# [2010] Marriott is Destroying Value of Existing Deeds



## Lawlar (Jul 1, 2010)

Those of us who bought directly from Marriott were sold on the idea that a deeded interest in a resort conveyed a special ownership interest in the resort that could be handed down for generations.  My sales rep talked at length about how real estate appreciates over time.  She emphasized that MOC would soon be sold out and Marriott would maintain a sales force at MOC that would act as a broker for owners who wanted to sell their units.  Needless to say, the presentation was full of implications that we would be able to sell through Marriott at a profit.

Now the whole system has changed so the concept of a deed is going to seem like an anachronism to those who receive Marriott’s new sales pitch (“you don’t have to be limited to one resort with the old out-of-date deed system, out new points system gives you ownership rights in all of the properties – why limit yourself”).

So obviously Marriott isn’t going to be offering to help us sell our deeded unit, if and when we want to sell.  They will have salespeople at MOC selling and promoting points, with no interest in the old system.

So those who own deeded interests are being abandoned.  Why would anyone want to buy a deed from us when Marriott is telling them that it is better to buy points (points that will depreciate).

Which leaves me with a question: since this new program has a dramatic effect on each resort (supposedly owned by the timeshare owners), how come each resort wasn’t given the opportunity to vote on whether it wanted to participate in the new point program – or continue to have the resort operate as it was originally established.

And how come when I look at my original paperwork from Marriott, which describes who can reserve a week and under what priority (it only talks about unit owners and it only distinguishes between those who own one week vs. those who own multiple weeks), it doesn’t mention that Marriott can create an entirely new system, for its own benefit, and sell points that will give these new customers the right to reserve weeks at MOC, even though they have no direct ownership interest in MOC.

I already felt taken by Marriott (think MFs and the difficulty of reserving a desirable week), now I feel completely betrayed.  Marriott is only interested in its own profits and it seems to believe that the best way to make the big profits is to treat is customers like suckers.


----------



## camachinist (Jul 1, 2010)

What would you do if you owned a condo and the management company the HOA hired wasn't meeting your expectations and the HOA was sitting on their hands? You'd rally owners to take over the HOA and then boot out the management. Where I own, I'd have no problem with that. The location, neighbors and potential for alternatives stand on their own. We don't need Marriott for anything other than their reservation/exchange system and that IT could be contracted out. It's happened before.


----------



## Dave M (Jul 1, 2010)

Lawlar said:


> Which leaves me with a question: since this new program has a dramatic effect on each resort (supposedly owned by the timeshare owners), how come each resort wasn’t given the opportunity to vote on whether it wanted to participate in the new point program – or continue to have the resort operate as it was originally established.


Two reasons:
(1) The individual resorts don't have the authority to control weeks that Marriott has in its possession. That's what we are talking about - unsold weeks, weeks that owners trade to Marriott for Marriott Rewards points and weeks that legacy owners such as us decide to trade to Marriott for ne Club points (for those owners that decide to enroll.
(2) The resorts will operate as in the past. The changes are at the Marriott administration level. The only difference at the resorts is that, because there might well be more short stays, there may be additional expense for check-in activity, housekeeping and perhaps a few other items. Those additional costs are built into the high MFs to be charged to points purchasers so that Marriot can reimburse resorts for those additional costs.



> And how come when I look at my original paperwork from Marriott, which describes who can reserve a week and under what priority (it only talks about unit owners and it only distinguishes between those who own one week vs. those who own multiple weeks), it doesn’t mention that Marriott can create an entirely new system, for its own benefit, and sell points that will give these new customers the right to reserve weeks at MOC, even though they have no direct ownership interest in MOC.


As I stated above, there is nothing in those documents that prevents Marriott from ovelaying a system for how it will use its own weeks.

Feel free to ignore the new program and use your week as you have in the past.


----------



## Lawlar (Jul 1, 2010)

*What is Fair?*

Dave: we are talking from totally different perspectives.  You are focused on whether Marriott has the legal right to do what it is doing.  Their lawyers are cagey, so they can probably do as they like.

My point is that Marriott’s new program, and the sales promotions that will spring from it, affects the perceived value of owning a deeded interest in a resort.  Marriott sold the deeded interest concept as something special.  Now it will be selling a new concept it will represent as having greater value, thereby decreasing the value/desirability of the existing deeded interests we own.  

If we focus on fairness and ethics, or just courtesy, it would have been better if Marriott asked its present owners if they wanted their resort to be subject to this new program.


----------



## DanCali (Jul 1, 2010)

Lawlar said:


> Dave: we are talking from totally different perspectives.  You are focused on whether Marriott has the legal right to do what it is doing.  Their lawyers are cagey, so they can probably do as they like.
> 
> My point is that Marriott’s new program, and the sales promotions that will spring from it, affects the perceived value of owning a deeded interest in a resort.  Marriott sold the deeded interest concept as something special.  Now it will be selling a new concept it will represent as having greater value, thereby decreasing the value/desirability of the existing deeded interests we own.
> 
> If we focus on fairness and ethics, or just courtesy, it would have been better if Marriott asked its present owners if they wanted their resort to be subject to this new program.



As some people here are quick to point out many times, Marriott has no obligation to maintain resale values. I vehemently oppose this point of view, because they purposely devalue timeshares (by changing rules) to enrich themselves. But the reality is what it is... 

I figure if they devalue my VOI by $5K and I educate owners and every year convince 4-6 of them to do the smart financial thing and rescind (1-2 per week of vacation) then we're even. I lost $5K, Marriott loses $200K (year after year)... If there were hundreds of us talking to owners at the various resorts' pools Marriott may re-prioritize its obligations towards owners.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 1, 2010)

DanCali said:


> As some people here are quick to point out many times, Marriott has no obligation to maintain resale values. I vehemently oppose this point of view, because they purposely devalue timeshares (by changing rules) to enrich themselves. But the reality is what it is...
> 
> I figure if they devalue my VOI by $5K and I educate owners and every year convince 4-6 of them to do the smart financial thing and rescind (1-2 per week of vacation) then we're even. I lost $5K, Marriott loses $200K (year after year)... If there were hundreds of us talking to owners at the various resorts' pools Marriott may re-prioritize its obligations towards owners.



Oh my goodness.  No disrespect or attitude intended at all, Dan, but if I felt as strongly as you do about Marriott having no credibility because of this, I'd do whatever it takes to walk away.  The thought of committing my time at a Marriott timeshare - where I'm supposed to be vacationing, recharging and rejuvenating and simply enjoying life - to convince other people NOT to do what I'm doing, is exhausting!


