# "A fictional business plan - or is it really happening?"



## windje2000 (Jul 30, 2010)

Its all starting to fit together.  Here's a few more thoughts on MVCI objectives and endgame

They took a $700+ million write off on the timeshare business.  Gotta believe that number got Bill Marriott's attention.  

They want to get that back, . . .  ASAP, . . . and then some.  

Here's the business plan they came up with:


1.  We'll contribute the junk we couldn't sell as deeded locations into a land trust.  


2.  We'll sell the junk in the land trust to the unsuspecting.  We don't tell them they are buying an undivided fractional interest in unsold (and mostly unsaleable) junk, but rather access (via points) to the entire resort portfolio legally permitted to participate.  

[Note the parallels to securitizing junk mortgages and selling them based on bogus AAA ratings.  They're selling junk by giving it 'access' to sold out existing resorts.  Literally puts lipstick on the unsaleable pigs. Or are they selling the same resort more than once?]  


3.   We want to get existing owners to participate because 

a. we can charge fees	

	b.  we need inventory breadth and depth for the new points owners, and 

	c.  we want to force them to agree never to vote against us on anything.​
We want to end up with control of the Owner Resort Associations ("ORA")s.  Why?  So we can control the terms of the management agreement.  What a concept - we'll be negotiating with ourselves.

We'll entice existing owners with a small break on annual fees,  but take it back in the points spread and initiation fee.  We can always adjust fees and point spreads later, but we need voting control sooner rather than later.  

We don't need that many votes anyway, because at many resorts a quorum is 25% and a majority of the votes present rules.  The best case is 12.5% +1 gets us what we need.​

4.   Just in case ORA's figure out ways to not cooperate with points exchangers, we must put in the plan that owners may have to do things like obtaining  guest certificates (at their expense - its not our fault the ORA isn't cooperating with us) at their own resort to facilitate the use of weeks by points exchangers where the local resort management is not cooperative.  (See section 12 - MARRIOTT VACATION CLUB DESTINATIONS EXCHANGE PROGRAM ENROLLMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS)


5.   We can probably get a bunch of owners to join quickly by allowing resale owners a one-time opportunity to become 'first class' citizens and join.  Making this a one time opportunity has two purposes.  It put pressure on current resale owners to join the points system in a hurry.  Afterwards we keep resales out of the points system.  Our objective is to make access to the exchange system nontransferable.  


6.   The exchange system is the key to where significant value is located.   We want to capture that value.  Over time we'll move MVCI away from the II barter system and internal II system to points. We'll do that either contractually via control of the ORA or by crippling external II MVCI inventory availability so badly that it effectively ceases to be viable for MVCI to MVCI exchanges, or by doing whatever it takes.  The owners will have no clue as to what we do with II and no way to find out - there's no transparency.  Over time we'll force all exchanges to go through the DClub.   We'll control reservations made for exchange purposes and simply not allow high value weeks to be reserved for exchange.


7.   Next, we make a rule that only people that buy from us (or people we designate like Approved Brokers) can participate in the points program, which will eventually become the only real M to M exchange system for MVCI timeshares.  Current owners (other than us) will have to tell potential buyers they can't become members of the points system, or maybe we put a huge fee on the buyer to join points.  


8.   The objective of these plan provisions is to depress resale value by eliminating current owners' ability to transfer access to the exchange system.  Over the long term, existing owners will get less and less for their resale interests as we kill and/or cripple MVCI inventory in II.  (The other exchange options are so limited they mean nothing.)  As they become available, we buy those deeds - - cheap.  We'll obtain product much cheaper than building new resorts.  Given the existing economic situation, we'll probably pick up a few foreclosures for non-payment of maintenance fees.  We contribute them to the trust and recycle them to new buyers as points that ---  presto chango ---  can reserve anywhere. 


9.  The existing owners?  They signed contracts that allow us to do this, so we will.  We'll get them to enroll, hope we can make them buy more points and maximize the point skim.  

If they don't enroll, they better like whatever crappy week we decide to give them at their home resort (or a trade to a non Marriott resort) because that's eventually going to be their only option when we kill MVCI to MVCI exchanges in II.  BTW, those units will be the unrefurbished dogs.​

*
What business problems does this plan solve and what opportunities does it create?  
*
Short Run

1.  We put a party dress on the junk timeshare inventory and sell it as points.  That inventory has already been written down, so sales of points should generate large book profits.


2.  We get immediate cash flow from up-front fees and points sales.  Some existing owners with low value units will buy points if they want to play.  

Long Run

3.  We get the points spread.  That's industry leadership - I believe no one else has ever done that.


4.  We'll get absolute control of 52 resorts.


5.  We'll drive down the value of legacy units so we can cheaply recycle them as points units.  Note also that points purchased on resale (not from Marriott) also are subject to severe restrictions on when they can reserve.  


6.  We will capture value from every transaction;  

a. from exchanges via skim, 
	b. from owners that trade up via points sales and rentals, 
	c. from the inevitable small remnants of unused points that are forfeited, 
	d. from repurchase/ROFR  transactions of exchange interests and 
	e. from repurchase/resale transactions of points interests,
	f. and of course, from every fee of any kind we can overlay on this.​
We accomplish all this by owning and controlling the exchange system and only allowing access to those who buy through us.  


7.  We'll eventually have 100% of those resorts in the land trust.  Towards the end of the squeeze out, we'll make life so miserable for the last remaining legacy owners we can probably get them to pay us to take their deeds back.  



Now some of you will probably say .....   Oh God help me - another cynical conspiracy theory.  

To which I respond 

Every cause has an effect.  
Every action has a reaction   
All behavior has a motive.  
All actions have a reason.​Each and every action, .  .  .  each and every contractual term . . . each and every condition,.  .  .   everything  ---  has a purpose in MVCI's plan for the future.  Its a puzzle .  .  .  and this is one way the pieces fit together.

Think business doesn't behave this way?  Go rent or buy a DVD about ENRON titled The Smartest Guys in the Room.  

Got a better theory on what they're doing and why?  Post it.    

Just don't bother posting to tell me 'they're nice people who wouldn't do this -- how could you possibly think this up? -- Your tin foil hat is making you crazy -- Look out for the black helicopters.   

A $0.75 billion write off means the timeshare guys who didn't get fired got no bonus.  

Lastly,  I really don't believe that joining to reduce fees means you'll just do M to M II exchanges like in the past forever.  Why?  

First, it makes no sense to run two exchange programs in parallel forever.  

Second,  because that's what the timeshare salespeople are saying to those who voice objections they can't overcome.  And its been my experience that when their lips move they're lying.  ​Its exactly what I would say if I were a timeshare salesman . . .  to keep the critical thinkers docile . . .  until its too late.

If you don't like what they're up to you have two choices 

1. Don't join.



They get no fees.

They get no access to your week for their inventory.

They won't get the ability to nullify your vote in the ORA.

They get no talking points about how many deeded owners are joining.

II will stay viable as a robust exchange market.

2. Sell. Probably not the best market for resales right now.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 30, 2010)

I think you are pretty close.  However, the write off is not what they are trying to recover.  The write down was most likely just the loss they took on the current inventory.  By taking the loss, the cost basis of current inventory is lower.  So, they can sell it at a lower price and still have margin.

Also, I think that the exchange company is for sure the way they want to gain control of inventory.  But, the Trust will be where the main action is.  They will still purchase inventory into the Trust to reduce the average maintenance fees so that they can keep MF/point down even as costs rise.  And, they will eventually need to replenish inventory for sale.

Marriott's business strategy really is coming to light.  TUG members have done a really good job decoding it.


----------



## Nickfromct (Jul 30, 2010)

Of course, what would you rather buy? A January week at Fairway Villas or points that will give you a chance to go to Hawaii.


----------



## Cobra1950 (Jul 30, 2010)

Nice analysis of Marriott-a good company apparently gone bad


----------



## Fredm (Jul 30, 2010)

Cobra1950 said:


> Nice analysis of Marriott-a good company apparently gone bad



I think the "business plan" is close.
The inventory write down was really a reconstitution for points assets on the balance sheet. These were not just dog weeks. They represent all of Marriott's unsold inventory, including Hawaii, Lakeshore, etc.

Credit market dislocations of 2 years ago forced financed sales to be funded by internal capital. Severe sales and operational consolidations occurred in the "rightsizing" to a new market reality. A Points product can be sold centrally if they wish, at far lower sales and marketing expense.

I do not agree that Marriott is a company gone bad. They certainly have not gone mad.
It was a good business decision. They seem to be addressing the very real and formidable issues of fairly treating a large owner base, while in the transition phase of the plan. My guess is it will take 5-7 years to substantially accomplish.

It remains to be seen how owners will be impacted. However, nothing in place forces the change on anyone. 
Sure, the very long range effect will encourage legacy owners to migrate. But, Marriott has taken, IMO, a reasonable and owner friendly approach to a good business move. 
"Owner friendly" is a relative term. But, given the business imperative being undertaken, I think it a fair assessment.

