# Point Transfer Receiving Limit - Capped at 20,000 Points Annually [MERGED]



## StevenTing (Nov 15, 2022)

Just got the email. 


​
To help make highly sought-after vacations more available, we are making the following rule change beginning January 1, 2023:​POINTS AND ENROLLED OWNERS AND MEMBERS CAN RECEIVE A MAXIMUM OF 20,000 CLUB POINTS TRANSFERRED FROM OTHER OWNERS AND MEMBERS EACH USE YEAR.​WHY DID WE DO THIS?​This change resulted from our evaluation of reservation activity. We found large Club Points transfers being used to reserve disproportionate numbers of vacations during peak seasons. These reservations were then being rented out to others.

We strive to make reserving vacations as fair as possible for all Owners and Members. We believe this change will help support more opportunities for everyone to enjoy their ownership or membership and experience new destinations.

Thank you.


FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
​
​





​
Why am I now capped at receiving 20,000 Club Points transferred each Use Year from other Owners and Members?​
​





​
Our goal is to help make more vacations available to our Owners and Members. We discovered a fairly small number of Owners and Members receive large Club Points transfers each year. However, these are frequently used for multiple reservations to non-Owners, and show high rates of late cancellations. This limits other Owners’ and Members’ opportunities to reserve at these locations. This behavior often points to commercial use of Club Points, which is prohibited by the program’s governing documents.​
​​





​
My spouse and I own Club Points together. Can we each get 20,000 Club Points transferred to us each Use Year?​
​





​
No. Each ownership or membership is limited to receiving 20,000 transferred Club Points each Use Year, regardless of the number of Owners or Members on the membership.​
​​





​
We’re planning a personal vacation that needs more than 20,000 transferred Club Points. What are my options?​
​





​
We have a waiver process that may allow you to receive one transfer of up to an additional 20,000 Club Points into your ownership or membership.​
​​





​
Does my online account show the total number of Club Points I’ve transferred into my ownership or membership for the current Use Year?​
​





​
Yes.​



​


----------



## PamMo (Nov 15, 2022)

I just got this email from Marriott. I don't know if it will have an effect on any TUG members, but it is of interest to some who would rather rent points from other owners instead of purchasing more points from Marriott.

​
_To help make highly sought-after vacations more available, we are making the following rule change beginning January 1, 2023:_​_POINTS AND ENROLLED OWNERS AND MEMBERS CAN RECEIVE A MAXIMUM OF 20,000 CLUB POINTS TRANSFERRED FROM OTHER OWNERS AND MEMBERS EACH USE YEAR._​_WHY DID WE DO THIS?_​_This change resulted from our evaluation of reservation activity. We found large Club Points transfers being used to reserve disproportionate numbers of vacations during peak seasons. These reservations were then being rented out to others.

We strive to make reserving vacations as fair as possible for all Owners and Members. We believe this change will help support more opportunities for everyone to enjoy their ownership or membership and experience new destinations.

 Thank you._​


----------



## timsi (Nov 15, 2022)

If this was indeed at a large scale, the price of renting points should drop.


----------



## Fasttr (Nov 15, 2022)

If they limited transfers OUT to 20K max, I would say that that may limit the ability to easily rent points as we desire (limiting supply from the mega renters), but for most of us who rent a few thousand here and there as we need more points, I see THIS change (to the demand side) as a non issue.  

If there is truly a large number of owners renting more points so they can make a business out of it by securing ressys and renting out the ressys for profit, then I’m all for it.


----------



## timsi (Nov 15, 2022)

I doubt it is a big problem though. The points are very expensive, I don't think there is much profit in renting out prime weeks reserved with points. I guess that most rental are actually from deeded week  owners. They may just try to find a scapegoat for an inventory issue.


----------



## Dean (Nov 15, 2022)

timsi said:


> If this was indeed at a large scale, the price of renting points should drop.


Possibly but I doubt it.  Maybe a slight increase in members renting reservations themselves rather than selling their points.  I find it difficult to believe there was enough activity in rentals associated with points transfers to make any difference.  Since they've shown interest in controlling such rentals, I predict this will not be the end of limitations.  Next we'll see some type of limit on rentals in general I would suspect.


----------



## Lv2Trvl (Nov 15, 2022)

Received the email. Interesting. The documents say you can't run it as a business. Soo... it will affect the pricing most likely. Don't think it will bother us too much.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk


----------



## StevenTing (Nov 15, 2022)

First it’s 20,000 points.  Then it will be reduced to 10,000 points. Then it will be 5,000 points.  They’ll keep reducing the number as the years to by, forcing people to need to buy more points. Next thing you know, they’ll change the model to say you can only receive the number of points that you currently own.  

They will slowly eliminate the “buy 1000 points, and rent the rest” crowd.  If I were on the corporate strategy team, this is what I would recommend.  

One unintended consequence is that this will further reduce the utilization of the Home Villa rentals that MVC offers. I doubt there is high usage there but when some of the nights are 5,000 or 10,000 a night, you won’t have many options.  Same for the tours and cruises.  I don’t think they thought through that impact.


----------



## bazzap (Nov 15, 2022)

StevenTing said:


> Just got the email.
> 
> 
> ​
> ...


Interestingly no similar restrictions on Weeks transfers (rentals)?


----------



## StevenTing (Nov 15, 2022)

Nope. As weeks can’t be transferred.  They can be rented, yes, but not transferred to another owner to book and the rent.

The points provided flexibility.  I think this was only a matter of time and with the addition of Vistana, it’s important they get this policy in place before the floodgates open to the other resorts.


----------



## DanCali (Nov 15, 2022)

bazzap said:


> Interestingly no similar restrictions on Weeks transfers (rentals)?




There shouldn't be. Renting a week is your right as an owner.

Looking at vacationpointexchange, there are a couple of conspicuous listings that look like "professional renters" (those looking to rent an unspecified number of points). I've also had a couple of people approach me for my point listings and they did not seem like "occasional" renters.


----------



## dioxide45 (Nov 15, 2022)

Drip drip


----------



## Fasttr (Nov 15, 2022)

DanCali said:


> Looking at vacationpointexchange, there are a couple of conspicuous listings that look like "professional renters" (those looking to rent an unspecified number of points). I've also had a couple of people approach me for my point listings and they did not seem like "occasional" renters.


But this change will not limit how many they can transfer OUT.


----------



## StevenTing (Nov 15, 2022)

Fasttr said:


> But this change will not limit how many they can transfer OUT.



Yup. Sending points, no limit.  Receiving points, 20,000 cap.


----------



## Fasttr (Nov 15, 2022)

DanCali said:


> There shouldn't be. Renting a week is your right as an owner.
> 
> Looking at vacationpointexchange, there are a couple of conspicuous listings that look like "professional renters" (those looking to rent an unspecified number of points). I've also had a couple of people approach me for my point listings and they did not seem like "occasional" renters.





Fasttr said:


> But this change will not limit how many they can transfer OUT.


Reading your post again, were you talking about BUY side renters?


----------



## TheTimeTraveler (Nov 15, 2022)

This may be a sales tool to encourage those big users who consistently receive points to go out and purchase their own points instead.......



.


----------



## billymach4 (Nov 15, 2022)

TheTimeTraveler said:


> This may be a sales tool to encourage those big users who consistently receive points to go out and purchase their own points instead.......
> 
> 
> 
> .


Or... ? Is Marriott taking a page out of the Wyndham Mega Renter example. Preventive Measure?


----------



## billymach4 (Nov 15, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> Drip drip


@dioxide45 Not sure I get the innuendo? Are you intending to say this is a small drip at filling up by Mother Marriott to take away small perks?


----------



## emeryjre (Nov 15, 2022)

There are several groups consolidating points and booking prime weeks.  Probably using bots at MVC.  Perfect example is the Marriott Grand Chateau for F1 week in 2023.  I tried to get a points reservation at 13 month mark at point I thought units were being released.  Nothing.  Again at 12 month mark, nothing available.  I am getting emails from the people that have the unit reservations.  The group has anything I want available to rent at high rates.  They didn't just stumble into these reservations.  They groups sought out high value reservation and sucked the pool dry.  My guess and HO is the action at Grand Chateau may have triggered this points cap.


----------



## DanCali (Nov 15, 2022)

Fasttr said:


> Reading your post again, were you talking about BUY side renters?



Yes, in particular these two listings strike me as "pro renters" (i.e., they rent points from others and them probably do bookings to rent out at higher $/point) although it's just my opinion:









						VERIFIED SELLER – Looking to Rent YOUR 2023 Usage Year Club Points
					

I have rented or transferred over 450,000 Marriott Vacation Club Points to other Club members, but now, I am looking to rent your unrestricted (must not have been banked, borrowed or previou...




					vacationpointexchange.com
				












						WANTED 2022/2023 transferable points -expiring points OK. Thank you!
					

I want to buy/rent your 2022/2023 points that are transferable to our MVC account at $0.50~0.65/point. Please contact me ASAP. Thanks.




					vacationpointexchange.com


----------



## dioxide45 (Nov 15, 2022)

Are there that many reservations that can be made where you would make a profit at $0.65 per point?


----------



## dioxide45 (Nov 15, 2022)

billymach4 said:


> @dioxide45 Not sure I get the innuendo? Are you intending to say this is a small drip at filling up by Mother Marriott to take away small perks?


Big changes occur slowly over time. 20K limit today, 10K limit in five years from now. Then a 5 guest cert limit some time further down the road...


----------



## DanCali (Nov 15, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> Are there that many reservations that can be made where you would make a profit at $0.65 per point?



There are some opportunities for that, yes. Playing that game can get you over $1/point quite easily and even over $2 with some luck (booking at relatively low seasons, Sun-Fri) but it does involve advance planning, making a booking, paying listing fees, and taking the risk it doesn't rent when your points are not bankable. It kind of becomes a full-time job...

One example is HHI (Sunset Point, Harbour Pointe) in early December. You can get a 2BR for a full week for 400 points. Don't you think that's rentable for $700 ($100/night which would be $1.75/point)? The Sun-Fri stay would be 250 points so if you rent that for $500 that's $2/point, which is triple the $0.65-$0.70 one can get from renting points outright.


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 15, 2022)

I like their approach, putting a cap on the number of points being transferred IN to accounts while at the same time, allowing for special-circumstance-waivers on an as-needed/by-request basis. This preserves the expressed rights in the governing docs that allows transfers as well as rentals, and doesn't penalize the owners of a gazillion points from continuing to rent OUT their points to multiple people. (Think of the Residence Club owners specifically who were encouraged to enroll their gazillion-points-generating shares by the stated promise to be able to rent them out.)

I understand the drip-drip warning. And as an owner who has dabbled in renting out high-demand points reservations I'll admit, I would like to see them similarly attack rentals by putting a limit on the number of reservations in an owner's account to which guest names can be added. Weeks or Points, I've always been in favor of them enforcing in one way or another the vague "no commercial activity" prohibition that's in all the docs.

Should be interesting going forward.


----------



## dioxide45 (Nov 15, 2022)

I suspect the "special circumstance" will have some type of restriction like they can't have a name change made on any reservations with them.


----------



## DanCali (Nov 15, 2022)

SueDonJ said:


> I understand the drip-drip warning. And as an owner who has dabbled in renting out high-demand points reservations I'll admit, I would like to see them similarly attack rentals by putting a limit on the number of reservations in an owner's account to which guest names can be added. Weeks or Points, I've always been in favor of them enforcing in one way or another the vague "no commercial activity" prohibition that's in all the docs.



These types of limits would be problematic, especially when rental is a legitimate use of a VOI. That's probably why Vistana took the "if you can't beat them, join them" approach and started charging $69 for adding a guest name (with some exceptions and discounts for 5-Star Elites).


----------



## dioxide45 (Nov 15, 2022)

DanCali said:


> These types of limits would be problematic, especially when rental is a legitimate use of a VOI. That's probably why Vistana took the "if you can't beat them, join them" approach and started charging $69 for adding a guest name (with some exceptions for 5-Star Elites).


There are "commercial activity" restrictions in most if not all of the resort governing documents. So I could see where they could place some type of cap limit on weeks based reservations.


----------



## timsi (Nov 15, 2022)

DanCali said:


> There are some opportunities for that, yes. Playing that game can get you over $1/point quite easily and even over $2 with some luck (booking at relatively low seasons, Sun-Fri) but it does involve advance planning, making a booking, paying listing fees, and taking the risk it doesn't rent when your points are not bankable. It kind of becomes a full-time job...
> 
> One example is HHI (Sunset Point, Harbour Pointe) in early December. You can get a 2BR for a full week for 400 points. Don't you think that's rentable for $700 ($100/night which would be $1.75/point)? The Sun-Fri stay would be 250 points so if you rent that for $500 that's $2/point, which is triple the $0.65-$0.70 one can get from renting points outright.


I am curious if one can make money renting high value weeks booked with points, since this is the problem they try to solve, at least this is what they claim in the email. Why would Marriott be bothered by off season rentals?


----------



## DanCali (Nov 15, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> There are "commercial activity" restrictions in most if not all of the resort governing documents. So I could see where they could place some type of cap limit on weeks based reservations.



What is "commercial activity"?  2 weeks? 20 weeks? 200 weeks?

Some retirees may own 15+ weeks and decide to go to Australia for 3 months one year. So now they can't rent their weeks?


----------



## timsi (Nov 15, 2022)

SueDonJ said:


> I like their approach, putting a cap on the number of points being transferred IN to accounts while at the same time, allowing for special-circumstance-waivers on an as-needed/by-request basis. This preserves the expressed rights in the governing docs that allows transfers as well as rentals, and doesn't penalize the owners of a gazillion points from continuing to rent OUT their points to multiple people. (Think of the Residence Club owners specifically who were encouraged to enroll their gazillion-points-generating shares by the stated promise to be able to rent them out.)
> 
> I understand the drip-drip warning. And as an owner who has dabbled in renting out high-demand points reservations I'll admit, I would like to see them similarly attack rentals by putting a limit on the number of reservations in an owner's account to which guest names can be added. *Weeks or Points, I've always been in favor of them enforcing in one way or another the vague "no commercial activity" prohibition that's in all the docs.*
> 
> Should be interesting going forward.



But the developer renting units for hundreds of millions of dollars a year is not a problem  .


----------



## emeryjre (Nov 15, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> Are there that many reservations that can be made where you would make a profit at $0.65 per point?


Only certain weeks, certain events, certain locations.  F1 week in Las Vegas will probably bring 1k a night or more.


----------



## Fasttr (Nov 15, 2022)

What are the odds the IT folks will even be able to code this limit into the system.


----------



## DanCali (Nov 15, 2022)

timsi said:


> I am curious if one can make money renting high value weeks booked with points, since this is the problem they try to solve, at least this is what they claim in the email. Why would Marriott be bothered by off season rentals?



Maybe - probably depends on the location and also if there are certain events happening - like Superbowl 57 weekend in Glendale, AZ in February. The Westin Kierland weeks for that week were gone in minutes, and I don't think it's because all those timeshare owners are planning to attend the Superbowl with two teams that will be determined only 2 weeks in advance


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 15, 2022)

timsi said:


> But the developer renting units for hundreds of millions of dollars a year is not a problem  .


What is so difficult to understand about, "owners have different rights than developers/managers, and in most cases the rights granted to developers/managers are more generous." It's true in most every aspect related to timeshare ownership including rental rights.

It is what it is, and it's clear in the governing docs if you bother to read them. I can live with it or I can decide to offload my ownership, because it's for damned sure that I can't fight it and win.


----------



## DRH90277 (Nov 15, 2022)

I'm happy with this as I view this is a good faith effort to make it possible for more widespread access to available points reservations. Also, if it works to open reservation availability for smaller points owners, I'm all for it.  

Personal enjoyment use of resort reservations should be the priority.


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 15, 2022)

timsi said:


> I am curious if one can make money renting high value weeks booked with points, since this is the problem they try to solve, at least this is what they claim in the email. Why would Marriott be bothered by off season rentals?


Yes, there's money to be made, especially if you're using Exchange Points from enrolled/elected Weeks that have relatively lower MF's (compared to Trust Points MF's.)

To me this restriction seems to be more of an effort to prevent certain high-dealing individuals from making a cottage industry out of acting as broker - and making commissions - off of multiple owners. It's a natural stretch to think that it may evolve to impacting the rental activity of owners who only rent out the intervals they book with their owned Weeks/Points, but for now this is not that.


----------



## dioxide45 (Nov 15, 2022)

DanCali said:


> What is "commercial activity"?  2 weeks? 20 weeks? 200 weeks?
> 
> Some retirees may own 15+ weeks and decide to go to Australia for 3 months one year. So now they can't rent their weeks?


So far Marriott hasn't defined "commercial activity", but many do earn significant income from renting weeks that could be defined as such. The circumstances shouldn't really matter in the definition.


----------



## Venter (Nov 15, 2022)

​
Duplicate post​


----------



## timsi (Nov 15, 2022)

SueDonJ said:


> What is so difficult to understand about, "owners have different rights than developers/managers, and in most cases the rights granted to developers/managers are more generous." It's true in most every aspect related to timeshare ownership including rental rights.
> 
> It is what it is, and it's clear in the governing docs if you bother to read them. I can live with it or I can decide to offload my ownership, because it's for damned sure that I can't fight it and win.


If you are talking about Vistana weeks, our rules are pretty clear: 

14.4. Rentals. *Members may rent their reserved Vacation Periods by signing a
Member rental agreement with the Property Association or a third party. Members will be
responsible for coordinating any third party rentals with the Property Association."*

The restriction of the commercial activity can be interpreted in the sense that you can't open a massage parlor in a timeshare unit:

"14.3. Limits On Occupants, Commercial Use and Other Vacation Plans. *The
number of people allowed in any Vacation Unit is limited to the maximum number listed in the
Declaration and Resort Rules. Members and other Occupants may only use a Vacation Unit to
provide vacation lodgings for themselves and their guests.* *They may not use a Vacation Unit for
any commercial purpose. *Also, they may not transfer, rent or otherwise contribute their
Vacation Ownership Interest, use rights, Points, or Vacation Period to any other vacation
ownership or time share program (including any non-equity use plans) or to any external
exchange program other than External Exchange Programs having agreements with Founding
Member or the Property Association. This Section does not apply to and shall not limit the
Founding Member or the Property Association."


I do not find any other rules that would give the developer those special rights you mention frequently.  Maybe are only specific to the resort you own.


----------



## davidvel (Nov 16, 2022)

timsi said:


> If you are talking about Vistana weeks, our rules are pretty clear:
> 
> 14.4. Rentals. *Members may rent their reserved Vacation Periods by signing a
> Member rental agreement with the Property Association or a third party. Members will be
> ...


Here is what Marriott (Shadow Ridge) docs say:


----------



## Dean (Nov 16, 2022)

timsi said:


> If you are talking about Vistana weeks, our rules are pretty clear:
> 
> 14.4. Rentals. *Members may rent their reserved Vacation Periods by signing a
> Member rental agreement with the Property Association or a third party. Members will be
> ...


I haven't seen the Vistana docs but every one I've ever seen for any company has included language talking about personal use, usually with a preclusion on commercial renting.  In this situation the current discussion would apply to those Vistana and Westin members as well to the extent they participated in the Club portion.


----------



## timsi (Nov 16, 2022)

davidvel said:


> Here is what Marriott (Shadow Ridge) docs say:
> View attachment 68625


 Most resort docs specifically mention rental (to a tourist) as a permitted activity.  