----------



## RedDogSD (Jul 1, 2010)

I don't see your Maui Ocean Club deeds losing any more value any time soon.  You have too nice of a commodity.  Anyone buying points is buying the HOPE that they can get into what you are GUARANTEED to get into.  Not to mention, since Hawaii is nice ALL YEAR, you don't really have to worry about the whole world trying to get your weeks.  At my resort, if I don't book February or March, then I might as well just use AC's or getaways since I can do either to get into my resort cheaper during those months.  The only months that are expensive and cannot be had cheaper are Feb or March.  For your resort, there is no real low season.  You have a very special property and I would not worry so much.  IMHO.


----------



## DanCali (Jul 1, 2010)

SueDonJ said:


> Oh my goodness.  No disrespect or attitude intended at all, Dan, but if I felt as strongly as you do about Marriott having no credibility because of this, I'd do whatever it takes to walk away.  The thought of committing my time at a Marriott timeshare - where I'm supposed to be vacationing, recharging and rejuvenating and simply enjoying life - to convince other people NOT to do what I'm doing, is exhausting!



Actually I'd be convincing them to do what I did... buy resale and never buy from Marriott. If fact, when you tell someone that there is a resale market and that they can buy something for 30% or retail prices, they are pretty grateful - especially when they realize they would lose 70% of their investment upfront. That gratitude can be quite rewarding!

It amazes me how retail buyers can watch the value of their purchase go down 90%+ and simply accept it as Marriott right to devalue their purchase.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 1, 2010)

DanCali said:


> Actually I'd be convincing them to do what I did... buy resale and never buy from Marriott. If fact, when you tell someone that there is a resale market and that they can buy something for 30% or retail prices, they are pretty grateful - especially when they realize they would lose 70% of their investment upfront. That gratitude can be quite rewarding!
> 
> It amazes me how retail buyers can watch the value of their purchase go down 90%+ and simply accept it as Marriott right to devalue their purchase.



But I think you're forgetting that for some people the object isn't to get the cheapest timeshare possible, it's to get the particular vacation experience at whatever price point is out there.  In some cases that means buying from the developer because the particular inventory isn't available any other way.

Especially now with Weeks being further devalued and not eligible for Points enrollment upon resale, and Points being the only commodity for future developments and resale costs/usage of those seriously devalued in the new system, going forward "buy resale" will not always be the perfect option that you make it out to be.  It's true that the resale market will have the best prices for the Weeks already established, but resale buyers of those weeks will have to be satisfied with home resort usage.  Marriott-direct will be the best option in the future for buyers who want flexibility.

As far as devaluation expectations, we've been all through and around and under and over it.  Let's not do it again.


----------



## Whirl (Jul 1, 2010)

DanCali said:


> Actually I'd be convincing them to do what I did... buy resale and never buy from Marriott. If fact, when you tell someone that there is a resale market and that they can buy something for 30% or retail prices, they are pretty grateful - especially when they realize they would lose 70% of their investment upfront. That gratitude can be quite rewarding!
> 
> It amazes me how retail buyers can watch the value of their purchase go down 90%+ and simply accept it as Marriott right to devalue their purchase.



But if Marriott is not financially viable and they can't sell new interests, then they are not the only ones that lose. You do too, as there will no longer be any incentive for Marriott to operate and maintain the resort(s) that you love.  Resale is a grand thing, but as with any market, someone had to buy it first. 

I agree that if you feel that strongly a better solution would be to sell your week for whatever you can and move on. Or if you have excess energy to expend, then try to make a difference in a more positive way. Rally owners together in a way that at least has a change of having a beneficial outcome for someone, anyone. Raising hell  poolside and making all the other owners miserable too and trying to financially ruin Marriott will yield no good outcome.


----------



## DanCali (Jul 1, 2010)

SueDonJ said:


> ...Marriott-direct will be the best option in the future for buyers who want flexibility.



This "flexibility" comes at a great price that is very hard to justify in my opinion. 

Here is my analysis of buying directly from Marriott. It's a losing proposition... (my opinion of course).

I believe most would prefer to buy a week where they want to go at a more reasonable cost - they just need to know the option is there.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 1, 2010)

DanCali said:


> This "flexibility" comes at a great price that is very hard to justify in my opinion.
> 
> Here is my analysis of buying directly from Marriott. It's a losing proposition... (my opinion of course).
> 
> I believe most would prefer to buy a week where they want to go at a more reasonable cost - they just need to know the option is there.



Not saying you're wrong, Dan, or that I'm right.  And the more options a person has, the better.  I'm just trying to point out that buying developer-direct is not ALWAYS a poor choice, it appears especially so going forward, and that IMO spreading anti-Marriott sentiment all over a Marriott resort doesn't sound like a fun vacation.  I wouldn't do it, and I wouldn't listen to it from someone who did.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 1, 2010)

SueDonJ said:


> Not saying you're wrong, Dan, or that I'm right.  And the more options a person has, the better.  I'm just trying to point out that buying developer-direct is not ALWAYS a poor choice, it appears especially so going forward, and that IMO spreading anti-Marriott sentiment all over a Marriott resort doesn't sound like a fun vacation.  I wouldn't do it, and I wouldn't listen to it from someone who did.



Easy to say for you since your $MF/Point is so low.  After that, everything else is free.


----------



## DanCali (Jul 1, 2010)

SueDonJ said:


> Not saying you're wrong, Dan, or that I'm right.  And the more options a person has, the better.  I'm just trying to point out that buying developer-direct is not ALWAYS a poor choice, it appears especially so going forward, and that IMO spreading anti-Marriott sentiment all over a Marriott resort doesn't sound like a fun vacation.  I wouldn't do it, and I wouldn't listen to it from someone who did.



Up until two weeks ago I was a fan. I was telling people on the Starwood board they should buy Marriotts. Never in my worst scenario did I imagine they would come up with such a terrible and owner unfriendly points program. I might not even care as much and just keep using how I planned to use when I bought, but the fact that they are purposely devaluing deeded weeks by disallowing future buyers entry into points is pure value destruction. You may not care, even though you paid much more than I did. But I do care.

Marriott should realize that every action has a reaction and their biggest fans are not necessarily fans for life...

As far as listening to anyone - it's a free country. Listen to whoever you want. But, in my opinion, if you are going to listen to a Marriott salesperson, save yourself the 90-120 minutes and just flush the $10K-$40K down the toilet... At least there are no MFs associated with that.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 1, 2010)

DanCali said:


> Up until two weeks ago I was a fan. I was telling people on the Starwood board they should buy Marriotts. Never in my worst scenario did I imagine they would come up with such a terrible and owner unfriendly points program. I might not even care as much and just keep using how I planned to use when I bought, but the fact that they are purposely devaluing deeded weeks by disallowing future buyers entry into points is pure value destruction. You may not care, even though you paid much more than I did. But I do care.
> 
> Marriott should realize that every action has a reaction and their biggest fans are not necessarily fans for life...



