# Sources of inventory



## GregT (Jan 7, 2011)

TUGgers,

We’ve debated before on TUG what happens to Marriott prime weeks that are deposited into II, and who gets that week.   We never satisfactorily answered that question and it pops up from time to time.   Some of my comments following are repetitive of previous discussions, but included here to try and be complete.

Based upon recent experience (recounted below), it is my belief that that Marriott is “stocking” the Exchange Inventory with prime weeks deposited into Interval International 13 months out, by Marriott week owners.  This would require some agreement or permanent, perpetual trade request between II and Marriott, but it is plausible.

We know that one of the most important challenges facing Marriott is having sufficient inventory to meet points owner reservation requests.  We know that Marriott will get inventory from enrolled owners who redeem their weeks for points – but that weeks owner has until September 30 before the use year to redeem that week, so that is not a reliable source of inventory.  Especially if only 20% enroll (and fewer redeem).

We’ve speculated the Marriott has a “Right of First Refusal” on a highly sought-after week that an enrolled owner wants to deposit into Interval International, and may make the trade with its pockets of inventory before passing that week into Interval International.   However, this is unproven, and even if true, with only 20% enrolling, that’s not a reliable source of inventory either.

We believe that Marriott will take weeks that have been redeemed for MRPs and put them into the Exchange Inventory.  They have years and years of history on this redemption pattern, but owners have until 12/31 prior to the use year to redeem – that’s a predictable, but not reliable source.

Accordingly, all of these potential sources of inventory are variable and unpredictable, and I bet that Marriott was unwilling to place its critical inventory needs – the Achilles heel of its system – on such unreliable sources.

Then, consider the potential importance of the 13-month rule to the Marriott points system.  Marriott has an (un?)official policy of permitting 13 month reservations by multi-week owners.  There is an established pattern -- at 9am ET, 13 months out, Marriott multi-week owners make their reservation and deposit that prime week into II for maximum trading power.   And a prime, sought after week, is now sitting in Interval International.

Who gets that prime week?  

I believe Marriott gets it, not the first II member who has a on-going search for that week.   I believe this for several reasons:

1)	Marriott really really needs inventory to make exchange requests at 12-13 months out.
2)	Sources noted above are unreliable, unpredictable, and not punctual to a 12-13 month reservation requirement
3)	It answers some questions on the point allocation chart – Marriott needs to give lots of points to MOC owners to entice them to enroll & redeem, because they rarely trade.  Marriott doesn’t need to give lots of points to Aruba owners, because those are well traded properties.

This theory of mine was a factor (in addition to my enthusiasm for warm water) in the decision to go to Aruba next February, 2012.  We have a very powerful MOC studio on Deposit First (deposited 12 months prior to check-in), for a Week 24 Lahaina Villas studio, which is a very high TDI week in Maui.   That should be a powerful deposit, sufficient to capture an early Aruba Ocean Club studio, with February 3 or 4 check-in.   And I believe Aruba owners have been making reservations for those check-in days all week.

My trade hasn’t cleared yet.  No big deal, it will clear, maybe next week or next month.  But it hasn’t cleared yet.  And Interval International has no/zero/none inventory for either Aruba Ocean Club or Aruba Surf Club, any size unit.    So.....maybe I'm farther down the line in trade requests then I thought, and there are more Marriott owners willing to "down-trade" their 1BR or 2BR for that Ocean Club studio then I anticipated.

But.......Yesterday, Marriott’s DC didn’t have any inventory either.  Today, it has sufficient Aruba Ocean Club Studios/1BRs/2BRs with the desired February 3rd or 4th check-in to offer me anything -- I can book whatever I want, any size, any view category, using DC points.

I do not believe this inventory could have been sourced from Marriott’s own ownership of the property.  Perhaps this inventory came from many many (2012?) MRP redeemers – or perhaps there are more enrolled owners who very-early redeemed their 2012 week than we anticipated.   Or.... this was Aruba reservations cycled through Interval International.

If we can confirm this theory, it would explain a great deal about where Marriott is going to get the desirable prime week inventory and also explains why Marriott didn’t design the system in a manner that enticed/appealed to the existing owners to participate (something that has caused much angst to many TUGgers, myself included).  They developed a work-around, an alternative source for the needed inventory.    

It’s really quite interesting to think about the ramifications/implications of this.   

I would be very very curious if any other TUGgers have either:

1)  Deposited an Aruba Surf or Aruba Ocean Club into II for those check-in dates
2)  Been confirmed into either of those properties for those check-in dates
3)  Been recently confirmed into any PRIME reservation at exactly 13 months

Any thoughts, comments or alternative views would be appreciated.

Best,

Greg


----------



## hotcoffee (Jan 7, 2011)

I would like to see someone with knowledge of how Starwood manages their II inventory comment on your theory.  If Starwood can get away with doing something similar to this, then I would presume Marriott can also.  I don't think Marriott would bother grabbing low demand weeks away from II, but they might very well take high demand weeks and give II a substitute week for deposit.

A similar type of process can occur with request-first searches in II.  Marriott could satisfy the request-first search from its own inventory rather than allowing II to satisfy it, and give II a week that would allow II to satisfy a different search.


----------



## windje2000 (Jan 7, 2011)

I just can't believe DClub is materially affecting available inventory based on DClub statistics, as follows

20 weeks ended 11/17/10

Enrollments..........................36,809
Weeks................................79,237
Banking.................................3,738
Borrowing..............................5,594
Reservations..........................9,192
Nights Reserved....................30,000
Number of points purchasers...10,500
Number of points sold...... 16,600,000


per week

Enrollments...........................1,840
Weeks..................................3,962
Banking...................................187
Borrowing................................280
Reservations............................460
Nights Reserved.....................1,500
Number of points purchasers.......525
Number of points sold..........830,000


Analysis

370,000 owners and 1.3 weeks per owners =  nearly 500,000 weeks or about 10,000 owner owned occupancies/week  or 70,000 nights per calendar week

9,192 points reservations in 20 calendar weeks = about 460 per week.

460/10,000 = *4% of reservations*




30,000 nights /20 weeks = just over 1,500 nights per week

1,500/70,000 = *2.1% of nights reserved*

How many of these are for pluspoints?  My guess is a material percentage.  Multiply the enrollments by 800 per enrollee and you get about 29.4 million plus points, nearly twice as many as have been sold.  They've sold 16.6 million, about 1,580 per purchaser.  1,580 points doesn't buy a lot of prime occupancy

Greg, I'll be the first to admit these are crude calculations based on available data for a start up.  Marriott is certainly basing their reservation activities on forecasts and not history.  

Despite the limitations of these data, I just don't see the new program having a material effect . . . yet.


----------



## wof45 (Jan 7, 2011)

hotcoffee said:


> I would like to see someone with knowledge of how Starwood manages their II inventory comment on your theory.  If Starwood can get away with doing something similar to this, then I would presume Marriott can also.  I don't think Marriott would bother grabbing low demand weeks away from II, but they might very well take high demand weeks and give II a substitute week for deposit.
> 
> A similar type of process can occur with request-first searches in II.  Marriott could satisfy the request-first search from its own inventory rather than allowing II to satisfy it, and give II a week that would allow II to satisfy a different search.



all of the II marriott inventory goes first to the marriott desk, so they have the opportunity to see what is available.


----------



## ocdb8r (Jan 7, 2011)

Starwood is (now) totally different.  You no longer have the ability to make a reservation and then deposit it into II...all deposits to II are generic and receive the same trade power for the season owned.  Therefore, Starwood obviously has the ability to control what weeks are actually deposited into II and which it grabs for its own use or leaves for reservations.

The one difference is that Starwood is not selling "points" to anyone, it still sells weeks that are worth points. In other words, it's as if they only operated the overlay being offered to Marriott's existing weeks owners and not a trust system in addition.  Therefore there isn't a desire to boost inventory into a trust system...however one concern has long been that Starwood could snag the high demand weeks for renting (those they are entitled to as owners of unsold developer weeks or from Starwood Points).  there was a long debate about this some time ago and we all went through our governing docs to see what sort of restrictions they had on actually reserving those weeks which it was entitled to and no real consensus was reached.


----------



## GregT (Jan 7, 2011)

windje2000 said:


> I just can't believe DClub is materially affecting available inventory based on DClub statistics, as follows



Windje,

I agree -- it's not Trust Points purchasers that is affecting inventory patterns/availability -- it has to be Marriott's need to accumulate inventory that will be desired by their customers (points users).

Somehow, an Aruba Studio week for which a Trade Request is on-going in II, is not (yet) available from II, but that same week (all views) is available from Marriott.

How did it get there?   How is Marriott just sitting on multiple weeks of all view categories?    

Either they've actively traded for that week from II, or they've restricted II's ability to match trades until Marriott is sure they don't need the week in question at this time.

I think it's the former -- they've figured out which weeks points users will want, and they've actively acquired them from II -- ahead of me.   I'm confident I'll still get my trade from II, but not at 13 months out -- maybe 11 months?.

Please ponder this for a minute -- II does not have Aruba inventory 12.5 months out.  Conversely, Marriott has lots of Aruba inventory that is unmatched and is available to someone spending points.

That's interesting -- if not from II, how did the Aruba inventory get there?

Best,

Greg


----------



## hotcoffee (Jan 7, 2011)

windje2000 said:


> . . . They've sold . . . about 1,580 [points] per purchaser.  1,580 points doesn't buy a lot of prime occupancy . . .



I personally do not believe the points per person will go much higher for the foreseeable future.  That is why most of the best Trust weeks will end up in the exchange inventory.  It will be out of reach for most Trust owners.


----------



## windje2000 (Jan 7, 2011)

GregT said:


> Windje,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Greg - I'm at a loss.  

The only pertinent experience I've had is that II's systems can sometimes be less than accurate.  Perhaps all II Aruba inventory was instantly snapped up by by pending/ongoing requests.   

It wouldn't surprise me at all if there was both a side deal between II and Marriott as regards exchange priorities and that Marriott was 'warehousing' some inventory they got from foreclosures/MRP (and maybe II) in anticipation of demand.  

Marriott's hope springs eternal, I guess.  It'll be interesting to see what numbers they report at year end.


----------



## jerseyfinn (Jan 7, 2011)

> We’ve debated before on TUG what happens to Marriott prime weeks that are deposited into II, and who gets that week.   We never satisfactorily answered that question



There's always been an answer to this question. Interval's metric for matching MVC trade requests is conducted on a *like-for-like* basis. The "fuzzy" part has been how Interval determines the "trading power" of a given MVC week.  All we MVC folk have been able to do is to infer the relative trading power of an Interval week. That said, the one *gift* that Marriott's introduction of Destinations gives we MVC folks is that by setting their new DC currency as VC points, Marriott reveals *by inference* how both Marriott and Interval rank trading value of MVC weeks ( and this has always been a function of supply and demand which is a trade secert, but no longer as secret in the new DC program ).