No one likes change. Yet, there are some here who actually anticipate benefits from joining.  Personally, I am not among them.
But I do not feel betrayed. Indeed, I am relieved that change is not being forced upon me.

If we can get passed the analysis paralysis, and ask "what has actually happened that is so terrible?", the answer will be "nothing".

By all means, let's complain and criticize those negative things that actually do happen. But, thus far nothing has. (Poor roll-out aside because it does not affect legacy system owners).


----------



## DanCali (Jul 30, 2010)

If Marriott's actions weren't affecting my net worth and the value of what I own in such a bad way, I'd be :rofl: 

It's sad but, like the previous posters, I tend to agree with much of the analysis in the OP... It's comical, and sad at the same time, how a company gets itself in a position that's it feels so untouchable that it can do this to some of its most loyal customers.


----------



## jlf58 (Jul 30, 2010)

There were multiple reasons for the write off but the #1 reason was Marco Island.
The prices there were lowered 35% before they went to points and they were
able to do that because of the write off. They vertually had ZERO chance of selling
out that resort without the write off and switching to points. Of any major timeshare company in the industry, Marriott got caught with thier pants down in
unsold inventory due to the economy. Sad to say but I am not sure they would have made it without this reshuffling of the inventory to points. 

The one thing I don't agree with is how easily they will get people to deposit points in the new system. I predict in 5 years they might be at 20%  !!





Fredm said:


> I think the "business plan" is close.
> The inventory write down was really a reconstitution for points assets on the balance sheet. These were not just dog weeks. They represent all of Marriott's unsold inventory, including Hawaii, Lakeshore, etc.
> 
> Credit market dislocations of 2 years ago forced financed sales to be funded by internal capital. Severe sales and operational consolidations occurred in the "rightsizing" to a new market reality. A Points product can be sold centrally if they wish, at far lower sales and marketing expense.
> ...


----------



## DanCali (Jul 30, 2010)

Fredm said:


> If we can get passed the analysis paralysis, and ask "what has actually happened that is so terrible?", the answer will be "nothing".



Fred - This may be true in many ways because this program launched only a few ago. Yet even you conceed that over the long run



> the very long range effect will encourage legacy owners to migrate.



and this cannot possibly have a positive effect on most owners relative to their ability to trade up or laterally today.

Moreover, while true that nobody is "forced to join" per se, if the program were as truly owner friendly there would be no need for Marriott salespeople to falsely represent that the fee is "flat", that "points are points", that legacy points can access trust inventory, that 80% of owners already signed up, that enrollment fees are going up "next week," that resales after June 20 can sign up so if you sign up you increase your resale value, that II is effectively dead as on June 20 etc... Are some of these appaling sales tactics not "forcing owners to join" in the practical sense of the term?

Maybe it's true that it could have been a lot worse. All we need to do is look at Perry's posts in the speculation thread and realize that is likely true. But I think this program turned out to be a lot worse on its merits than many of us imagined a Marriott "points system" would be like.


----------



## winger (Jul 30, 2010)

Fletch said:


> ...
> The one thing I don't agree with is how easily they will get people to deposit points in the new system. I predict in 5 years they might be at 20%  !!



In the long haul (say 15-25 yrs), what would you think is the max / saturation point ?   I think as time goes on and word of mouth/info gets out that the pts system is an expensive proposition for both legacy and new customers, there has to be some saturation point where Marriott just will NOT get any more new points customers/members.


----------



## Fredm (Jul 30, 2010)

Fletch said:


> Sad to say but I am not sure they would have made it without this reshuffling of the inventory to points.



Sure they would have made it. They wrote off the 700mm and still had the strongest balance sheet in the hospitality industry. 

No doubt that Marco inventory was a drag. But, that is not the reason for this. 

Marriott is doing what the business requires to maintain profitability and grow in a changing world.


----------



## TheTimeTraveler (Jul 30, 2010)

Fletch said:


> There were multiple reasons for the write off but the #1 reason was Marco Island.
> The prices there were lowered 35% before they went to points and they were
> able to do that because of the write off. They vertually had ZERO chance of selling
> out that resort without the write off and switching to points. Of any major timeshare company in the industry, Marriott got caught with thier pants down in
> ...





I agree that they got caught with their pants down, and primarily because they paid way TOO MUCH for the Radisson Property at the time, and after that the economy then tanked.


.


----------



## Fredm (Jul 30, 2010)

DanCali said:


> Fred - This may be true in many ways because this program launched only a few ago. Yet even you conceed that over the long run
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Dan, forget the "sales tactics".  I am talking about an owners ability to use the product.
  Besides, I have heard more sales, marketing, and corporate types say that it would be best for owners to not change than otherwise. I have also read and heard from Marriott that the new system is a way for legacy owners to take advantage of partial week exchanges.
So, no hard sell as a rule. 
So far, some tuggers are reporting that a few sales folks are trying to sell by spreading FUD. Are you surprised by this? I'm not. 

Again, I ask have you been negatively impacted thus far? 
You can claim that your net worth has suffered. But, no it has not been impacted as a result of this announcement. You may anticipate that it will. But, it remains to be seen. It may even be helped. We really don't know yet, although I do expect prices to soften further as a result of the general economy and uncertainty about the future.

No doubt, ANY new product announcement would have the effect of confusing new secondary market buyers that attended a Marriott timeshare presentation. Some percentage of them will not buy a legacy system week because of it. So, the weeks resale market suffers that absence of potential demand, no matter what product was introduced.  The only way that could be avoided was if there was no change at all.  I wish it were so, but it isn't.


----------



## windje2000 (Jul 30, 2010)

The way Marriott treated this poster tells me everything I need to know about how legacy owner friendly the Marriott DClub is planning to be.

The right thing to do would have been  

1.  We messed up - do you want to go back to square one? We'll undo the whole request and points election, or  

2. We messed up, but we'll let it go this one time - you won't be able to do it at thirteen months again, or

3. Your choice - 1 or 2

But not - we messed up - f**k you.

Actions speak louder than words.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 30, 2010)

Fredm said:


> Dan, forget the "sales tactics".  I am talking about an owners ability to use the product.
> Besides, I have heard more sales, marketing, and corporate types say that it would be best for owners to not change than otherwise. I have also read and heard from Marriott that the new system is a way for legacy owners to take advantage of partial week exchanges.
> So, no hard sell as a rule.
> So far, some tuggers are reporting that a few sales folks are trying to sell by spreading FUD. Are you surprised by this? I'm not.
> ...



There are a lot fewer 2 bedroom Hawaii units being deposited into II since the announcement vs the last 2-3 years for this time of year.  So yes, it has had an impact.  Not an unexpected one, but an impact nonetheless.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 30, 2010)

windje2000 said:


> The way Marriott treated this poster tells me everything I need to know about how legacy owner friendly the Marriott DClub is planning to be.
> 
> The right thing to do would have been
> 
> ...



Priceless!   :rofl:


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 30, 2010)

DanCali said:


> Fred - This may be true in many ways because this program launched only a few ago. Yet even you conceed that over the long run
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think we need to wait to see how the program evolves.  Over time, it will live and die by the value it delivers to owners.


----------



## Fredm (Jul 30, 2010)

windje2000 said:


> The way Marriott treated this poster tells me everything I need to know about how legacy owner friendly the Marriott DClub is planning to be.
> 
> The right thing to do would have been
> 
> ...



Absolutely unacceptable. 

Having said this, I was referring to "owner-friendly" by using the legacy system as they always have.  

As Bocabum observed, there may well be less deposits to I.I. But, there will also be less owners competing for them. Over time, this will cause some legacy system owners to conclude that they will have a better shot by converting. 

Thus far, tuggers are reporting great results with their I.I. trade requests. I will think differently if that changes in a meaningful way in the short run. Long term I expect it will. Besides, Marriott deposits will still pull among the best of what I.I. has to offer. So, I'm not concerned about it.


----------



## windje2000 (Jul 30, 2010)

Fredm said:


> Absolutely unacceptable.
> 
> Having said this, I was referring to "owner-friendly" by using the legacy system as they always have.
> 
> ...



The action one can expect in the legacy II system is inversely proportional to the number of owners who join DClub and elect points.  

If no one joined DClub, II wouldn't change at all.  If everyone joined, II is history.

In between those extremes, more Dclub members = less action in II.


----------



## jlf58 (Jul 30, 2010)

Not trying to go back and forth. All I am saying is Marco was the straw that broke the camels back. The economy was the primary factor.

I don't think anyone is denying that without points, things would have gotten worse and they did this for many reason mentioned by the OP.

While the didn't lose as much market share as most, reveune was down 15% from 08 to 09. Only one major TS company didn't see a loss  






Fredm said:


> Sure they would have made it. They wrote off the 700mm and still had the strongest balance sheet in the hospitality industry.
> 
> No doubt that Marco inventory was a drag. But, that is not the reason for this.
> 
> Marriott is doing what the business requires to maintain profitability and grow in a changing world.