And that's fine, Marriott probably expected that they would lose some repeat business from existing customers.  Nothing wrong with you deciding for yourself that Marriott is no longer a company with which you'll do business.  Let them know in no uncertain terms that they've lost your enchantment with what they can offer you.

But this crusade at the resorts, that I don't understand!  What do you care what other people have bought, or will buy, or whether or not they understand all the ramifications of how Marriott's new system will affect them?  You sound like you're saying that folks need saving (either from their own foolish money decisions or from Marriott, can't figure out which.)  Well, it's possible that some people who've made different choices from you have made the right choice for them.

Really, it's not a big deal.  Nobody can stop you if you're determined to badmouth Marriott every chance you get.  I just can't imagine wanting to hear it while I'm vacationing.  And as Whirl says, the plan could end up backfiring.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 1, 2010)

BocaBum99 said:


> Easy to say for you since your $MF/Point is so low.  After that, everything else is free.



This puzzles me but maybe you're right and perspective has something to do with it.  But honestly, like I said, if I was that unhappy with Marriott I'd do whatever it took to walk away.  And if that's not the choice made, why increase all the negativity by taking it on vacation and spreading it to others?  That's not productive at all, seems to be at odds with the purpose of vacationing.


----------



## windje2000 (Jul 1, 2010)

> As I stated above, there is nothing in those documents that prevents Marriott from ovelaying a system for how it will use its own weeks.



True - but did you anticipate having a trust established by the development company (MVCI) as a long term multiple unit owner?  Or did you expect MVCI to sell out the inventory and move on.   That's what I expected

The ability to exchange is an intangible asset that accompanied the deed. For many it was the sizzle that came with (and sold) the steak.  Impairing the ability to exchange impairs the value of that intangible and the value of the property with which it is associated.

The depth and breadth of any market is determined by the number of participants.  MVCI moving to create a separate class of market participants acting in unison through a trust changes the breadth and depth of the existing market for exchanges.  Can that have a positive effect on my ability to exchange?  I don't think so.  It can only have a negative effect.  The 800 pound gorillas negatively affect all other market participants.  

Moreover, MVCI has the unique ability by virtue of its having the resort management contracts to control the reservation books.  They'll now have an even greater incentive to place themselves at the head of the reservation line.  

And there's no way you'll know whether or not they did engage in that kind of self dealing because there's no ability to audit them.  There is no transparency in the relationships and transactions between MVCI, II, the trust and the two classes of owners.  

Is it reasonable to expect that MVCI will act in its own best interests?  I think so.  It has now put itself in direct competition for weeks with the 'legacy' owners.  That is unprecedented.  

It was to be expected MVCI might have some unsold weeks during the roll out of new resorts and would temporarily be 'owners.'  

I did not expect this.


----------



## rsackett (Jul 1, 2010)

SueDonJ said:


> This puzzles me but maybe you're right and perspective has something to do with it.  But honestly, like I said, if I was that unhappy with Marriott I'd do whatever it took to walk away.  And if that's not the choice made, why increase all the negativity by taking it on vacation and spreading it to others?  That's not productive at all, seems to be at odds with the purpose of vacationing.




I think part of the difference is how the "Resort" is viewed.  I understand that you feel the resorts are Marriott's, I think Dan feels that the resorts belong to the owners and the owners hire Marriott to manage the resorts.  I am sure Dan likes the resorts he owns, but currently dislikes the management company the owners hired to run the resort.

Marriott charges owners a good amount to have the Marriott name on the front of the resort.  The Marriott name brings many good things with it.  I think most owners feel the price for having the Marriott name on the resort is worth it.  However, I am sure that some people are starting to wonder if that is still as true as it was a few weeks ago.

Ray


----------



## DanCali (Jul 1, 2010)

Whirl said:


> But if Marriott is not financially viable and they can't sell new interests, then they are not the only ones that lose. You do too, as there will no longer be any incentive for Marriott to operate and maintain the resort(s) that you love.  Resale is a grand thing, but as with any market, someone had to buy it first.
> 
> I agree that if you feel that strongly a better solution would be to sell your week for whatever you can and move on. Or if you have excess energy to expend, then try to make a difference in a more positive way. Rally owners together in a way that at least has a change of having a beneficial outcome for someone, anyone. Raising hell  poolside and making all the other owners miserable too and trying to financially ruin Marriott will yield no good outcome.



MVCI can go away or Marriott can file for Chapter 11 and our resorts will be just fine. I'm sure Hilton, Hyatt, or Starwood will be glad compete for and pick up management duties at all of them. At least we'd get a points system with no skimming and hidden lockoff fees...



rsackett said:


> I think part of the difference is how the "Resort" is viewed.  I understand that you feel the resorts are Marriott's, I think Dan feels that the resorts belong to the owners and the owners hire Marriott to manage the resorts.  I am sure Dan likes the resorts he owns, but currently dislikes the management company the owners hired to run the resort.
> 
> Marriott charges owners a good amount to have the Marriott name on the front of the resort.  The Marriott name brings many good things with it.  I think most owners feel the price for having the Marriott name on the resort is worth it.  However, I am sure that some people are starting to wonder if that is still as true as it was a few weeks ago.



This about sums it up...


----------



## pianodinosaur (Jul 1, 2010)

I recently purchased Marriott Mountain Valley Lodge 1 bedroom Gold season for $34.01 with the owner paying this years MFs and all closing costs and transfer fees.  I do not think I am allowed to participate in the points program as a resale owner, but then again, my MF/point ratio is very high and it would not be a good move for me even I were able to participate.  Thanks again to BocaBum99 for doing the creative mathematics.


----------



## lovearuba (Jul 1, 2010)

*Promises are being broken*

The whole vacation concept sold by Marriott is being changed.  I wonder how many folks would have bought if they knew Marriott would change the rules so drastically.  Its just not right no matter how you look at it and hopefully Marriott is reading this blog and their own blog. If that doesnt convince them that they've hurt customer relations than nothing will.


----------



## steveg11 (Jul 1, 2010)

Lawlar said:


> Those of us who bought directly from Marriott were sold on the idea that a deeded interest in a resort conveyed a special ownership interest in the resort that could be handed down for generations.  My sales rep talked at length about how real estate appreciates over time.  She emphasized that MOC would soon be sold out and Marriott would maintain a sales force at MOC that would act as a broker for owners who wanted to sell their units.  Needless to say, the presentation was full of implications that we would be able to sell through Marriott at a profit.
> 
> Now the whole system has changed so the concept of a deed is going to seem like an anachronism to those who receive Marriott’s new sales pitch (“you don’t have to be limited to one resort with the old out-of-date deed system, out new points system gives you ownership rights in all of the properties – why limit yourself”).
> 
> ...



If Marriott is convinced that a deeded system is out of date, as you are claiming, I wonder why it is that their new system is also deeded?