"no Owner [...] shall use any Timeshare Unit or the Common Area for any commercial purpose." To me it appears they prevent opening a shop in the unit or by the pool rather than that you are not allowed to rent out to a regular tourist.


----------



## timsi (Nov 16, 2022)

SueDonJ said:


> Yes, there's money to be made, especially if you're using Exchange Points from enrolled/elected Weeks that have relatively lower MF's (compared to Trust Points MF's.)



It does not matter the cost for the owners who rent out the points. Those that acquire them still pay 60-75 cents per point and it is very hard to make a profit at that level. Marriott does not offer any statistic to back their claim. 

I still believe that if a lot of points are indeed transacted with the end goal of renting out point reservations, the price of renting points should go down.


----------



## bnoble (Nov 16, 2022)

If Marriott goes the way others (e.g. Wyndham) have, our individual definitions of "commercial" won't really matter. The only definition that will matter will be Marriott's. It's fun to imagine what a court might say is/is not "commercial", but it would be expensive to actually find out.


----------



## dioxide45 (Nov 16, 2022)

emeryjre said:


> Only certain weeks, certain events, certain locations.  F1 week in Las Vegas will probably bring 1k a night or more.


THese types of events are one off things (well two), but you get what I mean. It isn't every year we see F1 or the Superbowl in a location with timeshares. I would think there has to be other regular situations where it makes sense to rent and flip point bookings like this. Seems like a lot of work for little gain and a lot of risk.


----------



## timsi (Nov 16, 2022)

bnoble said:


> If Marriott goes the way others (e.g. Wyndham) have, our individual definitions of "commercial" won't really matter. The only definition that will matter will be Marriott's. It's fun to imagine what a court might say is/is not "commercial", but it would be expensive to actually find out.



I do not subscribe to the idea that the developers can do whatever they want. Yes, they have the larger purse, but they also have fiduciary responsibilities and there is a line beyond which they can potentially lose a lot more than they gain by interpreting too many rules in their favor.


----------



## dioxide45 (Nov 16, 2022)

timsi said:


> I do not subscribe to the idea that the developers can do whatever they want. Yes, they have the larger purse, but they also have fiduciary responsibilities and there is a line beyond which they can potentially lose a lot more than they gain by interpreting too many rules in their favor.


I don't beleive developers are fiduciaries. They have no obligations to us except to sell us a product/service that we voluntarily agree to purchase. THe HOA on the other hand does, but not the developing company.


----------



## timsi (Nov 16, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> THese types of events are one off things (well two), but you get what I mean. It isn't every year we see F1 or the Superbowl in a location with timeshares. I would think there has to be other regular situations where it makes sense to rent and flip point bookings like this. Seems like a lot of work for little gain and a lot of risk.


The gain may be PR. Blame inventory issues on commercial rentals, show you are doing something. They do not even need to recode the system.


----------



## timsi (Nov 16, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> I don't beleive developers are fiduciaries. They have no obligations to us except to sell us a product/service that we voluntarily agree to purchase. THe HOA on the other hand does, but not the developing company.


"Both directors and officers owe a fiduciary duty to all owners which requires them to act in the best interest of the owners."  You are in a better position to interpret this article, what do you think? Remember, the developer has multiple roles because it is a property manager, it also manages the point trusts, and it also manages the reservation system. They may have individual licenses for each category. 









						Selecting a Property Manager | JD Supra
					

Property managers play a significant role in commercial real estate operations. With thousands of property managers to choose from, finding a suitable...




					www.jdsupra.com


----------



## thinze3 (Nov 16, 2022)

DanCali said:


> There are some opportunities for that, yes. Playing that game can get you over $1/point quite easily and even over $2 with some luck (booking at relatively low seasons, Sun-Fri) but it does involve advance planning, making a booking, paying listing fees, and taking the risk it doesn't rent when your points are not bankable. It kind of becomes a full-time job...
> 
> One example is HHI (Sunset Point, Harbour Pointe) in early December. You can get a 2BR for a full week for 400 points. Don't you think that's rentable for $700 ($100/night which would be $1.75/point)? The Sun-Fri stay would be 250 points so if you rent that for $500 that's $2/point, which is triple the $0.65-$0.70 one can get from renting points outright.



Yep. Even some popular resorts during prime weeks have big bargains Sunday - Friday.  I see these rentals listed all the time on Redweek.


----------



## wuv pooh (Nov 16, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> THese types of events are one off things (well two), but you get what I mean. It isn't every year we see F1 or the Superbowl in a location with timeshares. I would think there has to be other regular situations where it makes sense to rent and flip point bookings like this. Seems like a lot of work for little gain and a lot of risk.



You can check as much as you want.  Take the points chart and x $.65, then look up the equivalent rent for the same week/view on Marriott.com.  There will be a large difference.  People will pay more for the points and less than direct, profit.  Current Tbills are ~ 4%.  You can easily make 20% ($.78 net) with effort - even more with prime weeks and views.  I am sure there are people moving millions in reservations.

This is the exact same model as the DVC rentals.  You can save money by booking points via a broker vs. direct from Disney.  The broker keeps the difference.  There are several viable businesses doing this, and back in the day some people even purchased 100,000 points to engage in the business.  Think they have tightened up their rules over the last 20 years too.


----------



## dioxide45 (Nov 16, 2022)

It would be interesting to know how many accounts actually see >20K inbound point transfers. I would have to think this is impacting very few owners?


----------



## wuv pooh (Nov 16, 2022)

timsi said:


> "Both directors and officers owe a fiduciary duty to all owners which requires them to act in the best interest of the owners."  You are in a better position to interpret this article, what do you think? Remember, the developer has multiple roles because it is a property manager, it also manages the point trusts, and it also manages the reservation system. They may have individual licenses for each category.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The point you are missing is that they are also an owner.  In fact they are the largest owner in the system.  This does provide a potential conflict of interest.  That is why I am with Marriott, I believe they are an ethical company.  I would argue that they deliberately disadvantage themselves to make the system better for the Non Developer owners.  That is why all the trash weeks end up as getaways or rentals.  They make their money by overcharging for non occupancy exchanges offset by the net loss on renting trash weeks, plus their management fee.  It is not in their best interest to screw the other owners by reserving and renting all the prime weeks.  That would destroy their sales/development business, which is their other main profit center.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Nov 16, 2022)

Mega renters should not be taking the best weeks in Abound. This is a drag on the Abound system that they are selling if Abound owners are complaining that they cannot get the weeks they want, and artificially increases the points rental cost for the rest of the owners who occasionally want to rent.

20k points seems like a reasonable amount to rent if one compares that a 2 bdrm OF in Hawaii runs about 8k - 9.5k. You can still rent weeks from owners if you need more.

The cost to rent points will decline because the Mega Renters are driving up the price. I hope I can rent points for a reasonable price to when I need  more space for family.


----------



## timsi (Nov 16, 2022)

wuv pooh said:


> The point you are missing is that they are also an owner.  In fact they are the largest owner in the system.  This does provide a potential conflict of interest.  That is why I am with Marriott, I believe they are an ethical company.  I would argue that they deliberately disadvantage themselves to make the system better for the Non Developer owners.  That is why all the trash weeks end up as getaways or rentals.  They make their money by overcharging for non occupancy exchanges offset by the net loss on renting trash weeks, plus their management fee.  It is not in their best interest to screw the other owners by reserving and renting all the prime weeks.  That would destroy their sales/development business, which is their other main profit center.


I do not know about the resorts you own, but in the last 3-4 years they doubled the number of units they own at Lagunamar. Why would they buy so many units and pay MF for them if they are not profitable? Do you have any proof that they "deliberately disadvantage themselves to make the system better for the Non Developer owners"? If they were indeed a charitable organization, they would not buy back units for very little and sold them for tens of thousands of dollars or had hundreds of millions of dollars or rental revenue.


----------



## dioxide45 (Nov 16, 2022)

timsi said:


> I do not know about the resorts you own, but in the last 3-4 years they doubled the number of units they own at Lagunamar. Why would they buy so many units and pay MF for them if they are not profitable? Do you have any proof that they "deliberately disadvantage themselves to make the system better for the Non Developer owners"? If they were indeed a charitable organization, they would not buy back units for very little and sold them for tens of thousands of dollars or had hundreds of millions of dollars or rental revenue.


Not sure what else you would expect them to do with the inventory they take back? THey could instead not take it back and let the owners devault which hurts other owners in the end with higher fees to cover the delinquencies.


----------



## bnoble (Nov 16, 2022)

For those of you who are thinking Marriott is risking goodwill with its customer base, take note:



dioxide45 said:


> It would be interesting to know how many accounts actually see >20K inbound point transfers.





CalGalTraveler said:


> Mega renters should not be taking the best weeks in Abound.



We've already seen this play out in other systems that have been _much_ more antagonistic towards renting than Marriott is so far. Most owners don't rent. Most owners who do rent do so only here and there. Very few do it at scale. It will not take long for most owners to see these changes and cheer Marriott on. Yes, a few people will be upset, and they might liquidate and/or stop buying more. But, most everyone else will think this is a great thing that helps them--whether or not it is actually true--and will feel even better about their ownership.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Nov 16, 2022)

BTW...I see it is my right as a deeded VOI owner to rent out my week when and where I want - we purchased our property knowing it is an option so they cannot take that away. So far we have used our week, but I want to know the option is there.

MVC renting points to other owners is an attractive part of the system. What they have done is reasonable for owners like me who will rent out or rent points on occasion.


----------



## timsi (Nov 16, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> Not sure what else you would expect them to do with the inventory they take back? THey could instead not take it back and let the owners devault which hurts other owners in the end with higher fees to cover the delinquencies.


Wait for the times they cannot sell/ rent as much as they can buy, they will do exactly that. 

I was just contrasting the high pressure/high profit activity with the comment Wuh pooh made and they do not make sense together. It is a for profit organization and you would expect them to act that way in all aspects of their business.


----------



## Dean (Nov 16, 2022)

timsi said:


> If you are talking about Vistana weeks, our rules are pretty clear:
> 
> 14.4. Rentals. *Members may rent their reserved Vacation Periods by signing a
> Member rental agreement with the Property Association or a third party. Members will be
> ...


Interesting that this wording would prevent use of an independent exchange company.

As we've previously noted, MVC has control.  Even if they stray into the weeks, an owner or owners would have to challenge them legally.  Just complaining here or anywhere isn't going to make a  hill of beans difference.  I strongly suspect your docs also give the developer additional rights that simple owners would not have, I've never seen an exception in timesharing.

I can't imagine this is simply the occasional even like the F1 race but more likely more mundane options like high demand in HI, Aruba, etc and for event weeks that are yearly like Coachella.  MVC has far more control and power when it comes to points over weeks owned as well.  I doubt this change alone will have much affect.  I'm a big proponent of the ability to use and rent but I do not feel that someone who is truly running a business should be allowed to continue.  My definition of business would include year on year renting of considerable volume, not just a "profit" on a given rental.  Unfortunately this is likely to lead to rules that will potentially affect all of us as other companies have already done.  However, one could interpret what you posted as preventing any rental.


----------



## dioxide45 (Nov 16, 2022)

Dean said:


> Interesting that this wording would prevent use of an independent exchange company.
> 
> As we've previously noted, MVC has control.  Even if they stray into the weeks, an owner or owners would have to challenge them legally.  Just complaining here or anywhere isn't going to make a  hill of beans difference.  I strongly suspect your docs also give the developer additional rights that simple owners would not have, I've never seen an exception in timesharing.
> 
> I can't imagine this is simply the occasional even like the F1 race but more likely more mundane options like high demand in HI, Aruba, etc and for event weeks that are yearly like Coachella.  MVC has far more control and power when it comes to points over weeks owned as well.  I doubt this change alone will have much affect.  I'm a big proponent of the ability to use and rent but I do not feel that someone who is truly running a business should be allowed to continue.  My definition of business would include year on year renting of considerable volume, not just a "profit" on a given rental.  Unfortunately this is likely to lead to rules that will potentially affect all of us as other companies have already done.  However, one could interpret what you posted as preventing any rental.


I suspect for things like Coachella, points reservations are better. Many don't want to rent a whole week for this type of event. They may want the two to three day weekend for the big acts. Points are better for that. During one of our sales presentations over the past couple years, we were pushed to buy more points on the premise of making 5 night Sun-Thur reservations using points and renting those out. You undercut the week based rentals on price because of fewer days and many renters are fine with that. The margins seemed to be the same or better, but again only something that can be done with points. Perhaps it was this salesperson who told us he did dozens of rentals like this that is cause for the new cap. His push though was to buy points and never mentioned anything about renting/transferring in, which he could very well have been doing.


----------



## wuv pooh (Nov 16, 2022)

timsi said:


> I do not know about the resorts you own, but in the last 3-4 years they doubled the number of units they own at Lagunamar. Why would they buy so many units and pay MF for them if they are not profitable? Do you have any proof that they "deliberately disadvantage themselves to make the system better for the Non Developer owners"? If they were indeed a charitable organization, they would not buy back units for very little and sold them for tens of thousands of dollars or had hundreds of millions of dollars or rental revenue.


As much proof as you do for your conspiracy theories    Seems pretty simple, they increase ownership to build the trust and get inventory to sell without having to engage in expensive and speculative construction projects.  They make money managing properties and selling points.  They limit losses by renting, selling getaways, giving less value than worth for Bonvoy points, Collette vacations, etc.  Have not cared for a long time, so not sure if their financials break out the rental impact.  Someone has to eat all the trash weeks that are worth less than the rental/maintenance fee, that someone is MVCI. They are the only ones who can recycle them into points and sell them again.  If they don't then prices drop to zero for the majority of weeks/resorts and the COA gets stuck with the defaults/fees resulting in higher expenses for the remaining owners.  You can see that in most other systems.  If they wanted to be a hotel business that sells reservations they never would have gotten into timeshares in the first place.


----------



## timsi (Nov 16, 2022)

wuv pooh said:


> As much proof as you do for your conspiracy theories    Seems pretty simple, they increase ownership to build the trust and get inventory to sell without having to engage in expensive and speculative construction projects.  They make money managing properties and selling points.  They limit losses by renting, selling getaways, giving less value than worth for Bonvoy points, Collette vacations, etc.  Have not cared for a long time, so not sure if their financials break out the rental impact.  Someone has to eat all the trash weeks that are worth less than the rental/maintenance fee, that someone is MVCI. They are the only ones who can recycle them into points and sell them again.  If they don't then prices drop to zero for the majority of weeks/resorts and the COA gets stuck with the defaults/fees resulting in higher expenses for the remaining owners.  You can see that in most other systems.  If they wanted to be a hotel business that sells reservations they never would have gotten into timeshares in the first place.


What proof are you providing for your propagandistic theories?


----------



## klkaylor (Nov 16, 2022)

emeryjre said:


> There are several groups consolidating points and booking prime weeks.  Probably using bots at MVC.  Perfect example is the Marriott Grand Chateau for F1 week in 2023.  I tried to get a points reservation at 13 month mark at point I thought units were being released.  Nothing.  Again at 12 month mark, nothing available.  I am getting emails from the people that have the unit reservations.  The group has anything I want available to rent at high rates.  They didn't just stumble into these reservations.  They groups sought out high value reservation and sucked the pool dry.  My guess and HO is the action at Grand Chateau may have triggered this points cap.


After going through exactly what you did for the F1 race I opened a thread to see what folks thing and I agree that this was prob. the precipitating event although if there are reservation bots then this style of point consolidation and bot reservations could effect Maui/Park City/Wiaohai/Aruba - maybe instead restricting point transfers they should examine if bots are making reservations and eliminate that.  
One other way to deal with high demand location and the rush to get to the computer at 0659 MT on tues would be to set up a sign up waiting room and then randomize out the order in which you get to reserve - maybe by status as well.  This worked well with ski reservations during covid.


----------



## dioxide45 (Nov 16, 2022)

klkaylor said:


> After going through exactly what you did for the F1 race I opened a thread to see what folks thing and I agree that this was prob. the precipitating event although if there are reservation bots then this style of point consolidation and bot reservations could effect Maui/Park City/Wiaohai/Aruba - maybe instead restricting point transfers they should examine if bots are making reservations and eliminate that.
> One other way to deal with high demand location and the rush to get to the computer at 0659 MT on tues would be to set up a sign up waiting room and then randomize out the order in which you get to reserve - maybe by status as well.  This worked well with ski reservations during covid.


They could also simply implement something like reCAPTCHA.


----------



## timsi (Nov 16, 2022)

Dean said:


> Interesting that this wording would prevent use of an independent exchange company.
> 
> As we've previously noted, MVC has control.  Even if they stray into the weeks, an owner or owners would have to challenge them legally.  Just complaining here or anywhere isn't going to make a  hill of beans difference.  I strongly suspect your docs also give the developer additional rights that simple owners would not have, I've never seen an exception in timesharing.
> 
> I can't imagine this is simply the occasional even like the F1 race but more likely more mundane options like high demand in HI, Aruba, etc and for event weeks that are yearly like Coachella.  MVC has far more control and power when it comes to points over weeks owned as well.  I doubt this change alone will have much affect.  I'm a big proponent of the ability to use and rent but I do not feel that someone who is truly running a business should be allowed to continue.  My definition of business would include year on year renting of considerable volume, not just a "profit" on a given rental.  Unfortunately this is likely to lead to rules that will potentially affect all of us as other companies have already done.  However, one could interpret what you posted as preventing any rental.



I find it normal to prevent use of independent exchange companies because that requires a certain legal and procedural coordination with such exchange, and you cannot ask them to bear that costs every time an owner wants to deposit a week into a new exchange. 

About legal challenges, companies cannot rely just on the idea they would never be sued, people sue occasionally for all kind of reasons, good or bad.


----------



## vacationtime1 (Nov 16, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> They could also simply implement something like reCAPTCHA.


This would be brilliant if it works.  Yes, it would be frustrating for those who legitimately need multiple units (family reunions, etc,), but if Grand Chateau is unavailable at 12:00:01, something is very wrong with the current arrangement.


----------



## dioxide45 (Nov 16, 2022)

vacationtime1 said:


> This would be brilliant if it works.


This is the key. So far, MVC's track record for implementing anything IT related is pretty grim...


----------



## Fasttr (Nov 16, 2022)

I think MVC did this purely to give TUGgers something to debate/discuss other than MVC's unsuccessful Abound launch.  ;-)


----------



## dioxide45 (Nov 16, 2022)

Fasttr said:


> I think MVC did this purely to give TUGgers something to debate/discuss other than MVC's unsuccessful Abound launch.  ;-)


I wonder if we will see an updated Abound Exchange Procedures on 1/1/2023 or will it take them months to release a new version.


----------



## emeryjre (Nov 16, 2022)

Regarding Grand Chateau.  I have probably underestimated the value of a reservation including the dates of the November 16 to 18.  The Grand Chateau and the HGVC at Planet Hollywood are at Ground Zero for the Pits, Paddock, Garages.  I am not an F! fan, but have an enthusiastic nephew that was pushing for a reservation.  These places will rent for Thousands a night to wealthy from around the world wanting to be at the epicenter of the activity.   The Wynn, Venetian, Ceasars Palace, etc, will be OK, but Grand Chateau and HGVC will be highly sought after locations.


----------



## emeryjre (Nov 16, 2022)

Do we really think another project for the Marriott IT department is a good idea?