Note that my remarks refer only to Interval as an MVC owner trading inside of Interval. Those who Conduct their MVC trades via MVCEC *are  not*  acting within the same trading parameters as Interval ( like-for like ). Marriott has elected to negate "MVC seasons" and instead uses it's  VC points currency as the metric of "relative demand worth". For those who enroll their MVC weeks and place MVCEC trades for those weeks, _he who gets the request in first, queues first _ ( actually a * huge disincentive *for an MVC owner who holds highly valued weeks to trade in MVCEC ) .  That said, the *fundamental metric * of both MVCEC and Interval are predicated upon *supply & demand*. Just a guess on my part, but at this moment I would expect Interval's inventory and demand curve to be close to previous years as reluctant MVC folks are still trying to figure things out. MVCEC with fewer folks placing trade requests is a different animal. Best question to ask is how many of those 100,000 enrolled MVC weeks are being put up for an MVCEC trade? Next best question is will Marriott be able to shuffle around inventory from the Trust to help MVCEC folks place successful trades these first few years?



> Based upon recent experience (recounted below), it is my belief that that Marriott is “stocking” the Exchange Inventory with prime weeks deposited into Interval International 13 months out, by Marriott week owners . . . .  We’ve speculated the Marriott has a “Right of First Refusal” on a highly sought-after week that an enrolled owner wants to deposit into Interval International, and may make the trade with its pockets of inventory before passing that week into Interval International. . .



Greg, what you're suggesting here requires *collusion* both by Marriott and Interval -- a *breach of terms* to Interval members, which at this point in time also means the bulk of MVC owners who belong to a trading partner. Furthermore,  do you really think that Interval ( who has lost a very important client with the start up of MVCEC ) gets anything out of swapping suppossedly high demand Interval Marriott inventory?



> . . . Accordingly, all of these potential sources of inventory are variable and unpredictable, and I bet that Marriott was unwilling to place its critical inventory needs – the Achilles heel of its system – on such unreliable sources . . ..



Marriott, through the Trust which oversees DC, *owns 31 MVC resorts* and the previously unsold MVC inventory at each of them. This is a substantial number of weeks. In a broad sense, "Marriott has sufficient DC inventory for quite some time into the future "( I quote here a Marriott source of mine ).  The *only* additional sources of potential additional DC inventory that Marriott can put into the Trust ( and hence into the hands of DC folks seeking inventory, *and* for now, MVCEC traders ) will come from acquiring full ownership at any of remaining non-Trust MVC resorts, or from MVC owners who elect to take MR Points for their MVC week. As you note, this stream of weeks is somewhat unpredictable ( in past years @ 20% of MVC owners deposit into the MR pool ). The real problem here is that Marriott & we MVC owners have no real insight as to which weeks/resorts will be the most requested and if the Trust controls those weeks and hence the ability to fulfill requests.

So if one is trying to read the timeshare tea leaves to divine how successful a trade might be, I'd suggest scouring the DC resort VC points redemption catalogue as this affords the best information for gauging demand.  Then it comes down to how individual MVC owners strategize. Trading for any extremely popular MVC week is difficult under any circumstances.  Now if I had to chose between Interval versus MVCEC to place a "high demand" trade, I too would clearly stick with Interval as one's best chance as an MVC owner remains playing in the Interval virtual swimming pool.    Good Luck!


Barry


----------



## wof45 (Jan 7, 2011)

one thing that Marriott certainly could do is to deposit all of the weeks that it owns at legacy resorts into the points exchange when they reach the reservation calendar date.

that would prime the pump for anyone trading points of either kind.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 7, 2011)

Remember that Marriott has the ability to forecast usage and point trading patterns based on past data. Thus if they expect 25% of owners that own platinum season to trade for Marriott reward points, they can pull 20% of the platinum weeks out of the weeks reservation pool and put in to exchange/trust. So much of that inventory you are seeing in points can indeed be MRP trades, even though the physical trade hasn't been done by the owners yet.

MRP trading inventory is a very reliable source of inventory that Marriott can pull to fulfill point exchanges even though the deadline to trade for points is 12/31. In the future once Marriott has better data on DC point conversions, they will be doing the same with that also.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 7, 2011)

Marriott also knows that x % of weeks go unreserved every year that they get the rights to, so they can also pull that at any time to place in point inventory.


----------



## siberiavol (Jan 7, 2011)

I don't think we can assume yet that Marriott and II are truly on the same page about valuations in all cases. I have some units that net me less than 1000 destination club points per week  As you can imagine I am unlikely to convert these to destination club points even though I am enrolled.

I recently traded one of those low points week for a  Jan 2012 platinum Florida week that would have cost me 4225 destination club points. II obviously values that week differently than Marriott or they would have not made the trade.

If Marriott was getting the higher point value properties from II before they got to the II traders , why would this even be available a year in advance ?


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 7, 2011)

siberiavol said:


> I don't think we can assume yet that Marriott and II are truly on the same page about valuations in all cases. I have some units that net me less than 1000 destination club points per week  As you can imagine I am unlikely to convert these to destination club points even though I am enrolled.
> 
> I recently traded one of those low points week for a  Jan 2012 platinum Florida week that would have cost me 4225 destination club points. II obviously values that week differently than Marriott or they would have not made the trade.
> 
> If Marriott was getting the higher point value properties from II before they got to the II traders , why would this even be available a year in advance ?



See this thread about the subject.


----------



## davidn247 (Jan 7, 2011)

*Marriott Marbella*

One small anecdote on source of weeks for points. As I was looking to go to Marriott Marbella Beach resort, I asked to a representative on the phone if this resort is going to be soon available for points (I had my GRande Vista 3BR President's week to exchange in II for more than 2.5 months without success and finally I abandoned entering soon in the 60 days window).

Surprisely, he told me to wait as he will be calling II to see something. Finally, he proposed me to book 7 days (only full week, not shorter/longer) for 5'000 points (June 2011, 3BR). Exactly what i was trying to exchange myself without success. Very interesting: he made a trade in II to have a week that he then proposed to sell me with points (of course 5'000 points is more that my 3'725 for GV).

Although I do not like it (too much), it is showing that they are trying to solutions for you. Balanced feeling...


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 7, 2011)

davidn247 said:


> One small anecdote on source of weeks for points. As I was looking to go to Marriott Marbella Beach resort, I asked to a representative on the phone if this resort is going to be soon available for points (I had my GRande Vista 3BR President's week to exchange in II for more than 2.5 months without success and finally I abandoned entering soon in the 60 days window).
> 
> Surprisely, he told me to wait as he will be calling II to see something. Finally, he proposed me to book 7 days (only full week, not shorter/longer) for 5'000 points (June 2011, 3BR). Exactly what i was trying to exchange myself without success. Very interesting: he made a trade in II to have a week that he then proposed to sell me with points (of course 5'000 points is more that my 3'725 for GV).
> 
> Although I do not like it (too much), it is showing that they are trying to solutions for you. Balanced feeling...



I think this is verification of what we knew all along. It seems that perhaps you either didn't have the trade power to exchange your MGV to Spain, or there were lots of other people ahead of you in line. Likely a trade power issue. 

It is interesting to note to those that seem to think Marriott will do week for week exchanges that Marriott wasn't willing to just give you the week for your MGV week.


----------



## wof45 (Jan 7, 2011)

this is actually a DC world traveler collection trade.

the way it is written is that you decide just what kind of a week you want in II, and you deposit that many points in the DC for the trade.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 7, 2011)

wof45 said:


> this is actually a DC world traveler collection trade.
> 
> the way it is written is that you decide just what kind of a week you want in II, and you deposit that many points in the DC for the trade.



That makes sense now, given the point value required. Though I thought that Marriott resorts were not available for trade through II using DC points. World Traveler would be exchanges through II but people can't see Marriott to Marriott units when searching online using points.


----------



## davidn247 (Jan 7, 2011)

I tell you: these trade systems are becoming so complicated that this forum will have a long life! It will be soon a full time job. Thanks for the information. For me, it is important to have choice while still retaining your deed/weeks and I really think that Marriott is starting to acknowledge that DC was maybe not well introduced and it seems that they are trying to improve and deliver what you ask them.


----------



## yumdrey (Jan 7, 2011)

I traded my studio side of shadow ridge platinum week for christmas week Cypress Harbour (orlando) which has only 2BRs. I put an ongoing search and it matched at exactly 13 months out (last week of November 2010).
I thought a multiple week owner made reservation at 13 months window and depositted that week right away and matched with my request.
I also saw that bunch of prime (summer) weeks at legend edge were bulk depositted to II about one or two months ago. All of June, July, August weeks were there and other weeks throughout the year (except week 51 and 52).
There were similar bulk deposits for Grande vista and 3 palm desert resorts almost at the same time.
So it is very hard to say that Marriott is holding all the prime weeks for DC members. They have to give weeks to II and those weeks cannot be all silver or bronze weeks.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 7, 2011)

yumdrey said:


> They have to give weeks to II and those weeks cannot be all silver or bronze weeks.



I would have to agree. Marriott resorts are not completely filled with Marriott owners year round or even in peak season. I have said and will keep saying that DC didn't magically create more demand on implementation. Marriott will still be in possession of many weeks that in the past went to non Marriott owners and other non-Marriott owners through II. The same will continue in the future. DC only makes up about 10% of all owners at the moment. If 50% are converting, those 5% of owners as well as trust owners are not going to all of a sudden start to suck up all that prime inventory that in the past went in to II.


----------



## GregT (Jan 8, 2011)

jerseyfinn said:


> Greg, what you're suggesting here requires *collusion* both by Marriott and Interval -- a *breach of terms* to Interval members, which at this point in time also means the bulk of MVC owners who belong to a trading partner. Furthermore,  do you really think that Interval ( who has lost a very important client with the start up of MVCEC ) gets anything out of swapping suppossedly high demand Interval Marriott inventory?
> 
> 
> Marriott, through the Trust which oversees DC, owns 31 MVC resorts and the previously unsold MVC inventory at each of them. This is a substantial number of weeks. In a broad sense, "Marriott has sufficient DC inventory for quite some time into the future "( I quote here a Marriott source of mine ).  The only additional sources of potential additional DC inventory that Marriott can put into the Trust ( and hence into the hands of DC folks seeking inventory, and for now, MVCEC traders ) will come from acquiring full ownership at any of remaining non-Trust MVC resorts, or from MVC owners who elect to take MR Points for their MVC week. As you note, this stream of weeks is somewhat unpredictable ( in past years @ 20% of MVC owners deposit into the MR pool ). The real problem here is that Marriott & we MVC owners have no real insight as to which weeks/resorts will be the most requested and if the Trust controls those weeks and hence the ability to fulfill requests.
> ...