----------



## hotcoffee (Jul 1, 2010)

Lawlar said:


> Those of us who bought directly from Marriott were sold on the idea that a deeded interest in a resort conveyed a special ownership interest in the resort that could be handed down for generations.  My sales rep talked at length about how real estate appreciates over time.  She emphasized that MOC would soon be sold out and Marriott would maintain a sales force at MOC that would act as a broker for owners who wanted to sell their units.  Needless to say, the presentation was full of implications that we would be able to sell through Marriott at a profit.
> . . .




There is something I don't understand about your complaint.  The arrival of the points program has nothing to do with the problem this first paragraph describes.  You sales person lied to you about appreciation.  When I first began complemplating the purchase of a timeshare, I quickly found out that the resale value will plummet badly as soon as I sign on the dotted line.  The points program did not cause this.  It's been that way.  The economy has also caused resale values to tank badly.  Understandingly, if Marriott takes no action to help owners recover at least some value, resale values will drop even lower.  In fact, it could even get difficult to even give a Marriott timeshare away.  Why would someone want to saddle themselves with maintenance fees if they perceive that there will be some disadvantages to buying? 

However, it is likely that Marriott will do some things that will help stop the free fall of resale values.  For one, they will probably start using ROFR more now (assuming you are selling a desireable week at a desireable location).  For another, they will probably be more willing to buy back some desireable weeks (especially in sold out resorts) to pad their inventory.  Moreover, there is no evidence that they intend to halt their existing resale program.  I think owning at the MOC will protect you from seeing your timeshare from falling too far in resale value.  In your case, the economy is probably going to hurt you way more than the points program will.


----------



## DanCali (Jul 1, 2010)

hotcoffee said:


> However, it is likely that Marriott will do some things that will help stop the free fall of resale values.



If this is so then why did they prohibit future resales into the program? This provision will be responsible for any drops in resale value over the next 6-12 months, not the economy (which is in the gutter and is not likely to get better anytime soon).

Had they said if you enroll your week a future buyer can get into points gratis, I'd agree with you - we'd see a nice appreciation to our weeks if we enrolled and we'd be happy paying them $2K, probably even with the skim factor. But guess what? - they had other plans for us...


----------



## hotcoffee (Jul 1, 2010)

DanCali said:


> If this is so then why did they prohibit future resales into the program? This provision will be responsible for any drops in resale value over the next 6-12 months, not the economy (which is in the gutter and is not likely to get better anytime soon).
> 
> Had they said if you enroll your week a future buyer can get into points gratis, I'd agree with you - we'd see a nice appreciation to our weeks if we enrolled and we'd be happy paying them $2K, probably even with the skim factor. But guess what? - they had other plans for us...



Probably because there is a strong element in Marriott that sides with some of those who post in this forum that resale owners should be punished for buying resale.  I think the grandfathering of existing resale owners was a compromise of sorts.  The second of the three reps I spoke with when I first began questioning Marriott about the new program was one such person.  I could tell from her tone of voice that she was hostile to me because of my resale week.  At one point when I pressed her about resale values, she lost it completely.  She told me frankly that I should not expect Marriott to reward me for paying so much less than people who purchased from Marriott. The tone of her voice said more than the words she used, and those said a lot of themselves.  I think if it were up to that faction, we would be placed under even worse restrictions.

Even so, it would not surprise me if Marriott eventually provided some kind of perhaps yearly open season for resale buyers to enroll.  It is in their benefit to do so.  But those who advocate that will face some opposition.


----------



## thheath (Jul 1, 2010)

DanCali said:


> Up until two weeks ago I was a fan. I was telling people on the Starwood board they should buy Marriotts. Never in my worst scenario did I imagine they would come up with such a terrible and owner unfriendly points program. I might not even care as much and just keep using how I planned to use when I bought, but the fact that they are purposely devaluing deeded weeks by disallowing future buyers entry into points is pure value destruction. You may not care, even though you paid much more than I did. But I do care.
> 
> Marriott should realize that every action has a reaction and their biggest fans are not necessarily fans for life...
> 
> ...


----------



## DanCali (Jul 1, 2010)

DanCali said:


> If this is so then why did they prohibit future resales into the program? This provision will be responsible for any drops in resale value over the next 6-12 months, not the economy (which is in the gutter and is not likely to get better anytime soon).
> 
> Had they said if you enroll your week a future buyer can get into points gratis, I'd agree with you - we'd see a nice appreciation to our weeks if we enrolled and we'd be happy paying them $2K, probably even with the skim factor. But guess what? - they had other plans for us...






hotcoffee said:


> Probably because there is a strong element in Marriott that sides with some of those who post in this forum that resale owners should be punished for buying resale.




I still don't agree... This new policy that destroys resale values (excluding future resales from points) also affects the 350,000 owners who bought directly from Marriott. Their equity also evaporates into thin air... The more loyal the cusomer and the more they spent with Marriott, the more equity they lose...


----------



## BocaBoy (Jul 1, 2010)

WOW.  This Dan guy is really something!  

I own several Marriott weeks in Hawaii, Las Vegas and Florida and it is clear to me that Marriott has not hurt my resale value with the new option.  They may have even enhanced it.  It is all too easy to scream and yell without paying attention to the facts.  (Just like a Congress Critter.) I think that is what we are seeing here.

Marriott is even stepping up its efforts at reselling deeded weeks.  For example, a new Marriott Resales website will be in operation soon--they have never done that before.  Just think about it for a minute--Marriott is selling points now and is therefore not in apples to apples competition with existing weeks owners to sell deeded weeks.  That means they can step up their resale efforts on behalf of existing owners (and earn their 40% commission) as a parallel product line to their points sales.  Could be very good for us if we decide to sell at some point.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 1, 2010)

BocaBoy said:


> WOW.  This Dan guy is really something!
> 
> I own several Marriott weeks in Hawaii, Las Vegas and Florida and it is clear to me that Marriott has not hurt my resale value with the new option.  They may have even enhanced it.  It is all too easy to scream and yell without paying attention to the facts.  (Just like a Congress Critter.) I think that is what we are seeing here.
> 
> Marriott is even stepping up its efforts at reselling deeded weeks.  For example, a new Marriott Resales website will be in operation soon--they have never done that before.  Just think about it for a minute--Marriott is selling points now and is therefore not in apples to apples competition with existing weeks owners to sell deeded weeks.  That means they can step up their resale efforts on behalf of existing owners (and earn their 40% commission) as a parallel product line to their points sales.  Could be very good for us if we decide to sell at some point.



I am not a chicken little regarding Marriott devaluing ownerships, however, I do believe that this new program will on average have a negative impact on resale values of current weeks ownerships.