----------



## timsi (Nov 16, 2022)

Fasttr said:


> I think MVC did this purely to give TUGgers something to debate/discuss other than MVC's unsuccessful Abound launch.  ;-)


We can walk and chew gum at the same time!


----------



## Dean (Nov 16, 2022)

timsi said:


> About legal challenges, companies cannot rely just on the idea they would never be sued, people sue occasionally for all kind of reasons, good or bad.


Let us know how it works out for you.


----------



## bnoble (Nov 16, 2022)

I don't think most timeshare developers rely on not being sued. I think they rely on (a) the fact that they have the upper hand as the authors of the contract language and (b) even if they are vulnerable, they can pretty much bury any individual in a legal war of attrition.

That leaves class actions that some hungry law firm is willing to foot the bill for on the promise of a payout, and most of those go absolutely nowhere. In the time I've owned timeshares, I can think of maybe one class action that actually resulted in something for the plaintiffs--the RCI lawsuit. And, at the end of the day, even that was a failure, because RCI made a few changes that mostly rendered the concessions moot.


----------



## DanCali (Nov 16, 2022)

DanCali said:


> Looking at vacationpointexchange, there are a couple of conspicuous listings that look like "professional renters" (those looking to rent an unspecified number of points). I've also had a couple of people approach me for my point listings and they did not seem like "occasional" renters.





DanCali said:


> Yes, in particular these two listings strike me as "pro renters" (i.e., they rent points from others and them probably do bookings to rent out at higher $/point) although it's just my opinion:



Funny how he changed his post to "up to 5000 points" after my comments from yesterday. I guess talking about half a million points and willing to rent an unspecified number of points was a dead giveaway  - at least he has time to read TUG 

It's clever because he can list he wants 5000, and still rent 20,000.

*(click link for revised listing)*








						VERIFIED SELLER – Looking to Rent YOUR 2023 Usage Year Club Points
					

I have rented or transferred over 450,000 Marriott Vacation Club Points to other Club members, but now, I am looking to rent your unrestricted (must not have been banked, borrowed or previou...




					vacationpointexchange.com


----------



## dioxide45 (Nov 16, 2022)

DanCali said:


> Funny how he changed his post to "up to 5000 points" after my comments from yesterday. I guess talking about half a million points and willing to rent an unspecified number of points was a dead giveaway  - at least he has time to read TUG
> 
> It's clever because he can list he wants 5000, and still rent 20,000.
> 
> ...


Perhaps they just got the email too and decided to adjust?


----------



## DanCali (Nov 16, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> Perhaps they just got the email too and decided to adjust?



I guess that's also possible


----------



## timsi (Nov 16, 2022)

Dean said:


> Let us know how it works out for you.


I understand your eagerness, but their tactic is to launch Abound only after all its potential challengers have died of old age.


----------



## Dean (Nov 16, 2022)

timsi said:


> I understand your eagerness, but their tactic is to launch Abound only after all its potential challengers have died of old age.


Sarcasm asside, it'll be active soon though may be another month or 2, I'm pretty certain I'll still be here then.  I still fail to see why you'd waste your time and money on something that you feel so negative about and seems to be consuming your life.  I can assure you that if I felt the way you present you do, I would be looking to exit.  Maybe the negativism is your hobby.  I feel that you have limited reasonable choices.  They are to accept where this is going and make the most of it, ignore it and stay in the shallow end of the pool, proceed along a legal route or exit.  I guess you could just continue to complain but what's the use in that as it's petty and senseless.


----------



## timsi (Nov 16, 2022)

Dean said:


> Sarcasm asside, it'll be active soon though may be another month or 2, I'm pretty certain I'll still be here then.  I still fail to see why you'd waste your time and money on something that you feel so negative about and seems to be consuming your life.  I can assure you that if I felt the way you present you do, I would be looking to exit.  Maybe the negativism is your hobby.  I feel that you have limited reasonable choices.  They are to accept where this is going and make the most of it, ignore it and stay in the shallow end of the pool, proceed along a legal route or exit.  I guess you could just continue to complain but what's the use in that as it's petty and senseless.


I think you suggested an exit 3 or 4 times already, please have that in mind in the future when you want to mention it a 5th time.  Wouldn't be great for the developers if all the "negative" people left the boat?


----------



## Dean (Nov 16, 2022)

timsi said:


> I think you suggested an exit 3 or 4 times already, please have that in mind in the future when you want to mention it a 5th time.  Wouldn't be great for the developers if all the "negative" people left the boat?


If you'll reread all of those suggestions, you'll see they were ALL qualified.  Basically if, then.  In this case "if I felt the way you present you do, I would be looking to exit" plus listed as one of 4 reasonable choices going forward.  Life's too short to be as unhappy with something as you seem to be here but I suppose it's your choice to continue to beat your head against the wall and mine to acknowledge that you are.


----------



## timsi (Nov 16, 2022)

Dean said:


> If you'll reread all of those suggestions, you'll see they were ALL qualified.  Basically if, then.  In this case "if I felt the way you present you do, I would be looking to exit" plus listed as one of 4 reasonable choices going forward.  Life's too short to be as unhappy with something as you seem to be here but I suppose it's your choice to continue to beat your head against the wall and mine to acknowledge that you are.


For now, you seem to be the one who continues to beat your head against the wall.  Be patient, don't grow negative thoughts against others just because you have been waiting for Abound since August 1st at least, as you predicted in July. I understand your frustration.

Edited to add: I am going to block you. When I need life advise from you, I will do the reverse.


----------



## Dean (Nov 16, 2022)

timsi said:


> For now, you seem to be the one who continues to beat your head against the wall.  Be patient, don't grow negative thoughts against others just because you have been waiting for Abound since August 1st at least, as you predicted in July. I understand your frustration.
> 
> Edited to add: I am going to block you. When I need life advise from you, I will do the reverse.


I'm not frustrated, more amused with your continued hounding on this issue as Vistana adds nothing for me and Westin only limited additional volume.  Personally I'd probably have been better off had they spun them off or simply ran them separately.  It's probably best for both of us if you block me.  Merry Xmas.


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 16, 2022)

Ohferdogsakes. How is it we've ended up with yet another thread on the Marriott forum being bombarded with the topic of Lagunamar's apparently super-duper unique and powerful rules that will take down Marriott's entire business because Marriott owners are too stupid to recognize that Marriott is cheating them at every turn?!?! I am so over this as both a Marriott forum participant *and as this forum's moderator*. We have been through this already: if you want to talk about Lagunamar and its brilliant owners knowing far more than anyone who's ever owned a Marriott, do it here: How strong is the exclusive right of the Lagunamar owners to compete for the entire inventory during the Home Resort Reservation Period? And don't complain if/when posts that contain the word Lagunamar disappear from here.

Other than that, if one insists on challenging the Marriott forum participants as to their knowledge, it's probably a good idea to stop alluding to Abound not yet being "launched." For all intents and purposes of the Marriott owners, Abound was launched on 6/20/10 when it was introduced as the Destination Club. The notice on our owners account homepage literally reads: _"Introducing a new name for the Marriott Vacation Club Destinations Exchange Program: Abound by Marriott Vacations™."_ Sure, it's true that when the Vistana resorts are finally integrated into the Abound Exchange Company we'll have a few more usage options, but we've already been through a few different integrations of new resorts and the world as we know it didn't change.


----------



## timsi (Nov 17, 2022)

SueDonJ said:


> Other than that, if one insists on challenging the Marriott forum participants as to their knowledge, it's probably a good idea to stop alluding to Abound not yet being "launched." For all intents and purposes of the Marriott owners, Abound was launched on 6/20/10 when it was introduced as the Destination Club. The notice on our owners account homepage literally reads: _"Introducing a new name for the Marriott Vacation Club Destinations Exchange Program: Abound by Marriott Vacations™."_ Sure, it's true that when the Vistana resorts are finally integrated into the Abound Exchange Company we'll have a few more usage options, but we've already been through a few different integrations of new resorts and the world as we know it didn't change.



Sory to burst the bubble:

"Introducing Abound by Marriott Vacations™ 
A Vacation Ownership Program Designed to Make Vacationing Even Better

ORLANDO, Fla., June 16, 2022 *–* Marriott Vacations Worldwide (NYSE: VAC), a leader in leisure travel with a portfolio of trusted, globally-recognized travel brands and vacation clubs, is introducing *Abound by Marriott Vacations™ (“Abound”), a new Owner benefit and exchange program set to debut this summer.   *

With spend on leisure travel projected to reach $1.7 trillion by 2027*, the new program is launching at the ideal time. It is designed to offer more destinations, more brands, and more choices that make vacationing even better for all travelers, particularly Millennials who see travel as a key aspiration** and who represent nearly a quarter of the company’s first-time vacation ownership buyers.

A*bound by Marriott Vacations™ provides access to over 90 vacation club resorts across Marriott Vacation Club®, Sheraton® Vacation Club and Westin® Vacation Club*, as well as access to more than 8,000 Marriott Bonvoy hotels, 2,000 vacation homes, and 2,000 unique experiences like cruises, guided and culinary tours, premiere events, outdoor adventures and more with a continued ability to exchange through Interval International, a premier exchange partner.

“We are incredibly excited to *debut* Abound by Marriott Vacations, which is our gateway for enrolled vacation Owners to embark on exceptional travel adventures around the globe, helping them make a lifetime of meaningful vacation moments with those they care about most,” said President of Marriott Vacations Worldwide, John E. Geller, Jr.

With the start of summer just around the corner, and leading up to the official launch of Abound, the company is previewing a video to help create the sense of excitement that comes when planning an incredible vacation experience.

While each resort and city property available within the Abound resort portfolio offers its own distinctive brand and sense of place, together they give travelers an abundance of experiences and access, which people value as part of their life experience.

*At launch*, travelers interested in learning more *will be able to visit a new website* featuring an overview of available experiences, information on the benefits of vacation ownership, features of each resort, and an inspirational blog with travel tips and ideas. For those interested in immersing themselves in the endless vacation possibilities with these brands now, follow Marriott Vacation Club®, Sheraton® Vacation Club and Westin® Vacation Club on social media."









						Introducing Abound by Marriott Vacations™  - Marriott Vacations Worldwide
					

A Vacation Ownership Program Designed to Make Vacationing Even Better  ORLANDO, Fla., June 16, 2022 – Marriott Vacations Worldwide (NYSE: VAC), a leader in leisure travel with a portfolio of trusted, globally-recognized travel brands and vacation clubs, is introducing Abound by Marriott...




					www.marriottvacationsworldwide.com


----------



## DRH90277 (Nov 17, 2022)

timsi said:


> Sory to burst the bubble:
> 
> "Introducing Abound by Marriott Vacations™
> A Vacation Ownership Program Designed to Make Vacationing Even Better
> ...



With respect, we must all acknowledge that Abound, while announced on June 16th, is not fully operational.  The announcement seems way ahead of the availability or use of the promised changes including access to the 90 resorts, etc.  You seem to have greater access to information than most of us.  Could you please outline your best view of when the various aspects of Abound will be available for use?


----------



## rthib (Nov 17, 2022)

@SueDonJ This seems like two threads. Once about the title and one about other rants. Any way you could clean this up or just using this as a dumping ground for inane rants.


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 17, 2022)

timsi said:


> Sory to burst the bubble:
> 
> "Introducing Abound by Marriott Vacations™
> A Vacation Ownership Program Designed to Make Vacationing Even Better
> ...


Thanks for the copy/paste of a press release. Reading through the Investor Call transcripts over the last year, year-and-a-half gives a better picture IMO. As I see it, the "launch" that will impact owners much more than the Destination-Club-to-Abound name change will be the eventual culmination of MVW's "Vacation Next" program/plans, most significantly the implementation of a single online platform that's expected to integrate all of the (nine, I think?) separate platforms currently being utilized by MVW for Abound some of which require owners to call in for access.

As I said, "for all intents and purposes of the Marriott owners" the Abound name change (as it's referred to by Marriott on the owners website) is fairly insignificant. We've had access using Points to all the options listed in the third paragraph of the press release, except the Sheraton- and Westin-branded resorts, since the 6/20/10 Destination Club implementation with various resorts/options being added and subtracted along the way. We've had a couple re-designs of our owner website, too, with forward and back-end changes, none of which substantially changed the Destination Club.  If/when MVW starts talking about Abound specifically meaning the Vacation Next online single platform that's expected to give owners online access to the overwhelming majority of Abound transactions, THAT might be a game-changer. For Marriott owners Abound is functioning here and now; the expected VN online platform is an unknown.


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 17, 2022)

rthib said:


> @SueDonJ This seems like two threads. Once about the title and one about other rants. Any way you could clean this up or just using this as a dumping ground for inane rants.


Unless Marriott says anything more about this 20,000 cap on points transfers in to owners' accounts, or something else that might conceivably impact owner rentals, eventually it'll die a natural death.


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 17, 2022)

DRH90277 said:


> With respect, we must all acknowledge that Abound, while announced on June 16th, is not fully operational.  The announcement seems way ahead of the availability or use of the promised changes including access to the 90 resorts, etc.  You seem to have greater access to information than most of us.  Could you please outline your best view of when the various aspects of Abound will be available for use?


Haven't you been listening?! It will NEVER happen because the super-duper special unique rules of The Resort Which Cannot Be Named Here will cause Marriott's entire shady business to fail if they even TRY to pull that wool over his eyes!

(I'm sorry. I slept poorly and am silly. Let me finish this second cup of tea and I'll be better.)


----------



## sponger76 (Nov 17, 2022)

SueDonJ said:


> (I'm sorry. I slept poorly and am silly. Let me finish this second cup of tea and I'll be better.)


Reminds me of


----------



## Huskerpaul (Nov 17, 2022)

Dean said:


> I'm not frustrated, more amused with your continued hounding on this issue as Vistana adds nothing for me and Westin only limited additional volume.  Personally I'd probably have been better off had they spun them off or simply ran them separately.  It's probably best for both of us if you block me.  Merry Xmas.


I blocked @timsi weeks ago. So funny to read just one side.


----------



## timsi (Nov 17, 2022)

DRH90277 said:


> With respect, we must all acknowledge that Abound, while announced on June 16th, is not fully operational.  The announcement seems way ahead of the availability or use of the promised changes including access to the 90 resorts, etc.  You seem to have greater access to information than most of us.  Could you please outline your best view of when the various aspects of Abound will be available for use?


There are insiders and those with close ties with insiders that can give you better estimates than me. My best guess is they will start January 1st as it would make more sense than late 2022 for inventory management. Something went terribly wrong with this launch though and I suspect IT was only part of the problem. If it was just IT, for the sake of the goodwill they have with the owners, they would have made an effort and launched already.


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 17, 2022)

timsi said:


> There are insiders and those with close ties with insiders that can give you better estimates than me. My best guess is they will start January 1st as it would make more sense than late 2022 for inventory management. Something went terribly wrong with this launch though and I suspect IT was only part of the problem. If it was just IT, for the sake of the goodwill they have with the owners, they would have made an effort and launched already.


Who are these insiders you're talking about?


----------



## timsi (Nov 17, 2022)

SueDonJ said:


> Who are these insiders you're talking about?


I did not refer to specific persons. On the other hand, I would give a minimal chance to have none around. Don’t you agree?


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 17, 2022)

timsi said:


> I did not refer to specific persons. On the other hand, I would give a minimal chance to have none around. Don’t you agree?


You said "there are insiders and those with close ties with insiders that can give you better estimates than me" in response to a question asking for your take on when Abound will be available. Silly me, I'm assuming that with the question being asked in this forum you are alluding to insiders here. So, name those TUGgers whom you're alleging are "insiders."

As for whether insiders might be here or if I would want insiders to be here, why wouldn't I? If legitimate information can be gleaned from trustworthy contacts, how would that not be a good thing?! That said, I don't know of any TUGgers who have confidential contacts at the upper levels of corporate MVW, where presumably we'd find the only Marriott people in a position to know what the delay is for Westin/Sheraton integration and how/when it will be resolved as well as in a position to give permission for that information to be publicly shared.


----------



## sponger76 (Nov 17, 2022)

timsi said:


> Sory to burst the bubble:
> 
> "Introducing Abound by Marriott Vacations™
> A Vacation Ownership Program Designed to Make Vacationing Even Better
> ...


To be fair, the Abound FAQs on the Vistana site directly contradict the release saying it's a completely new program that hasn't launched:


----------



## timsi (Nov 17, 2022)

SueDonJ said:


> You said "there are insiders and those with close ties with insiders that can give you better estimates than me" in response to a question asking for your take on when Abound will be available. Silly me, I'm assuming that with the question being asked in this forum you are alluding to insiders here. So, name those TUGgers whom you're alleging are "insiders."
> 
> As for whether insiders might be here or if I would want insiders to be here, why wouldn't I? If legitimate information can be gleaned from trustworthy contacts, how would that not be a good thing?! That said, I don't know of any TUGgers who have confidential contacts at the upper levels of corporate MVW, where presumably we'd find the only Marriott people in a position to know what the delay is for Westin/Sheraton integration and how/when it will be resolved as well as in a position to give permission for that information to be publicly shared.



I am still waiting for them to step forward, but you may have ruined the odds, they are all in hiding now despite my open invitation .

Seriously now though, I have seen posts in the past from more than one person that claimed to have solid sources from Marriott. Maybe you have seen them too. The information provided by insiders is useful to the extend where others can evaluate the ties to the company and determine what is fact and what is wishful thinking or propaganda. I do not think that any executive would be silly to comment here, but lower ranking people may be tempted.


----------



## Dean (Nov 17, 2022)

timsi said:


> I did not refer to specific persons. On the other hand, I would give a minimal chance to have none around. Don’t you agree?


Those who actually know anything official not only won't be talking, but they likely can't.  To a degree Covid and it's effects are still likely in play here due to staffing shortages among other variables.  We're all dealing with it on a daily basis so it makes sense that MVC is as well.


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 17, 2022)

timsi said:


> I am still waiting for them to step forward, but you may have ruined the odds, they are all in hiding now despite my open invitation .
> 
> Seriously now though, I have seen posts in the past from more than one person that claimed to have solid sources from Marriott. Maybe you have seen them too. The information provided by insiders is useful to the extend where others can evaluate the ties to the company and determine what is fact and what is wishful thinking or propaganda. I do not think that any executive would be silly to comment here, but lower ranking people may be tempted.


Lower-ranking Marriott people who post misinformation here are eventually outed by TUGgers who spot them a mile away, or, they disappear because the Marriott people who monitor social media sites recognize their foolishness. Any Marriott people who post anonymously and don't disparage the company or put the company at risk aren't hurting anybody and thus don't need to be outed - and it's their choice whether they out themselves to any participants here.

Aside from all that, this tangent reads like a roundabout way of you saying that you don't have a good answer for the question that was asked of you.


----------



## dioxide45 (Nov 17, 2022)

Dean said:


> Those who actually know anything official not only won't be talking, but they likely can't.  To a degree Covid and it's effects are still likely in play here due to staffing shortages among other variables.  We're all dealing with it on a daily basis so it makes sense that MVC is as well.


No one working for Marriott Vacations Worldwide will saw a word openly on social media. Based on what they have told me in sales presentations they have a pretty strict Social Media Policy. They can't even correct blatantly wrong information posted in Facebook groups, even though they actively read those groups.