All,

Interesting comments and feedback, thank you.  Yumdrey's experience with Cypress Harbour is encouraging.

Barry, 

Collusion might be the correct term, but that suggests illegal activity.  I could envision something in the recent contract extension where Marriott either received a preferential period of its own, or a higher weight to its bulk deposit trading power.  We don't know what concessions Interval was forced to accept in order to have the contract renewed.   Obviously, I don't know the mechanism here, of course, but I see the practical result of it.

We know there are no weeks in the Trust Inventory from Aruba Surf Club or Aruba Ocean Club.   And yet the Exchange Inventory has many weeks available, all sizes and views, and Interval International is empty (to me at least, with a strong Like for Like trader).   I don't know how these weeks got into the Exchange Inventory, and at the moment, my hypothesis could still be the explanation.   

Perhaps its as simple as Marriott recognizing 2 years ago they were doing the points system, and started putting in many Trade Requests with II for weeks that the system will want, so they are first in line -- Like for Like trades that they are thinking about 2+ years in advance.   Or perhaps there is a contractual arrangement giving Marriott a preference or some rights that Interval had to accept in order to renew the contract last April.

I don't know, but the practical result is the same -- the Aruba inventory is in the Destination Club and not in Interval International, and I remain intrigued as to how it got there.

If this pattern repeats, then it certainly suggests the Exchange Inventory will be robust and that the legal distinction between Trust Points and Exchange Points won't really matter since Exchange Inventory will have better access than I anticipated to the best weeks in the system.

Again, this assumes that Marriott has found out a way, contractually or through long-planned Trade Requests, *to stock prime weeks inventory in advance of reservation requests from points owners*, and not just wait for the request to be made by that points owner and then go look for the matching week.

Best to all,

Greg


----------



## DanCali (Jan 8, 2011)

*My Theory*

I raised a new theory in a recent thread and I have yet to see anyone prove it wrong.

It is pretty simple:

There are two pools of weeks - enrolled owners and unenrolled. I should point out that this is contrary to what Marriott represented (verbally) to some people who contacted them because my pool involves enrolled owners (vs. owners who elect points)

Under my theory, the enrolled owners' weeks are always available in the DC exchange (I assume this is still on a prorata basis). The owner does not have to elect points. So an enrolled owner may or may not be able to reserve their week at 12 months out (they are the biggest losers in that sense). The winner is Marriott (owners who can't use home resort when they want will elect points by default, won't they?) and the DC exchange because it answers where inventory is coming from... It also explains the push Marriott has just to get enrollments. Note that the "you can do what you always did" still applies but that doesn't mean your home resort is available when you call... that's a pretty heavy price to pay for "fee savings" but did anyone thing Marriott was in the charity business?

Unenrolled weeks owners have their own (pro rata) pool which they can use to make home resort reservations. Under my theory, his pool is unavailable to enrolled weeks owners.

I would hope my theory is wrong - but I have yet to see indications to the contrary. This recent thread actually increases my suspicions. I hope someone proves me wrong...


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 8, 2011)

Dan, I would have to agree that this is a likely theory. It is very possible that enrolled owners weeks are actually getting thrown in to the exchange company pool and then when they make their home resort reservations, that inventory is coming back from the exchange company pool. That is, if it is still available when you want to make a reservation.

At worst, the problem with this is that enrolled owners are now competing against points purchasers and DC converters for the inventory.

Of course Marriott does have to promise a week at the owners home resort, so it is also likely that Marriott has a separate pool for enrolled owners that is outside the exchange company and unenrolled owners pool. This ensures that if an enrolled member converts, Marriott has something to deposit to DC. This makes more sense since enrolled owners have until September 30th to convert, but Marriott will likely want to be able to use a peak March week to put in to DC instead of perhaps an off season Sept -  December week.


----------



## windje2000 (Jan 8, 2011)

DanCali said:


> I raised a new theory in a recent thread and I have yet to see anyone prove it wrong.
> 
> It is pretty simple:
> 
> ...



From the FAQ  LINK  (Login required)



> Where will the inventory come from to fulfill vacation reservations within the Marriott Vacation Club Collection?
> 
> Inventory throughout the Marriott Vacation Club Collection will be available for reservations for Enrolled Owners via other Marriott Vacation Club Owners *who enroll their weeks and elect Vacation Club Points*, and non-enrolled Owners who trade their usage for Marriott Rewards points or exchange their week through membership in Interval International.


  emphasis mine



Dan, I'm as skeptical as anyone (and probably more than most) as regards the big M, but I'm not going that far based on the anectodes we've seen on TUG so far.  The answer in the FAQ is actually pretty unequivocal as compared to some writings that leave more questions than answers in their wake.  

Is it proof?  Not without an independent (paid for by someone other than M ) audit.  

M can make some pretty good guesses on use of MRP, forfeited occupancy, etc., and may well be 'holding' II deposited inventory for anticipated or forecast demand.  

If what you hypothesize is true,  one lawsuit with some effective forensic accounting discovery and they're toast.  It's clearly material to the decision as to whether or not to enroll, it wasn't disclosed and it's contradicted by its own representations in the FAQ.


----------



## DanCali (Jan 8, 2011)

windje2000 said:


> From the FAQ  LINK  (Login required)
> 
> emphasis mine
> 
> ...



You raise some good points, as always.

There has to be a "gotcha" to the fee savings "benefit". That costs Marriott lost fees too. I still believe owners must be giving up something big...

Maybe the skim from those who use points is enough to compensate but my theory explains many other things too. 

I'll conceed the above quote is somewhat reassuring.


----------



## hotcoffee (Jan 8, 2011)

windje2000 said:


> From the FAQ  LINK  (Login required)
> 
> emphasis mine
> 
> ...



I don't know if it is significant or not, but in the quote:

". . . non-enrolled Owners who trade their usage for Marriott Rewards points *or exchange their week through membership in Interval International*",

I wonder whether that is an admission that Marriott has direct access to Marriott weeks exchanged by non-enrolled owners through II and can grab them for DC exchanges.  This is not pertinent to where the Aruba weeks came from in DC, but it is related to another topic that we have kicked around about how Marriott can get DC exchange inventory.

I was told way back at the beginning of the program that Marriott has lots of inventory in its possession.  They supposedly have inventory at every resort.  Those statements were made by a Marriott points salesman in response to my assertion that at the beginning of the program Marriott would not have much inventory available for DC exchanges.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 8, 2011)

windje2000 said:


> From the FAQ  LINK  (Login required)
> 
> emphasis mine
> 
> ...



This however doesn't contradict what I mentioned in my post. Marriott could very well have a pro-rata separation of reservations based on enrolled owners vs. non enrolled owners.


----------



## Fredm (Jan 8, 2011)

DanCali said:


> There has to be a "gotcha" to the fee savings "benefit". That costs Marriott lost fees too. I still believe owners must be giving up something big...



Not necessarily, Dan.

Marriott has likely negotiated a dramatically reduced fee schedule with I.I.  Perhaps, even a no fee for these trades, as the price for keeping Marriott inventory and membership  with I.I.

I.I. cannot afford to lose its premier quality-tier anchor.

Think of it similarly to a "big box" retailer in a shopping mall.  They don't pay the same rent as the specialty retailers. They are the traffic draw.

If anything, the DC "all-in one" fee will probably be a big money-maker for Marriott as membership grows.


----------



## windje2000 (Jan 8, 2011)

Fredm said:


> Not necessarily, Dan.
> 
> Marriott has likely negotiated a dramatically reduced fee schedule with I.I.  Perhaps, even a no fee for these trades, as the price for keeping Marriott inventory and membership  with I.I.
> 
> I.I. cannot afford to lose its premier quality-tier anchor.



Probably worth looking at the II SEC filings - it might be disclosed as a material event or in the MD&A discussions of the 2010 year.


----------



## Fredm (Jan 8, 2011)

windje2000 said:


> Probably worth looking at the II SEC filings - it might be disclosed as a material event or in the MD&A discussions of the 2010 year.



Good idea. Although it may not be a material event for 2010. 
The number of DC conversions that would impact I.I. in 2010 would be fairly minor. Certainly more than offset by increased member dues and exchange fees, I.I. system-wide.


----------



## windje2000 (Jan 8, 2011)

dioxide45 said:


> This however doesn't contradict what I mentioned in my post. Marriott could very well have a pro-rata separation of reservations based on enrolled owners vs. non enrolled owners.



If DClub access to the occupancy for exchange is as described in the FAQ, why would they bother?  

What would they have to gain by ticking off a lot of owners who can't get access to what they clearly purchased and own?


----------



## Luckybee (Jan 8, 2011)

As of the annual meeting in May of 2010 at the Aruba Ocean Club , Marriott voted 1510 votes. 1500 of those votes were the class B shares(in simple terms...and not getting into other issues..."shares not related to ownership interest") and 10 class A shares tied to ownership of 5 weeks. I have no idea whether they purchased more subsequently but as of May they only owned 5 weeks at the OC(because you can be darned sure had they owned more they would have voted that interest). So where they are getting the inventory is anyone' guess at this point.


----------



## hotcoffee (Jan 8, 2011)

Luckybee said:


> As of the annual meeting in May of 2010 at the Aruba Ocean Club , Marriott voted 1510 votes. 1500 of those votes were the class B shares(in simple terms...and not getting into other issues..."shares not related to ownership interest") and 10 class A shares tied to ownership of 5 weeks. I have no idea whether they purchased more subsequently but as of May they only owned 5 weeks at the OC(because you can be darned sure had they owned more they would have voted that interest). So where they are getting the inventory is anyone' guess at this point.



I presume that MRP trades and delinquencies would not be counted as ownerships. Take the 5 weeks plus any MRP trade inventory and any delinquencies, then add in a couple of enrollments, and perhaps that could account for the inventory.

Of course, there is also another possibility: one of the theories having been suggested in various threads is that Marriott might get first crack at anything exchanged through II.  Could it be that they might swap with with II some of their excess inventory somewhere else for some Aruban inventory (equal value)?


----------



## m61376 (Jan 9, 2011)

As for reservations, I was emphatically told that owners reserving weeks- whether enrolled or not- would be in the same pool for reservations and the availability of those reservations would be based on the percentage of week owners using their weeks, versus enrolled week owners converting to points and any inventory owned by Marriott.