It is inevitable.  Resort Developers are all the same, the proactively de-value ownerships over time.  ALL RESORT DEVELOPERS DO IT BAR NONE.

Just try tracking the historical resale values of ANY resort group in up and down real estate markets and up and down economies.

They do it because the can slowly bleed current owners as they are a captive audience that can be bled.

It's as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow.

That said, it is a very slow decline and given the very high standard deviation of resale prices around the mean, there is a huge opportunity for smart timesharing people to capitalize on a declining market.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 1, 2010)

RedDogSD said:


> I don't see your Maui Ocean Club deeds losing any more value any time soon.  You have too nice of a commodity.  Anyone buying points is buying the HOPE that they can get into what you are GUARANTEED to get into.  Not to mention, since Hawaii is nice ALL YEAR, you don't really have to worry about the whole world trying to get your weeks.  At my resort, if I don't book February or March, then I might as well just use AC's or getaways since I can do either to get into my resort cheaper during those months.  The only months that are expensive and cannot be had cheaper are Feb or March.  For your resort, there is no real low season.  You have a very special property and I would not worry so much.  IMHO.



If maintenance fees keep rising at the rate of the past few years, then resale values will continue to plummet.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 1, 2010)

DanCali said:


> I still don't agree... This new policy that destroys resale values (excluding future resales from points) also affects the 350,000 owners who bought directly from Marriott. Their equity also evaporates into thin air... The more loyal the cusomer and the more they spent with Marriott, the more equity they lose...



Dan,

You need to chill.  It's not as bad as you are positioning it.  It's no different than everything else that is happening in the market.  Change is inevitable and it won't be in owner's favor.

That's okay.  Just use that as a going forward assumption and act accordingly.  You will be much happier.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Jul 1, 2010)

DanCali said:


> Actually I'd be convincing them to do what I did... buy resale and never buy from Marriott. If fact, when you tell someone that there is a resale market and that they can buy something for 30% or retail prices, they are pretty grateful - especially when they realize they would lose 70% of their investment upfront. That gratitude can be quite rewarding!
> 
> It amazes me how retail buyers can watch the value of their purchase go down 90%+ and simply accept it as Marriott right to devalue their purchase.



Actually, the entire timeshare market is fueled and funded by timeshare owners who purchase from the developer.  If they didn't buy, there would be no going forward market. 

So, next time you see a retail buyer, just thank them for helping you get wonderful vacations for cheap.


----------



## DanCali (Jul 2, 2010)

BocaBoy said:


> WOW.  This Dan guy is really something!
> 
> I own several Marriott weeks in Hawaii, Las Vegas and Florida and it is clear to me that Marriott has not hurt my resale value with the new option.  They may have even enhanced it.  It is all too easy to scream and yell without paying attention to the facts.  (Just like a Congress Critter.) I think that is what we are seeing here.
> 
> Marriott is even stepping up its efforts at reselling deeded weeks.  For example, a new Marriott Resales website will be in operation soon--they have never done that before.  Just think about it for a minute--Marriott is selling points now and is therefore not in apples to apples competition with existing weeks owners to sell deeded weeks.  That means they can step up their resale efforts on behalf of existing owners (and earn their 40% commission) as a parallel product line to their points sales.  Could be very good for us if we decide to sell at some point.



Interesting, because I called Marriott telesales and told them I was not intetested in buying points but wanted to buy a deeded week 26 at NCV. I was curious to see what they would tell someone willing to spend $40K on a deeded week. The answer was "sorry, we only sell points"...

Why would they have a resale office selling the "old generation" product and get a 40% commission when they can push points for the same upfront cost and profit much more? How can they tell some people points are the greatest thing and others to buy a deeded week?

If future resale owners cannot join points, your resale value will get hurt. Just give the resale market 3-6 months to digest it all and watch the prices... Any rule that restricts resale weeks devalues them - you don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that. Just look at Starwood voluntary resorts selling listed for $1 on eBay.

Now if you were to tell me that your friends at Marriott will allow future resale weeks into the system at no fee, I'll concur that they have done something to enhance owner value and will probably join th system with the skim and all. Somehow, I don't think that is the case.


----------



## DanCali (Jul 2, 2010)

BocaBum99 said:


> Actually, the entire timeshare market is fueled and funded by timeshare owners who purchase from the developer.  If they didn't buy, there would be no going forward market.
> 
> So, next time you see a retail buyer, just thank them for helping you get wonderful vacations for cheap.



I agree with this. But what i also think is that 52 resorts is enough. There isn't much more to develop even if the economy was good. Was it really necessary to develop Lakeshore reserve as the 7th(?) resort in Orlando?

MVCI had a choice of either (i) live honestly off the 10% management fee from the 52 resorts or (ii) come up with some new scheme to sell the doggy weeks thay still had in stock. The chose the latter... and came up with a mediocre scheme at best, that devalues deeded weeks even further.

A good company should know when it's time to move from the Star quadrant to the Cash Cow phase. Marriott should get some consulting advice on that one...


----------



## taffy19 (Jul 2, 2010)

*Resale values*

If you want to sell your week in the future then you will have to enroll in the Marriott MVC Destinations Exchange Program first or the new buyer will not be able to participate. I don't know if there will be exceptions in the future if Marriott wants your week badly enough but this is what he told me. Has anyone heard this too?

I listened to Perry's Webinar tonight and he mentioned that there will be a price increase for the enrollment on July 14 so I asked this question too. He also told me that there is mention of a price increase already but didn't know by how much so recommended calling back before that date so now you would have to decide even sooner than by the end of the year or pay more for the enrollment.  

Since we have other timeshares, we need a separate II account so I asked him if we still could use this for request first for locking off our unit to have two weeks.

He then told me that we could do the identical lock-off through the Marriott direct without any fees and that we would qualify for an oceanfront unit for the 1 BR as well as for the lock-off. If this is true, then that is a big benefit to us because you weren't guaranteed ocean view with II. Were you told this also?

I had no intention in joining but would have to so that there is some value left when it is time to sell our week. I liked the way the old system was but Marriott decided to go points finally. I asked him if he had heard that Disney, next to Ko'olina, is now starting to sell fixed weeks again so one resort is selling the flexibility of points while the other one is pitching the value of a fixed week in the season. People may take tours at both resorts and don't know who to believe. The best fixed weeks will sell quickly just like with the Marriott but then they may have to sell the rest as points again just like the Marriott had to do too. I can't believe that they are putting the screws to us by increasing the enrollment price so quickly.


----------



## DanCali (Jul 2, 2010)

iconnections said:


> If you want to sell your week in the future then you will have to enroll in the Marriott MVC Destinations Exchange Program first or the new buyer will not be able to participate.



Where is all this coming from?This is the 3rd or 4th post today saying this.