----------



## bizaro86 (Nov 17, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> No one working for Marriott Vacations Worldwide will saw a word openly on social media. Based on what they have told me in sales presentations they have a pretty strict Social Media Policy. They can't even correct blatantly wrong information posted in Facebook groups, even though they actively read those groups.



Yeah. The problem is if they participated on social media people would ask them questions they don't want to answer (eg resale related)


----------



## bnoble (Nov 17, 2022)

Maybe, but more generally: Most companies definitely _do not want_ rank-and-file employees speaking for "the company." They have highly paid communications teams to do that, and those teams are especially good at saying nothing in as many words as possible. ;-)


----------



## timsi (Nov 17, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> No one working for Marriott Vacations Worldwide will saw a word openly on social media. Based on what they have told me in sales presentations they have a pretty strict Social Media Policy. They can't even correct blatantly wrong information posted in Facebook groups, even though they actively read those groups.


It makes sense for the company to put a blanket ban on social media, it would be impossible to control the message otherwise. At the same time, it is virtually impossible to police thousands or tens of thousands of profiles.


----------



## bizaro86 (Nov 17, 2022)

bnoble said:


> Maybe, but more generally: Most companies definitely _do not want_ rank-and-file employees speaking for "the company." They have highly paid communications teams to do that, and those teams are especially good at saying nothing in as many words as possible. ;-)



I don't believe MVW engages on any social media in any meaningful way do they? For example, pre Marriott takeover SPG had a designated representative on the Flyertalk forums. It was a specific trained person, but could answer questions, etc.

Similar in some ways to the way Mark from II works here, although more public. 

MVC could do something similar on Facebook/elsewhere if they wanted to, and obviously having random low level employees spouting off online wouldn't be good.


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 17, 2022)

bizaro86 said:


> I don't believe MVW engages on any social media in any meaningful way do they? For example, pre Marriott takeover SPG had a designated representative on the Flyertalk forums. It was a specific trained person, but could answer questions, etc.
> 
> Similar in some ways to the way Mark from II works here, although more public.
> 
> MVC could do something similar on Facebook/elsewhere if they wanted to, and obviously having random low level employees spouting off online wouldn't be good.


Marriott used to have an identified rep who regularly participated on Flyertalk, too. Even TUG has a couple of members who are/were acknowledged to be Marriott employees speaking for the company, but they posted very rarely and haven't been seen for years now.

I'd love for Marriott to have a voice here, if only to let us know when we're so far off the mark that the whole of Orlando's corporate office is laughing at us.


----------



## bizaro86 (Nov 17, 2022)

SueDonJ said:


> Marriott used to have an identified rep who regularly participated on Flyertalk, too. Even TUG has a couple of members who are/were acknowledged to be Marriott employees speaking for the company, but they posted very rarely and haven't been seen for years now.
> 
> I'd love for Marriott to have a voice here, if only to let us know when we're so far off the mark that the whole of Orlando's corporate office is laughing at us.



Marriott the hotel side had a flyertalk rep. The timeshare side is much less willing to engage, because the business model requires an ethical leap that they aren't willing to defend in public.


----------



## Dean (Nov 18, 2022)

From what I'm hearing this was largely a single owner who was reserving months of inventory.  I'm also being told that this issue has also triggered MVC to reevaluate the enrollment program.  Not sure what that means or where it might lead but I can think of some possibilities.


----------



## dioxide45 (Nov 18, 2022)

Dean said:


> From what I'm hearing this was largely a single owner who was reserving months of inventory.  I'm also being told that this issue has also triggered MVC to reevaluate the enrollment program.  Not sure what that means or where it might lead but I can think of some possibilities.


That is kind of what I would expect, but why invoke such a limit for a single owner instead of just invoking the "commercial use" clause on them individually?


----------



## DanCali (Nov 18, 2022)

I am not a fan of drip-drip changes but the more I think about it, it sounds like a reasonable restriction. 

There are definitely ways to profit from using points to rent weeks. My personal impression from perusing points charts was that this was possibly an issue with extremely "cheap" off-season reservations, but to the extent this is happening with high demand inventory and $1000/night reservations, then it's probably a bigger issue. 

There are plenty of "heavy users" here... how many have transferred in 20,000 points just for their own travel needs (or maybe for a large family gathering)? And is anyone doing it year after year? I've had cases where I preferred to rent out my own weeks and then rent points in because it was more economical to do it that way, but I don't think it was ever more than 5000-7000 points in a single year.

They are not limiting people from renting out points and anyone needing to rent in more than 20,000 points on a regular basis (which is the equivalent to 4+ weeks of vacation even at highly desired locations like July at NCV) should probably find alternate ways to achieve that goal consistently.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Nov 18, 2022)

This program is a nice program differentiator for MVC. Other programs do not offer this.


----------



## bnoble (Nov 18, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> why invoke such a limit for a single owner instead of just invoking the "commercial use" clause on them individually?


I'm reminded of a joke-that-isn't-a-joke: Every rule in a high school "student code of conduct" has one specific (and probably long-graduated) student behind it who is the reason the rule exists.


----------



## bizaro86 (Nov 18, 2022)

CalGalTraveler said:


> This program is a nice program differentiator for MVC. Other programs do not offer this.



Worldmark offers point transfers between members, but limited to 2x the annual points per year.

Shell offers unlimited points transfers between members, but they must be used to make a reservation immediately.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Nov 18, 2022)

Good to know that Worldmark and Shell offer. I am not familiar with those programs. Vistana and HGVC only allow renting home weeks.


----------



## dioxide45 (Nov 18, 2022)

bnoble said:


> I'm reminded of a joke-that-isn't-a-joke: Every rule in a high school "student code of conduct" has one specific (and probably long-graduated) student behind it who is the reason the rule exists.


For sure, so instead of just dealing with the one person and sending them some type of certified "cease & desist" type of letter, they institute a new rule that impacts the entire owner base that may also incure additional costs that we all pay for in the end.


----------



## Dean (Nov 18, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> That is kind of what I would expect, but why invoke such a limit for a single owner instead of just invoking the "commercial use" clause on them individually?


I'm with you and said as much here previously but that is the sense my contact has gotten internally.  My guess is one or 2 owners with egregious situations then they started digging and discussing further but we'll likely never know more for certain.  It doesn't matter at the current rule IMO other than as it impacts owners just trying to use but not abuse the system such as large trips, retired and traveling (or similar) or family reunion type circumstances.  Unfortunately it's likely to evolve and as it does, it will likely have more impact on the rank and file.  I'm all for rules that prevent repetitive and large scale renting while preserving the right to rent when needed.  One problem is where do you draw the line as each and every one of us would have a different definition of "commercial renting".  

It was the second part that got my attention, that of looking at enrollments.  If I were in a situation where I were planning to enroll with a purchase, I'd want to get it done sooner rather than later.  We could speculate on whether this issue will have legs and if so, what the outcome would be, but I think any negative changes would remove flexibility for enrolling more than 7 weeks at a time and likely reduce the number of weeks that can be enrolled as a set to a lower number, maybe 5.  It would also likely have an impact on enrolling fractional.


----------



## timsi (Nov 18, 2022)

SueDonJ said:


> Aside from all that, this tangent reads like a roundabout way of you saying that you don't have a good answer for the question that was asked of you.


I do not have to answer but when you tell us how much the developer owns at the resorts you own, I will give you the answer.


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 18, 2022)

timsi said:


> I do not have to answer but when you tell us how much the developer owns at the resorts you own, I will give you the answer.


I honestly couldn't care less how many intervals at Barony Beach Club and SurfWatch are owned by Marriotts Vacation Worldwide. I'm a little more interested in how many of those intervals have been conveyed to the Abound Trust because the machinations fascinate me, but still not interested enough to comb through the financial statements and public documents that would tell me the numbers. What does interest me is the experience that I have trying to book and use the intervals that I own, and in my experience I've had a high success rate using them as Weeks or as enrolled/elected Abound Points. Not a 100% success rate (which for me would translate to every year being successful getting first choices at the first tries) but more than high enough (translating to occasionally having to "settle" for second or third tries/choices) that I don't suspect MVW or any other owners of nefarious actions meant to sabotage my equal rights to the high-demand intervals that I routinely want.

You don't have to answer anything but voluntarily doing so, without any qualifications or stipulations, lends credibility.


----------



## timsi (Nov 18, 2022)

SueDonJ said:


> I honestly couldn't care less how many intervals at Barony Beach Club and SurfWatch are owned by Marriotts Vacation Worldwide. I'm a little more interested in how many of those intervals have been conveyed to the Abound Trust because the machinations fascinate me, but still not interested enough to comb through the financial statements and public documents that would tell me the numbers. What does interest me is the experience that I have trying to book and use the intervals that I own, and in my experience I've had a high success rate using them as Weeks or as enrolled/elected Abound Points. Not a 100% success rate (which for me would translate to every year being successful getting first choices at the first tries) but more than high enough (translating to occasionally having to "settle" for second or third tries/choices) that I don't suspect MVW or any other owners of nefarious actions meant to sabotage my equal rights to the high-demand intervals that I routinely want.
> 
> You don't have to answer anything but voluntarily doing so, without any qualifications or stipulations, lends credibility.


I guess I lost a lot of credibility already when I did not agree that Abound was launched in 2010.

If you have such great success booking your weeks and you do not care about the rental revenue generated by the developer, it should not bother you either when the regular folks do it.


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 18, 2022)

timsi said:


> I guess I lost a lot of credibility already when I did not agree that Abound was launched in 2010.
> 
> If you have such great success booking your weeks and you do not care about the rental revenue generated by the developer, it should not bother you either when the regular folks do it.


I'm not exactly sure but if you're saying that I should be okay with owners being mega-renters because I'm okay with Marriott doing it? No, I'm not okay with it and there's no reason I should be.

The governing docs give Marriott the right to rent the inventory they own and the inventory that owners elect to allow Marriott to rent for them, as well as inventory that Marriott is entitled to take when owners are delinquent on fees or when owners don't book in accordance with the Reservation Procedures - and collectively that's a good chunk of inventory they can play with. The same docs give owners the right to rent what they own BUT also contain prohibitions on "commercial activity", with some of the docs alluding to owner rentals as commercial activity and others not, but all of the language being vague enough to give Marriott leeway as to how to interpret it. Sure, interpretation can be challenged, but why anybody would put their own money and time up against the Marriott behemoth with a 95% chance of losing is beyond me.

So for me it's rules. I like rules. I like people to follow the rules. I think if we give Marriott leeway to bend the rules in our favor, then we lose all credibility to challenge them when they bend the rules to hurt us. Marriott has the right to rent on a large scale; owners have the right to rent but the scale can be limited. In my experience booking high-demand holiday periods (Memorial Day and Labor Day at the beach) I've never felt as though Marriott was taking all the good stuff for their rental business and leaving me in the dust, never have seen any indication of it being a possibility. On the other hand, I have worried that owners or a group of owners of my same intervals could decide to become mega-renters and shut me out in the blink of an eye.


----------



## timsi (Nov 18, 2022)

SueDonJ said:


> I'm not exactly sure but if you're saying that I should be okay with owners being mega-renters because I'm okay with Marriott doing it? No, I'm not okay with it and there's no reason I should be.
> 
> The governing docs give Marriott the right to rent the inventory they own and the inventory that owners elect to allow Marriott to rent for them, as well as inventory that Marriott is entitled to take when owners are delinquent on fees or when owners don't book in accordance with the Reservation Procedures - and collectively that's a good chunk of inventory they can play with. The same docs give owners the right to rent what they own BUT also contain prohibitions on "commercial activity", with some of the docs alluding to owner rentals as commercial activity and others not, but all of the language being vague enough to give Marriott leeway as to how to interpret it. Sure, interpretation can be challenged, but why anybody would put their own money and time up against the Marriott behemoth with a 95% chance of losing is beyond me.
> 
> So for me it's rules. I like rules. I like people to follow the rules. I think if we give Marriott leeway to bend the rules in our favor, then we lose all credibility to challenge them when they bend the rules to hurt us. Marriott has the right to rent on a large scale; owners have the right to rent but the scale can be limited. In my experience booking high-demand holiday periods (Memorial Day and Labor Day at the beach) I've never felt as though Marriott was taking all the good stuff for their rental business and leaving me in the dust, never have seen any indication of it being a possibility. On the other hand, I have worried that owners or a group of owners of my same intervals could decide to become mega-renters and shut me out in the blink of an eye.


On one hand you say that the rules are vague and on the other hand that you like rules. I do not see a lot of consistency here. 

At the resort that shall not be named the developer does not seem to have the right to book its own weeks in a manner that is different than the one available to the regular folks, or have some super rental capabilities.  It seems it may differ from resort to resort  and owners should not automatically assume they are in an inferior position without checking the actual resort rules.


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 18, 2022)

timsi said:


> On one hand you say that the rules are vague and on the other hand that you like rules. I do not see a lot of consistency here.
> 
> At the resort that shall not be named the developer does not seem to have the right to book its own weeks in a manner that is different than the one available to the regular folks, or have some super rental capabilities.  It seems it may differ from resort to resort  and owners should not automatically assume they are in an inferior position without checking the actual resort rules.


I didn't say the rules are vague; I said the language in the docs related to the "commercial activity" prohibition is vague. Even when owner rentals are expressly stated in the prohibition the language is still vague. But the rules are clear: Marriott can rent however many intervals they collect through methods specified in the governing docs, owners can rent their intervals but may be subject to the commercial activity prohibition if/when/however Marriott determines to implement it. I'm not saying it's fair! Marriott has the definitive advantage. What I am saying is that IME at least, Marriott does not appear to misuse or abuse that advantage to the owners' detriment.

Remember, I've lately dabbled in rentals these last few years, electing Abound Points for my Weeks and then using those points to book high-demand summer Hawaii intervals that I've placed with a broker. I'd guess maybe 10 or 12 over three years? Time's flying, maybe 15 or so over five years? I'm not against owners renting out intervals. I am, though, against a single owner monopolizing a majority of the highest-demand intervals for rentals, and I'd be in favor of Marriott implementing an annual cap on the number of reservations in an owner's account to which a guest's name can be attached. And I'm completely in favor of the topic of this thread, i.e. an annual cap on the number of Abound Points that can be transferred in to an owner's account. I think it's a fair solution to the complex problem of owner-brokers negatively impacting other owners.


----------



## timsi (Nov 18, 2022)

It would be interesting to see the rate at which they should compensate the HOA for the units that are unoccupied by owners and rented by the developer. I assume you do not think the developer should get those rooms for free while the owners pay for the maintenance fees.


----------



## frank808 (Nov 18, 2022)

CalGalTraveler said:


> This program is a nice program differentiator for MVC. Other programs do not offer this.


DVC allows you to transfer in as many points as you want into each use year ownership. Though you can only do one transfer in each use year. So if I have 5 use years, I can take in 5 different transfers.


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 19, 2022)

timsi said:


> It would be interesting to see the rate at which they should compensate the HOA for the units that are unoccupied by owners and rented by the developer. I assume you do not think the developer should get those rooms for free while the owners pay for the maintenance fees.


It's immaterial what I think Marriott "should" do with the rental income generated by their rentals because the governing docs set the stipulations, and unless it appears more likely than not that Marriott is misusing or abusing inventory for rentals then I'm not wasting time delving in to the mucky details.

I have some general understanding about how it works with Weeks that have not been conveyed to the Trust. Rental income generated by un-conveyed Weeks owned by Marriott is theirs, but they're also on the hook for the MF's on those Weeks. When rental income is generated by an owner electing to give Marriott a Weeks interval for the rental program, the owner pays the MF's while agreeing to accept whatever amount Marriott offers the owner as compensation, which it's not guaranteed either that an interval will be accepted or that any offer will be consistent across all like units or year-to-year (and I don't believe that the offer must satisfy any min/max parameters.) If you're talking about rental income generated by Marriott taking over fee-delinquent and/or non-performing owned Weeks, I have no idea off the top of my head but I know there's related language in the docs that mentions MF's - again, IMO it's not a subject that appears to be a problem so it's not content that I've particularly sought out.

I have no idea what the Abound docs say are Marriott's rights and obligations related to Trust and/or Exchange Company non-performing/fee-delinquent intervals (although it would surprise me if Marriott doesn't have the right to monetize such intervals,) and I don't know if there's a rental program for Trust Members that's similar to the one for Weeks Owners. But there again, it's not been my experience using the Exchange Company that Marriott appears to be riding roughshod over members' rights. If ever I think that's what they're doing, I'll ask a TUGger for a copy of the Trust-related docs and do a little light reading before, I'm sure, coming to the conclusion that it's not worth the time or the money to challenge Marriott so the only decision would be whether to stay in or get out.


----------



## bizaro86 (Nov 19, 2022)

SueDonJ said:


> I'm sure, coming to the conclusion that it's not worth the time or the money to challenge Marriott so the only decision would be whether to stay in or get out.



This is almost certainly not the issue to go to the mattresses on, as they're definitely within their rights and most owners won't be harmed. 

But you shouldn't undersell your influence either. When they decided to start charging for Vistana guest confirmations @DeniseM helped lead a letter writing campaign that got them to change. Mod of a tug board for a system can be an influential job.

Edited to add: I'm not talking about taking legal action here, or even the ever popular blustering about taking legal action.


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 19, 2022)

bizaro86 said:


> This is almost certainly not the issue to go to the mattresses on, as they're definitely within their rights and most owners won't be harmed.
> 
> But you shouldn't undersell your influence either. When they decided to start charging for Vistana guest confirmations @DeniseM helped lead a letter writing campaign that got them to change. Mod of a tug board for a system can be an influential job.
> 
> Edited to add: I'm not talking about taking legal action here, or even the ever popular blustering about taking legal action.


That was a case of the Marriott rules specifically infringing on stated rights in the Vistana docs, wasn't it? If we Marriott owners were to come up against an egregious situation like that one I'd definitely join in with any owners in a joint effort to challenge it, and if it helped to mention that I'm the TUG Marriott forum moderator, well, I'm not shy. 

There have been a few times, actually, when I've mentioned it while contacting Marriott corporate about an issue that's come up on TUG. I don't know if it's been any more helpful than if any other TUGgers were to contact them about the same issue, but every time they've credited TUG and thanked me for bringing things to their attention. They don't always respond the way I want them to but they don't ignore my questions, and a couple times they've given permission for me to quote here their responses as official responses. Can't ask for more. 

* I'm always a little uncomfortable mentioning that I use my TUG moderator (status? Not sure what the correct word is.) when contacting Marriott with issues that come up on TUG, without also mentioning that it's not something I use when I'm dealing with Marriott related to my personal ownership. I don't get any special treatment, don't ASK for any special treatment - for one thing because it would be very tacky, but more importantly because it'd be a surefire way to both discredit @TUGBrian's site here and to burn contacts that I want to keep using for TUG's benefit.


----------



## bizaro86 (Nov 19, 2022)

SueDonJ said:


> That was a case of the Marriott rules specifically infringing on stated rights in the Vistana docs, wasn't it?



Yes. I definitely agree the situations aren't the same at all, it was more of a "don't sell yourself short" comment, not a "you should fight this" comment. There is no avenue to fight this and it isn't worth fighting anyway.

Every system that's had points transfers has either added restrictions (dvc, worldmark, shell) or ended them completely (Wyndham, hgvc). Of the two, restrictions is the more owner-friendly choice.