----------



## jlf58 (Jul 30, 2010)

Just a guess but there will probably be 25% to 40% still using legacy weeks in 2 decades. We are talking 20 years of sales they need to make up for and with a rocky start from customer opinions, it will be an uphill battle. 






winger said:


> In the long haul (say 15-25 yrs), what would you think is the max / saturation point ?   I think as time goes on and word of mouth/info gets out that the pts system is an expensive proposition for both legacy and new customers, there has to be some saturation point where Marriott just will NOT get any more new points customers/members.


----------



## windje2000 (Jul 30, 2010)

Fletch said:


> Just a guess but there will probably be 25% to 40% still using legacy weeks in 2 decades. We are talking 20 years of sales they need to make up for and with a rocky start from customer opinions, it will be an uphill battle.



I think it will be even higher.

It will take them a long time to sell enough points to make the ownership of points and deeds equal, especially if they are not building/buying new resorts.  

Lots of owners don't trade, and have no reason to join.

The owners who 'win' have multiple high value units or units which were inefficient traders like 3 BR non-lockoffs.   They are far outnumbered by the 'losers' - average value single unit owners who trade.  

The benefits from the consolidated fee won't last forever.  If II becomes cheaper than DClub, watch the exits.


----------



## jimf41 (Jul 30, 2010)

"Just don't bother posting to tell me 'they're nice people who wouldn't do this -- how could you possibly think this up? -- Your tin foil hat is making you crazy -- Look out for the black helicopters. "

You took all my possible responses away. It is interesting reading though.


----------



## gblotter (Jul 30, 2010)

Fletch said:


> All I am saying is Marco was the straw that broke the camels back. The economy was the primary factor.


Don't underestimate the hit from the Kauai Lagoons project either.  Marriott spent a ton of money to acquire that property and had grand plans to develop it on multiple fronts.  Many of those plans have now been shelved or dramatically scaled back due to the down economy.  Net result: Significantly reduced opportunity to recover their large initial investment.


----------



## jlf58 (Jul 30, 2010)

MVCI was kind of an after thought at that location. I don't think they even wanted to build there but were stuck with the land and the big player, Ritz, was even in worse shape financially. The Ritz Vacation Club has hurt Marriott International way more than Marriott Vacation Club. They shaved alot of upper managment and made lots of them re interview for thier jobs to help cut the budget. 





gblotter said:


> Don't underestimate the hit from the Kauai Lagoons project either.  Marriott spent a ton of money to acquire that property and had grand plans to develop it on multiple fronts.  Many of those plans have now been shelved or dramatically scaled back due to the down economy.  Net result: Significantly reduced opportunity to recover their large initial investment.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jul 30, 2010)

If Marriott is planning to get a high percentage of people to convert each year, they created a perfect plan for it. It may be tough to get a weeks owner to convert the first time, they don't want to lose out because of the skim. Once someone converts they are also likely to borrow from a future year, causing them to convert that future year. This causes an ongoing snowball effect of always having to convert and borrower from future use in order to keep using what you bought. Once you are converted it will be hard to get out and back to weeks without losing out on some points or vacation time.


----------



## m61376 (Jul 31, 2010)

dioxide45 said:


> If Marriott is planning to get a high percentage of people to convert each year, they created a perfect plan for it. It may be tough to get a weeks owner to convert the first time, they don't want to lose out because of the skim. Once someone converts they are also likely to borrow from a future year, causing them to convert that future year. This causes an ongoing snowball effect of always having to convert and borrower from future use in order to keep using what you bought. Once you are converted it will be hard to get out and back to weeks without losing out on some points or vacation time.


I think that's a very important point that deserves highlighting- and I am just as certain it was part of the overall plan. I found it curious that all those sign on or initial purchase bonus points were mostly not available on opening day. How many posters posted that they have already borrowed from 2012 points. Sure- they were told that they could later swap out the points once the bonus points are in their accounts- but now their 2012 weeks are committed. Guaranteed next year that a few point shortfall will be dealt with by many (probably most) members by borrowing from 2013, and so on. It is human nature that people will likely borrow rather than let point expire and go to waste. 

I think we will have 3 groups of enrolled weeks owners: those that rarely, if ever, trade in points and continue to use weeks (having enrolled either for the single use fee, or for insurance of sorts, just to be in it, esp. if they own resale weeks), those that dip their toes and try points and then find themselves "sucked in" because they keep on borrowing going forward, and the third group- the occasional points user- which will consist of a minority of enrollees (imho), who are well versed enough to really maximize their ownership. I think it will be hard to belong to that third group; in all likelihood, you'll either have to swallow hard and accept points expiring (and thus, throwing money out), plan very carefully and/or get into the point rental game, either as a buyer or as a seller.


----------



## windje2000 (Jul 31, 2010)

m61376 said:


> I think that's a very important point that deserves highlighting- and I am just as certain it was part of the overall plan. I found it curious that all those sign on or initial purchase bonus points were mostly not available on opening day. How many posters posted that they have already borrowed from 2012 points. Sure- they were told that they could later swap out the points once the bonus points are in their accounts- but now their 2012 weeks are committed. Guaranteed next year that a few point shortfall will be dealt with by many (probably most) members by borrowing from 2013, and so on. It is human nature that people will likely borrow rather than let point expire and go to waste.
> 
> I think we will have 3 groups of enrolled weeks owners: those that rarely, if ever, trade in points and continue to use weeks (having enrolled either for the single use fee, or for insurance of sorts, just to be in it, esp. if they own resale weeks), those that dip their toes and try points and then find themselves "sucked in" because they keep on borrowing going forward, and the third group- the occasional points user- which will consist of a minority of enrollees (imho), who are well versed enough to really maximize their ownership. I think it will be hard to belong to that third group; in all likelihood, you'll either have to swallow hard and accept points expiring (and thus, throwing money out), plan very carefully and/or get into the point rental game, either as a buyer or as a seller.



Depending on your age, it's like the Eagle's _Hotel California_ (you can check out any time you want but you can never leave) or Tennessee Ernie Ford's _16 Tons_ (I owe my soul to the company store) for the older crowd.

The only way to get out is to rent enough points so that you get away from borrowing.  And there seems to be very little information on that aspect of the program.  Wonder why?  

Four years in the making and not ready for prime time.


----------



## m61376 (Jul 31, 2010)

windje2000 said:


> Depending on your age, it's like the Eagle's _Hotel California_ (you can check out any time you want but you can never leave) or Tennessee Ernie Ford's _16 Tons_ (I owe my soul to the company store) for the older crowd.
> 
> The only way to get out is to rent enough points so that you get away from borrowing.  And there seems to be very little information on that aspect of the program.  Wonder why?
> 
> Four years in the making and not ready for prime time.


haha...so true.
I don't think there will be much info. about renting forthcoming from Marriott, because it isn't in their best interest. They are much better off being :ignore:, encouraging people to buy more points to compensate for the skim and other point allocation inequities (relevant to certain resorts ) or letting people simply keep on borrowing and borrowing, until they realize their ownership is inadequate and they clamor to buy more points. I think the rental market will crop up, but only used by a small percentage of savvy owners. 

Time will tell....


----------



## Asia2000 (Jul 31, 2010)

m61376 said:


> *It is human nature that people will likely borrow rather than let point expire and go to waste. *
> 
> *I think it will be hard to belong to that third group; in all likelihood, you'll either have to swallow hard and accept points expiring (and thus, throwing money out), plan very carefully and/or get into the point rental game, either as a buyer or as a seller.*



I am not a points member because I bought resale after June 20th.  However, I probably would have joined back in June if I was allowed to.  Now, I'm thinking that handicap was a blessing in disguise.

Once Marriott has you in their points program, some simple computer programming could put you in the constant battle of barely not having enough points.  That resort reservation window could easily be closed for those that have just enough points to book it.  Certainly, Marriott would not do this, but if they wanted to remind you that you should buy more points, this would be an excellent tactic.

With all of the parameters and rules of this program, I'm not sure how any senior citizen who is not program savvy or is not computer savvy could manage this beast effectively.  Those who thought the II method was difficult will be faced with a program that is drastically difficult and confusing.  It seems we learn something new about the program every 3 or 4 days that is usually not if favor of the customer.  Not good.


----------



## puckmanfl (Jul 31, 2010)

good morning....

You are correct about getting locked in for future years.  I fell into the trap myself and just realized it. I used my 4550 pts from my GV + bonus and used 4500.  Leaving me 50 pts. left over.  In order to use them I must "bank" for 2012.   In order to use my 50 pts. I must convert one 2012 week to points as there is nothing I can do with 50 stand alone points.  I planned on using one week in points anyway (along with my II deposit and weeks use) but it is a very subtle "trap".  

If I don't use any points in 2012 I forfeit 50 pts.