AFAIK future buyers cannot participate. Period. It doesn't matter if you enrolled or not... (by the way, this is what Perry said too)



> I had no intention in joining but would have to so that there is some value left when it is time to sell our week.



Don't rush to enroll based on the prmise a future buyer can join... 

It does not make sense for Marriott to let this happen beause they will never sell points. Propspective buyers would find it much cheaper to pick up an enrolled week and re-enroll it rather than buy retail points. That loophole is too obvious for Marriott to miss.


----------



## rjanko (Jul 2, 2010)

I've heard the pitch... and if folks still want deeded properties St. Thomas still has them, at least as of last week... with some point kickers...

I can deal with the point aspect, and Marriott has done their homework... it is more of a benefit for multi-week owners (I could make all reservations at 13 weeks now if I trade), though we are the ones that also know how to 'use' the system, so it takes my ability away to trade a Florida efficiency for a 2br at Hilton Head. For 1 or 2 unit owners, you are definitely taking a bigger hit. We have not decided to join at this point.

I just jumped on this first post so I don't know if this has already been stated elsewhere, but what bothers me more than anything else, after being an owner for over 10 years... is that the notion of my trading a preferred location - say a 3BR in St. Thomas, for something in other preferred locations, say Hawaii, has now become most probably impossible... I will have to use points at a premium.

Marriott would say I can still trade through Interval... but why would anyone in Hawaii deposit to Interval when they can trade for 150% points over the Caribbean, let alone anywhere else. The supply for trading has already been restricting, Marriott is about to  undercut it even more - there will be a division between deeded and points weeks. Trading between properties was a key element of their sales strategy, in itself it could be the driver for a class action suit.

In the end though, what this is actually doing is cutting smart TUG owners out from trading into Marriott. That is, if in fact Marriott can gain traction within Marriott ownership... otherwise, they will continue to deposit excess availability to Interval and it will be status quo...

~ Rich


----------



## taffy19 (Jul 2, 2010)

DanCali said:


> *Where is all this coming from?This is the 3rd or 4th post today saying this.*
> 
> AFAIK future buyers cannot participate. Period. It doesn't matter if you enrolled or not... (by the way, this is what Perry said too)
> 
> ...


I spoke with someone from the MVC Owner Services. He also told me about the price increase for the enrollment in about two weeks.  

Did anyone else hear about not losing your view if you do the lock-off with the Marriott direct?


----------



## DanCali (Jul 2, 2010)

iconnections said:


> I spoke with someone from the MVC Owner Services. He also told me about the price increase for the enrollment in about two weeks.



I don't believe they will increase the enrolment fee anyime soon, if ever. They hardly even notified owners about this... The average owner has no clue what this is about yet, so it seems to me like the standard pitch to pressure one to convert "now". They need the inventory and if they increase the enrollment fee owners won't enroll just out of spite.

I have spoken to 5 different reps who old me a future resale week cannot enroll, regardless if the week was enrolled or not. As I mentioned in my previous post, it'd a great backdoor into the system if true. Just find an enrolled week, buy it, and get into the points system at about $3/point and lower MFs than $0.40/point. Marriott cannot afford this loophle if they are serious about selling points.

It's actually a bit disurbing if Marriott is using this argument to get people to enroll, especially if in fact a future resale week cannot enroll. "Misinformed" reps?


----------



## Latravel (Jul 2, 2010)

DanCali said:


> As some people here are quick to point out many times, Marriott has no obligation to maintain resale values. I vehemently oppose this point of view, because they purposely devalue timeshares (by changing rules) to enrich themselves. But the reality is what it is...



I can't believe people use the term "resale value" and timeshare in the same sentence.  Timeshares have no value other than prepaid vacations.  That's it.


----------



## Latravel (Jul 2, 2010)

Geez!  I can understand all this misery and disappointment if Marriott got rid of the old system entirely but they DIDN'T!  It's still there for every one to use as you have been in the past.

As Dave stated:  Feel free to ignore this new option.  It's just one additional option, not the ONLY one.


----------



## DanCali (Jul 2, 2010)

Latravel said:


> I can't believe people use the term "resale value" and timeshare in the same sentence.  Timeshares have no value other than prepaid vacations.  That's it.



Well, then you are wrong, because up until two weeks ago your weeks were probably worth well over $20K. They probably still are... 

I wish I could be so cavalier about that amount to declare it as "no value".

And we can talk about the "prepaid" aspect of timeshares in the Fall, when you get your MF bills.


----------



## DanCali (Jul 2, 2010)

Latravel said:


> Geez!  I can understand all this misery and disappointment if Marriott got rid of the old system entirely but they DIDN'T!  It's still there for every one to use as you have been in the past.
> 
> As Dave stated:  Feel free to ignore this new option.  It's just one additional option, not the ONLY one.



As soon as they confirm in writing that the invenory to points is allocated pro-rate, by weeks and checkin day - and they confirm that future resales can join points (which you state almost as a "fact" in a different thread) I'll be happy to forget they ever launched this thing...

Until then, I can't ignore the possibility that they affect the availability at my resort and they devalued my weeks.


----------



## Latravel (Jul 2, 2010)

DanCali said:


> Well, then you are wrong, because up until two weeks ago your weeks were probably worth well over $20K. They probably still are...
> 
> I wish I could be so cavalier about that amount to declare it as "no value".
> 
> And we can talk about the "prepaid" aspect of timeshares in the Fall, when you get your MF bills.



Nope, you misunderstood me.  Their value is in the vacations i'm going to take, the memories i'll have with my small children, the fun times with family and friends - all of which are priceless.  I don't put the value in terms of what i'll get when I sell, which for most timeshares is very little.


----------



## DanCali (Jul 2, 2010)

Latravel said:


> I can't believe people use the term "resale value" and timeshare in the same sentence.  Timeshares have no value other than prepaid vacations.  That's it.







Latravel said:


> Nope, you misunderstood me.  Their value is in the vacations i'm going to take, the memories i'll have with my small children, the fun times with family and friends - all of which are priceless.  I don't put the value in terms of what i'll get when I sell, which for most timeshares is very little.



If I misunderstood you, it's because your second post is more specific that the dollar value to you is zero. 

The first post makes a pretty big generalization that "Timeshares have no value other than prepaid vacations.  That's it." 

I, and possibly many other owners who look at eBay prices regularly, certainly don't feel that way. To me, timeshares are less liquid than stocks, but they are certainly an asset that, if sold, are (or were?) worth thousands of dollars (at least when talking about Platinum Marriott timesahres). That is why I resent it if Marriott messes with their valuation...


----------



## MALC9990 (Jul 2, 2010)

If you look at how Marriott started the Vacation Club Asia Pacific then you will see how things will pan out. When started, MVCI had one resort in Thailand - Phuket Beach Club which was not sold out. They had Mai Khao Beach next door under development.