----------



## Dean (Nov 19, 2022)

bizaro86 said:


> This is almost certainly not the issue to go to the mattresses on, as they're definitely within their rights and most owners won't be harmed.
> 
> But you shouldn't undersell your influence either. When they decided to start charging for Vistana guest confirmations @DeniseM helped lead a letter writing campaign that got them to change. Mod of a tug board for a system can be an influential job.
> 
> Edited to add: I'm not talking about taking legal action here, or even the ever popular blustering about taking legal action.


IMO it's only applicable when the answer is clear.  This happened with DVC back in 1998/99 related to the free passes.  Their initial interpretation was that borrowed points wouldn't qualify for passes but there was no legal basis and when challenged, they realized they had made a mistake.  However, what I frequently see related to timeshares, and other things, is that people inflate their self worth to the system acting like the simple act of complaining will change things.


----------



## bizaro86 (Nov 19, 2022)

Dean said:


> IMO it's only applicable when the answer is clear.  This happened with DVC back in 1998/99 related to the free passes.  Their initial interpretation was that borrowed points wouldn't qualify for passes but there was no legal basis and when challenged, they realized they had made a mistake.  However, what I frequently see related to timeshares, and other things, is that people inflate their self worth to the system acting like the simple act of complaining will change things.



"Complaining" is useless and I don't recommend it, much like worrying. I would suggest an organized campaign pointing out how a rule violates the existing deal (like the vistana guest pass charge I mentioned) is different than that.


----------



## tstreetervp (Nov 19, 2022)

This is just another way these timeshare companies, make money by forcing you to turn your points in for a crappy valuation, such as cruises, airline tickets, guided tours, and things of that nature. They give you only ~60% of your maintenance fees, value, and then they rent it out on marriott.com for .70 to two dollars a point. Most of their profit comes from the arbitrage of taking owners points and renting them out online so I’m interested to see how they exempted themselves since they don’t own most of the inventory. Somehow they have to transfer destination points that people turn in for cruises to be able to rent them out on marriott.com which I presume the have their own account. Those points have to go somewhere for Marriott to rent them out and recoup their money. They paid for the cruise. They make hundreds of millions of dollars per year doing this  More than from the sale of the units. They’re just trying to prevent rental companies that offer people a better value than turning it in for cruises and other things. So people like my clients that are 85 years old they have 60,000 points that Marriott sold them. These people basically have no outlet as they’re trying to squeeze out any rental company that helps them.  not everybody can use it for vacations of any type and they have no recourse or other options to use them or to recoup their fees.  I have an 87-year-old client who owned to fractional that grand residents that is now 87 widowed whose kids won’t use it that has $24,000 a year in maintenance cost. 

How does it make sense? How does it free up any inventory when it’s actual owners inventory? Why would it matter if the owner used it themselves or somebody else used it ? I booked New Year’s in Las Vegas late in November which is unheard of with Wyndham and any other timeshare company, so I’m not sure what they’re talking about helping owners. Also, they don’t seem to be worried about all the points. They rent out on marriott.com to nonowners. Marriotts my favorite Timeshare company and the best by far but this is nothing but a huge money grab to prevent owners to making , a more prudent financial decision having somebody else rent them out  then giving them to Marriott.

I don’t mind big companies but what happens if you get these people like the CEOs who never started the company and only look out for their only stock options. This would be a huge class action lawsuit if people realize that Marriott makes hundreds of millions of dollars giving them ~$.40 worth of value for something, they said, was a great deal like cruises and things, and then they go and rent it out for an exorbitant amount, all while blocking them from using other companies that would give them a better value.


----------



## wuv pooh (Nov 19, 2022)

tstreetervp said:


> This is just another way these timeshare companies, make money by forcing you to turn your points in for a crappy valuation, such as cruises, airline tickets, guided tours, and things of that nature. They give you only ~60% of your maintenance fees, value, and then they rent it out on marriott.com for .70 to two dollars a point. Most of their profit comes from the arbitrage of taking owners points and renting them out online so I’m interested to see how they exempted themselves since they don’t own most of the inventory.



I think you misunderstand how the business actually works.  Marriott makes its money by charging a management fee - the resort charges all owners a MF and Marriott gets its share no matter what.  It is ongoing, recurring revenue, that is cost plus because any increases in costs are directly passed to the owners and increase their fees.  They also make money selling resorts.  That is what causes the problem.

I will illustrate with my resort Manor Club at Williamsburg.  When Marriott sold it there were 8 silver weeks, 8 gold weeks, and 36 platinum weeks.  The problem is that Williamsburg only really has (generously) 16 actual platinum weeks that would consistently rent for MF.  That leaves a problem with the system, there are more weeks worth less than the MF than worth the MF.  When someone deposits into II, Marriott reserves one of these trash weeks and passes it to another owner through II.  The MF was paid by the owner, they get a trade that they are presumably happy with, another owner gets a Marriott!!! trade that they are happy with, II gets a fee for running the trade system, and a trash week gets recycled.   If you trade for a vacation/cruise/bonvoy they have to pay cash for the vacation.  They can't reserve a trash week and rent it for the cost of the vacation so they give owners a discounted value that reflects the average value of the trash weeks.  If they offered full value then they would either have to eat a loss or reserve all of the true prime weeks to recoup their money.  Clearly, for the other owners, reserving all the prime weeks is undesirable, so they offer the reduced value for people who are happy to take an alternative use option.  This recycles more trash weeks.  They then take the rental risk.  They acquired the week for less than MF so they try to get as much as they can by renting on Marriott.com or dumping into the getaway program in II (also getting a potential customer that they can invite to a presentation).  They have to pay significant fees to Marriott International for branding and use of the reservation system, so those fees also come out.  If a week does not rent they take 100% loss, so that is a drag on the total system.  They try to minimize the impact on the system they created by overselling prime season.

The points system tries to address the trash weeks problem by making the system more closely match the actual demand of the users by resort.  Trash weeks cost fewer points and prime weeks cost more, weekends more, etc.  No system is a perfect match to demand, but Marriott is the only actor who knows the true demand.  They have allowed old weeks owners to participate in the new system, but they have balanced the scales in their favor by what we call "skim", which is a tax on the old system to help Marriott to pay for potential demand imbalances weeks owners bring in to the points system.  If they screw up they lose less, if they do a good job they make more money but they start with a house advantage.

Which is a long way to say that the Marriott sales system, in trying to maximize sales $$, creates an imbalance that the usage/trade system tries to fix.  If they were the true evil empire then they could use their advantages to only reserve prime weeks that rent for the most value and leave the trash weeks to the other owners.  This would work in the short term, but would destroy the system over time.  That is why I said Marriott deliberately disadvantages themselves in the reservation/rental business.  They advantage themselves in the sales business, in the skim business, in the exchange business, but they would be stupid to take advantage by reserving prime weeks and renting them.  If the opportunity arises then I am sure they take it (cancellations, unreserved weeks, etc.), but not as a matter of course.  If they acted their ownership like we do the system would break down.

Every system has the same problems, which we discussed ad nauseam for 3 years when the Abound system came into being as a rumor in 2008/09 and a reality in 2010/11.  Marriott has not chosen the same solutions as every other system has - flat fee + skim being the most novel innovation (if you can call it that), but every system has done something to deal with the over selling of prime time with the promise of prime usage.  I think the system works pretty well and I have received great value from it, but it has changed.  I used to laugh at the Hawaii owners who traded their $80k weeks into my Horizons $9k week, but every vacation I talked to those owners at the pool.  Now with points, they get to laugh at me.  They get a ton more points than I do per $MF.  Marriott made the choice to benefit the owners who paid the most dollars into the system and I understand that.

If I wanted to be mad at Marriott I would be mad that they sold me a prime week that was not really prime and that their management fee increases even if they do a poor job of managing the property.  I would like to see some kind of incentive fee for good performance, but that is probably a pipe dream. YMMV.


----------



## Gemini Chica (Nov 19, 2022)

Dean said:


> From what I'm hearing this was largely a single owner who was reserving months of inventory.  I'm also being told that this issue has also triggered MVC to reevaluate the enrollment program.  Not sure what that means or where it might lead but I can think of some possibilities.


Seems crazy they would change policy for one person, just cut the person off. Interesting though.


----------



## dioxide45 (Nov 19, 2022)

I would


tstreetervp said:


> This is just another way these timeshare companies, make money by forcing you to turn your points in for a crappy valuation, such as cruises, airline tickets, guided tours, and things of that nature. They give you only ~60% of your maintenance fees, value, and then they rent it out on marriott.com for .70 to two dollars a point. Most of their profit comes from the arbitrage of taking owners points and renting them out online so I’m interested to see how they exempted themselves since they don’t own most of the inventory. Somehow they have to transfer destination points that people turn in for cruises to be able to rent them out on marriott.com which I presume the have their own account. Those points have to go somewhere for Marriott to rent them out and recoup their money. They paid for the cruise. They make hundreds of millions of dollars per year doing this  More than from the sale of the units. They’re just trying to prevent rental companies that offer people a better value than turning it in for cruises and other things. So people like my clients that are 85 years old they have 60,000 points that Marriott sold them. These people basically have no outlet as they’re trying to squeeze out any rental company that helps them.  not everybody can use it for vacations of any type and they have no recourse or other options to use them or to recoup their fees.  I have an 87-year-old client who owned to fractional that grand residents that is now 87 widowed whose kids won’t use it that has $24,000 a year in maintenance cost.
> 
> How does it make sense? How does it free up any inventory when it’s actual owners inventory? Why would it matter if the owner used it themselves or somebody else used it ? I booked New Year’s in Las Vegas late in November which is unheard of with Wyndham and any other timeshare company, so I’m not sure what they’re talking about helping owners. Also, they don’t seem to be worried about all the points. They rent out on marriott.com to nonowners. Marriotts my favorite Timeshare company and the best by far but this is nothing but a huge money grab to prevent owners to making , a more prudent financial decision having somebody else rent them out  then giving them to Marriott.
> 
> I don’t mind big companies but what happens if you get these people like the CEOs who never started the company and only look out for their only stock options. This would be a huge class action lawsuit if people realize that Marriott makes hundreds of millions of dollars giving them ~$.40 worth of value for something, they said, was a great deal like cruises and things, and then they go and rent it out for an exorbitant amount, all while blocking them from using other companies that would give them a better value.


I would think that Marriott has significant costs behind the arbitrage between what they pay for the cruise or tour and what they rent the weeks out for. I am not one for reading Quarterly Earning information, but from what I can gather, in Q32022 they made $165 million in rental revenue but had rental expenses of $126 million. The $126 is the cost of the cruises, tours and Bonvoy points or whatever they paid a weeks owner as part of their rental program. That said, a 35% return on their money is pretty good.


----------



## timsi (Nov 19, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> I would
> 
> I would think that Marriott has significant costs behind the arbitrage between what they pay for the cruise or tour and what they rent the weeks out for. I am not one for reading Quarterly Earning information, but from what I can gather, in Q32022 they made $165 million in rental revenue but had rental expenses of $126 million. The $126 is the cost of the cruises, tours and Bonvoy points or whatever they paid a weeks owner as part of their rental program. That said, a 35% return on their money is pretty good.


April, May and June should not be the most profitable months of the year.


----------



## wuv pooh (Nov 19, 2022)

/





dioxide45 said:


> I would
> 
> I would think that Marriott has significant costs behind the arbitrage between what they pay for the cruise or tour and what they rent the weeks out for. I am not one for reading Quarterly Earning information, but from what I can gather, in Q32022 they made $165 million in rental revenue but had rental expenses of $126 million. The $126 is the cost of the cruises, tours and Bonvoy points or whatever they paid a weeks owner as part of their rental program. That said, a 35% return on their money is pretty good.



Actually it is their worst business by far and it is dilutive to the company:

Financing - 69/74 = 93% gross margin
Management & exchange - 97/198 = 49% gross margin
Sales - 161/444 = 36% gross margin
Rental - 39/165 = 24% gross margin

If they are gouging us with rentals they are doing a really bad job.  They are not benevolent, they cover their costs and make a margin but it is not a viable business in itself. 



Three Months EndedSeptember 30, 2022REVENUESSale of vacation ownership products$444Management and exchange198 Rental165 Financing74 Cost reimbursements371 TOTAL REVENUES1,252 EXPENSESCost of vacation ownership products76 Marketing and sales207 Management and exchange101 Rental126 Financing5


----------



## timsi (Nov 19, 2022)

wuv pooh said:


> /
> 
> Actually it is their worst business by far and it is dilutive to the company:
> 
> ...


You have to scratch the surface a bit more. I think the rentals for the sales tours (explorer package etc) are not included in the rental revenue. Also, the Interval getaways and the other rentals part of the Exchange & Third-Party Management are not included in the numbers above and they show zero costs. Without knowing the inventory they rent through Bonvoy, which they rent through Interval (getaways) and which they use for sales tours and without knowing the origin of each bucket (their own inventory, deposited for Bonvoy, unused units, foreclosures etc), it is impossible to tell the profit for each segment. 

Lat year was also atypical because of the high owner usage.


----------



## timsi (Nov 19, 2022)

wuv pooh said:


> /
> 
> Actually it is their worst business by far and it is dilutive to the company:
> 
> ...


"*an average hotel profit margin lies at around 10%* "









						What is a good net profit margin when managing a hotel?
					

Learn about hotel profit margins and what to consider in order to maximize your hotel’s profitability.



					www.mews.com


----------



## Fasttr (Nov 19, 2022)

timsi said:


> "*an average hotel profit margin lies at around 10%* "
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not all expenses were listed in that MVC Q3 results post.  It was an excerpt.  Net income was $110 on revenue of $1252, or a smidge less than 9%.


----------



## timsi (Nov 19, 2022)

Fasttr said:


> Not all expenses were listed in that MVC Q3 results post.  It was an excerpt.  Net income was $110 on revenue of $1252, or a smidge less than 9%.


Is that just rentals?


----------



## daviator (Nov 20, 2022)

timsi said:


> You have to scratch the surface a bit more. I think the rentals for the sales tours (explorer package etc) are not included in the rental revenue. Also, the Interval getaways and the other rentals part of the Exchange & Third-Party Management are not included in the numbers above and they show zero costs. Without knowing the inventory they rent through Bonvoy, which they rent through Interval (getaways) and which they use for sales tours and without knowing the origin of each bucket (their own inventory, deposited for Bonvoy, unused units, foreclosures etc), it is impossible to tell the profit for each segment.
> 
> Lat year was also atypical because of the high owner usage.


They don't make a lot of money on the Encore packages/sales tours, since those usually come with big incentives that they need to pay for, which usually approach the value of the stay itself.  Plus, they use inventory that they OWN for those, as I understand it, so they have the right to rent weeks that they own just as we do (you could get into an argument about "commercial use", but that restriction doesn't apply to them.)  I'm sure they make a little money in the other categories you mention, but they also own VOIs that go unused, and then they lose money.  I certainly don't blame them for driving to maximize revenue from VOIs they own or control.


----------



## timsi (Nov 20, 2022)

daviator said:


> They don't make a lot of money on the Encore packages/sales tours, since those usually come with big incentives that they need to pay for, which usually approach the value of the stay itself.  Plus, they use inventory that they OWN for those, as I understand it, so they have the right to rent weeks that they own just as we do (you could get into an argument about "commercial use", but that restriction doesn't apply to them.)  I'm sure they make a little money in the other categories you mention, but they also own VOIs that go unused, and then they lose money.  I certainly don't blame them for driving to maximize revenue from VOIs they own or control.


How reliable is the source that they use the inventory they own? They could use the lowest cost inventory, the highest cost inventory or an average. I would not be surprised though if they used the highest cost inventory for the sales tour, the sales should not look TOO profitable right? 
I do not think you can tell from the public documents if they do that consistently or if they do it at all. The point was that the rental income is higher than posted above because it is Marriott.com plus Interval getaways plus sales tours and there is not enough information to know the aggregate number or the cost per each segment.


----------



## Dean (Nov 20, 2022)

bizaro86 said:


> "Complaining" is useless and I don't recommend it, much like worrying. I would suggest an organized campaign pointing out how a rule violates the existing deal (like the vistana guest pass charge I mentioned) is different than that.


If it's big enough maybe but they consider up front the negative impact to some and complaints.  If they have a clear legal path it's unreasonable to think it'll make much difference. TUG is a small group overall though vocal and knowledgeable. 


Gemini Chica said:


> Seems crazy they would change policy for one person, just cut the person off. Interesting though.


I agree but what happens is they get to looking based on one situation that stands out and consider there may be more going forward.  Companies in general do tend to make rules that affect everyone based on individuals or minorities rather than just dealing with problem people.  We do that as a society with laws as well.


dioxide45 said:


> I would
> 
> I would think that Marriott has significant costs behind the arbitrage between what they pay for the cruise or tour and what they rent the weeks out for. I am not one for reading Quarterly Earning information, but from what I can gather, in Q32022 they made $165 million in rental revenue but had rental expenses of $126 million. The $126 is the cost of the cruises, tours and Bonvoy points or whatever they paid a weeks owner as part of their rental program. That said, a 35% return on their money is pretty good.


MVC don't have any profit margin on points used for cash type options.  They have to turn those points into cash and the reservation system takes a large chunk.  That's why they are such a poor deal.  MVC, and other timeshares, use these options as sales hooks and that is the benefit to them.  Otherwise it's barely a break even from what I've seen.  It gives us options but at a cost.


----------



## Red elephant (Nov 20, 2022)

Dean said:


> If it's big enough maybe but they consider up front the negative impact to some and complaints.  If they have a clear legal path it's unreasonable to think it'll make much difference. TUG is a small group overall though vocal and knowledgeable.
> I agree but what happens is they get to looking based on one situation that stands out and consider there may be more going forward.  Companies in general do tend to make rules that affect everyone based on individuals or minorities rather than just dealing with problem people.  We do that as a society with laws as well.
> MVC don't have any profit margin on points used for cash type options.  They have to turn those points into cash and the reservation system takes a large chunk.  That's why they are such a poor deal.  MVC, and other timeshares, use these options as sales hooks and that is the benefit to them.  Otherwise it's barely a break even from what I've seen.  It gives us options but at a cost.


Out of all the different options which is the most cost effective ?


----------



## wuv pooh (Nov 20, 2022)

timsi said:


> "*an average hotel profit margin lies at around 10%* "



Seems reasonable.  VAC makes 8.8% net.  To do that they need about 42% gross.  Financing and management fees provide that.  Sales is a little lower due to the huge marketing costs (where the encore package costs go I assume). Rentals is a large drag on the operation, but a necessary evil.

Getaways are done at a pretty big loss, so assume that is part of the dilution of the rental business, or part of the marketing expense for sales depending on how Marriott views it.

You can try to argue that Marriott internal transfer pricing between divisions is flawed but that seems like a Quixotic quest.  Anyone who has paid attention to the financials and earnings calls from VAC and from prior to the spin off knows how the executives view the business and how the money is made.  There isn't any deep state false flag operation going on to rob owners of prime weeks.


----------



## timsi (Nov 20, 2022)

wuv pooh said:


> Seems reasonable.  VAC makes 8.8% net.  To do that they need about 42% gross.  Financing and management fees provide that.  Sales is a little lower due to the huge marketing costs (where the encore package costs go I assume). Rentals is a large drag on the operation, but a necessary evil.
> 
> Getaways are done at a pretty big loss, so assume that is part of the dilution of the rental business, or part of the marketing expense for sales depending on how Marriott views it.
> 
> You can try to argue that Marriott internal transfer pricing between divisions is flawed but that seems like a Quixotic quest.  Anyone who has paid attention to the financials and earnings calls from VAC and from prior to the spin off knows how the executives view the business and how the money is made.  There isn't any deep state false flag operation going on to rob owners of prime weeks.