----------



## taffy19 (Jul 31, 2010)

puckmanfl said:


> good morning....
> 
> You are correct about getting locked in for future years.  I fell into the trap myself and just realized it. I used my 4550 pts from my GV + bonus and used 4500.  Leaving me 50 pts. left over.  In order to use them I must "bank" for 2012.   In order to use my 50 pts. I must convert one 2012 week to points as there is nothing I can do with 50 stand alone points.  I planned on using one week in points anyway (along with my II deposit and weeks use) but it is a very subtle "trap".
> 
> If I don't use any points in 2012 I forfeit 50 pts.



Borrow them from the person who was only 25 points short and he is saved but you need to get rid of 25 more points.

Start a special thread for this as someone else will also be a few points short or over or have a rental pool and there is no follow up which may be simpler.  The complication is the expiring date.

I agree with Asia that this plan is much more complicated than II ever was and that old fogies like us will have difficulty dealing with it.


----------



## BocaBoy (Jul 31, 2010)

DanCali said:


> If Marriott's actions weren't affecting my net worth and the value of what I own in such a bad way, I'd be :rofl:
> 
> It's sad but, like the previous posters, I tend to agree with much of the analysis in the OP... It's comical, and sad at the same time, how a company gets itself in a position that's it feels so untouchable that it can do this to some of its most loyal customers.



Dan, we 100% agree on this one.  

I think the OP was pretty close to the truth.

Also, I figure that this new program has already cost me $75,000 in value of my developer bought legacy weeks.  The ones hurt the most are the ones who have spent the most on their investment.


----------



## BocaBoy (Jul 31, 2010)

Fredm said:


> Again, I ask have you been negatively impacted thus far?
> You can claim that your net worth has suffered. But, no it has not been impacted as a result of this announcement. You may anticipate that it will. But, it remains to be seen. It may even be helped.



My net worth has definitely been hurt.  I recently had an offer (at developer prices) for my Waiohai unit through Marriott Resales, but it fell through when the buyer found out that the unit would not be eligible to join the points system (because Marriott Resales is not an "Approved Broker").  Because I have been #1 on the Waiohai Ocean View resale list for over two months now, it is clear that they have been unable to sell even a single Waiohai ocean view unit.  THAT IS TANGIBLE AND IT SHOWS THAT VALUE IS WAY DOWN in the best channel to get maximum value.


----------



## jerseyfinn (Jul 31, 2010)

Fredm said:


> Credit market dislocations of 2 years ago forced financed sales to be funded by internal capital. Severe sales and operational consolidations occurred in the "rightsizing" to a new market reality.
> 
> I do not agree that Marriott is a company gone bad. They certainly have not gone mad.It was a good business decision. They seem to be addressing the very real and formidable issues of fairly treating a large owner base, while in the transition phase of the plan. My guess is it will take 5-7 years to substantially accomplish.



*Fredm*, kudos for your level-headed assessment. Although the rollout was poorly executed in the "information access" sense, the logic looks pretty clear.

MVCI in the "old" sense  in which we here all knew and purchased our weeks is *not *DOA, but the sales paradigm has indeed drastically changed as this terribly deep recession has turned sales to a trickle for what was always a discretionary purchase ( and simply mirrored the over-optimistic and over-indulgent housing market ).  MVC owners were happy, they added weeks and referred friends, prices went up ( and so too owner equity ) and Life was good for everyone. Marriott has pivoted quite nicely from their rosey predictions of a few years ago ( no shame in getting the paradigm wrong, so too did government, politicians, and most businesses ).

As MVC owners, our main concerns remain using our weeks in the existing system while navigating the larger economy around us and adapting to the changes it brings to timeshare in general.  I do not envision any substantive improvement in the TS market itself until this mortgage mess gets disentangled from the housing market collapse and the still static unemployment numbers improve ( which of course means jobs ) -- collectively this creates the consumer confidence that in time will allow some folks to open up their check books for discretionary purchases - 7 years or more sounds about right to me.  

Where the prices and "value" of these MVC weeks go is too deep in the fog at the moment for anyone to venture a guess. But it would seem that location, season, and value will continue to operate for those of us who stick with the legacy product. Where you own and what you purchased may still indeed matter  in the fuzzy future which lies ahead. Those happy days of appreciation via price increases are likely a fading memory for some time forward. Better to aspire price stability which returns us to those "good old day" peaks just prior to the collapse may be a more reasonable expectation for those who need price metrics to sleep at night.



Fredm said:


> Sure, the very long range effect will encourage legacy owners to migrate. But, Marriott has taken, IMO, a reasonable and owner friendly approach to a good business move.
> 
> 
> No one likes change. Yet, there are some here who actually anticipate benefits from joining.  Personally, I am not among them. But I do not feel betrayed. Indeed, I am relieved that change is not being forced upon me.



Yep, Marriott would love big chunks of legacy MVCI owners to migrate to the new program as this would give them the inertia they need to push their new program up the hill.  Like you, I feel that the little perks the new program offers are not worth the price of admission.  To those MVC folks who agree that they want to stand pat as the new program does not measure up for them but still worry about being left out in the cold:  I can only say that you really do not need to fret or worry so long as you hold your ground and enjoy your weeks within the legacy program. If MVCI folks hold their ground, the onnus is on Marriott to up the ante and create positive incentives for you to change -- and that is something that is on the very distant horizon.

I agree with fredm who says that little has changed for MVCI owners. Likewise, I also believe that our good fortune as owners is that we signed on with a Marriott product and a certain business ethos goes with the product. The shaky economy of the moment is such that Marriott is in no hurry to push anyone out the door as they too are trying to read the timeshare tea leaves for the future. They, like us, can only sit back and see how all of this plays out and only then will any of us begin to decide what is what.

Barry


----------



## bogey21 (Jul 31, 2010)

BocaBoy said:


> I figure that this new program has already cost me $75,000 in value of my developer bought legacy weeks.



*There is no question that you are right.  The 5 Marriott Weeks I dumped a number of years ago are today worth less than half of what I sold them for. There is actually one of them I am watching and will probably rebuy if (when?) it drops to 25% of my original cost.

George*


----------



## Latravel (Jul 31, 2010)

That's why it was foolish to believe a timeshare is or ever was an investment.  They clearly stated in the plan documents when you purchased that you are buying these units for your *personal enjoyment and use* (which you can still have) only and not for any financial gain.

The fact you mistakenly believed that a timeshare somehow contributes to your "net worth" was just a false dream or belief that was never based on reality. 

In part, your disappointment regarding resale value is your fault for having unrealistic expectations.  No matter what you say to argue this point, it's all in the documents, in plain black and white.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jul 31, 2010)

Wan't this all hashed out in the speculation thread? Do we need to hear it all again?


----------



## windje2000 (Jul 31, 2010)

Latravel said:


> That's why it was foolish to believe a timeshare is or ever was an investment.  They clearly stated in the plan documents when you purchased that you are buying these units for your *personal enjoyment and use* (which you can still have) only and not for any financial gain.
> 
> The fact you mistakenly believed that a timeshare somehow contributes to your "net worth" was just a false dream or belief that was never based on reality.
> 
> In part, your disappointment regarding resale value is your fault for having unrealistic expectations.  No matter what you say to argue this point, it's all in the documents, in plain black and white.



Suppose you buy a NYSE stock, which has an active organized market.  The company subsequently says - sorry, we're listing the stock on another market and you can only access that market if you pay us.  Over time, you can expect the NYSE market to lose efficiency and activity as the other market gains.  If you sell, the buyer won't be allowed to access the new market under any circumstances.  

Marriott sold you a bundle of rights, including 1. occupancy and 2. access to an active organized exchange via II.

Marriott has now established a competing exchange.  Marriott will not allow the buyer of your occupancy asset to access this new competing exchange.  Sure, the buyer of your asset can access II, but by establishing a competitive exchange, it appears Marriott is out to eliminate II as a viable exchange vehicle.

If successful, Marriott will eliminate your ability to sell the asset bundle of occupancy and access to an active organized exchange.  

You bought and paid for two assets - occupancy and exchange access.  By setting itself up as a direct competitor to II, Marriott will negatively affect (reduce) your ability to exchange, unless you pay them money. 

Not only will Marriott's actions negatively affect the ability to exchange during your holding period, they negatively affect the price at which you can sell your bundle of assets.  

They are going all out to impair the value of that component of a product (exchange access) you bought from them.  

Think you lost something?  I do.


----------



## Latravel (Aug 1, 2010)

Marriott only sold us the use of one week per year.  Access to exchanging and who you can exchange with is up to you.  The purchase documents don't make promises other than the use of your week in the season you purchased.  

As far as the business plan, I don't think it is as the poster portrays it.  If Marriott designed this program with such mean intentions, customers would not buy it and owners would not join.  Customers are not stupid.  If you offer a good product, people will buy it.  If you insult people's intelligence by offering a product that is inferior, it will fail.  I think the OP's post leaves that point out.


----------



## DanCali (Aug 1, 2010)

Latravel said:


> If Marriott designed this program with such mean intentions, customers would not buy it and owners would not join.
> 
> If you insult people's intelligence by offering a product that is inferior, it will fail.