Marriott Asia Pacific purchased all the unsold units at Phuket Beach and switched from Selling weeks to points. All the units at Mai Khao are owned by Marriott Asia Pacific.

Those, like myself, who had already purchased weeks at Phuket Beach Club can continue as before but with a new option, to convert our weeks into points each year if we choose. We get that right only if we have bought points in Asia Pacific also. The rate of exchange is 1-1. We get enough points for our week to get a week on points at the home resort - but why would I do that ?? However I can then use the points at other resorts where Marriott Asia Pacific owns units.

Interestingly, the new points system has not been introduced in European resorts (yet ?).

In Asia the argument was that Asian buyers do not want to buy weeks and indeed many sales in Phuket Beach were going to Europeans. Asian buyers, especially from Singapore and Hong Kong want more flexibility to take short breaks and hence the new scheme but it was kept totally separate, it has its own WEB site for owners and separate Owner Services etc.

One thing we can see is that the MVCIAP owned resort in Asia Pacific - Mai Khao Beach has amazing availability on II Getaways !!!

My own sales rep in Thailand told me that points sales in 2009 over 2008 had dropped drastically due to the economic situation and also a price uplift. When I bought its was $1.05 per point and it went to $1.25 per point and the exchange rate for Marriott Rewards was 5 to 1 which then dropped to 3 to 1. Obviously commission dropped and he left along with many others for a better prospect elsewhere.

Am I happy with Marriott? Well on balance so far I have seen no change. I use bith MVCI and MVCI AP to book my vacations in Asia resorts and as yet I do not see the need to resell my weeks but I don't see a prospect of Marriott offering a resale facility in Thailand in the future.


----------



## cruisin (Jul 2, 2010)

BocaBum99 said:


> I am not a chicken little regarding Marriott devaluing ownerships, however, I do believe that this new program will on average have a negative impact on resale values of current weeks ownerships.
> 
> It is inevitable.  Resort Developers are all the same, the proactively de-value ownerships over time.  ALL RESORT DEVELOPERS DO IT BAR NONE.
> 
> ...



The new system definitely proved this point. Marriott can  no longer pretend to be  special, their disdain for current owners makes them pretty much like all the other average timeshares. They will continue to screw owners year after year, now its just more in the open. As you have said before, it will take many years for that to be really felt by everyone.


----------



## m61376 (Jul 2, 2010)

MALC9990 said:


> Those, like myself, who had already purchased weeks at Phuket Beach Club can continue as before but with a new option, to convert our weeks into points each year if we choose. We get that right only if we have bought points in Asia Pacific also. The rate of exchange is 1-1. We get enough points for our week to get a week on points at the home resort - but why would I do that ?? However I can then use the points at other resorts where Marriott Asia Pacific owns units.



That's interesting- there wasn't any "skimming"- you got enough points to book your home resort?

Here Marriott has taken a very different approach then, since many owners were not allocated enough points to book any week in their owned season. And- you are right- you can just book it with points then- but if what you get is less than you own at your home resort, you are always at a loss when looking to book elsewhere.

From what several people have posted, it seems clear that this was a way of silently keeping costs down, and is a way to enhance profits. I liken it to a commission on every transaction.


----------



## m61376 (Jul 2, 2010)

iconnections said:


> I spoke with someone from the MVC Owner Services. He also told me about the price increase for the enrollment in about two weeks.
> 
> Did anyone else hear about not losing your view if you do the lock-off with the Marriott direct?



The view is easy- if you book with points, and turn over enough points, you can book your view directly. Of course, be prepared to likely receiving less points than your week cost in its entirety, and locking off for 2 units requires more points than a single unit (yes, the locking off process is free, but if you use points there is a lockoff surcharge, because the sum of the parts does not equal the whole). So, it does give you a nice option to lock-off and book your premium view and make the reservations without hoping for a trade.

btw- you do know that you can buy the extra points that you will need to do this for $9.20, with a minimum of 1000 points. So, for $9200 you can have all these enhanced benefits- but despite how it is presented, it is not really free.

Sarcasm aside, for some people the ease of booking may very well be worth it. I am also guessing there will be an active point resale market. That may land up being the best part of this system. I foresee a lot of room for benefits there, esp. if they adopt a Flexchange type program at some point.

As for a price increase in 2 weeks- the letter they just sent out states Dec. 31st and the price. If you read the fine print on the back it does say offer is subject to change- but, and I could be wrong, when you call the reps have all been saying you have time to decide, the e-mail and letter both say Dec. 31st- does it seem plausible that they will change the price before then?


----------



## pfrank4127 (Jul 2, 2010)

iconnections said:


> I spoke with someone from the MVC Owner Services. He also told me about the price increase for the enrollment in about two weeks.
> 
> Did anyone else hear about not losing your view if you do the lock-off with the Marriott direct?



Not sure about the price increase of the enrollment fee, I took this from the Marriott FAQ

"If your external purchase closed prior to June 20, 2010, it is eligible to be enrolled with the Marriott Vacation Club Destinations Exchange Program. The enrollment fee for one externally purchased week will initially be $1,495, and enrolling multiple externally purchased weeks will initially total $1,995. *This offer is expected to be available only through December 31, 2010."*


----------



## travelplanner70 (Jul 7, 2010)

Although I was told by a sales staff at BeachPlace Towers last week that I can resell my deeded unit (which I myself purchased on the external market) and that new owner would be able to use the point system if I had already joined, there is nothing in writing.  And, now I am reading that there might be conflicting information about this.  Can anyone confirm?  Is there anything in writing?


----------



## timeos2 (Jul 7, 2010)

*If not in writing it does not exist*



travelplanner70 said:


> Although I was told by a sales staff at BeachPlace Towers last week that I can resell my deeded unit (which I myself purchased on the external market) and that new owner would be able to use the point system if I had already joined, there is nothing in writing.  And, now I am reading that there might be conflicting information about this.  Can anyone confirm?  Is there anything in writing?



If they won't put it in writing then there is nothing to guarantee it. And most likely that means at some point it will be prohibited. Make assumptions based only on what the documentation backs up.


----------



## larue (Jul 7, 2010)

travelplanner70 said:


> Although I was told by a sales staff at BeachPlace Towers last week that I can resell my deeded unit (which I myself purchased on the external market) and that new owner would be able to use the point system if I had already joined, there is nothing in writing.  And, now I am reading that there might be conflicting information about this.  Can anyone confirm?  Is there anything in writing?