Although I was told that enrolled owners exchanging in weeks would be exchanging in II versus through Marriott first, since the line between Marriott, the Marriott desk at II, and II is sorta blurred, I am not as confident that Marriott doesn't get first dibs on any deposited weeks that they want, exchanging "similar" inventory elsewhere. Of course, that goes back to whose definition of similar we are referring to, and whose needs/best interests are dominant.

For example, one might argue that a Plat. Aruba week is not the same as an off season Orlando week. However, are two off season Orlando weeks equal in value? Maybe not to me, BUT II has the potential to extract two trade fees, and also make one of their biggest clients happy. So a strong argument can be made that II considers that an equivalent trade. Thus, Marriott may very well be siphoning off prime weeks for those less desirable trades, giving II "like for like" that they have worked out as being equivalent, while you and I are getting the short end of the stick in the process.

In reality, this scenario would have Marriott in compliance with all its promises, written and verbally assured via Customer Advocacy and other sources.


----------



## ilene13 (Jan 9, 2011)

GregT said:


> All,
> 
> 
> We know there are no weeks in the Trust Inventory from Aruba Surf Club or Aruba Ocean Club.   And yet the Exchange Inventory has many weeks available, all sizes and views, and Interval International is empty (to me at least, with a strong Like for Like trader).   I don't know how these weeks got into the Exchange Inventory, and at the moment, my hypothesis could still be the explanation.
> ...


----------



## GregT (Jan 9, 2011)

ilene13 said:


> AOC owners do not trade.  When we are there Christmas and New Years 98% of the occupants are owners or renters, not II trades.  I myself often rent out a week 52 (I own 3 wks)if I'm personally not using a 2nd wk 52 for my children (adults). Many 2 week owners do not get their 2nd week when trying to book.  They immediately put the week into MRP so they can stay at the hotel.  Therefore Marriott is getting platinum inventory![/COLOR]



Okay, I thought the Aruba properties were significantly more traded than MOC but perhaps not.

But even if, as suggested above, the Marriott owner is redeeming that second week for MRP, I don't think an owner would be redeeming 2012 usage weeks yet, would they?   

The weeks that the DClub have available are February 2012, so I don't think they can be sourced from MRP redemptions?    The only thing that continues to make sense to me is that Marriott/DClub have first crack at whatever is deposited into II.    Which means either they have a contractual relationship with II, or they have a number of well structured trade requests on an on-going basis that effectively put them first in line.

As soon as I get another Studio deposit into II, I'll run the experiment again with other properties that aren't in the Trust (therefore we can rule out that as the source of the weeks) and see if the same situation occurs of prime high demand weeks being in DClub at 13 months out, but II still remaining dry.

Best to all,

Greg


----------



## Bunk (Jan 9, 2011)

From the FAQ LINK (Login required)

Quote:
Where will the inventory come from to fulfill vacation reservations within the Marriott Vacation Club Collection?

Inventory throughout the Marriott Vacation Club Collection will be available for reservations for Enrolled Owners via other Marriott Vacation Club Owners who enroll their weeks and elect Vacation Club Points, and non-enrolled Owners who trade their usage for Marriott Rewards points or exchange their week through membership in Interval International.

This is discussed in #25 above.



So does this mean that if you are a legacy owner and enroll in the New Program and go through Interval, Marriott can not touch your week.

If you are a legacy owner and do not enroll in the New Program, Marriott can acquire the week you intend to deposit with Interval.  It doesn't even say that Marriott has to replace that week with another week.


Does anyone have access to documents that explained the relationship between Marriott and Interval before the new program was set up?  Did Marriott always have the right to take the week an owner intends to deposit with Interval and use it for its own purposes as opposed to allowing other Interval members to acquire that week?


----------



## rickxylon (Jan 10, 2011)

*Aruba 2012 Reservations*

To answer the OP's question on 2012 reservations:
On 1/3 I confirmed the following at 13 months
Locked off 2 BR Surf Club
Reserved 2/4-11 studio and 2/11-18 master
Reserved 2 1BR Ocean Club weeks 2/19-26 (2/18 checkin was not available for 13 month checkin) I'll call again when the 12 month inventory is available and probably get it then like I did for our 2011 reservations.

I was on the phone almost immediately at 9 ET. The VC commented about 5 minutes later that there were already over 100 calls waiting in the Q!


----------



## GregT (Jan 10, 2011)

rickxylon said:


> To answer the OP's question on 2012 reservations:
> On 1/3 I confirmed the following at 13 months
> Locked off 2 BR Surf Club
> Reserved 2/4-11 studio and 2/11-18 master
> ...



Rick, thank you for the information.  To confirm, you made these reservations with your week ownership -- and are keeping them for personal use, or did the weeks get deposited into II?

Thanks again -- enjoy your trip!

Best,

Greg


----------



## rickxylon (Jan 10, 2011)

I have not enrolled so they were made as a weeks owner.

They have not been deposited with II. Although we probably will sometime in the next few months to trade into Waiohai. I also reserved there for 2/11-18 on 1/3.

We are headed to Aruba on 2/9 (next month) for 3 weeks!. It is snowing here in MN now and they are forecasting 25 below sometime next week! Can't wait to stick my toes in some sand instead of shoveling snow!!!


----------



## GregT (Jan 15, 2011)

TUGgers,

Does anyone have a deed that they can check that includes 13-month reservation abilities?   My MOC deeds don't speak to it, and another TUGger has emailed me and believes that the deeds that do cover it indicate that 13-month reservations are for personal use only.

This could further support my contention that Marriott can get those 13 month deposits from II -- since those reservations were intended for personal use (and not for deposit into II).

Please let me know if anyone has such information in their deed -- thanks!

Greg


----------



## hotcoffee (Jan 15, 2011)

"Marriott can get those 13 month deposits from II . . ."

My understanding is Marriott and II are now working more closely together for the mutual benefit of both.  II might need some weeks that Marriott has in its inventory, and Marriott might need some weeks that were deposited into II.  If any owner (enrolled or not enrolled) makes an exchange via II, there is a pretty good chance that Marriott will get the week (assuming they need it) for a DC exchange request.


----------



## puckmanfl (Jan 15, 2011)

good morning...

As a good ol' fashioned hockey playin' doc with way too much time on my hands, I am just wondering if this MVCD/II relationship might be progressing perilously close to anti trust and restraint of trade issues???? 

just curious.....


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 15, 2011)

GregT said:


> TUGgers,
> 
> Does anyone have a deed that they can check that includes 13-month reservation abilities?   My MOC deeds don't speak to it, and another TUGger has emailed me and believes that the deeds that do cover it indicate that 13-month reservations are for personal use only.
> 
> ...



The language may not be in the deed received at closing; if it exists in any form, it is in the Master Deed and various amendments of the governing docs.  We've discussed this many times on TUG and I think the conclusion is pretty much that Marriott uses a blanket policy* across all resorts despite the fact that the docs are not all the same - some of the older resorts docs do not contain any references to 13-mo concurrent/consecutive reservations, while of those that do, some contain a version of the "personal use only" stipulation and some do not. 

My Barony Beach governing docs do:


> ... Multi-Week Owners may reserve concurrent weeks, meaning two (2) or more Units during the same week, or consecutive weeks, meaning one (1) or more Units for two (2) or more weeks in a row (for Owner occupancy only), beginning on the date which is thirteen (13) months in advance of the date of the first Check-In Day ...



My SurfWatch governing docs do not:


> ... Multi-Interest Owners, excluding Declarant, may reserve concurrent Use Periods, meaning two (2) or more Units during the same week, or consecutive Use Periods, meaning one (1) or more Units for two (2) or more Use Periods in a row, beginning on the date which is thirteen (13) months in advance of the date of the first Check-In Day ...



* {edited to add} The "blanket policy" Marriott has been using for years is that despite any language to the contrary in the governing docs, all multi-Week Owners are eligible to use the 13-mo reservation rule; that Weeks reserved using the rule will receive separate confirmation numbers for each Week; that consecutive or concurrent Weeks are not required to be at the same resort; and that any Week(s) reserved using the 13-mo rule can be rented out by the Owner, rented through Marriott's rental program, or deposited immediately or any time after into II for an exchange.


----------



## hotcoffee (Jan 15, 2011)

puckmanfl said:


> good morning...
> 
> As a good ol' fashioned hockey playin' doc with way too much time on my hands, I am just wondering if this MVCD/II relationship might be progressing perilously close to anti trust and restraint of trade issues????
> 
> just curious.....



How so?  The issue is whether an exchanger gets his exchange or not, and whether any actions between Marriott and II affect the exchange in a negative way.  If you submit a search request via II and get the week you are searching for, why would you care if II and Marriott affected a trade between them that allowed you to get your desired week?  II is a business and will not give Marriott a week unless they get something they want in return.


----------



## ocdb8r (Jan 15, 2011)

puckmanfl said:


> good morning...
> 
> As a good ol' fashioned hockey playin' doc with way too much time on my hands, I am just wondering if this MVCD/II relationship might be progressing perilously close to anti trust and restraint of trade issues????
> 
> just curious.....



"close" is a relative term.  I seriously doubt it given there are many competitors in the timeshare (and exchanging) world.  Don't forget, RCI and Wyndham are actually owned by the same company...if that didn't raise any regulatory eyebrows, I doubt the II/Marriott relationship (no matter how close) will.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 15, 2011)

hotcoffee said:


> How so?  The issue is whether an exchanger gets his exchange or not, and whether any actions between Marriott and II affect the exchange in a negative way.  If you submit a search request via II and get the week you are searching for, why would you care if II and Marriott affected a trade between them that allowed you to get your desired week?  II is a business and will not give Marriott a week unless they get something they want in return.



What if you don't get your request filled because of that same relationship?



ocdb8r said:


> "close" is a relative term.  I seriously doubt it given there are many competitors in the timeshare (and exchanging) world.  Don't forget, RCI and Wyndham are actually owned by the same company...if that didn't raise any regulatory eyebrows, I doubt the II/Marriott relationship (no matter how close) will.



The difference here is that Marriott and II are both an Exchange Company. You can't have a maker of one product colluding with another maker of the same product. That is illegal. The MVCI/MVD Exchange company relationship is the same as the RCI/Wyndham relationship. Marriott and their MVD Exchange company are a developer exchange company relationship, just the same as RCI and Wyndham.

I think what is much more likely to be happening here to avoid an anti trust laws is that the trust is really just an II member, just like you and I can be II members. The trust can exchange weeks with II just like the rest of us. The trust can then also exchange with the MVD Exchange Company.

It probably isn't likely that the MVD Exchange Company is doing direct exchanges with II. If it is, that would likely boarder on anti trust.