Do you have any proof that the getaways are "done at a pretty big loss". They can rent leftover inventory at a very low cost (zero?). 

The 8.8 net is for the overall business, including managing other properties, not just rentals. If you look just at rentals, it is another story.


----------



## sponger76 (Nov 20, 2022)

timsi said:


> April, May and June should not be the most profitable months of the year.


Q3 would be July, August and September, not April, May and June. Summer travel, so they would be up there in terms of profitability.


----------



## timsi (Nov 20, 2022)

wuv pooh said:


> There isn't any deep state false flag operation going on to rob owners of prime weeks.



Propaganda vs conspiracy theories! LOL. If you have proof or even know the rules about how they divide the inventory, you have the opportunity right now!

 If you look at their sales conduct though, would you say they have a spotless record?  Also, look at the bulk inventory in Interval. Don't you think that generally there are fewer prime weeks deposited? I have friends who deposited event weeks at WLR in II, but I never saw one available. Why? And if they can do it in one place, what makes you think they don't do it in others?


----------



## sponger76 (Nov 20, 2022)

timsi said:


> Do you have any proof that the getaways are "done at a pretty big loss". They can rent leftover inventory at a very low cost (zero?).
> 
> The 8.8 net is for the overall business, including managing other properties, not just rentals. If you look just at rentals, it is another story.


If the Getaways are from MVC-owned inventory, it would be a big loss, since they usually charge a lot less than MFs for those weeks. If they are inventory owned by people like you and me that simply went unused (owner paid MFs but let points or week usage expire without being banked/exchanged) and MVC wasn't compensating in any way for the use of that inventory, then yeah, it would be low/zero cost.


----------



## sponger76 (Nov 20, 2022)

timsi said:


> If you have proof or even know the rules about how they divide the inventory, you have the opportunity right now!


You keep asking others for proof, but what proof do you have that they are acting malevolently? Hint: It's a full integer value below the number one.


----------



## wuv pooh (Nov 20, 2022)

Red elephant said:


> Out of all the different options which is the most cost effective ?



20 years ago Bonvoy points were effective, but they have not been indexed while the points required have soared so maybe the worst value now.  I can now buy more points from Marriott directly than I get for my weeks for the maintenance fee.

Cruises can be a good value.  Especially if they have a special or a short lead time.  You can pretty easily shop these if you find something interesting.

I don't think you get good value from the Collette vacations.  I am sure they are nice, but they exclude airfare, which is often bundled by other vendors at an attractive price.  When I looked I could get a better deal, but maybe that changes.

The selling point is to people who have a sunk cost for this year but want to do something different.  They have $10,000 MF in the system and rather than spend another $10,000 out of pocket for a trip they want to use the sunk cost.  It would be better for them to reserve a prime week, rent it for cash, and then buy what they want.  However, this involves time and a small risk of being defrauded.  Booking through Marriott is easy and no risk of fraud, but not the best value.  Value is subjective.  If you want to go to Ireland and don't have another $8k, then using your $10k MF credit might be a good value for you.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Nov 20, 2022)

Isn't there risk of fraud if you Venmo payment and the seller never makes the deposit? What are best practices to verify before you send money?

Also where on Redweek can you buy points? I could only find weeks listings. What are the minimum amount of points one can buy to use this program? 

What is more cost effective? A small package of points? or a resale deed at GC or ?? and requal it? We are about 1800 points away from the next level of elite.


----------



## THSMTHS (Nov 20, 2022)

StevenTing said:


> Just got the email.
> 
> 
> ​
> ...


----------



## THSMTHS (Nov 20, 2022)

StevenTing said:


> Just got the email.
> 
> 
> ​
> ...


Thinking I must have interpreted this information incorrectly, after looking at other comments. I thought the impact would be on people who secure units and then rent them out. A prime example would be the resorts in Scottsdale. At sites like Booking.com and VRBO there are many rentals during baseball season, at astronomical prices, which I am sure they get. This would be true for Westin Kierland Villas and Marrriots Canyon Villas. It pulls from inventory for those of us who would like to "use" these locations. Has been a sticking point with me for awhile.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Nov 20, 2022)

How many TUGgers have 20,000 + points?  I am just curious.  I would consider enrolling my weeks, which are substantial, most were added during the last year.  The thing is, our fees are high, so the point cost would be crazy high.  So I guess I will leave them as weeks.  Shadow Ridge Villages this year has increased a lot, and we own 3 of those.  We own a bunch of Willow Ridge in Branson, too.  We did buy a small one bedroom at Grand Chateau, which I cannot even book for next year because the website is not working.  

What's the deal with the website lately?  The Marriott hotel site is also a disaster.  I get error code 400 when I do a hotel search on Maui.


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 20, 2022)

rickandcindy23 said:


> How many TUGgers have 20,000 + points?  I am just curious.  *I would consider enrolling my weeks, which are substantial, most were added during the last year.  The thing is, our fees are high, so the point cost would be crazy high.  So I guess I will leave them as weeks.*  Shadow Ridge Villages this year has increased a lot, and we own 3 of those.  We own a bunch of Willow Ridge in Branson, too.  We did buy a small one bedroom at Grand Chateau, which I cannot even book for next year because the website is not working.
> 
> What's the deal with the website lately?  The Marriott hotel site is also a disaster.  I get error code 400 when I do a hotel search on Maui.


No idea how many TUGgers have 20,000 Abound Points.  

I'm just here to comment on what I bolded in your quote above. I think you understand this (and you're talking about the cost to purchase enough points to be be able to enroll the Weeks you own that aren't eligible) but it's amazing how many people still think that enrolling a Week means permanently exchanging that Week for Abound Points and/or that enrolling a Week and electing Abound Points for it means that MF's are assessed on the points during that election year. Neither is true. Enrollment only means that the Week can annually be elected for the stipulated amount of Abound Points, and the only change to the annual fees is that the Week Owner will be assessed Abound Club Dues in addition to the Week MF's.


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 20, 2022)

tstreetervp said:


> This is just another way these timeshare companies, make money by forcing you to turn your points in for a crappy valuation, such as cruises, airline tickets, guided tours, and things of that nature. They give you only ~60% of your maintenance fees, value, and then they rent it out on marriott.com for .70 to two dollars a point. Most of their profit comes from the arbitrage of taking owners points and renting them out online so I’m interested to see how they exempted themselves since they don’t own most of the inventory. Somehow they have to transfer destination points that people turn in for cruises to be able to rent them out on marriott.com which I presume the have their own account. Those points have to go somewhere for Marriott to rent them out and recoup their money. They paid for the cruise. They make hundreds of millions of dollars per year doing this  More than from the sale of the units. They’re just trying to prevent rental companies that offer people a better value than turning it in for cruises and other things. So people like my clients that are 85 years old they have 60,000 points that Marriott sold them. These people basically have no outlet as they’re trying to squeeze out any rental company that helps them.  not everybody can use it for vacations of any type and they have no recourse or other options to use them or to recoup their fees.  I have an 87-year-old client who owned to fractional that grand residents that is now 87 widowed whose kids won’t use it that has $24,000 a year in maintenance cost.
> 
> How does it make sense? How does it free up any inventory when it’s actual owners inventory? Why would it matter if the owner used it themselves or somebody else used it ? I booked New Year’s in Las Vegas late in November which is unheard of with Wyndham and any other timeshare company, so I’m not sure what they’re talking about helping owners. Also, they don’t seem to be worried about all the points. They rent out on marriott.com to nonowners. Marriotts my favorite Timeshare company and the best by far but this is nothing but a huge money grab to prevent owners to making , a more prudent financial decision having somebody else rent them out  then giving them to Marriott.
> 
> I don’t mind big companies but what happens if you get these people like the CEOs who never started the company and only look out for their only stock options. This would be a huge class action lawsuit if people realize that Marriott makes hundreds of millions of dollars giving them ~$.40 worth of value for something, they said, was a great deal like cruises and things, and then they go and rent it out for an exorbitant amount, all while blocking them from using other companies that would give them a better value.


Well. This is a lot to unpack but one thing sticks out. You apparently have some type of business renting out Marriott timeshares for other owners, yes? I'm assuming so because you specifically mention a "client" who owns 60,000 Abound Points and a "client" who owns a Grand Residence fractional, both of whom are elderly and have gigantic MF's obligations. In your business do you broker Abound Points for your clients, meaning you might be one of the people being targeted by MVW with this 20,000-point cap on transfers into your account?

(Or maybe I'm wrong and you're talking about "clients" as the owners to whom you sold timeshares during your years as a salesperson? In which case, I apologize for the misunderstanding and we can both stop reading now.)

The reason I ask is because both you and these particular clients still have other working options if they want to continue to hire your services. This 20,000 cap has nothing to do with transfers or rentals OUT of owners accounts, so their ownerships can still be used to secure reservations from Marriott that you could broker as rentals. I get it, points transactions are so much easier with less fuss and more opportunity for an owner/broker to scour availability on a routine basis, but this cap doesn't signal the end of owner rentals. (It might be the first of a drip-drip-drip that eventually will significantly impact owners' rental rights, sure, but it isn't that now.)

I'm also wondering if your clients have contacted MVC Exit Specialists to try to offload their ownerships, or, if they've explored the external resale market. They and their families don't use their ownerships and they're obligated to pay the MF's regardless of whether they're able to monetize their ownerships to cover or exceed the MF's. In that situation I'd be more inclined to want to get out than to work with a rental broker.

As for all the rest of your post the facts are that MVW has practically unfettered opportunity to monetize intervals which they own/obtain through means that are stipulated in the governing docs, that the owners' rights to monetize their ownerships are/can be limited if MVW determines to enforce a purposely vaguely-worded restriction on "commercial activity," and, that owners choose for themselves if there's worth/value in any of the offered usage. Regardless of the costs to us, the profit to them or whether any of it is fair, as long as they're in conformance with the governing docs then IMO the owners wouldn't stand a chance of prevailing in a class action suit like the one you mention. Besides which, most of the information we'd need to prove a charge that they're unlawfully/unethically making profane profits off of our ownerships would need to be furnished to us by MVW. There's no chance they'll give it up easily if they don't have to, and they'd bury us in legal procedures/objections right up until a Court would be unable to order them any additional relief. No timeshare is worth that waste of time and energy, IMO.


----------



## timsi (Nov 20, 2022)

SueDonJ said:


> Well. This is a lot to unpack but one thing sticks out. You apparently have some type of business renting out Marriott timeshares for other owners, yes? I'm assuming so because you specifically mention a "client" who owns 60,000 Abound Points and a "client" who owns a Grand Residence fractional, both of whom are elderly and have gigantic MF's obligations. In your business do you broker Abound Points for your clients, meaning you might be one of the people being targeted by MVW with this 20,000-point cap on transfers into your account?
> 
> The reason I ask is because both you and these particular clients still have other working options if they want to continue to hire your services. This 20,000 cap has nothing to do with transfers or rentals OUT of owners accounts, so their ownerships can still be used to secure reservations from Marriott that you could broker as rentals. I get it, points transactions are so much easier with less fuss and more opportunity for an owner/broker to scour availability on a routine basis, but this cap doesn't signal the end of owner rentals. (It might be the first of a drip-drip-drip that eventually will significantly impact owners' rental rights, sure, but it isn't that now.)
> 
> ...



How do you know they did it for one person? Official statement or rumor?


The developer owns inventory through a number of entities. Do the governing documents mention how those entities are able to book their weeks? The same as everyone else?


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 20, 2022)

timsi said:


> How do you know they did it for one person? Official statement or rumor?


I'm sorry, I don't understand this. What do you mean, one person? And what are you referencing as either official statement or rumor?



timsi said:


> The developer owns inventory through a number of entities. Do the governing documents mention how those entities are able to book their weeks? The same as everyone else?


Every Marriott resort has its own set of governing docs that consist of a Master Deed, Timesharing Declaration, Management Agreement etc that comprise hundreds of pages. The rules for reserving are mentioned in a number of places in most if not all of the different docs that make up the Public Offering Statement.

Over years of reviewing the docs for Barony Beach Club and SurfWatch, the only anomaly that's ever stood out to me is that the SW docs specifically state that Marriott is NOT allowed to use the 13-mos Reservation Window on the same basis as Owners. (Owners of multiple Weeks can use the 13-mos window to book consecutive/concurrent calendar intervals.) There may be others, I don't know. Like I've said, it's not something I worry about because IME Marriott doesn't appear to be raiding the highest-demand intervals for its own purpose and to the detriment of owners.


----------



## wuv pooh (Nov 20, 2022)

timsi said:


> Do you have any proof that the getaways are "done at a pretty big loss". They can rent leftover inventory at a very low cost (zero?).
> 
> The 8.8 net is for the overall business, including managing other properties, not just rentals. If you look just at rentals, it is another story.



I guess this is your confusion? There are no "zero cost" weeks.  EVERY interval at every resort is owned by someone and they pay the maintenance fee. Even in the unlikely event that an owner does not reserve a week, Marriott has a legal obligation to ensure that one is assigned. They can't steal a week from someone, rent it and pocket the money themselves.  Getaways are a loss because they are on average $300 - $700, but owners paid on average $1,900 and if Marriott acquired them they probably paid about 30% less.  So not just a loss, but a significant one, or a subsidized way to get a customer in front of your salesperson if you are Marriott.


----------



## timsi (Nov 20, 2022)

SueDonJ said:


> Every Marriott resort has its own set of governing docs that consist of a Master Deed, Timesharing Declaration, Management Agreement etc that comprise hundreds of pages. The rules for reserving are mentioned in a number of places in most if not all of the different docs that make up the Public Offering Statement.
> 
> Over years of reviewing the docs for Barony Beach Club and SurfWatch, the only anomaly that's ever stood out to me is that the SW docs specifically state that Marriott is NOT allowed to use the 13-mos Reservation Window on the same basis as Owners. (Owners of multiple Weeks can use the 13-mos window to book consecutive/concurrent calendar intervals.) There may be others, I don't know. Like I've said, it's not something I worry about because IME Marriott doesn't appear to be raiding the highest-demand intervals for its own purpose and to the detriment of owners.



Most governing documents, management agreement etc mention how the owners are able to book their weeks. Have you seen anything that would allow the developer to book in a manner that is different than ours?


----------



## dioxide45 (Nov 20, 2022)

wuv pooh said:


> Getaways are done at a pretty big loss, so assume that is part of the dilution of the rental business, or part of the marketing expense for sales depending on how Marriott views it.


I don't think II getaways are a big loss at all. Usually this is excess inventory from owner deposits. Owners paid their MF and II got the deposit for free. Marriott may do last minute deposits of unreserved weeks, but the owner still paid the MF, not Marriott. Neither II nor Marriott is out any money here unless Marriott is depositing their own owned inventory which ends up in Getaway.


----------



## TheTimeTraveler (Nov 20, 2022)

If I am not mistaken, isn't this proposed January 1, 2023 twenty thousand point transfer limit to a user the first time any rules have been changed in the 12.5 years since the Marriott point system has come into being (i.e. June of 2010) ?

Is this a sign of things to come or just a blimp on the radar?

And, I wonder if transfer activity is working overtime between now and 1/1/2023 to avoid these new rules?




.


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 20, 2022)

timsi said:


> Most governing documents, management agreement etc mention how the owners are able to rent their weeks. Have you seen anything that would allow the developer to book in a manner that is different than ours?


Only the one I mentioned, that SW docs state that Marriott can't use the 13-mos reservation window on the same basis as Owners - which is to Marriott's detriment, not ours. It may be in the docs of other resorts, maybe not, I don't know. But in general over the years it appears to me that in implementing rules as the Manager, Marriott opts for consistency and is far more likely to implement in such a way that if even only one set of resort docs states a restriction, whether on them or us, they apply it across the portfolio unless doing so would be in violation of any rules.


----------



## dioxide45 (Nov 20, 2022)

TheTimeTraveler said:


> If I am not mistaken, isn't this proposed January 1, 2023 twenty thousand point transfer limit to a user the first time any rules have been changed in the 12.5 years since the Marriott point system has come into being (i.e. June of 2010) ?
> 
> Is this a sign of things to come or just a blimp on the radar?
> 
> And, I wonder if transfer activity is working overtime between now and 1/1/2023 to avoid these new rules?


I think, with this rule, MVC was simply looking to stop the bleeding/abuse at the highest level. This change is perhaps somewhat of a knee jerk reaction. I suspect they will take some time to look at the issue on a bigger scale and we could very easily see more changes in the future. Given how long it took them to roll out the new Abound changes that are not yet done, I would expect any other changes here to take a looonnnnngggg time.


----------



## timsi (Nov 20, 2022)

SueDonJ said:


> Only the one I mentioned, that SW docs state that Marriott can't use the 13-mos reservation window on the same basis as Owners - which is to Marriott's detriment, not ours. It may be in the docs of other resorts, maybe not, I don't know. But in general over the years it appears to me that in implementing rules as the Manager, Marriott opts for consistency and is far more likely to implement in such a way that if even only one set of resort docs states a restriction, whether on them or us, they apply it across the portfolio unless doing so would be in violation of any rules.


In the documents I have seen, the owners have very clear booking procedures to follow. On the other hand the Marriott trust for example currently owns a number of weeks at certain Vistana resorts, including Westin Princeville. How is the trust going to compete with the other Westin Princeville owners for booking their weeks?


----------



## bnoble (Nov 20, 2022)

TheTimeTraveler said:


> Is this a sign of things to come or just a blimp on the radar?


Only the Magic 8-ball knows for sure. But, Marriott is following a well-trod path.

For example, some years ago, Disney put restrictions on Associate Members (one mechanism that point managers were using to help facilitate rentals), and also limited transfers to one per year, either in _or_ out, per membership, for the same reason. They will sometimes waive the transfer restriction if the same person owns both accounts. Disney also added explicit language to their governing documents that any owner with more than 20 reservations in a year had to justify why it wasn't commercial.

As another example, Wyndham eliminated all owner-to-owner transfers around the same time as those DVC changes. In the last few years Wyndham has been playing hardball with owners they believe are renting commercially.

So, there is definitely more that Marriott _can_ do. Will they? I have no idea.


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 20, 2022)

timsi said:


> In the documents I have seen, the owners have very clear booking procedures to follow. On the other hand the Marriott trust for example currently owns a number of weeks at certain Vistana resorts, including Westin Princeville. How is the trust going to compete with the other Westin Princeville owners for booking their weeks?


I know very little about how Vistana reservations work or how that system will be impacted by the eventual Vistana/Abound integration. How can anybody know before the integration is complete?!?! After it you all will at least gain experience to make educated guesses but it's a topic for the Vistana forum, not the Marriott forum.

As far as Marriott's reservation system, I've never read anything in my resorts' docs that makes me think Marriott ever has an advantage over the Owners in booking Weeks or Abound Exchange Points. I feel like you're trying to trip me up by asking a single basic question in a number of different ways, but every time my answer will be the same.


----------



## timsi (Nov 20, 2022)

SueDonJ said:


> As far as Marriott's reservation system, I've never read anything in my resorts' docs that makes me think Marriott ever has an advantage over the Owners in booking Weeks or Abound Exchange Points.