If you have familiarity with any points system out there, Marriott's product is likely inferior to it in many ways. But wait, it not really a points system so we shouldn't compare to those anyway... it's an "exchange system. So when compared to exchange companies, it is also inferior to all the ones I'm familiar with, in particular when it comes to the vary basics - i.e., getting "like for like" exchanges (not to even mention trading up).

Rather than sell the product based on merits, Marriott salespeople often misrepresent the truth and use pressure to sell the product, often to unsuspecting people who believe what they are told. There are many, many recent and less recent examples of "mirepresentations" (aka "lies"). The recent post from Ko Olina is just one example - I can find many more without too much effort. They did this with weeks which, aside from the immediate large loss of equity when buying directly from Marriott, are a good product imo. I expect them to do it even more with points which, in my opinion, are a mediocre product at best both as a points system and as an exchange company.

I have no doubt that just like the sold 400,000 weeks at prices that cannot be justified financially (especially when considering the depreciation they partially or mostly cause through their restrictions on resales) they will also sell points. That won't change anything about the quality, or lack thereof, of their points product.

As for Marriott's intentions and the OP - it all sounds so draconian that I was actually laughing out loud as I was reading it all. But this part should get any person familiar with the issues to take a deep breath and think about it carefully:



windje2000 said:


> Every cause has an effect.
> Every action has a reaction
> All behavior has a motive.
> All actions have a reason.
> ...



And, as windje2000 posted:



windje2000 said:


> Got a better theory on what they're doing and why?  Post it.


----------



## JimIg23 (Aug 1, 2010)

BocaBoy said:


> My net worth has definitely been hurt.  I recently had an offer (at developer prices) for my Waiohai unit through Marriott Resales, but it fell through when the buyer found out that the unit would not be eligible to join the points system (because Marriott Resales is not an "Approved Broker").  Because I have been #1 on the Waiohai Ocean View resale list for over two months now, it is clear that they have been unable to sell even a single Waiohai ocean view unit.  THAT IS TANGIBLE AND IT SHOWS THAT VALUE IS WAY DOWN in the best channel to get maximum value.



Have to made a lot of complaints to MVC mgt on this since you were directly affected?  It is silly they dont allow it for direct resales from Marriott.  I still cant see a year from now they are not going to allow it. They are still making money on the sale.


----------



## pipet (Aug 1, 2010)

Latravel said:


> The fact you mistakenly believed that a timeshare somehow contributes to your "net worth" was just a false dream or belief that was never based on reality.





Latravel said:


> As far as the business plan, I don't think it is as the poster portrays it.  If Marriott designed this program with such mean intentions, customers would not buy it and owners would not join.  Customers are not stupid.



In BocaBoy's defense, what was Marriott's business plan with the weeks model?  Marriott sales reps definitely told people that buying a TS was an investment.  We all know that's a bunch of malarkey, but most people, when they buy into a TS, haven't read TUG yet, etc.  As DanCali noted, the sales reps are saying even crazier things now than they used to in the old days.  

As for net worth being affected, if you have a sale that was about to go through at 25k, and then it bombs and you can only get 18k, how can that not be a loss of 7k?


----------



## windje2000 (Aug 1, 2010)

Latravel said:


> Marriott only sold us the use of one week per year.  Access to exchanging and who you can exchange with is up to you.  The purchase documents don't make promises other than the use of your week in the season you purchased.
> 
> As far as the business plan, I don't think it is as the poster portrays it.  If Marriott designed this program with such mean intentions, customers would not buy it and owners would not join.  Customers are not stupid.  If you offer a good product, people will buy it.  If you insult people's intelligence by offering a product that is inferior, it will fail.  I think the OP's post leaves that point out.



edited to add - 

Suppose you buy a new car from Marriott.  You can drive the car locally (home resort) or get on the II interstates if you pay a toll (exchanges).  If you sell the car, the buyer has the same privilege.

Later,  Marriott says - new rules.  We're building a brand new super duper competing interstate highway system.  You can of course still drive your car locally.  You can drive on our new highway if you pay us. (And BTW, the old II interstate system will surely get bumpy over time.)  But if you want to sell your car, the buyer is forever shut out of the new super duper Marriott highway.  

Think the value of your car is affected? 

end of addition


Marriott told us - sure , you can exchange via II if you buy this.  If you sell, the buyer gets the same access

Marriott didn't tell us - in 2010, we'll set up a competing exchange, charge you money to join and we won't allow your buyer to join that competing exchange.  


You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time.  Sure, customers are not stupid.  But the terms of this exchange plan are so shrouded in mystery that customers don't know what they're buying.  Even TUGGERS.

If the plan is so great, why are the terms kept hidden?  Why can't people get a straight answer to a simple how does this work question.

Lastly, I don't think I ever characterized the program as 'mean.'  If I had to characterize it with one word, I think my word would be *predatory*.


----------



## Fredm (Aug 1, 2010)

windje2000 said:


> edited to add -
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## windje2000 (Aug 1, 2010)

Fredm said:


> windje2000 said:
> 
> 
> > edited to add -
> ...


----------



## camachinist (Aug 1, 2010)

Part of a successful business plan is marketing. I've seen little general advertising by Marriott for this new super-duper cutting edge toll highway and, frankly, as an existing long-time developer owner, nothing substantive in print/e-mail to trumpet the opening of all the new onramps available to me as a 'valued' Marriott customer. Why is that? Which MBA do we get to shoot for that obvious and glaring error? Eeny meeny miny mo...


----------



## Fredm (Aug 1, 2010)

windje2000 said:


> Fredm said:
> 
> 
> > The point I'm making is person who buys your used car is banned from the new Marriott DClub toll road.
> ...


----------



## m61376 (Aug 1, 2010)

camachinist said:


> Part of a successful business plan is marketing. I've seen little general advertising by Marriott for this new super-duper cutting edge toll highway and, frankly, as an existing long-time developer owner, nothing substantive in print/e-mail to trumpet the opening of all the new onramps available to me as a 'valued' Marriott customer. Why is that? Which MBA do we get to shoot for that obvious and glaring error? Eeny meeny miny mo...


awww...did they forget to send you that pretty (albeit short) glossy brochure ? I'd be happy to share mine- or even give mine to you 

Seriously, not only was the marketing severely lacking (an e-mail and a simple brochure) but the lack of preparation of its personnel on every front- from initial cs reps to higher ups, was pretty shocking. When program directors and VP's had to scramble for days to get answers from their bosses regarding basic program rules, is there any surprise that their employees were so ill trained and appeared to be making up answers as they went along? The way this plan was rolled out and the continuing lack of transparency should make any potential customer pause a bit, especially since significant sums of money are involved.

There are so many ways this program could have been designed to be a home run for both Marriott and their customers. In the long run, Marriott may have enjoyed even a higher profit and better sales and, certainly, not suffered any tarnishing of their reputation. It is a surprise and a shame that this has been so uncharacteristically unprofessional on so many fronts.


----------



## pedro47 (Aug 1, 2010)

Can anyone foresee this in the next five (5) years the new Ritz-Cartlon Club and the new Marriott's Point Club will be under the same umbrella?


----------



## windje2000 (Aug 1, 2010)

m61376 said:


> awww...did they forget to send you that pretty (albeit short) glossy brochure ? I'd be happy to share mine- or even give mine to you
> 
> Seriously, not only was the marketing severely lacking (an e-mail and a simple brochure) but the lack of preparation of its personnel on every front- from initial cs reps to higher ups, was pretty shocking. When program directors and VP's had to scramble for days to get answers from their bosses regarding basic program rules, is there any surprise that their employees were so ill trained and appeared to be making up answers as they went along? The way this plan was rolled out and the continuing lack of transparency should make any potential customer pause a bit, especially since significant sums of money are involved.
> 
> There are so many ways this program could have been designed to be a home run for both Marriott and their customers. In the long run, Marriott may have enjoyed even a higher profit and better sales and, certainly, not suffered any tarnishing of their reputation. It is a surprise and a shame that this has been so uncharacteristically unprofessional on so many fronts.



Is it just me, or does this roll out feel a lot more like a beta test than the roll out of a finished product?


----------



## GregT (Aug 1, 2010)

pedro47 said:


> Can anyone foresee this in the next five (5) years the new Ritz-Cartlon Club and the new Marriott's Point Club will be under the same umbrella?




Yes, I could see this occuring, and would be interesting to see.

A part of me would be intrigued to (potentially) be able to access RC inventory and a part of me shudders at competing for Marriott inventory with RC clientele who own Trust Points.

It will be interesting to see if they ever include this, but I'm not sure why they would not?

All the best,

Greg


----------



## camachinist (Aug 1, 2010)

> awww...did they forget to send you that pretty (albeit short) glossy brochure ?