----------



## Superchief (Jan 15, 2011)

SueDonJ said:


> " Marriott has been using for years is that despite any language to the contrary in the governing docs, all multi-Week Owners are eligible to use the 13-mo reservation rule; that Weeks reserved using the rule will receive separate confirmation numbers for each Week; that consecutive or concurrent Weeks are not required to be at the same resort; and that any Week(s) reserved using the 13-mo rule can be rented out by the Owner, rented through Marriott's rental program, or deposited immediately or any time after into II for an exchange.



A previous thread discussed the implications of the changes in T&C that were sent out for many resorts in November. Several included the following:

'The Management Company reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to cancel all of a Multi-Interest Owner's reserved usage for a given usage year if such Multi-Interest Owner cancels less than all usage which was reserved more than twelve(12) months in advance."

I think this raises the question regarding whether weeks reserved 13 mo. in advance can be deposited for II exchange without fear of cancellation by MVC due to violation of T&C. If depositing a week reserved 13+mos violates MVC T&C, how can Marriott rely on this as a source of inventory from II? I guess they can legally cancel these reservations for violating T&C, and then confiscate them for use in DC inventory. 

Has anyone had any recent experiences regarding depositing 13 mo. advance reserved weeks for exchange?


----------



## hotcoffee (Jan 15, 2011)

dioxide45 said:


> What if you don't get your request filled because of that same relationship? . . .



While this is a valid point, as pointed out, II is a business.  If they can get something of a higher value via a Marriott request than any of the existing requests in their system, what will they do?  What would you do?  If you exchange a valuable MOC week, and there are five searches ongoing for just that week, and Marriott also wants it, who gets it?  The one with the highest value week in trade? I wonder what the odds are that Marriott can come up with the best trade?


----------



## puckmanfl (Jan 15, 2011)

good morning...


I knew this would get a juicy debate going....

I don't have a lick of legal training, but I do know the following.  As of 6/20/10 MVCD is running a "competing" exchange company with II.  If two competing entities in the same business combine to affect prices or supply of a product, I believe that is an anti trust violation.

If it can be proven that MVCD is in any way shape or form using its status to "jump the line" in II exchanges in order to provide inventory for a competing business it would be dicey...

Let me use this as an example. Perhaps MVCD snags a ski week in park City from II.  In return, they give up a Koolina week from the Trustr. On the surface, this is a legitamit like/like exchange.  However, what happens next ain't so kosher.

MVCD will then give that unit to a points customer.  This transaction may be considered an exchange (for points) or a rental (currency is points).  This violates the II policy on reexchange or rental of exchange units.  IOW, if I re exchange (thru ownerstrade.com or redweek.com) a unit snagged thru II, I could be "booted" out of II.  II exchange units as per II bylaws and membership code are  for personal usage.  Even if MVCD is doing like/like trades to snag inventory, the units they snag from II (owner deposits) are being used for comercial use (re-exchange or rental).

I have no proof that any of this is going on, but in the FAQ part of the DC website, it is specifically stated that inventory for points exchanges comes from II...

please don't get me wrong.  I love the points flexibility and thrilled that there is availability in the exchange company but I do believe it is coming at a price to Legacy owners that want to play the old way....  

just sayin'


----------



## hotcoffee (Jan 15, 2011)

dioxide45 said:


> . . . It probably isn't likely that the MVD Exchange Company is doing direct exchanges with II. If it is, that would likely boarder on anti trust.



I'm sure the lawyers gave their blessing to however they set up the relationship.  I've heard that they have already affected trades between them.  So, however they handled the legalities, it has already been done.


----------



## wof45 (Jan 15, 2011)

I don't believe there is any way that the DC could fall under anti-trust legislation.  There is no monopoly, and no discrimination in pricing.  The same product is offered to any buyers at stated prices.  In fact, Marriott uses II as its supplier including a corporate II account.


----------



## puckmanfl (Jan 15, 2011)

good afternoon

just a few comments on the last few posts...

#1 I believe that I watch way too much law and Order!!!

#2 just because a corporation does something, doesn't mean it is legal!!!

#3  If the individual II customer used an II snagged unit for commercial use (re-exchange or rental) it would be considered against policy.   MVCD is not using the supply of units for II for personal use and occupancy. This appears to be a violation of by laws.

#4 I believe that II has a fiduciary (Law and Order again) responsibility to provide equitable trades for "personal" use for its members

#5  High end Time share owners (Marritt, Disney etc) would make an incredibly unsympathetic plaintiff in any legal action.  Don't think any jury would remotely care that poor old puckman can't get a ski week!!!

I am now done with this...just wanted to stir the pot a bit...


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 15, 2011)

Superchief said:


> A previous thread discussed the implications of the changes in T&C that were sent out for many resorts in November. Several included the following:
> 
> 'The Management Company reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to cancel all of a Multi-Interest Owner's reserved usage for a given usage year if such Multi-Interest Owner cancels less than all usage which was reserved more than twelve(12) months in advance."
> 
> ...



Yeah, I've been waiting to see if the same notice is sent to Owners at resorts that didn't send them out in that first round, and to see if Marriott starts enforcing the new cancellation penalties that they've written.  I said in that thread that I'm not volunteering to be a guinea pig for the new rule - losing an entire year's worth of reservations is too steep a price!

(Here's that thread if anyone's interested ...)


----------



## GregT (Jan 15, 2011)

All,

Interesting comments -- and the speculation (including from me) may never be proven or disproven.

I believe Marriott and II could easily have agreed to a clause in their recent amendment (April 2010?) that lets Marriott "jump the line".   

Marriott could argue that 13-month reservations were only intended for personal occupancy and not for II deposit, and therefore they aren't harming the Marriott week owner by jumping the line to reclaim the deposit.

Marriott could actually argue they are benefiting their existing Marriott week owner by not canceling the reservation, but letting them keep the deposit credit they received from II.  Therefore Marriott can argue they are acting in the best interest of their existing week owner by not taking the punitive action that they could have.

II can argue that the amended terms are in the best interest of their customer base AND their shareholder base because it was a requirement to renew the Marriott agreement with this jump the line feature.   II can argue that Marriott is still providing a valuable week in exchange for the 13 month ressie that it exchanged (maybe Marriott gives II a week with 9 months to go, still a valuable week).  And also that Marriott promised to give more of something in exchange (maybe XX bulk deposits or FlexChanges) that will result in more exchange fees for II stockholders, and more weeks to choose from for the II customer base.

All conjecture on my part -- but I am confident that if Marriott and II wanted to agree to something like this, they could.

I do not know if this is the actual mechanism -- what I do know is that there is still 13 month inventory for Aruba in the DClub, and II is dry.

And I still can't figure out a credible alternative for such a quantity of inventory to be available, other than from II.

What will disprove my theory is if someone gets an exchange from II right after the 13 month reservation -- and the week that they received is a prime week that Marriott would have wanted and doesn't exist in the Trust.     

For example, if in June 2011, someone gets confirmed by II into a July 2012 SurfWatch or Grand Ocean reservation, that would be a serious blow to my theory.    I'm sure there are other similar situations of no Trust inventory/high TDI weeks, but that's one that comes to mind.

I appreciate all the comments and theories -- 

Best to all,

Greg


----------



## wof45 (Jan 15, 2011)

I can't comment on what MVC is actually doing, but they have the mechanism in place to make this happen.

An owner can make a 13 month reservation
That reservation can be deposited in II
The deposit goes into MVC inventory for 3 weeks
DC can trade an equivalent DC deposit (from a bulk deposit) in II for the 13 month week
DC would now own the 13 month week

is this happening, or is MVC just being very inept in its trading systems?


----------



## Superchief (Jan 15, 2011)

GregT said:


> All,
> 
> Interesting comments -- and the speculation (including from me) may never be proven or disproven.
> 
> ...



This is interesting speculation. The existing week owner would also 'benefit' by not having all of their reservations cancelled due to 'violation' to the new T&C. Perhaps Marriott modified the T&C's related to the 13 mo reservations to protect themselves if they are, in fact, jumping the line to grab prime weeks from II at 13 mo. It would not surprise me.


----------



## wof45 (Jan 15, 2011)

Superchief said:


> This is interesting speculation. The existing week owner would also 'benefit' by not having all of their reservations cancelled due to 'violation' to the new T&C. Perhaps Marriott modified the T&C's related to the 13 mo reservations to protect themselves if they are, in fact, jumping the line to grab prime weeks from II at 13 mo. It would not surprise me.



We know there is what I would consider unethical behavior already in the 13 month reservations.  for example, people who reserve a 13 month week 50 so that they can also reserve week 51 and week 52.  And then later go in and cancel the week 50 reservation.

I 'm not arguing about how the reservations are used, but it seems to me that if the first week is canceled, the other weeks should also be canceled.


----------



## hotcoffee (Jan 15, 2011)

puckmanfl said:


> #3  If the individual II customer used an II snagged unit for commercial use (re-exchange or rental) it would be considered against policy.   MVCD is not using the supply of units for II for personal use and occupancy. This appears to be a violation of by laws.
> 
> #4 I believe that II has a fiduciary (Law and Order again) responsibility to provide equitable trades for "personal" use for its members...



Okay.  How about the following scenerio:

You are running a request-first search in II with a week that Marriott has a waitlist request for that it uses for a search.  Marriott deposits a week that either satisfies your search (or satisfies another search which via a cascading fashion satisfies your search).  That causes your week to be deposited.  Since the Marriott-deposited week satisfies II's like-for-like requirement, Marriott's search is satisfied (which, in turn, satisfies their waitlist request).  Would Law-and-Order's legal team take Marriott and II to court over that?


----------



## hotcoffee (Jan 15, 2011)

GregT said:


> . . . I do not know if this is the actual mechanism -- what I do know is that there is still loads of 13 month inventory for Aruba in the DClub, and II is dry. . . .



I do not think the normal II/Marriott trades would account for what you discovered.  My understanding is that Marriott and II engage in trades when DC waitlists are involved.

I also understand that enrolled weeks and non-enrolled weeks are handled differently.  Enrolled weeks are part of the DC program and visible to the internal exchange system when they are deposited into II.  Non-enrolled weeks are not.  For non-enrolled weeks to get into Marriott's internal DC inventory, it does not sound like they could have gotten there via the method I have heard is actually taking place.  That makes me question whether they are getting there via II at all.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 15, 2011)

hotcoffee said:


> I do not think the normal II/Marriott trades would account for what you discovered.  My understanding is that Marriott and II engage in trades when DC waitlists are involved.
> 
> I also understand that enrolled weeks and non-enrolled weeks are handled differently.  Enrolled weeks are part of the DC program and visible to the internal exchange system when they are deposited into II.  Non-enrolled weeks are not.  For non-enrolled weeks to get into Marriott's internal DC inventory, it does not sound like they could have gotten there via the method I have heard is actually taking place.  That makes me question whether they are getting there via II at all.