Thank you for confirming. 

In that case, we should assume they are supposed to book the same way as everyone else whether individuals, trusts or corporations.


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 20, 2022)

timsi said:


> Thank you for confirming.
> 
> In that case, we should assume they are supposed to book the same way as everyone else whether individuals, trusts or corporations.


I haven't ever seen anything else (other than the SW 13-mos anomaly) that made me assume differently.


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 20, 2022)

@timsi, can you please go back to this and satisfy my confusion about the one person and official/rumor comments?


----------



## timsi (Nov 20, 2022)

SueDonJ said:


> Haven't you been listening?! It will NEVER happen because the super-duper special unique rules of The Resort Which Cannot Be Named Here will cause Marriott's entire shady business to fail if they even TRY to pull that wool over his eyes!


I never said that, but it appears some salespeople took your tongue in cheek comment more seriously:









						Poll: Guess when Abound will actually launch
					

2022 or 2023?  2022




					tugbbs.com


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 20, 2022)

timsi said:


> I never said that, but it appears some salespeople took your tongue in cheek comment more seriously:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We're not supposed to listen to anything sales reps say.


----------



## timsi (Nov 20, 2022)

I am pretty sure at least 5% of what they say is true


----------



## Steve Fatula (Nov 20, 2022)

tstreetervp said:


> This is just another way these timeshare companies, make money by forcing you to turn your points in for a crappy valuation, such as cruises...



I don't think anyone forces you to turn in your points for these uses.


----------



## bdurstta (Nov 20, 2022)

Am I missing something? "Only" transferring 20,000 vacation club points a year?  O my!!!  I mean, isn't that alot of points?  Alot of maintenance fees?  How many owners have more than 20K points?  (OK...I hope that doesn't make me sound naive).


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 20, 2022)

bdurstta said:


> Am I missing something? "Only" transferring 20,000 vacation club points a year?  O my!!!  I mean, isn't that alot of points?  Alot of maintenance fees?  How many owners have more than 20K points?  (OK...I hope that doesn't make me sound naive).


For someone who has a business renting other owners' points through his/her member account, 20,000 Points isn't very many at all. This would be owners renting/transferring any amount of Points to the broker with the broker paying the owners at the time of the transfer, then the broker doing all the work to search availability, confirm reservations, rent those reservations and get paid by the rentees according to whatever the terms are in his/her rental contracts. Five different owners renting out 4,000 Points each, or ten different owners renting out 2,000 each, with all the points being transferred in to a single broker's account, would make that broker hit the 20,000/year incoming transfers cap in no time. No doubt the bigger players could hit it in a day, a week tops.

This only affects transfers IN to member accounts, not transfers OUT. An owner with a  monster points generator like an enrolled Grand Residence fractional who rents out his/her points could easily cause multiple brokers to hit their caps.


----------



## Dean (Nov 20, 2022)

Red elephant said:


> Out of all the different options which is the most cost effective ?


If you're talking about using points for cash type options, the answer is none of them.  Collette may be the least painful compared to using cash and for many of us might reach break even on fees though not for trust points.


rickandcindy23 said:


> How many TUGgers have 20,000 + points?  I am just curious.  I would consider enrolling my weeks, which are substantial, most were added during the last year.  The thing is, our fees are high, so the point cost would be crazy high.  So I guess I will leave them as weeks.  Shadow Ridge Villages this year has increased a lot, and we own 3 of those.  We own a bunch of Willow Ridge in Branson, too.  We did buy a small one bedroom at Grand Chateau, which I cannot even book for next year because the website is not working.
> 
> What's the deal with the website lately?  The Marriott hotel site is also a disaster.  I get error code 400 when I do a hotel search on Maui.


Quite a few I'd think.  I'm well over 20K if I turned everything into points though I generally only take points on about 1/3 of my weeks.


dioxide45 said:


> I think, with this rule, MVC was simply looking to stop the bleeding/abuse at the highest level. This change is perhaps somewhat of a knee jerk reaction. I suspect they will take some time to look at the issue on a bigger scale and we could very easily see more changes in the future. Given how long it took them to roll out the new Abound changes that are not yet done, I would expect any other changes here to take a looonnnnngggg time.


My guess is they got complaints about lack of availability and reservations for rent online then started looking at the issue.  At the current level it'll have little effect other than for an extremely small handful (guess) but look like they're actually doing something.  We'll see if they up the ante later.  As compared to About though, this is an easy one to put out there as it doesn't necessarily need IT involvement.


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 20, 2022)

Dean said:


> ... My guess is they got complaints about lack of availability and reservations for rent online then started looking at the issue.  At the current level it'll have little effect other than for an extremely small handful (guess) but look like they're actually doing something.  We'll see if they up the ante later.  As compared to About though, this is an easy one to put out there as it doesn't necessarily need IT involvement.


I have no idea how many big players are working a commercial venture involving Abound Points transfers but my guess would be more than a handful - remember how Perry glommed onto the opportunity almost immediately at the DC inception? I'd guess since then that more than a few realized the opportunity.

But I do think you're dead on with the ease of Marriott implementing this restriction. For years, dating back prior to the DC inception, Marriott has been fielding complaints about large-scale rentals of high-demand Weeks found on the internet as well as large singular groups taking over resorts during specific high-demand periods. (One in particular should come to mind for any TUGger who's been here a while.) But those rental transactions involved Weeks Owners being responsible for the reservations and for adding Guest Names to them, and for whatever risk is inherent in guests using owners' timeshares, with a middleman being the contact who kept track of which owners were renting out and which guests were renting in. In contrast the ease of Abound Points transfers result in the Owner completely removing him/herself from the reservation process and ensuring minimal-to-no risk of a rentee reneging on payment or causing damages, both of which are assumed by the middleman/broker who finds/reserves the intervals and processes all the related transactions through his/her own account.

If Marriott had wanted to respond to the complaints over the years about the excessive Weeks rentals that were impacting high-demand intervals, they'd have had to identify the middlemen/brokers, define the vague "commercial activity" prohibition language in the docs, enforce one or more of the rules that are in the docs which Marriott has leeway to not enforce (like the reservation lottery system for high-demand/holiday intervals or the EOY/Every Third Year availability for the high-demand/holiday intervals,) and finally put a number to the intervals which would trigger an account review. And even though Marriott would be protected by related language to each of those steps if they wanted to implement the restrictions on an as-needed and not in-every-instance basis, they'd likely elect a uniform policy so as to lessen the risk of having to spend money on fighting legal challenges.

But like you say, with points transfers between owner accounts it's easy. Set a cap, which the docs give Marriott leeway to do by not prohibiting a cap, and BAM! it's done.

I get why this causes concerns about a drip-drip-drip of Marriott working on more Abound restrictions that will impact owner rentals, but I'm okay with waiting for them to be announced before joining in the discussion about why Marriott should be sued for them.

(Last thought - don't even get me started on the brokers out there who convince owners to add their names to their accounts in order to do all the transactions in the owners' accounts that the owners do - I think that's bonkers and way too much of a risk, unless the broker is personally known to the owner long before such an agreement is reached.)


----------



## dioxide45 (Nov 20, 2022)

SueDonJ said:


> (Last thought - don't even get me started on the brokers out there who convince owners to add their names to their accounts in order to do all the transactions in the owners' accounts that the owners do - I think that's bonkers and way too much of a risk, unless the broker is personally known to the owner long before such an agreement is reached.)


I do understand what you were conveying here, but to be more clear, I don't think they add their names to their account, but rather just get their login credentials to perform transactions online. Perhaps they also get a sort of POA or authorization to also perform transactions over the phone too?


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 20, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> I do understand what you were conveying here, but to be more clear, I don't think they add their names to their account, but rather just get their login credentials to perform transactions online. Perhaps they also get a sort of POA or authorization to also perform transactions over the phone too?


You're right. I was thinking of all the times we've seen questions asking how to add "associate" names to accounts (for other reasons but it would be beneficial to brokers, too) and, didn't somebody mention earlier in the thread that DVC rentals were transacted via associate memberships until DVC banned them? I think so, @bnoble maybe? Anyway, I wouldn't give any stranger access to my account either as an associate or by sharing log-in credentials or by giving telephone authorization. Like I said, bonkers.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Nov 20, 2022)

SueDonJ said:


> No idea how many TUGgers have 20,000 Abound Points.
> 
> I'm just here to comment on what I bolded in your quote above. I think you understand this (and you're talking about the cost to purchase enough points to be be able to enroll the Weeks you own that aren't eligible) but it's amazing how many people still think that enrolling a Week means permanently exchanging that Week for Abound Points and/or that enrolling a Week and electing Abound Points for it means that MF's are assessed on the points during that election year. Neither is true. Enrollment only means that the Week can annually be elected for the stipulated amount of Abound Points, and the only change to the annual fees is that the Week Owner will be assessed Abound Club Dues in addition to the Week MF's.


Well, I would have to make a purchase and pay to enroll my weeks.  But I think my fees on Willow Ridge and Shadow Ridge are pretty high and not really worthy of making a purchase for that purpose.  So far, exchanging works.  When it stops working, I will have to attend a timeshare presentation.  Rick will go, but quite unwillingly.


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 20, 2022)

rickandcindy23 said:


> Well, I would have to make a purchase and pay to enroll my weeks.  But I think my fees on Willow Ridge and Shadow Ridge are pretty high and not really worthy of making a purchase for that purpose.  So far, exchanging works.  When it stops working, I will have to attend a timeshare presentation.  Rick will go, but quite unwillingly.


Yeah, I figured you were talking about the direct purchase you'd have to make to be able to take advantage of the sales incentive which would allow you to enroll otherwise ineligible Weeks. I only mentioned how Weeks work after they're enrolled for the benefit of any readers who might still be confused.


----------



## davidvel (Nov 20, 2022)

SueDonJ said:


> I haven't ever seen anything else (other than the SW 13-mos anomaly) that made me assume differently.


But there is the "bucket theory" that many Tuggers have espoused, stating that instead of calling or logging into reserve its owned weeks (like us lowly regular owners must do), the DC Trust somehow auto-allocates a percentage of weeks at each resort based upon its ownership. Even if applied proportionally across the seasons (ie. the same percentage of great, good, and crappy weeks), there is nothing in the governing docs that allows it.


----------



## frank808 (Nov 20, 2022)

bnoble said:


> For example, some years ago, Disney put restrictions on Associate Members (one mechanism that point managers were using to help facilitate rentals), and also limited transfers to one per year, either in _or_ out, per membership, for the same reason. They will sometimes waive the transfer restriction if the same person owns both accounts. Disney also added explicit language to their governing documents that any owner with more than 20 reservations in a year had to justify why it wasn't commercial.



I have never seen a letter or post from DVC. I have read posts from owners saying the hard limit is 20 reservations. Although have never seen confirmation from DVC but I might have missed it. 

Did DVC recently cone out and specify over 20 rentals per year is commercial? Thanks

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 20, 2022)

davidvel said:


> But there is the "bucket theory" that many Tuggers have espoused, stating that instead of calling or logging into reserve its owned weeks (like us lowly regular owners must do), the DC Trust somehow auto-allocates a percentage of weeks at each resort based upon its ownership. Even if applied proportionally across the seasons (ie. the same percentage of great, good, and crappy weeks), there is nothing in the governing docs that allows it.


I've always thought that the mental picture of "buckets" is misleading. In my mind it's more a system coded with indicators of how any inventory can be used based on origin and the rights of those requesting its usage. For example, an owner of a Week can choose from a number of options like home resort in-season stay, Bonvoy points exchange if eligible, Abound Points exchange if enrolled, given to Marriott's rental program, etc, and once the owner relinquishes it then it's coded into the system to reflect how it's eligible to be booked/used and by whom. Then the actual usage is determined at the time of request if all the parameters of that usage for that requester are satisfied.

To me it seems most important that the coded inventory controls prevent usage that's in violation of any rules, laws, etc, as opposed to coding allowable usage. So the system that makes the most sense to me is a realtime availability metric with back-end coding that prevents anyone, owner or Marriott, from using an interval unless the request is in conformance with the requester's usage rights and doesn't infringe on anyone else's usage rights. That way by design no specific inventory needs to be pre-selected to be deposited into any "bucket" prior to usage for it being requested. And the reason that real-time activity can happen is because in the background the entire system is constantly running and re-coding the individual intervals as they're relinquished and booked, in such a way that owners and Marriott and whoever else is eligible for usage is automatically prevented from booking intervals to which they're not entitled.

It sounds complicated and I'm definitely not a programmer so I'm probably not using any of the correct lingo to describe it, but I can't imagine it would be difficult for professionals to write the programs/codes with the built-in necessary safeguards to ensure correct inventory control.


----------



## davidvel (Nov 21, 2022)

SueDonJ said:


> I've always thought that the mental picture of "buckets" is misleading. In my mind it's more a system coded with indicators of how any inventory can be used based on origin and the rights of those requesting its usage. For example, an owner of a Week can choose from a number of options like home resort in-season stay, Bonvoy points exchange if eligible, Abound Points exchange if enrolled, given to Marriott's rental program, etc, and once the owner relinquishes it then it's coded into the system to reflect how it's eligible to be booked/used and by whom. Then the actual usage is determined at the time of request if all the parameters of that usage for that requester are satisfied.
> 
> To me it seems most important that the coded inventory controls prevent usage that's in violation of any rules, laws, etc, as opposed to coding allowable usage. So the system that makes the most sense to me is a realtime availability metric with back-end coding that prevents anyone, owner or Marriott, from using an interval unless the request is in conformance with the requester's usage rights and doesn't infringe on anyone else's usage rights. That way by design no specific inventory needs to be pre-selected to be deposited into any "bucket" prior to usage for it being requested. And the reason that real-time activity can happen is because in the background the entire system is constantly running and re-coding the individual intervals as they're relinquished and booked, in such a way that owners and Marriott and whoever else is eligible for usage is automatically prevented from booking intervals to which they're not entitled.
> 
> It sounds complicated and I'm definitely not a programmer so I'm probably not using any of the correct lingo to describe it, but I can't imagine it would be difficult for professionals to write the programs/codes with the built-in necessary safeguards to ensure correct inventory control.


I'm not questioning whether they can accurately track the inventory they own, just as I can with my ownership. The question is how do they actually reserve their weeks that they own vs. how you or I have to do it? And whatever the answer is,  why am I not permitted to do it they way DC does?


----------



## Dean (Nov 21, 2022)

SueDonJ said:


> I have no idea how many big players are working a commercial venture involving Abound Points transfers but my guess would be more than a handful - remember how Perry glommed onto the opportunity almost immediately at the DC inception? I'd guess since then that more than a few realized the opportunity.
> 
> But I do think you're dead on with the ease of Marriott implementing this restriction. For years, dating back prior to the DC inception, Marriott has been fielding complaints about large-scale rentals of high-demand Weeks found on the internet as well as large singular groups taking over resorts during specific high-demand periods. (One in particular should come to mind for any TUGger who's been here a while.) But those rental transactions involved Weeks Owners being responsible for the reservations and for adding Guest Names to them, and for whatever risk is inherent in guests using owners' timeshares, with a middleman being the contact who kept track of which owners were renting out and which guests were renting in. In contrast the ease of Abound Points transfers result in the Owner completely removing him/herself from the reservation process and ensuring minimal-to-no risk of a rentee reneging on payment or causing damages, both of which are assumed by the middleman/broker who finds/reserves the intervals and processes all the related transactions through his/her own account.
> 
> ...


I don't think any of us know for sure the number or volume.  If we arbitrarily draw the line at those advertising, accessing others account, or owning/transferring 100K points that are renting this volume year on year; I doubt it's more than 50.  I don't think they have to have a formal definition to proceed assuming this type of situation but it would be best.


----------



## Dean (Nov 21, 2022)

rickandcindy23 said:


> Well, I would have to make a purchase and pay to enroll my weeks.  But I think my fees on Willow Ridge and Shadow Ridge are pretty high and not really worthy of making a purchase for that purpose.  So far, exchanging works.  When it stops working, I will have to attend a timeshare presentation.  Rick will go, but quite unwillingly.


There are benefits that work with exchanging also (no exchange fees M to M, no II yearly fee if that's all you have, free cancelations and free lock offs) but it might be a high cost for that savings indoor situation.  


frank808 said:


> I have never seen a letter or post from DVC. I have read posts from owners saying the hard limit is 20 reservations. Although have never seen confirmation from DVC but I might have missed it.
> 
> Did DVC recently cone out and specify over 20 rentals per year is commercial? Thanks
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk


I don't have my POS and may not have one new enough but here is info from a reputable site.  https://dvcnews.com/index.php/dvc-p...commercial-renting-limitations-amended-to-pos .  I've also seen posts of letters members received at the time.  There is also a limit of a single person being on no more than 4 accounts as an associate I believe.  At the time there were a couple of big time clearly commercial members and a lot of sales followed.


----------



## wuv pooh (Nov 21, 2022)

dioxide45 said:


> I don't think II getaways are a big loss at all. Usually this is excess inventory from owner deposits. Owners paid their MF and II got the deposit for free. Marriott may do last minute deposits of unreserved weeks, but the owner still paid the MF, not Marriott. Neither II nor Marriott is out any money here unless Marriott is depositing their own owned inventory which ends up in Getaway.



True enough.  I am probably thinking of the good old days when Marriott actually built resorts and had unsold inventory to bulk deposit   I think it does illustrate how many junk weeks there are that there are no trades for and they rent for a fraction of the MF the owner paid.


----------



## Dean (Nov 21, 2022)

wuv pooh said:


> True enough.  I am probably thinking of the good old days when Marriott actually built resorts and had unsold inventory to bulk deposit   I think it does illustrate how many junk weeks there are that there are no trades for and they rent for a fraction of the MF the owner paid.


This is the nature of seasonal resorts and it's actually worse with Trust points as every buyer tends to think they are getting prime time.


----------



## ski_sierra (Nov 21, 2022)

Dean said:


> My guess is they got complaints about lack of availability and reservations for rent online then started looking at the issue. At the current level it'll have little effect other than for an extremely small handful (guess) but look like they're actually doing something. We'll see if they up the ante later. As compared to About though, this is an easy one to put out there as it doesn't necessarily need IT involvement.


I haven't attended a sales update with Marriott in over 3 years but my plan was to tell them that I can just rent the week I need from Redweek. The purchase will never pay off. I'm sure they got a lot of people making the same objection.

Another reason could be people at owner updates must have pointed out that they can't book the resorts they were shown during their sales presentations. So they don't want to buy more points.


----------



## davidvel (Nov 21, 2022)

I 


ski_sierra said:


> I haven't attended a sales update with Marriott in over 3 years but my plan was to tell them that I can just rent the week I need from Redweek. The purchase will never pay off. I'm sure they got a lot of people making the same objection.
> 
> Another reason could be people at owner updates must have pointed out that they can't book the resorts they were shown during their sales presentations. So they don't want to buy more points.


I did this at a presentation once. When they talked about what great Hawaii and ski weeks I could get with points (as if they are all just sitting there ready to be reserved), I asked the sales person what I knew she couldn't (and certainly wouldn't) answer: How much will that week cost me each year, over the next 15 years?

Deer in the headlights. I said "If you, the salesperson don't know, how could I justify such a purchase?" She said I was buying memories for my family, and I shouldn't worry so much about the price. I said I wouldn't worry about the price if she didn't. Sales pitch over. 