Nope. It was so devoid of substantive information that I considered for a short period of sending it, along with a nice letter, to Bill Marriott asking him wtf he thinks his MBA's are doing. Alas, due to extra postage required, and the reality of the effect of such an enterprise, I did the only sane thing a country boy could do. Douse it in diesel and burn it


----------



## Fredm (Aug 2, 2010)

BocaBoy said:


> My net worth has definitely been hurt.  I recently had an offer (at developer prices) for my Waiohai unit through Marriott Resales, but it fell through when the buyer found out that the unit would not be eligible to join the points system (because Marriott Resales is not an "Approved Broker").  Because I have been #1 on the Waiohai Ocean View resale list for over two months now, it is clear that they have been unable to sell even a single Waiohai ocean view unit.  THAT IS TANGIBLE AND IT SHOWS THAT VALUE IS WAY DOWN in the best channel to get maximum value.



Happens all the time. Sales fall through for lots of reasons.
2 months is nothing in the scheme of Marriott brokered resales. Some wait years.

No one can control the buying impulses of a person.
The far bigger question is why a buyer would be willing to pay the huge retail premium simply to have exchange rights in the D-Club?  *The same question applied to previous resale buyers who purchased from Marriott just to receive MRP's. * 
Most did so because they did not know any better. Yet, some did buy.  It has always taken a long time for Marriott to sell resale listings because:
 1) Most informed buyers will opt for a secondary market purchase at a dramatic discount, and most relevant
2), Marriott will try to sell them a retail product in their inventory first. This is what happened to you. And it has always been so. The buyer was sold on Points. So, your week was a straw man to accomplish that.
For example, Marriott only sells Marriott Desert Springs resales after they try to sell the buyer Shadow Ridge from their own new inventory. Marriott increased the resale price of Desert Springs to make Shadow Ridge appear more attractive to the buyer. Only if the buyer insists on on Desert Springs will the resale transaction be made. THAT is why Marriott resale take so long.
Marriott is now selling points. They want a buyer to purchase a retail product from them rather than a resale. Same thing as has always been. You just may not have known it.

I could understand your attitude if they simply decided to not want to sell it. Marriott has not done that. They will eventually sell it and you will receive 60% of its full retail price. And, the buyer of your week will receive MRP's when Marriott does sell it. Your net worth has not suffered by one dollar. You will just have to wait for it. They will sell exactly what they sold before the D-Club introduction to a resale buyer. They have not reduced their sale price because of it.

Sure, it sucks that Marriott is not grandfathering their own legacy resales. But, I understand why. They are now selling an entirely new product. They want people to buy it from them. 

As for the secondary market value of any legacy week, expect prices to soften further in the near term. FUD in the marketplace will do that, the current economy aside.


----------



## Latravel (Aug 2, 2010)

Do you think maybe the reason the roll out wasn't done in a grand fashion is that this isn't such a life changing deal to Marriott?  Are we making a bigger thing out of this, with all the negative speculation and analysis of Marriott's "predatory" approach?

Is it possible to just believe the responses DaveM got from Marriott executives?


p.s. DanCali, I do have experience with points systems.  I also own RCI Points and I love it.  It works similar to Marriott Destination Points except there is a mechanism to get rid of last minute inventory with reduced points cost.


----------



## Fredm (Aug 2, 2010)

Latravel said:


> Do you think maybe the reason the roll out wasn't done in a grand fashion is that this isn't such a life changing deal to Marriott?  Are we making a bigger thing out of this, with all the negative speculation and analysis of Marriott's "predatory" approach?
> 
> Is it possible to just believe the responses DaveM got from Marriott executives?



Marriott could not possibly have introduced it in a much different way.
The day 1 roll-out could have been handled better. But, in retrospect, it was not awful overall. The primary glitch was the long telephone wait times on the very first day. Poorly handled. So what? It's over.

 Meanwhile, nothing appears different to a legacy owner who has not heard about it. So, a crash introduction was not necessary, or desirable from Marriott's perspective. It will take time (years?) for Marriott to phase in marketing and achieve its sales goals. 

The dust is just beginning to settle. Inquiring minds around here wanted all the minute details of the how the machinery works. And, wanted it instantly. Not surprising that misinformation/mis-communication was/is being passed around.  Also, not surprising that a few sales execs are spreading FUD. The real bottom line will be how well the system function for owners. Both those that convert and those that do not. So far, all appears to be working just fine.

I have asked myself how I would have explained the program differently if constrained by the real legal issues and other matters involved. I came to the conclusion that the uncomplicated (yet incomplete) explanations provided would be close to how I would have described it.

In this respect, Marriott will allow the system to speak for itself. That is how Marriott's timeshare reputation was established in the first place. If owners read the Governing Documents, and parsed every word as is being done with this exchange system, nobody would have bought it. They bought Marriott's reputation. So far, Marriott has not done anything to actually change how an owner can use what they bought.


----------



## pipet (Aug 2, 2010)

Latravel said:


> Do you think maybe the reason the roll out wasn't done in a grand fashion is that this isn't such a life changing deal to Marriott?  Are we making a bigger thing out of this, with all the negative speculation and analysis of Marriott's "predatory" approach?.



This is a big change to their business model.  The roll out is probably slow because it is a such a change and I am sure they didn't want to alarm existing owners.  Plus, they have a problem with point allotment compared to other systems, so NOT sending out that info was probably a smart decision.  Show owners DVC or HGVC, etc, and people understand their allotment.  Show people a Marriott chart, and right away many are going to have a problem.  



Fredm said:


> If owners read the Governing Documents, and parsed every word as is being done with this exchange system, nobody would have bought it. They bought Marriott's reputation. So far, Marriott has not done anything to actually change how an owner can use what they bought.



I hope the system will end up speaking for itself.  You are right, the original documents contain a lot of language that gives Marriott a lot of leeway, and any suspicious mind would have rejected those documents.  Marriott completely relied on its reputation.  

For some, Marriott's reputation is still intact.

Others see that Marriott was the first to introduce a system where points won't get you into your home resort, and _to many this is inherently unfair. _ The answer that you don't use points to reserve at your home resort is very unsatisfactory for many because 1) it does guarantee a small downtrade and 2) if you get into the banking & borrowing of points, you may not have your full week intact to reserve out your own resort.  

Making a business decision to do something that many see as inherently unfair is a real knock to the reputaion.  If I hadn't seen the point problem, I probably would have continued in my blind trust of Marriott.  Marriott asked for this problem, IMO.  Marriott would have been much better off reputation-wise to make a more fair & transparent system with the points, and to make up for fees, etc, elsehwere (like charge modest fees, etc).


----------



## Fredm (Aug 2, 2010)

pipet said:


> I hope the system will end up speaking for itself.  You are right, the original documents contain a lot of language that gives Marriott a lot of leeway, and any suspicious mind would have rejected those documents.  Marriott completely relied on its reputation.
> 
> For some, Marriott's reputation is still intact.
> 
> ...



Pipet, if Marriott required us to use the new system  I would agree with every one of your issues. In fact, I would be leading the voices of discontent.

They are not forcing anything on anyone.  For the reasons you mention, and others you have not, I will not join. By not getting wrapped up in the whole thing I can continue to use the system as if it did not happen. 
I completely understand the possibility that the I.I. exchange pool may shrink over a long period of time. If it does, so will the competition. I have concluded that it will not effect owners in a meaningful way. 
If it does and I am alive to see it, it will not impact my ability to enjoy the wide wonderful world of timesharing.

 I like that the option to join has been offered.  Some find virtue with it. Me, not so much. I simply do not characterize a voluntary offer to join, but not required to use, as being "inherently unfair".


----------



## windje2000 (Aug 2, 2010)

Fredm said:


> Pipet, if Marriott required us to use the new system  I would agree with every one of your issues. In fact, I would be leading the voices of discontent.
> 
> They are not forcing anything on anyone.  For the reasons you mention, and others you have not, I will not join. By not getting wrapped up in the whole thing I can continue to use the system as if it did not happen.
> I completely understand the possibility that the I.I. exchange pool may shrink over a long period of time. If it does, so will the competition. I have concluded that it will not effect owners in a meaningful way.
> ...



Fredm - you are absolutely right, there is no requirement to join.  Yet.

But that doesn't address the question --  How does the very existence of this plan affect the owner whether or not he or she joins?  


Will the plan negatively affect my ability to reserve at my home resort?  It might. Nobody knows because they aren't telling anyone how it works.

Will the plan negatively affect my ability to get trades in II?  Probably.  It can't help.

Will the plan negatively affect what I get when I sell my timeshare?  Probably.  It can't help.

Will the plan negatively affect the marketing time if I want to sell my timeshare?  Probably.

Can I go on? Sure, but that's probably enough.

If you blend FUD with a heaping helping of mushroom treatment, you will get the brew you see percolating in the various threads on this forum.  Not communicating effectively with respect to a change of this magnitude ( and the can be no question that it is a material change for Marriott ) and leaving early adopters and otherwise interested parties groping in the dark for fragments of information about your new plan is sheer lunacy.  