This was posted earlier in either this thread or another.

From the DC FAQ:


> Where will the inventory come from to fulfill vacation reservations within the Marriott Vacation Club Collection?Inventory throughout the Marriott Vacation Club Collection will be available for reservations for Enrolled Owners via other Marriott Vacation Club Owners who enroll their weeks and elect Vacation Club Points, *and non-enrolled Owners who trade their usage for Marriott Rewards points or exchange their week through membership in Interval International.*



So it seems that Marriott can exchange for unenrolled owner deposits in II. One would think that when they wrote this they expected all enrolled owners to be calling their VOA to deposit their week, so they would have first choice on what to deposit in II and what to keep for themselves when making II deposits over the phone.

I think what is likely the cause of the Aruba inventory in DC is MRP trades. Or at leaset inventory that Marriott has forecasted that it can take for MRP trades. They know from 20 years of experience that x percent of y season owners at z resort trade for points. They know long before 13 months that they can keep x% of inventory to put in to DC.


----------



## windje2000 (Jan 15, 2011)

GregT said:


> I do not know if this is the actual mechanism -- what I do know is that there is still loads of 13 month inventory for Aruba in the DClub, and II is dry.



Greg,

If I put canned soup across the shelf 10 cans wide, but 1 can deep, there would be the appearance of a boat load of inventory.

An alternative to your theory is that there's lots of demand for those weeks in II, and they get snagged by ongoing requests, combined with little demand in DClub for the same occupancy.

Aruba is a plane ride from everywhere, so folks would want to stay more than 1,500 points worth (average DClub purchase).  

Not sure Aruba is the best 'canary in the coal mine.'


----------



## puckmanfl (Jan 15, 2011)

good afternoon

Don't know what Jack McCoy would do, but my answer is "maybe"....

If MVCD has a good faith request for exchange and a like for like exchange starts a cascade that gets my request frist exchange to be confirmed then it is all good. However, if there is some"inside info" available to MVCD that lets them know that I have a request  first deposit with a unit that they want and they use this info to get the"cascade" moving, then there is some "insider trading"....

How do we reconcile that fact that a new player (MVCD) is exchanging in II to obtain units for commercial (re-exchange) purposes, whereas that is forbidden for you and I....

Perhaps, it can be justified by the fact that it will "prime the pump" for good MVCD inventory in II and more requests will e confirmed...


----------



## hotcoffee (Jan 15, 2011)

dioxide45 said:


> . . . I think what is likely the cause of the Aruba inventory in DC is MRP trades. Or at leaset inventory that Marriott has forecasted that it can take for MRP trades. They know from 20 years of experience that x percent of y season owners at z resort trade for points. They know long before 13 months that they can keep x% of inventory to put in to DC.



My guess is MF delinquencies.


----------



## puckmanfl (Jan 15, 2011)

good afternoon...

Since we are in the law and Order genre... 

I am reminded of two of the greatest "gaffes" in TV casting history.  Leading the list is McClean Stephenson giving up the role of Lt. Col Henry Blake to star in "Hello Larry" followed closely by Michael Moriarity's surrender of the role of A.D.A Ben Stone.  

In both these cases, the subsequent "star" outlasted the original!!!

This has nothing to do with the issues at hand but provide a brief moment of levity....


----------



## ocdb8r (Jan 15, 2011)

dioxide45 said:


> The difference here is that Marriott and II are both an Exchange Company. You can't have a maker of one product colluding with another maker of the same product. That is illegal.





puckmanfl said:


> I don't have a lick of legal training, but I do know the following.  As of 6/20/10 MVCD is running a "competing" exchange company with II.  If two competing entities in the same business combine to affect prices or supply of a product, I believe that is an anti trust violation.



I think you both watch a bit too much TV.  There are volumes of cases and court decisions that set out standards by which anti-competitive behavior is set out.  You assumption that any joint venture between companies with similar business lines is per se illegal is not correct.  Delta/Northwest, Continental/United...these are just two prime examples of a much larger industry with much larger implications for anti-competitive behavior where business combinations were approved and held to be in line with the anti-trust laws in the U.S...and before you go there, remember that before these companies actually merged they operated as partners with sales and profit sharing agreements for several years.

Finally, think a bit about what you are saying here.  Remember, even if Marriott and II are colluding in the most sinister of ways suggested here, in no way has anyone suggested the purpose is to reduce competition or raise prices of timeshare exchanges....the only argument is that what they are doing could benefit one group of exchangers over another.  That would not run afoul of anti-trust laws.



dioxide45 said:


> The MVCI/MVD Exchange company relationship is the same as the RCI/Wyndham relationship. Marriott and their MVD Exchange company are a developer exchange company relationship, just the same as RCI and Wyndham.



I don't think you've got this correct either.  Wyndham has their own internal exchange program (via points) just as Marriott now does.  In addition to that, you can also exchange outside Wyndham using RCI.  Wyndham and RCI are owned by the same company (at one time called Cedant, but now called Wyndham Worldwide after they bought Wyndham Vacation Ownership).  My point was that if anti-trust regulators didn't have a problem with this full scale combination, I doubt they are going to have any problem with the Marriott/II cooperation.


Listen, I am no Marriott or II apologist.  I don't agree that what has suggestion _should _be going on.  I just don't think it's illegal based on anti-competition laws.


----------



## ocdb8r (Jan 15, 2011)

Puckman, I truly appreciate the spirit of your posts...but there is a flipside to every argument...




puckmanfl said:


> #1 I believe that I watch way too much law and Order!!!


Well, it's hard not too...there are just so many of them...



puckmanfl said:


> #2 just because a corporation does something, doesn't mean it is legal!!!


Similarly, just because a corporation does something you don't like, or even something that is blatantly "unfair" doesn't make it illegal.



puckmanfl said:


> #3  If the individual II customer used an II snagged unit for commercial use (re-exchange or rental) it would be considered against policy.   MVCD is not using the supply of units for II for personal use and occupancy. This appears to be a violation of by laws.



II's by-laws and terms of use are theirs to enforce as they see fit.  They are designed to promote II's (as a company) best interest.  If they choose not to enforce them, it is THEIR choice.  Their by-laws and terms of use create no legal obligation on their part to enforce them.



puckmanfl said:


> #4 I believe that II has a fiduciary (Law and Order again) responsibility to provide equitable trades for "personal" use for its members.



I believe they _should _do this, but they have no legal obligation to do this...and keep in mind that "equitable" is a relative term that is up for debate.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 15, 2011)

ocdb8r said:


> I don't think you've got this correct either.  Wyndham has their own internal exchange program (via points) just as Marriott now does.  In addition to that, you can also exchange outside Wyndham using RCI.  Wyndham and RCI are owned by the same company (at one time called Cedant, but now called Wyndham Worldwide after they bought Wyndham Vacation Ownership).  My point was that if anti-trust regulators didn't have a problem with this full scale combination, I doubt they are going to have any problem with the Marriott/II cooperation.



But is Wyndham's internal system a true exchange system like MVD? Or is it rather an internal point reservation system. If the latter, it is far different than what Marriott is doing. The MVD Exchange Company is an exchange company that is exchanging inventory. It is regulated as such. If Wyndham is just a points reservation system, they are far different and can't be used for comparison.

By definition what someone calls an internal exchange system may not in fact be an exchange system at all. Just a mechanism that is setup to allow owners to reserve other resorts at a different reservation window. What Marriott has created is a exchange company that by definition would compete directly with II if the two were not working together.


----------



## puckmanfl (Jan 15, 2011)

good evening....

please don't get me wrong....

I love this points thing (have made great trades) and I hope there is tons of inventory in the system.  I was just bored here on TUG and wanted to prime the pump with some new interesting debate....

p.s. I watch WAY too much TV.  I don't watch the medical shows but just can't get enough Law and Order.  Can never watch too much Hockey either...

The HBO special  24/7 Capitals?penguins was just TV at its finest.  Must see TV especially in HD.  Not for little ears however, some naughty language....


----------



## GregT (Jan 15, 2011)

GregT said:


> So.....maybe I'm farther down the line in trade requests then I thought, and there are more Marriott owners willing to "down-trade" their 1BR or 2BR for that Ocean Club studio then I anticipated.





windje2000 said:


> An alternative to your theory is that there's lots of demand for those weeks in II, and they get snagged by ongoing requests, combined with little demand in DClub for the same occupancy.
> '



Windje,

I totally agree -- I even put that in my very first post (#1) -- but please recall I'm talking about a Studio for Studio trade, and it's hard for me to think there are (many) stronger Studios on Deposit than my Summer MOC Lahaina Towers Ocean-Front Lock-off deposited 12 months in advance for maximum trading power.  

So, I really don't think there are (many) other Studio's in front of me, so I should be near the head of the line.   I'm confident I'll get the trade, just not today.   I also agree about your comment that the breadth of the inventory could be misleading, if they have 10 cans wide, but 1 deep as you say.

I also don't understand how it could be MRP redemptions since we are so far ahead of that date?  Who would be redeeming their 2012 week for MRPs *now*???

But this is fascinating -- let's see what happens with Hilton Head when Summer 2012 rolls around -- I'll bet there is inventory in DClub and II traders don't get confirmed straight away....

Best,

Greg


----------



## ocdb8r (Jan 15, 2011)

dioxide45 said:


> But is Wyndham's internal system a true exchange system like MVD? Or is it rather an internal point reservation system. If the latter, it is far different than what Marriott is doing. The MVD Exchange Company is an exchange company that is exchanging inventory. *It is regulated as such. *If Wyndham is just a points reservation system, they are far different and can't be used for comparison.
> 
> By definition what someone calls an internal exchange system may not in fact be an exchange system at all. Just a mechanism that is setup to allow owners to reserve other resorts at a different reservation window. What Marriott has created is a exchange company that by definition would compete directly with II if the two were not working together.



First, I am not sure where you are getting your "definition" of what qualifies as an "exchange system".  These are not legally defined terms...we can all define them however we want.  I could just as easily call MVCD a "point reservation system".

Second, I don't know what you mean by "regulated as such".  There are no legal regulations specific to timeshare exchange systems (at least none that I have seen).