No one should ever consider buying points, resale or otherwise, without doing real world comparison of costs in points of the actual resort/season/view they would want to reserve.


----------



## frank808 (Nov 21, 2022)

Dean said:


> There are benefits that work with exchanging also (no exchange fees M to M, no II yearly fee if that's all you have, free cancelations and free lock offs) but it might be a high cost for that savings indoor situation.
> I don't have my POS and may not have one new enough but here is info from a reputable site. https://dvcnews.com/index.php/dvc-p...commercial-renting-limitations-amended-to-pos . I've also seen posts of letters members received at the time. There is also a limit of a single person being on no more than 4 accounts as an associate I believe. At the time there were a couple of big time clearly commercial members and a lot of sales followed.



Enrolling my weeks was worth it to me. I prepaid 8 years of exchange and lock off fees. The no cost M to M retrades is the icing on cake.

Thanks for the info about how DVC defines commercial renting. I can not find the addendum in the T&C for VGC, Aulani and VGF that I bought post 2008. I have not seen cancellations being enforced on someone. I do know someone in Florida that has over 25,000 dvc points and they did threaten him. None of his reservations were cancelled but he takes a more low profile approach now. Sort of like how the Chrisleys were caught by IRS because of their flaunting of wealth on TV show.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Nov 21, 2022)

frank808 said:


> Enrolling my weeks was worth it to me. I prepaid 8 years of exchange and lock off fees. The no cost M to M retrades is the icing on cake.
> 
> Thanks for the info about how DVC defines commercial renting. I can not find the addendum in the T&C for VGC, Aulani and VGF that I bought post 2008. I have not seen cancellations being enforced on someone. I do know someone in Florida that has over 25,000 dvc points and they did threaten him. None of his reservations were cancelled but he takes a more low profile approach now. Sort of like how the Chrisleys were caught by IRS because of their flaunting of wealth on TV show.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk


I would love to learn about this myself, but I have a mental block or something.  I think my brain is too full of Wyndham, Disney, Westin, and other resort systems to even add this to the mix.  I don't think I can add a new system without my head exploding.  

A few years ago, Emmy was able to help me a bit by explaining what the skim is all about.  I kept seeing negative comments about the skim. 

I do rent my Disney points, but I usually book reservations that are 50+ points, and we do use quite a few points ourselves.  It's not hard to use up the Disney points.  We own 500 points.  It's the most valuable ownership we have.  I love Disney points.  I wish I'd bought more when they were $50-60 per point.  

I just rented Disney's Riviera for a whopping $21 per point via Redweek.  I have listings on go-koala.com as well that have made over $20 per point.  Super happy with my ability to rent Disney.


----------



## timsi (Nov 21, 2022)

davidvel said:


> I'm not questioning whether they can accurately track the inventory they own, just as I can with my ownership. The question is how do they actually reserve their weeks that they own vs. how you or I have to do it? And whatever the answer is,  why am I not permitted to do it they way DC does?


Crickets.


----------



## daviator (Nov 21, 2022)

timsi said:


> Crickets.


I'm not sure what you expect.  You are asking questions that nobody here could possibly know the answers to.  And I don't know why you would expect the booking rules to be the same for an individual owner as for the developer or operator of the exchange system.  

But the implication that MVC is manipulating the rules to disadvantage owners is an unproven allegation.  I don't think that you, or anyone else, has presented any real evidence that this is happening, only that it COULD happen.


----------



## timsi (Nov 21, 2022)

daviator said:


> I'm not sure what you expect.  You are asking questions that nobody here could possibly know the answers to.  And I don't know why you would expect the booking rules to be the same for an individual owner as for the developer or operator of the exchange system.
> 
> But the implication that MVC is manipulating the rules to disadvantage owners is an unproven allegation.  I don't think that you, or anyone else, has presented any real evidence that this is happening, only that it COULD happen.


In case you did not notice, I was not the one who asked the question this time. If you ask me, I expect the booking rules to be according to the resort and exchange documents. You are right, no party should be disadvantaged: individuals, corporations or trusts.


----------



## daviator (Nov 21, 2022)

timsi said:


> In case you did not notice, I was not the one who asked the question this time. If you ask me, I expect the booking rules to be according to the resort and exchange documents. You are right, no party should be disadvantaged: individuals, corporations or trusts.


I think your expectation is reasonable (and sorry, I indeed didn't notice that you didn't ask the original question.). But the documents give a lot of leeway to the developer, and I think it's realistic to expect them to interpret the language as liberally as they think they can justify.  That may not always seem fair, but it's "just business."  If they color too far out of the lines, then they are risking a lawsuit or other legal action, one which they might lose.  I haven't seen any evidence that MVC has been crossing those lines.


----------



## timsi (Nov 21, 2022)

daviator said:


> I think your expectation is reasonable (and sorry, I indeed didn't notice that you didn't ask the original question.). But the documents give a lot of leeway to the developer, and I think it's realistic to expect them to interpret the language as liberally as they think they can justify.  That may not always seem fair, but it's "just business."  If they color too far out of the lines, then they are risking a lawsuit or other legal action, one which they might lose.  I haven't seen any evidence that MVC has been crossing those lines.


Not sure what documents you are referring to that would give them booking access that is not available to the other owners.


----------



## davidvel (Nov 21, 2022)

daviator said:


> I'm not sure what you expect.  You are asking questions that nobody here could possibly know the answers to.  And I don't know why you would expect the booking rules to be the same for an individual owner as for the developer or operator of the exchange system.
> 
> But the implication that MVC is manipulating the rules to disadvantage owners is an unproven allegation.  I don't think that you, or anyone else, has presented any real evidence that this is happening, only that it COULD happen.





timsi said:


> In case you did not notice, I was not the one who asked the question this time. If you ask me, I expect the booking rules to be according to the resort and exchange documents. You are right, no party should be disadvantaged: individuals, corporations or trusts.


I don't think that the governing docs for Shadow Ridge (which are identical to many, many other Marriott resorts on this subject), give them the right to do it. I invite those that read otherwise to opine:

Shadow Ridge Timeshare Declaration


----------



## wjarcher (Nov 22, 2022)

I wonder if the main reason MVC started to do this because of "However, these .... show high rates of late cancellations."  Because MVC has 30% points discount for reservations made within 60 days, late cancellation will be a loss of revenue for them.


----------



## daviator (Nov 22, 2022)

timsi said:


> Not sure what documents you are referring to that would give them booking access that is not available to the other owners.


Well, I was sort of referring to all of the benefits the developer gets, like basically 100% access to any inventory left within 60 days of arrival date, and the ability to interpret the rules where they are "gray" and to even change the rules when they want to.  We bought into SVO/Vistana believing that the developer would be fair in dealing with owners, and they generally were IMO.  Now we have a new developer which has succeeded SVO/Vistana, and they are changing some things in ways which open up new exchange opportunities but also introducing some changes that are less positive.  Some, like you, are afraid they are using their powers to disadvantage owners, but I haven't seen much evidence that that's their intent.  A healthy program and happy owners are in their best interests and ours.  Yes, they want to make more money from us, but that's neither new nor surprising.


----------



## Dean (Nov 22, 2022)

daviator said:


> Well, I was sort of referring to all of the benefits the developer gets, like basically 100% access to any inventory left within 60 days of arrival date, and the ability to interpret the rules where they are "gray" and to even change the rules when they want to.  We bought into SVO/Vistana believing that the developer would be fair in dealing with owners, and they generally were IMO.  Now we have a new developer which has succeeded SVO/Vistana, and they are changing some things in ways which open up new exchange opportunities but also introducing some changes that are less positive.  Some, like you, are afraid they are using their powers to disadvantage owners, but I haven't seen much evidence that that's their intent.  A healthy program and happy owners are in their best interests and ours.  Yes, they want to make more money from us, but that's neither new nor surprising.


Plus the ability to anticipate that inventory and book it earlier.


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 22, 2022)

davidvel said:


> I'm not questioning whether they can accurately track the inventory they own, just as I can with my ownership. The question is how do they actually reserve their weeks that they own vs. how you or I have to do it? And whatever the answer is,  why am I not permitted to do it they way DC does?


Ah, I was confusing entitlements v. process.

I don't know how your questions can be answered because none of us knows the procedure that Marriott uses to book the intervals to which it's entitled. I can't imagine that there are employees whose only job is to sign in to the exact same reservation platform that we owners use, but neither do I imagine technology that far exceeds the human capacity is being used. The former because that would be a colossal expense and a waste of resources, the latter because it would violate a number of governing docs stipulations. But maybe, they use technology that's designed to specifically mimic the human capacity, at least at the opening of every Reservation Window, with them in direct competition with owners and vice-versa?

Using the SurfWatch docs here, one thing I see repeatedly in the docs (including the Reservations Procedures updates that were emailed to owners in Nov 2010, that were applicable across most if not all resorts) is the statement, _"The Declarant may make reservation requests for a Time Sharing Interest(s) which it owns on the same basis as all other Owners."_ In my experience I haven't seen egregious activity by Marriott that makes me think they're somehow in violation of that stipulation. Have you? (That can read belligerently. That's not my intent. I'm honestly curious if you have.)

But that statement constrains Marriott only in relation to inventory that they own, and we all know that the docs grant them broad entitlements to usage and manipulation of inventory based on forecasts. Again, without knowing their process for booking, can it be quantified that they're somehow violating rights in doing so?

That's why I think inventory isn't pre-selected by usage dates/periods and deposited into "buckets" prior to Reservation Window openings, but instead coded into the realtime confirmation system in such a way that prevents any specific intervals from being reserved if rules/stipulations/limitations/inventory controls - applicable to owners and/or Marriott - would be violated. If that's the case, then I really don't understand how Marriott's process for reserving, even if it differs from the owners' process, in any way infringes on the owners' rights.


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 22, 2022)

davidvel said:


> I don't think that the governing docs for Shadow Ridge (which are identical to many, many other Marriott resorts on this subject), give them the right to do it. I invite those that read otherwise to opine:
> 
> Shadow Ridge Timeshare Declaration


I'm envious of your scan. 

If I had access to something that would make the process easy, I'd be happy to do it with the 375+pp SurfWatch POS and 325+pp Barony Beach Club POS. I've offered before to mail them to you if you want to compare and contrast?


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 22, 2022)

timsi said:


> Crickets.


Oh sorry, do I not respond speedily enough for you? Here's me, begging for forgiveness.  

But speaking about crickets: Post #172


----------



## timsi (Nov 22, 2022)

SueDonJ said:


> I don't know how your questions can be answered because none of us knows the procedure that Marriott uses to book the intervals to which it's entitled. I can't imagine that there are employees whose only job is to sign in to the exact same reservation platform that we owners use, but neither do I imagine technology that far exceeds the human capacity is being used. The former because that would be a colossal expense and a waste of resources, the latter because it would violate a number of governing docs stipulations. *But maybe, they use technology that's designed to specifically mimic the human capacity, at least at the opening of every Reservation Window, with them in direct competition with owners and vice-versa?*



Can I use the same technology "that's designed to specifically mimic the human capacity"?


----------



## timsi (Nov 22, 2022)

SueDonJ said:


> Oh sorry, do I not respond speedily enough for you? Here's me, begging for forgiveness.
> 
> But speaking about crickets: Post #172


The answer is very easy, I misread what you wrote in the comment I was referring to.


----------



## davidvel (Nov 22, 2022)

SueDonJ said:


> Ah, I was confusing entitlements v. process.
> 
> I don't know how your questions can be answered because none of us knows the procedure that Marriott uses to book the intervals to which it's entitled. I can't imagine that there are employees whose only job is to sign in to the exact same reservation platform that we owners use, but neither do I imagine technology that far exceeds the human capacity is being used. The former because that would be a colossal expense and a waste of resources, the latter because it would violate a number of governing docs stipulations. But maybe, they use technology that's designed to specifically mimic the human capacity, at least at the opening of every Reservation Window, with them in direct competition with owners and vice-versa?
> 
> ...


You have more faith in the ability of Marriott IT to perform such a technical task, given they can barely keep the website running on a daily basis!  While I appreciate your suggestion of what they could do to make it fair and comparable to us calling in, I somehow doubt they have gone to such lengths to do so. However, such a system still would not make it equal to what we have to do by a long shot.  You are right that we don't know how they reserve the weeks they are entitled to, and this in and of itself is a very big problem IMO.

I'm not sure the language you are referring to about "forecasts." If this is in the DC docs it has no bearing on the timeshare declarations, and rights to reserve. MVC can't create a Club with rules that apply to or affect the underlying declarations, anymore than I could. Once they properly reserve their weeks, they can do what they see fit (although I also question their right to engage in the commercial activity that the DC Club is.) 

I have heard lots of anecdotal reports of it being "harder" to reserve since the DClub started. I have also heard lots of salespeople who stat the same. Actual evidence? No. But I also don't see a practical way that the DC can reserve its weeks in a way that is on par with "regular" owners.


----------



## wuv pooh (Nov 23, 2022)

davidvel said:


> I have heard lots of anecdotal reports of it being "harder" to reserve since the DClub started. I have also heard lots of salespeople who stat the same. Actual evidence? No. But I also don't see a practical way that the DC can reserve its weeks in a way that is on par with "regular" owners.



I don't see the motive.  What benefit do they get or want in the reservation process?  They don't occupy weeks for their employees.  If someone trades for a cruise, vacation, Bonvoy points, or an unreserved II deposit then they take a junk week and clear it.  There are only 2 other options that I can think of:

1. They want to fill a specific II request - but that benefits an owner.  Not necessarily a Marriott owner.
2. They want to make money renting prime weeks.

As I have stated before, their rental business sucks and people still book prime weeks so I don't believe this a significant issue.  If anything, probably the reverse.  Other owners book prime weeks and rent them, deposit them for better trade value, or give to Marriott for the rental program.

I also don't think there is any mystery around how they get inventory.  Marriott has enough intervals to book 52 weeks at every resort.  If they want to they can book 52 weeks consecutive on Jan 1st and figure it out later.  Least that is how it used to work with people booking prime weeks months before they open by stringing the 13 weeks they own to cover the full season in FL or wherever.  50% can be booked early and I doubt there are many individual owners that can compete with Marriott on a volume basis, so they can probably get a week without being on the phone at 8:59:59.

They also see 100% of the demand and have created alternative usage options that smooth out the demand.  Imagine what a sh*%show it would be if it was just the COA trying to balance usage demands of the one resort where you were deeded - ie you can use 4th of July once every 7 years so everyone has a fair chance.  They provide much more value than they take out of the ecosystem.

I am not a Marriott simp, the points system is about 50% less valuable to me than the weeks system was (I owned cheap weeks that got fewer points), so that was definitely a big push in their favor.  I also don't like that if they do a poor job managing expenses then I pay the price.  I would rather see an agreed budget with incentive fees to them for beating the budget.  Our interests are not aligned under the current system.  However, I have adapted and continue to get good value and will continue until I see that the value is gone.


----------



## l0410z (Nov 23, 2022)

As i read through the posts, I realize how little I think and know  about the entity called MVCI.  I have to admit,  I am  very cynical of MVCI.    Everything MVCI does   is to fix a problem that is preventing them from selling more. I also believe everything MVCI does benefit some, maybe a lot of owner but it is an also not the main reason.    Fixed week to Floating opens the full inventory so all weeks within a season look the same.  It is easier to sell when all weeks look the same  Floating to points - can't compete with resale on price so change the playing field.  Create ownership levels for a feeling of privilege and keep increasing the clip levels to maintain the privilege distribution.   You want to figure out why this is happening now, start with how  this benefits MVCI allows MVCI to sell more.  One last point.  though I am cynical,   I am also a very happy long time owner.


----------



## timsi (Nov 23, 2022)

T


l0410z said:


> As i read through the posts, I realize how little I think and know  about the entity called MVCI.  I have to admit,  I am  very cynical of MVCI.    Everything MVCI does   is to fix a problem that is preventing them from selling more. I also believe everything MVCI does benefit some, maybe a lot of owner but it is an also not the main reason.    Fixed week to Floating opens the full inventory so all weeks within a season look the same.  It is easier to sell when all weeks look the same  Floating to points - can't compete with resale on price so change the playing field.  Create ownership levels for a feeling of privilege and keep increasing the clip levels to maintain the privilege distribution.   You want to figure out why this is happening now, start with how  this benefits MVCI allows MVCI to sell more.  One last point.  though I am cynical,   I am also a very happy long time owner.


It is important if they book their inventory the same way as the other owners, the motivation is not very relevant. 

Without accusing them of anything, the motivation would be pretty obvious. The weeks of the season have identical deposit value, but they rent at very different rates. If their rental business is 500-700 million dollars a year, it would be business malpractice not to try to optimize the inventory. The numbers show a very nice rental business.  Do you think that the composition of the inventory they own to rent is identical with the weeks they convey to the trusts? If not, why not?


----------



## SueDonJ (Nov 23, 2022)

timsi said:


> ... Do you think that the composition of the inventory they own to rent is identical with the weeks they convey to the trusts? If not, why not?


How can inventory that they own ever be identical to what's conveyed to the Trust, considering that conveyances are permanent and what they own can change minute-to-minute? They acquire inventory all the time and Trust conveyances are ongoing, so what they own that's not conveyed is constantly changing. Then added to the metric is the inventory that they temporarily acquire based on owners' non-performance, which Marriott gains usage of but does not have the right to convey to the Trust until/unless they eventually take over the ownership. Should they be somehow equalizing that unknown quantity with Trust conveyances, and how do you suggest they do that other than through forecasting?


----------



## Dean (Nov 23, 2022)

timsi said:


> T
> 
> It is important if they book their inventory the same way as the other owners, the motivation is not very relevant.
> 
> Without accusing them of anything, the motivation would be pretty obvious. The weeks of the season have identical deposit value, but they rent at very different rates. If their rental business is 500-700 million dollars a year, it would be business malpractice not to try to optimize the inventory. The numbers show a very nice rental business.  Do you think that the composition of the inventory they own to rent is identical with the weeks they convey to the trusts? If not, why not?


Off season weeks don't have the same rental value or exchange value plus it would take more weeks to eat the same number of points.  Any system has to balance the needs of the system and then individual even if done appropriately.  I don't believe what they rent and convey to the trust is the same as they have different goals.  They will be happy to enroll any week under the enrollment rules but the return on investment for a bad week is far less and often less than what it'd cost them to do so.


----------



## timsi (Nov 23, 2022)

SueDonJ said:


> How can inventory that they own ever be identical to what's conveyed to the Trust, considering that conveyances are permanent and what they own can change minute-to-minute? They acquire inventory all the time and Trust conveyances are ongoing, so what they own that's not conveyed is constantly changing. Then added to the metric is the inventory that they temporarily acquire based on owners' non-performance, which Marriott gains usage of but does not have the right to convey to the Trust until/unless they eventually take over the ownership. Should they be somehow equalizing that unknown quantity with Trust conveyances, and how do you suggest they do that other than through forecasting?


You have to make a distinction between:

1) the legacy WEEK inventory they own and rent. Everybody knows the weeks have the same value within a season, but the rental value is quite different depending on the week you can book. I am not aware of how they book those weeks and apparently nobody else here knows. 

2) the quality of the weeks they buy, the inventory they convey to the trust and the inventory they keep to rent. My question was about this and maybe you know if the legacy week inventory they keep is similar to what they convey to the trusts.


----------