Marriott's primary means of communicating plan information is a commissioned sales staff.  That's asking for trouble.  They should publish DClub for Dummies or something similar and eradicate the rumors and bad info.  I'm not even sure I have enough hard information to make an informed decision, and I've read most of the docs and most of the threads here.  Combine that with some roll out issues/errors that were handled in a less than professional manner and you shall reap what you sow.

Like mothers and cops, when and where the truth is hidden, I expect the worst.


----------



## Fredm (Aug 2, 2010)

windje2000 said:


> Fredm - you are absolutely right, there is no requirement to join.  Yet.
> 
> But that doesn't address the question --  How does the very existence of this plan affect the owner whether or not he or she joins?
> 
> ...



Worry on, if it makes you feel better.


----------



## windje2000 (Aug 2, 2010)

Fredm said:


> Worry on, if it makes you feel better.



Not worried, just wary.


----------



## taffy19 (Aug 2, 2010)

Fredm said:


> Happens all the time. Sales fall through for lots of reasons.
> 2 months is nothing in the scheme of Marriott brokered resales. Some wait years.
> 
> No one can control the buying impulses of a person.
> ...


Are you an approved broker?


----------



## Fredm (Aug 2, 2010)

iconnections said:


> Are you an approved broker?



No. But will apply when they are ready. I have been told to expect a December start up.


----------



## jimf41 (Aug 2, 2010)

OK, so I finally looked up FUD to see what the acronym meant. These are the meanings that were given.

	Fear, Uncertainty, & Doubt	
***	FUD	File Update	
***	FUD	Female Urinary Device	
***	FUD	Fedora Users and Developers (Fedora Linux)	
**	FUD	Fully Undetected (crypter)	
**	FUD	Fouled Up Disinformation (polite form)	
**	FUD	Fire Unit Display	
**	FUD	Field Use Designator	
*	FUD	Flat Utterance Description	
*	FUD	Full Unit Designation (US DoD)	
*	FUD	First Unit Deployed	
*	FUD	Fever of Undetermined Origin

Which one is the one we are using on this board?


----------



## windje2000 (Aug 2, 2010)

jimf41 said:


> Fear, Uncertainty, & Doubt



I think it traces its origin to IBM sales.  You're not the only one to google it.


----------



## Fredm (Aug 2, 2010)

jimf41 said:


> OK, so I finally looked up FUD to see what the acronym meant. These are the meanings that were given.
> 
> Fear, Uncertainty, & Doubt
> ***	FUD	File Update
> ...



Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.


----------



## Fredm (Aug 2, 2010)

windje2000 said:


> I think it traces its origin to IBM sales.  You're not the only one to google it.



Yes, it does come from the early days of IBM. Later widely used in the computer industry.


----------



## jimf41 (Aug 2, 2010)

That's too bad. I was rooting for my personal favorite.

FUD	Fedora Users and Developers


----------



## BocaBoy (Aug 8, 2010)

Fredm said:


> Happens all the time. Sales fall through for lots of reasons.
> *2 months is nothing in the scheme of Marriott brokered resales. Some wait years.*
> 
> No one can control the buying impulses of a person.
> ...



You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.  You seem to think you know more about what happened with my sale than I do.  And I know why my week's sale fell through.  As for the time frame, two months on a Waiohai ocean view that is #1 on the list would have been a VERY long time prior to the points introduction.  The people who waited for years on Marriott resales had very undesirable weeks.


----------



## Fredm (Aug 8, 2010)

BocaBoy said:


> You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.  You seem to think you know more about what happened with my sale than I do.  *And I know why my week's sale fell through. * As for the time frame, two months on a Waiohai ocean view that is #1 on the list would have been a VERY long time prior to the points introduction.  The people who waited for years on Marriott resales had very undesirable weeks.



I am sorry that your sale fell through. Very disappointing, I am sure.

You just posted this in another thread:
_"*Maybe* they did not disclose this up front and when they did disclose it later the buyer backed out. Interesting speculation. *All I really know is that the sale of my Waiohai week fell through just before the new program was announced *and all interest after that time has suddenly dried up."
_
My comments were intended to to offer an explanation, and put the time-frame in some perspective. 
Per your own words above, you really don't know why the sale fell through. 

Marriott's motives to not sell it are the same as they have always been. They will try to sell what they have in their inventory. It is possible that Marriott told your buyer of the new points program when it was announced. We will never know, but it would not surprise me. Then again, upon some reflection the buyer may have decided that a secondary market purchase was more attractive. Happens all the time. In fact, most here on TUG would have advised it. So, for all we know your buyer may have been influenced by advice given right here. 
Which goes to another point worth mentioning. Careful of what you rally against. It can come back to bite you. In this respect, criticize with facts. Bad mouthing (and speculative paranoia in general) for the sake of it only serves to damage the value of what you, I, and everyone here owns.

While we both do not know what happened to your transaction specifically, I do have some insight to the matter at large. I was just sharing it.

Good luck with your sale. It will sell. You will receive 60% of the full retail price when it does. Patience will pay off for you.


----------



## windje2000 (Aug 8, 2010)

Fredm said:


> Bad mouthing (and speculative paranoia in general) for the sake of it only serves to damage the value of what you, I, and everyone here owns.



Speculation does not (and cannot) co-exist with full disclosure.  In the instant case, speculation is amplified by the FUD of the Marriott sales staff.  If they were selling common stock, they'd have 10b-5 problems.

Whether or not the value of your interests, my interest or anyone's interest is affected by this new plan depends entirely on the terms of the plan.  While speculation about the terms could affect value temporarily, _*if it does, it's only until Marriott discloses all the facts.*_  The fact that speculation continues indicates that Marriott has not been particularly forthright in disclosing the terms of this new plan.  

Paranoia? One is not paranoid if one's concerns are either consistent with the known facts or are proven to be correct.


----------



## Fredm (Aug 8, 2010)

Okey dokey....


----------



## BocaBoy (Aug 9, 2010)

Fredm said:


> I am sorry that your sale fell through. Very disappointing, I am sure.
> 
> You just posted this in another thread:
> _"*Maybe* they did not disclose this up front and when they did disclose it later the buyer backed out. Interesting speculation. *All I really know is that the sale of my Waiohai week fell through just before the new program was announced *and all interest after that time has suddenly dried up."
> ...



Again, you are making things up.  I do know why my sale fell through.  You quote a comment that you say proves I do not know, but that comment only says I do not know if Marriott disclosed the points program up front or later.  I do not know when the buyer learned about the points program.  That does not in any way suggest that I do not know that the inability to join the points program was the reason the sale fell through.  My criticism is based on facts.  I do not make up facts. 

Also, Marriott's motives to sell resales is not the same as before.  Before, if someone wanted a week at a sold out resort, Marriott would gladly resell them one.  It was a unique commodity they could not offer any other way.  They even gave all the benefits of a developer sale, including a bonus of MR points.  I bought one week that way and they did not in any way try to steer me to another property.  Now they want to sell points and the pitch is that the buyer of points can go anywhere, including the resort the buyer wants, so why buy a week which can not even participate in the points program.  My executive contact at MVCI headquarters even admitted as much to me.


----------



## BocaBoy (Aug 10, 2010)

Latravel said:


> That's why it was foolish to believe a timeshare is or ever was an investment.  They clearly stated in the plan documents when you purchased that you are buying these units for your *personal enjoyment and use* (which you can still have) only and not for any financial gain.
> 
> The fact you mistakenly believed that a timeshare somehow contributes to your "net worth" was just a false dream or belief that was never based on reality.
> 
> In part, your disappointment regarding resale value is your fault for having unrealistic expectations.  No matter what you say to argue this point, it's all in the documents, in plain black and white.



I did not buy timeshares as an investment, just as I do not buy cars as an investment.  That does not mean that a timeshare's value is not part of my net worth.  By definition, ANYTHING you own which has any value contributes to your net worth.  That is so obvious that it should not be necessary to even say.

I never expected to get rich from selling.  My "unreasonable expectation" was that I expected Marriott to not sabotage resales through their own resale division, which has been touted by them for many, many years as a good way to sell.


----------



## BocaBoy (Aug 11, 2010)

Fredm said:


> Pipet, if Marriott required us to use the new system  I would agree with every one of your issues. In fact, I would be leading the voices of discontent.
> 
> They are not forcing anything on anyone.  For the reasons you mention, and others you have not, I will not join. .... *I have concluded that it will not effect owners in a meaningful way. *
> 
> I like that the option to join has been offered.  Some find virtue with it.



I very much like the use options of the new program.  In that sense, I agree with you that owners have very little to be angry about.  However, what they are doing to resales through Marriott is very predatory.  The fact that Marriott's resale sabotage may not hurt private resales much if at all is irrelevant.  Just as buying resales through Marriott in the past may not have been very smart, selling privately when one could have sold at much higher prices through Marriott (only sold out resorts have been offered) in the past was also not smart.