Third, Wyndham works just like Marriott.  There are resorts where owners own outright weeks and may choose to convert their week ownership into points.  These are typically at older pre-points resorts developed by Wyndham or at a growing number of resorts that Wyndham is gaining affiliation from (never Wyndham developed).  In addition to those, there are Wyndham developed resorts where all that is sold is point packages.  In addition, there is no one single "trust" with Wyndham - when you buy a points package you are buying it at a single resort, therefore in this sense Wyndham is even more of an exchange company that MVCD as even point owners are "exchanging" when they use their points outside their resort.  While I am not completely clear as to the internal structure of the Wyndham program, the bottom line is they operate very similarly to the new Marriott organization.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 15, 2011)

ocdb8r said:


> First, I am not sure where you are getting your "definition" of what qualifies as an "exchange system".  These are not legally defined terms...we can all define them however we want.  I could just as easily call MVCD a "point reservation system".
> 
> Second, I don't know what you mean by "regulated as such".  There are no legal regulations specific to timeshare exchange systems (at least none that I have seen).
> 
> Third, Wyndham works just like Marriott.  There are resorts where owners own outright weeks and may choose to convert their week ownership into points.  These are typically at older pre-points resorts developed by Wyndham or at a growing number of resorts that Wyndham is gaining affiliation from (never Wyndham developed).  In addition to those, there are Wyndham developed resorts where all that is sold is point packages.  In addition, there is no one single "trust" with Wyndham - when you buy a points package you are buying it at a single resort, therefore in this sense Wyndham is even more of an exchange company that MVCD as even point owners are "exchanging" when they use their points outside their resort.  While I am not completely clear as to the internal structure of the Wyndham program, the bottom line is they operate very similarly to the new Marriott organization.



Perhaps you need to read this document from Marriott. https://www.my-vacationclub.com/common/vc/en-us/pdfs/enrollment_legal_docs/program_disclosure_guide.pdf. Marriott didn't create if just for kicks and grins. They must file this document with the state of Florida every year because of this statute . So exchange companies, at least in Florida where MVD operates, are a regulated industry.

It is very possible that there is a Wyndham Exchange Company like MVD. However is Wyndham pulling weeks from RCI to fulfill internal exchanges in their internal system?


----------



## DanCali (Jan 15, 2011)

Superchief said:


> '*The Management Company reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to cancel all of a Multi-Interest Owner's reserved usage for a given usage year if such Multi-Interest Owner cancels less than all usage which was reserved more than twelve(12) months in advance."*
> 
> I think this raises the question regarding whether weeks reserved 13 mo. in advance can be deposited for II exchange without fear of cancellation by MVC due to violation of T&C. If depositing a week reserved 13+mos violates MVC T&C, how can Marriott rely on this as a source of inventory from II? I guess they can legally cancel these reservations for violating T&C, and then confiscate them for use in DC inventory.



All that says is that if you cancel a week reserved more than 12 months in advance, Marriott can cancel all those reservations booked along with it. In reality (and I've gotten consistent answers on this from every rep) you can cancel one of those reservations at less than 12 months out and you are fine. They only cancel all of them if you cancel between 12 and 13 months.

I am not sure I see how depositing a week violates anything. And while a confirmed exchange technically is a "cancellation", you can easily get around that but depositing at 12 months out or less.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 15, 2011)

DanCali said:


> All that says is that if you cancel a week reserved more than 12 months in advance, Marriott can cancel all those reservations booked along with it. In reality (and I've gotten consistent answers on this from every rep) you can cancel one of those reservations at less than 12 months out and you are fine. They only cancel all of them if you cancel between 12 and 13 months.
> 
> I am not sure I see how depositing a week violates anything. And while a confirmed exchange technically is a "cancellation", you can easily get around that but depositing at 12 months out or less.



I agree, in fact when looking online at the check availablity page on my-vacationclub.com, the ussage options listed include exchanging the week though II. So Marriott considers exchanging a usage option.


----------



## wof45 (Jan 15, 2011)

dioxide45 said:


> Perhaps you need to read this document from Marriott. https://www.my-vacationclub.com/common/vc/en-us/pdfs/enrollment_legal_docs/program_disclosure_guide.pdf. Marriott didn't create if just for kicks and grins. They must file this document with the state of Florida every year because of this statute . So exchange companies, at least in Florida where MVD operates, are a regulated industry.
> 
> It is very possible that there is a Wyndham Exchange Company like MVD. However is Wyndham pulling weeks from RCI to fulfill internal exchanges in their internal system?



It is quite a stretch to go from filing a yearly disclosure form to being a regulated industry.

If you notice, the form basically says this is what I intend to do, but if I ever want to change it, I can as long as I tell the members.


----------



## ocdb8r (Jan 15, 2011)

dioxide45 said:


> It is very possible that there is a Wyndham Exchange Company like MVD. However is Wyndham pulling weeks from RCI to fulfill internal exchanges in their internal system?



I have no idea if Wyndham is pulling weeks from RCI to match exchanges.  Based on the link you provided, if they were it would be fine as long as they disclosed it in the documentation to members.  I am still not entirely clear what any of this has to do with anti-trust regulation?!?! Even if Wyndham/RCI as an example is not one that perfectly matches the relationship between MVCD and II, I still don't see any argument that points to there being a compelling anti-trust violation.

Further, it appears the Florida regulations are aimed squarely at disclosure.  I have yet to see any indication that Marriott and II are doing something that is not adequately disclosed.  Even if they were, what sort of relief is it that you think you'd get in court? Increased disclosure...maybe some rebate on your II membership fee because you joined without adequate disclosure?  There is nothing that gives you a _right_ to what you feel is a "fair" exchange...nothing gives you a _right_ to equal access to inventory.  What would your stance have been a year ago if a non-Marriott owner were to claim the Marriott to Marriott preference window in II was _illegal _?  If Marriott does pull inventory from II to fill DC requests one could argue all they have done is create a new tier in the Marriott to Marriott preference.

The bottom line is that there is nothing legally preventing II and MVCD from having the sort of relationship that is described in this thread.  I'm not happy about it, but that doesn't mean it's illegal.


----------



## hotcoffee (Jan 15, 2011)

It is very clear to me that early fears of shrinking Marriott inventory in II are valid.  However close the relationship between II and Marriott has become, it is clear that the relationship has changed in ways that provide a tangible benefit to DC members.

Nevertheless, what was described by the OP has probably nothing to do with the new relationship between II and Marriott.


----------



## sparty (Jan 15, 2011)

My thoughts, which I am sure are different than at least a few others...

I think the DC inventory is getting filled by Marriott owned (controlled?) weeks coming from foreclosures or unsold units.  To me this seems much more likely than having a good number of people booking 13 mos in advance and depositing for which Marriott snags em.

In the thread I've seen a couple mentions that the Marriott owned weeks is single digits at places like Aruba.  Doesn't make sense to me, I think there are a lot of weeks Marriott owns.  All of them are going to DC and none to II.  I think mostly what went to II this year from Marriott directly was week 53.

A month or so ago Double Oxygen I think was reporting seeing deeds recorded to Marriott for prime time weeks in Florida (like Cypress) and other places.  During this time we also got love notes from Marriott saying they were instituting new rules about prime/platinum weeks reserved at your home resort for which there might be no availability.

I don't think the numbers of 13 mos reservers is significant when compared to Marriott owned/forclosed/ROFR'd/purchased


----------



## sparty (Jan 15, 2011)

GregT said:


> TUGgers,
> 
> Does anyone have a deed that they can check that includes 13-month reservation abilities?   My MOC deeds don't speak to it, and another TUGger has emailed me and believes that the deeds that do cover it indicate that 13-month reservations are for personal use only.
> 
> ...




Multiple-Week Owners: If you own two or more weeks within Marriott Vacation Club and you want to occupy either concurrent weeks (two villas in one week) or consecutive weeks (two weeks back-to-back), you may be able to make reservations as early as 13 months prior to the first check-in date of your requested week. The 13-month option is only available if you are reserving concurrent or consecutive use. Specific procedures for making reservations at your resort are set forth in your resort’s Reservation Procedures or Program Rules. To see an example of when inventory is released, first, determine if your resort allows check-ins as early as Thursday or Friday.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jan 16, 2011)

sparty said:


> My thoughts, which I am sure are different than at least a few others...
> 
> I think the DC inventory is getting filled by Marriott owned (controlled?) weeks coming from foreclosures or unsold units.  To me this seems much more likely than having a good number of people booking 13 mos in advance and depositing for which Marriott snags em.



Foreclosures and delinquent weeks probably make up about 5-7% of the inventory. As late as October, Marriott moved a significant amount of reacquired inventory in to the trust. So one would have to expect that Marriott actually itself holds a very small amount of reacquired inventory and most of it is moved to the trust.

Delinquency rates on MF probably hover around 5% but Marriott can't instantly take someone's 2012 ussage as soon as they are late on 2011 MF. People pay late all the time and when they do pay, they have rights to the week they own.



> In the thread I've seen a couple mentions that the Marriott owned weeks is single digits at places like Aruba.  Doesn't make sense to me, I think there are a lot of weeks Marriott owns.  All of them are going to DC and none to II.  I think mostly what went to II this year from Marriott directly was week 53.
> 
> A month or so ago Double Oxygen I think was reporting seeing deeds recorded to Marriott for prime time weeks in Florida (like Cypress) and other places.  During this time we also got love notes from Marriott saying they were instituting new rules about prime/platinum weeks reserved at your home resort for which there might be no availability.[/QUOTE
> 
> ...



If Marriott controls 50% of the inventory, that means they have the right to 50% of the 13 month inventory at 13 months. However at most sold out resorts in prime seasons, I think it is very likely that owners out number Marriott in the number of weeks controlled.


----------



## jerseyfinn (Jan 17, 2011)

Superchief said:


> . . .
> 
> 'The Management Company reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to cancel all of a Multi-Interest Owner's reserved usage for a given usage year if such Multi-Interest Owner cancels less than all usage which was reserved more than twelve(12) months in advance."



Thanks for the info superchief. 

I had to think on this one for a while. But there is always a question one can ask which better explains the original querey/subject.

Just to be clear here. This Marriott statement refers to MVCI owners working in the old legacy program ( I prefer to see we MVCI folks as traveling in a parallel universe which is definitely better than the first iteration of the parallel program called DC whose sails Marriott recently hoists   ) 

I break down that Marriott statement with a simple question: Why would Marriott want to cancel all multiple13 month  reservations made by a multiple week owner ( multi-interest owner in Marriott-speak )?  

But then I gotta re-read the Marriott policy statement revise this question a tad:

*Why would Marriott negate all reservations made by a multiple week owner who reserves 13 months in advance AND cancels one or more of these reservations 13 months before occupancy? *

The answer is simple. Marriott wants to prevent multiple week owners from "gaming" the system. For example. I own a platinum season week at resort A and resort B. I want to be sure that I get my coveted week at resort A, so I use the 13 month rule to make "concurrent" reservations using my resort A and resort B weeks. After I get the reservations confirmed, I cancel the resort B week and I occupy the coveted week A when that occupancy falls due. Same scenerio applies to a single resort multi-week owner who uses the 13 month rule to get one coveted week and cancels the concurrent week with the idea of reserving a different week later in the season calendar.

