the elevator pitch of Ancana make
| it at least seem like a uniquely good/interesting
| timeshare implementation
|
| I think using units that are individual homes with a
| small number of owners per property potentially has some
| interesting dynamics. The guaranteed ability ro reserve a
| (even if not the single most preferred) high-demand date
| each year is an obvious plus from that.
|
| Conflicts within the ownership group, particularly over
| relationships to property management are very much a
| thing in shared-interest vacation ownership. Typically
| these are intense, political, but (for most owners)
| impersonal because of the size of ownership groups. With
| small-group ownership of individual properties, there
| would seem to be a possibility for those to be much more
| intense and personal, both because of the smaller group
| size that is involved _and_ the greater sense of
| attachment /ownership of the specific property.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| I think it's unfair to critique by pattern matching. "What's
| wrong with _this_ model " is what should be focused on.
| avs733 wrote:
| Because it's on the internet!
| thenayr wrote:
| One of the listings is literally just a bunch of concept art
| illustrations, what am I even looking at
| https://en.ancana.co/properties/helechos
| [deleted]
| atlasunshrugged wrote:
| Can you help me understand the key difference here between this
| and Pacaso (I think from one of the Zillow founders)?
|
| https://www.pacaso.com/
| rblack44 wrote:
| Very similar model. We are currently operating in different
| markets (US vs. Mexico) and are targeting different properties
| (Pacaso is going after ultra luxury homes). We also have
| slightly different approaches to splitting up the properties.
| Pacaso only sells 1/8 shares for all properties, where we also
| offer 1/4 or 1/10 shares for certain properties based on
| demand. On the properties side we partner with developers in
| addition to acquiring existing homes so we are able to sell
| interest in homes that are not yet built, where Pacaso is only
| going after existing homes.
| dewski wrote:
| Pacaso allows you to purchase more than 1/8 of a residence,
| you can purchase as many 1/8 shares as you like. So in theory
| you could easily purchase 1/4 of a residence.
|
| Pacaso is also purchasing homes that are not yet built, for
| instance they've purchased two homes in North Lake Tahoe that
| are actively being developed.
|
| I am a 1/8 shareholder of a property in North Lake Tahoe
| through Pacaso and I love the model. Best of luck to you.
| rblack44 wrote:
| We're fans of what Pacaso is doing. If nothing else they
| are proving out the market for this type of ownership
| model. Congrats on the home, I grew up an hour from Tahoe
| and have always dreamed of buying a home up there!
| atlasunshrugged wrote:
| Where an hour from Tahoe? I lived in Gardnerville for a
| chunk of my childhood
| rblack44 wrote:
| oh nice! I grew up in El Dorado Hills, off of Highway 50
| atlasunshrugged wrote:
| Ha funny, small world. Well best of luck with everything!
| smoldesu wrote:
| Woof, that was a lot of marketing speak to wade through to
| basically say "Timeshare-as-a-Service". I know you're 'different'
| (every startup is), but maybe honesty is really the best policy
| here. I feel like if you said this was a digital timeshare
| outright, it would feel less scam-like to the average person who
| doesn't know/care about this in the slightest. If you establish
| an honest basis of communication, _then_ you can delineate all
| the ways you 're different from the rest. Otherwise, this
| unfortunately reads kinda like a newspaper ad from a never-
| before-seen company.
| sgustard wrote:
| Personally, describing it as "own a quarter of a house" is a
| lot more meaningful to me than comparing it in any way to a
| timeshare. First of all, I'm not very familiar with timeshares
| except as a way to get roped into a two-hour sales pitch. Is
| Uber just a taxi-as-a-service? Well, yes and no. I've a big
| Pacaso fan and look forward to more innovation and transparency
| in this space.
| rblack44 wrote:
| this is really great feedback, thanks!
| rblack44 wrote:
| One of our biggest challenges we face is in communicating how
| we are different from a timeshare. We focus on the 2 main
| differentiators we hear most from our customers: 1. ownership
| in actual real estate, and 2. the flexibility to schedule
| visits throughout the year. I think resale is another big
| point. One of the goals of posting on HN is to refine how we
| effectively communicate these differences, because the
| underlying model is very very different from a timeshare,
| regardless of how timeshares pitch themselves. Looking at the
| contract you sign with Ancana vs. a timeshare makes it pretty
| clear what you are actually buying. Appreciate the feedback,
| we'll continue to try and improve!
| lastofthemojito wrote:
| Just a small note: When I visit the URL provided
| (https://en.ancana.co/) the website content is in English as
| expected, but the title of the page is in Spanish ("La mejor
| manera de comprar tu casa de vacaciones").
| rblack44 wrote:
| Hmmm, is the dropdown in the upper right showing "EN"? We
| realize there is some bugginess on the site, we are non-
| technical founders haha. We have a new site launching in a week
| or 2 that will resolve all of these little issues. Thanks for
| taking a look!