----------



## kk0 (Aug 11, 2010)

Is there any statistics in relation to the DP program ?
1. What percentage of owners are joining the DP 
2. What is the percentage of tuggers ?
3. It seems like a reasonable deal for brokers ? 
Basically what I want to know is -- excluding brokers, Marriott employees, timeshare employees and other special interest groups  -- what proportion of the regular 1 - 3 week owners truly intertested in the points program ?


----------



## Fredm (Aug 11, 2010)

BocaBoy said:


> I very much like the use options of the new program.  In that sense, I agree with you that owners have very little to be angry about.  However, what they are doing to resales through Marriott is very predatory.  The fact that Marriott's resale sabotage may not hurt private resales much if at all is irrelevant.  Just as buying resales through Marriott in the past may not have been very smart, *selling privately when one could have sold at much higher prices through Marriott (only sold out resorts have been offered) in the past was also not smart*.



BocaBoy, it often is not a matter of being "smart".
A sale via the Marriott resale office will almost always return the seller more money than a secondary market sale. 
Many owners CHOOSE to sell in the secondary market because they do not wish to (or can't) wait for Marriott to sell it. Simple as that. 

I know you think that buyers were lining up to buy prime Marriott resales at retail prices. With very few exceptions (MountainSide week 7, for example) that is seldom the case. 

Marriott requires that the use-year remain available to the buyer. 
If the owner uses the use-week, the listing goes to the bottom of the list. It is not uncommon for it to take 2-3 years for some prime week listings to sell. Meanwhile, fees must be paid. Many owners just cannot wait that long. 

You are in first position at Waiohai. 
Next retail buyer who wants to own Waiohai to occupy will get you out. Good luck on a timely sale.


----------



## Fredm (Aug 12, 2010)

kk0 said:


> Is there any statistics in relation to the DP program ?
> 1. What percentage of owners are joining the DP
> 2. What is the percentage of tuggers ?
> 3. It seems like a reasonable deal for brokers ?
> Basically what I want to know is --* excluding brokers, Marriott employees, timeshare employees and other special interest groups  -- what proportion of the regular 1 - 3 week owners truly intertested in the points program ?*



I think it is too early to tell. Especially so since many owners are not yet aware of the program.
It appears that about half the tuggers who are active here are "interested" in the D-Club (just my impression). Many are taking a wait and see approach.
Of those that are interested, reasons for their interest vary.

So far, reports of success with both legacy system exchanges and D Club exchanges have been favorable. If this continues into 2011 much of the anxiety surrounding the introduction will fade away. That time frame will be a better indicator of how the program is being received.

I don't know what "special interest groups" have to do with it.
For example, I am a broker. I am not interested.  If I was, it would be because the program would benefit my use patterns. Same as everyone else.

Marriott has said that they are introducing an Approved Broker program in December.
We shall see. As I understand it, it will be an outlet for trust owners to sell their points. It has nothing to do with selling legacy week rights. That option is not on the table (again, as I understand it).


----------



## curbysplace (Aug 12, 2010)

TUG is a wonderful resource. All the comments on this thread and the many others regarding the new Destinations Club program are very interesting, fun to read, and extremely informative.  I think, however, we all need to sit back and take a deep breath and take the emotion out of the discussion.  Much of what is said is pure speculation especially for example Marriott’s motives in going to points.  

Just think, there are approximately 400,000 Marriott Legacy Week owners.  How many of these 400,000 are Tuggers?  And of those numbers, how many actively keep up with the TUG postings?  Where I am going on this, is do you really think we are more than a mere little mosquito bite in the entire scope of things with respect to Marriott and especially with its move to the Destinations Club?  Do you really believe they did not do this purely on a best business model concept and did not do this without taking into consideration what Marriott felt was the best for its 400,000 Vacation Club owners?  Do you really believe Marriott failed to really think this through and that Marriott did not feel this was going to be a good program?

Were they right on with everything, absolutely not.  Did they launch it right, essentially yes, but not in each and every aspect.  And yes, although our numbers are relatively small, I think our views are important to Marriott but just as important as a Tugger’s view to Marriott is the view of each and every other of the 400,000 Marriott owners who have never heard of TUG.  

Our analyses and questions to Marriott since the rollout have forced the points sales force to go to work to find the correct answers to questions they never anticipated.  We are thinkers and our shared wisdom helped us dig into the program details and find things that the program drafters very likely never thought of.  I do not believe this was deliberate on Marriott’s part.  

When I spoke to a Marriott sales person earlier this week she was amazed that I was so knowledgeable on the new point system and said “you have a good grasp of the system, more than anyone” she has talked to since the rollout.  What does this say?  It says most of the point sales people have never spoken to a Tugger and probably have never heard of TUG.  And for the record, each and every question I asked her evolved from the TUG discussions.  My point, we are a very vocal, active and informed group of Marriott Vacation Club owners and no more than that.  Most of what we say just bounces around here in the forum.  We represent a very very small percentage of Marriott owners.  And we need to keep that in mind.  Not that we can’t complain, gripe and express our opinions but that we also need to realize that much of what we are saying regarding Marriott’s motives in creating the Destination Club is pure speculation.  That is OK but realize it is just that—speculation.  

Could Marriott have been more transparent on the rollout?  Yes.  But I don’t know if it would have mattered because I don’t believe they had an ulterior motive or anticipated there would be the questions and problems that we uncovered here.  Bottom line, whether an owner is a Tugger or not the program works for many of us, it does not work for many of us, and for others it can go either way or is a non-issue.


----------



## kk0 (Aug 12, 2010)

curbysplace said:


> TUG is a wonderful resource. All the comments on this thread and the many others regarding the new Destinations Club program are very interesting, fun to read, and extremely informative.  I think, however, we all need to sit back and take a deep breath and take the emotion out of the discussion.  Much of what is said is pure speculation especially for example Marriott’s motives in going to points.
> 
> Just think, there are approximately 400,000 Marriott Legacy Week owners.  How many of these 400,000 are Tuggers?  And of those numbers, how many actively keep up with the TUG postings?  Where I am going on this, is do you really think we are more than a mere little mosquito bite in the entire scope of things with respect to Marriott and especially with its move to the Destinations Club?  Do you really believe they did not do this purely on a best business model concept and did not do this without taking into consideration what Marriott felt was the best for its 400,000 Vacation Club owners?  Do you really believe Marriott failed to really think this through and that Marriott did not feel this was going to be a good program?
> 
> ...



Well said Curbysplace.
Unfortunately TUGgers are a very small minority.
I think we should have user forums for each individual resort. I believe that MGV and one other resort has their own usergroup in yahoogroups. If we have one for MGO(grande ocean) and OceanWatch it will enhance the ownership experience. If we had our resort forums we could communicate with other owners directly and effectively. We could also post the availibility of coupons,shows, tickets etc. Also voting on single issues will be more democratic if done electronically.Similar to  E-governance ....
In the past timeshare salespeople hated well informed (internet savvy) customers for obvious reasons. Now they(sales brokers) have come to accept the secondary market as a problem that will not go away (just like the taliban - sorry for the bad example) So now they have come accept the internet savvy user. 
 For me internet is equal to knowledge and power. If we get more marriott owners to join the forum they will definitely improve their ownership experience.


----------



## BocaBoy (Aug 17, 2010)

puckmanfl said:


> good morning....
> 
> You are correct about getting locked in for future years.  I fell into the trap myself and just realized it. I used my 4550 pts from my GV + bonus and used 4500.  Leaving me 50 pts. left over.  In order to use them I must "bank" for 2012.   In order to use my 50 pts. I must convert one 2012 week to points as there is nothing I can do with 50 stand alone points.  I planned on using one week in points anyway (along with my II deposit and weeks use) but it is a very subtle "trap".
> 
> If I don't use any points in 2012 I forfeit 50 pts.



There are a few resorts where you can get one night for 50 points in certain off seasons.


----------



## BocaBoy (Aug 17, 2010)

Fredm said:


> Marriott requires that the use-year remain available to the buyer. If the owner uses the use-week, the listing goes to the bottom of the list. It is not uncommon for it to take 2-3 years for some prime week listings to sell.



True only to a point.  It is true that you cannot really use the week early in the year or you may lose a sale.  A late in the year booking is OK, however, because it can be canceled.  Also, trading for MR points is safe because they will take back the points if they find a buyer.  Also, if you use your week and lose a buyer as a result, you do not go top the bottom of the list.  Yes, you lose that sale but you stay #1 for the next sale that wants the use year you have available.  At the worst, you are at the top of the list for the next use year's sales.


----------



## classiclincoln (Aug 17, 2010)

Didn't read all 4 pages of posts, but here's a thought:  Marriott is a very well run company that has survived this type of downturn in the economy before.  What if fewer people join the points club than Marriott figures because people realize that it's not a great deal.  And, add to that that all new sales are points; won't that make our deeded week properties worth more?  If so, now might be the time to gobble up all those fixed week units people want to get rid of.

Just a thought.....


----------