Not sure that this has any connection to DC or the new competing MVCEC internal trade program as much as it might reflect Marriott "tidying up" policy loose ends.

Another question to ask is *when *did Marriott issue the above policy statement ( which BTW says "at discretion" which sort of leaves the doors of ambiguity wide open in terms of enforcement ).

If recently, this could mean with DC running parallel to MVCI, Marriott is suddenly "inventory conscious" about fulfillment issues either for direct DC requests, or MVCEC trades. Or it could be simple policy housekeeping.

Barry


----------



## jerseyfinn (Jan 17, 2011)

puckmanfl said:


> I don't have a lick of legal training, but I do know the following.  *As of 6/20/10 MVCD is running a "competing" exchange company with II . . . *



Yep. In very simple terms Marriott is competing against Interval when it launches it's alternative exchange program.

We MVC folks need to take this mental timeshare calculus a bit further and be very aware that Marriott not only runs it's own exchange program, but it is now *competing with the usage interests of MVCI owners* when it creates Destinations and links DC with MVCI owners who enroll their weeks in the new exchange program.

I'm not saying that Marriott is now Darth Vader.  But they are a corporation whose business is to generate revenues and profits ( 300,000 plus MVC owners have put a lot of profit into Marriott's pockets   ). The good news is that Marriott is a reputable company with knowledge and experience.

The biggest concern that we MVC owners have is to keep our eyes and ears wide open and focus upon verifiable facts and avoid oversimplification, abstraction, and conspiracy thinking. 

Destination Club is a work in progress and it is gonna bob and weave all over the place as Marriott necessarily tweaks the program. But at some point in time, it is also going to rub against the interests of we MVCI owners.  It's all gonna be a part of the natural process of give and take in the larger world around us. We just gotta make sure that Marriott does not "take" too much from our MVCI owner interests/rights. But it's early in the game and we're still in the learning process as both sides wait to see how goes the economy and if we can both sail into the sunset or someone has to man the cannons.   It's all about observation, introspection, and submitting useful feedback both here in TUG ( hats off to TUGgers  ) as well as letting Marriott know clear and loud what we're thinking about and what concerns us.

Barry

< for the record, I have enrolled our MPB and MVO weeks in the competing exchange program. I've no intention of submitting any of those weeks for trades within MVCEC & I'll stick with Interval for the time being. Not sure if I "guess right"   by enrolling, but it looked to me as if the price entry point for enrollment has been set ( or is close to the set point ) so I roll the dice and get on the list even if I don't plan to attend the new Marriott church.  Then again, we own several weeks and the price point logic appears to be neutral to our interests. Folks with single or 2 week ownership might have a tougher time figuring out when to take the first step.  That said, if I thought that by enrolling, I diminish any of my MVCI usage rights or perogatives, I would not have done so.  Then again, a new "surprise" from Marriott could make me change my mind in that regard. >


----------



## SueDonJ (Jan 17, 2011)

jerseyfinn said:


> ... Another question to ask is *when *did Marriott issue the above policy statement ( which BTW says "at discretion" which sort of leaves the doors of ambiguity wide open in terms of enforcement ).
> 
> If recently, this could mean with DC running parallel to MVCI, Marriott is suddenly "inventory conscious" about fulfillment issues either for direct DC requests, or MVCEC trades. Or it could be simple policy housekeeping.
> 
> Barry



Barry, the notices went out for a few resorts beginning in mid-November.  I don't think any more resorts have sent them out since that first round, at least not that they've been reported on TUG.


----------



## Fredm (Jan 25, 2011)

> Originally Posted by *Fredm*
> Not necessarily, Dan.
> 
> Marriott has likely negotiated a dramatically reduced fee schedule with I.I. Perhaps, even a no fee for these trades, as the price for keeping Marriott inventory and membership with I.I.
> ...





windje2000 said:


> Probably worth looking at the II SEC filings - it might be disclosed as a material event or in the MD&A discussions of the 2010 year.



The Q3 Conference Call hinted at the issue.

Management presentation noted I.I. member retention rate is 88% (stated as a positive because of the Marriott DC program).
However, Revenue per member is expected to be lower in Q4 than in Q3.

In response to a question re: free cash flow, I.I. responded that developer members are shifting from an asset based model to a fee for service model.
I infer that developers (notably Marriott and Starwood) are retaining some portion of exchange revenue that would otherwise flow to I.I.


----------



## OldPantry (Jan 25, 2011)

*Another possible gotcha!*

Wow, this is some convoluted set of comments!  
I have one small thing to contribute:  one of the choices I have as a legacy week owner, not enrolled in the points program, is to have Marriott do the II deposit for me.  I inquired what would be the advantage to me of doing that, rather than reserving my own week and depositing it myself.  They made it sound like a big favor, and the representative mentioned that Marriott would select the week "for me" and deposit it into II "for me."  When I asked what would stop them from selecting a mud week (Ko Olina now has 27 lesser value weeks, and 23 new super platinum weeks) for my exchange to II, I got a resounding silence.  The representative disappeared, and wouldn't come back online.  This would be a real source of inventory for the points program, as Marriott would almost certainly hand off lesser weeks to II, reducing their obligation to deliver the good stuff.  My suggestion: never trust Marriott to select the week for deposit to II!


----------



## tschwa2 (Jan 25, 2011)

OldPantry said:


> Wow, this is some convoluted set of comments!
> I have one small thing to contribute:  one of the choices I have as a legacy week owner, not enrolled in the points program, is to have Marriott do the II deposit for me.  I inquired what would be the advantage to me of doing that, rather than reserving my own week and depositing it myself.  They made it sound like a big favor, and the representative mentioned that Marriott would select the week "for me" and deposit it into II "for me."  When I asked what would stop them from selecting a mud week (Ko Olina now has 27 lesser value weeks, and 23 new super platinum weeks) for my exchange to II, I got a resounding silence.  The representative disappeared, and wouldn't come back online.  This would be a real source of inventory for the points program, as Marriott would almost certainly hand off lesser weeks to II, reducing their obligation to deliver the good stuff.  My suggestion: never trust Marriott to select the week for deposit to II!



Hopefully Marriott won't go the way of Starwood and decide that they will give you the average of your season in trading power with II and then decide which weeks to hold back for DC members and which to deposit in II whether you joined the DC or not.  On the surface it is not terrible because you still get priority in II and decent trading power and they still bulk deposit a fair number or units but holiday's are almost never made available to anyone other than club participants and summer deposits are limited to early June and mid to late August deposits.  Also any bulk deposits for higher seasons come only 6-7 months in advance if at all instead of 12-13 months in advance.  Non summer Hurricane season and off season are deposited 9-11 months in advance.  It also works out ok if you want to stay at your own resort during your season because you don't have to compete with II exchangers for the prime weeks but it hurts anyone who bought to exchange into other Marriott's or back into your own resort during a different season.


----------



## Fredm (Jan 26, 2011)

OldPantry said:


> Wow, this is some convoluted set of comments!



Not convoluted.

My comments were originally in reply to a post by DanCali:
*"There has to be a "gotcha" to the fee savings "benefit". That costs Marriott lost fees too. I still believe owners must be giving up something big..."*

Dan's post presumed that Marriott was paying the same or similar fees to I.I. for an exchange. I pointed out that was not necessarily so.


----------



## windje2000 (Jan 26, 2011)

Fredm said:


> The Q3 Conference Call hinted at the issue.
> 
> Management presentation noted I.I. member retention rate is 88% (stated as a positive because of the Marriott DC program).
> However, Revenue per member is expected to be lower in Q4 than in Q3.
> ...



Most interesting.  I'll be on the lookout for the 2010 II 10-K, and any recent securities analyst presentations.


----------



## Fredm (Jan 26, 2011)

windje2000 said:


> Most interesting.  I'll be on the lookout for the 2010 II 10-K, and any recent securities analyst presentations.



I.I.'s response to the developer migration to a fee for service model was to increase member dues and exchange fees system wide. Net result is an ~3% increase in collected fees.


----------



## windje2000 (Jan 26, 2011)

Fredm said:


> I.I.'s response to the developer migration to a fee for service model was to increase member dues and exchange fees system wide.



Which of course gives the developers' programs a price umbrella.  I expect that Marriott bundled fee to be short lived, and it will it soon look like the banking system fee for services model.


----------



## Fredm (Jan 26, 2011)

windje2000 said:


> Which of course gives the developers' programs a price umbrella.  I expect that Marriott bundled fee to be short lived, and it will it soon look like the banking system fee for services model.



That's the way I see it.
There is more to the DC than meets the eye. 
Marriott has boosted its fee revenue stream, which will only increase over time.
Meanwhile, it can be an attractive alternative to unbundled fees paid by those who choose to not join (which, of course, is the hook).


----------



## OldPantry (Jan 27, 2011)

*Yes, but?*



tschwa2 said:


> Hopefully Marriott won't go the way of Starwood and decide that they will give you the average of your season in trading power with II and then decide which weeks to hold back for DC members and which to deposit in II whether you joined the DC or not.  On the surface it is not terrible because you still get priority in II and decent trading power and they still bulk deposit a fair number or units but holiday's are almost never made available to anyone other than club participants and summer deposits are limited to early June and mid to late August deposits.  Also any bulk deposits for higher seasons come only 6-7 months in advance if at all instead of 12-13 months in advance.  Non summer Hurricane season and off season are deposited 9-11 months in advance.  It also works out ok if you want to stay at your own resort during your season because you don't have to compete with II exchangers for the prime weeks but it hurts anyone who bought to exchange into other Marriott's or back into your own resort during a different season.


I'm wondering about the "priority" I would have in II if Marriott selected a lesser week for me (which seems probable).  Wouldn't a better week (say April 6-12 for Ko Olina) trade better through II than a minimal week (say Jan 6-12)?  Since Marriott now rates the one higher (you need more VC points to reserve it), wouldn't II do the same?  If so, trusting Marriott would be a mistake.


----------



## OldPantry (Jan 27, 2011)

*Oops*



Fredm said:


> Not convoluted.
> 
> My comments were originally in reply to a post by DanCali:
> *"There has to be a "gotcha" to the fee savings "benefit". That costs Marriott lost fees too. I still believe owners must be giving up something big..."*
> ...


Hi Fredm,  
My comment was directed to the entire thread, not your comment in particular.  Sorry for the misunderstanding.


----------