| mbesto wrote:
| I'm your target market as I'm currently investigating this with 3
| other friends. Honestly, I wouldn't trust a commoditized service
| for this. It requires honest discussions with friends, a trusted
| lawyer and a trusted accountant. I want to personally know the
| parties I'm dealing with because often times disputes can be
| handled with gentlemen agreements or through those trusted
| contacts.
| benatkin wrote:
| Also using an automatic scheduling system like the one
| described to set up the dates when there's only a handful of
| fractional owners doesn't make sense to me either. Information
| about individual preferences should be gathered.
| rblack44 wrote:
| This is great feedback, perhaps our explanation wasn't clear.
| The scheduling system isn't automatic, each owner has the
| flexibility to book stays whenever they'd like (the booking
| window is 2 days to 1 year out). What we try to do is make
| sure that each co-owner gets access to the property on the
| dates that matter most to them. To accomplish this we give
| each owner the ability to select their priority dates before
| the general booking window opens
| [deleted]
| rblack44 wrote:
| Friends and family have been entering into these type of
| agreements for years. If you have a group that agrees on the
| same property we think that's awesome. Our solution isn't for
| everyone. But we are trying to make this co-ownership
| opportunity available to everyone. Especially those who want to
| invest in a property but don't have a group to go in with them.
|
| In terms of disputes, we agree that most can be handled through
| simple communication. Our platform allows for this. Many of our
| owners like the idea of having Ancana there to act as a go-
| between for issues that do arise and to set rules that everyone
| can agree to.
|
| Good luck with your home buying adventure! What areas are you
| looking at?
| rglullis wrote:
| Make it for digital nomads who are willing to pay a monthly fee
| to build equity on the properties.
|
| Offer not just vacation homes but homes that are big enough to
| have 6-10 people co-working and co-living.
|
| Instead of having 4 families splitting a house for 3 months,
| every participant has the right to live in the house _or_ to rent
| it out.
|
| Create a market for them so that they can trade their shares.
| Make it easy for people to sell their shares for co-owners.
|
| Make it international, focusing on places that are reasonably
| developed and with good climate: southern Europe and the
| Caribbean.
|
| For the past 5 years I've been unsuccessfully trying to convince
| my very risk-averse wife (civil engineer) that digital nomads are
| going to be an increasingly powerful market. If you are willing
| to do any of that, let me know so that I can quit my job and
| apply to work with you. :) If not, please let me know what
| problems you see with it. I've been thinking about this for quite
| a while and the pandemic made it even more appealing to me.
| ytdytvhxgydvhh wrote:
| I wonder if something like this could help with residency
| through investment visas, etc. I mean, I know nomads are
| nomadic by definition so maybe some wouldn't care much about
| long-term residency but I'd imagine a lot of American digital
| nomads would be happy if they could get a foot in the door for
| EU residency for example.
| rglullis wrote:
| Not even needed. After the pandemic, many countries (e.g
| Costa Rica, Croatia, Malta) are interested in attracting
| remote workers and are offering year-long, renewable visas,
| some of them waiving any kind of tax-residency requirement.
| It is a smart move for them, because it basically treats
| nomads as perennial tourists with high spending power.
| ytdytvhxgydvhh wrote:
| That's interesting - I'd heard of Iceland and Costa Rica
| doing that, didn't realize any EU countries were doing the
| same. I couldn't tell from a quick Google search if
| "residence" under Malta's digital nomad visa would qualify
| one towards any further EU residence or even future EU
| citizenship or if it's just like you were there as a
| tourist for a long time.
| rblack44 wrote:
| Love some of these ideas! We are getting a lot of interest from
| digital nomads looking at this not just as an investment in a
| vacation home, but as a remote office for a few months a year.
| We are looking at how we can better serve that market, would
| love to chat as it seems like you've been thinking about this
| for a bit. Shoot me an email (ryan@ancana.co).
|
| Many of the homes are big enough spaces to use for coworking,
| but not always ideally furnished as such. It could be
| interesting to tailor some homes for this exact use case.
| Interesting.
|
| The rental rules depend on the property. Some of our homes are
| in communities with rules governing short term rentals. For the
| others, we leave it up to the owners to decide as a group
| whether to allow renting the home when not in use.
|
| We definitely see an opportunity for people to trade time in
| different homes. With the affordability of many of our
| properties, we think some people will buy shares in a few homes
| and bounce around. Anyway, would love to get in touch and pick
| your brain
| awb wrote:
| Thanks for sharing.
|
| FYI, the meta tags on your English site (<title>, <meta
| name="description">, etc.) are still in Spanish. For SEO and
| usability, you might want to update those to English as well.
|
| Good luck with the venture!
| rblack44 wrote:
| Thank you for the feedback! We are in the process of launching
| a new site in the next week or 2 and will make sure this is
| fixed.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-08-20 23:00 UTC)