I spoke to a points specialist and asked the same question.  I am a resales purchaser of two weeks and asked what would happen to a subsequent purchaser if I joined the points program and then sold the week.  He responded via email that it would depend on who sold the week for me.  If a Marriott-approved broker sells the week, the new owner gets full privileges upon payment of a $2,000 (current price) initiation fee.  If I sell it through other means, the buyer can join for $2,000 but will only get 60 day advance booking privileges.  This is the way they intend to drive resales through Marriott-approved brokers.  There is language in the enrollment documents aobut the first part of this (selling through a Marriott Broker), but the language also says that they may not allow any other purchaser in if they don't buy through Marriott, so I am not sure how much stock I would put in the second part of what the agent said.


----------



## larue (Jul 7, 2010)

DanCali said:


> Where is all this coming from?This is the 3rd or 4th post today saying this.
> 
> AFAIK future buyers cannot participate. Period. It doesn't matter if you enrolled or not... (by the way, this is what Perry said too)



It depends on who sells your week.  See the following from the disclosure guide, Section VI, Miscellaneous Provisions:

a. Trust Members. Upon the sale of an Interest, Exchange Company may require the payment of an initiation fee. (The current initiation fee is $200 per Interest with a $2,000 minimum initiation fee; however, Exchange Company reserves the right to adjust the amount of the initiation fee from time to time and to waive the initiation fee on a case-by-case basis in Exchange Company’s sole and absolute discretion.) Until payment of any required initiation fee is received (or waived by Exchange Company), the owner of such Interest(s) will not be entitled to Base Plus Exchange Benefits or Exchange Benefits; however, payment of the initiation fee will allow access to the Base Plus Exchange Benefits. *If the purchase of an Interest is not made from an Approved Broker, then the owner of such Interest(s) may not be entitled to Exchange Benefits in Exchange Company’s sole and absolute discretion, even if the initiation fee is paid.* Additional payments may be required to access the Exchange Benefits.​
According to a points specialist with Marriott, citing the provision above, if you sell your week through Marriott, the new owner is in with payment of an initiation fee of $2,000 (or more if you are selling weeks worth more than 10 shares).  If you sell through anyone else, according to this same person, the new owner can also join but will be limited to a 60 day advance booking option.


----------



## DanCali (Jul 7, 2010)

larue said:


> It depends on who sells your week.  See the following from the disclosure guide, Section VI, Miscellaneous Provisions:
> 
> a. Trust Members. Upon the sale of an Interest, Exchange Company may require the payment of an initiation fee. (The current initiation fee is $200 per Interest with a $2,000 minimum initiation fee; however, Exchange Company reserves the right to adjust the amount of the initiation fee from time to time and to waive the initiation fee on a case-by-case basis in Exchange Company’s sole and absolute discretion.) Until payment of any required initiation fee is received (or waived by Exchange Company), the owner of such Interest(s) will not be entitled to Base Plus Exchange Benefits or Exchange Benefits; however, payment of the initiation fee will allow access to the Base Plus Exchange Benefits. *If the purchase of an Interest is not made from an Approved Broker, then the owner of such Interest(s) may not be entitled to Exchange Benefits in Exchange Company’s sole and absolute discretion, even if the initiation fee is paid.* Additional payments may be required to access the Exchange Benefits.​
> According to a points specialist with Marriott, citing the provision above, if you sell your week through Marriott, the new owner is in with payment of an initiation fee of $2,000 (or more if you are selling weeks worth more than 10 shares).  If you sell through anyone else, according to this same person, the new owner can also join but will be limited to a 60 day advance booking option.



I have seen "the following"... it's irrelevant to weeks owners. Trust Members are people who buy points from Marriott. See this thread for all the clarification you need (imo it should be a sticky)

Apparently "points specialists" are now misleading people into believing their weeks will be more valuable if they enroll. Shame on Marriott.

And even if enrolled weeks resold by Marriott could reenroll in points (which does not appear to be the case) how many years will it take to sell your timeshare at full price? Selling timeshares at full price worked so well that Marriott abandoned that strategy completely in favor of selling points at an even higher price...


----------



## travelplanner70 (Jul 18, 2010)

*Selling a Deeded Marriott property enrolled in points*

I meant to start a new thread.  Sorry.


----------



## pwrshift (Jul 18, 2010)

larue said:


> *If the purchase of an Interest is not made from an Approved Broker, then the owner of such Interest(s) MAY not be entitled to Exchange Benefits in Exchange Company’s sole and absolute discretion, even if the initiation fee is paid.* Additional payments may be required to access the Exchange Benefits.[/INDENT]



As I see it the word 'may' speaks to more flexibility than if it said 'will not'.


----------



## camachinist (Jul 18, 2010)

Flexibility for sale at a price as yet to be determined. My bet is they will allow current/future resales to enroll at a price higher than the current 'introductory' offer. Why not? Costs them essentially nothing; it's like minting money. 

Remember, points is the new coke. We at Marriott want everyone to taste the new coke. It might sound like an exclusive coke club right now, but that's purposeful. We want to profit from that taste. Yum


----------



## JimIg23 (Jul 18, 2010)

larue said:


> I spoke to a points specialist and asked the same question.  I am a resales purchaser of two weeks and asked what would happen to a subsequent purchaser if I joined the points program and then sold the week.  He responded via email that it would depend on who sold the week for me.  If a Marriott-approved broker sells the week, the new owner gets full privileges upon payment of a $2,000 (current price) initiation fee.  If I sell it through other means, the buyer can join for $2,000 but will only get 60 day advance booking privileges.  This is the way they intend to drive resales through Marriott-approved brokers.  There is language in the enrollment documents aobut the first part of this (selling through a Marriott Broker), but the language also says that they may not allow any other purchaser in if they don't buy through Marriott, so I am not sure how much stock I would put in the second part of what the agent said.



This is what I was told.  I think this is the language (see b)


a. Trust Members. Upon the sale of an Interest, Exchange Company may require the payment of an initiation fee. (The current initiation fee is $200 per Interest with a $2,000 minimum initiation fee; however, Exchange Company reserves the right to adjust the amount of the initiation fee from time to time and to waive the initiation fee on a case-by-case basis in Exchange Company’s sole and absolute discretion.) Until payment of any required initiation fee is received (or waived by Exchange Company), the owner of such Interest(s) will not be entitled to Base Plus Exchange Benefits or Exchange Benefits; however, payment of the initiation fee will allow access to the Base Plus Exchange Benefits. *If the purchase of an Interest is not made from an Approved Broker, then the owner of such Interest(s) may not be entitled to Exchange Benefits in Exchange Company’s sole and absolute discretion, even if the initiation fee is paid.* Additional payments may be required to access the Exchange Benefits.

*b. Exchange Members. If a purchaser of a Exchange Member’s Interest does not pay the then-current enrollment fee and enroll in the Program, such purchaser will not be entitled to be a Member and will not be permitted to access the Program in any manner. *​
So, If I join now at 1495 for my two EOYs, then if I resell thru an approved broker the person can buy them and pay 1495 to keep the exchange membership the same as we have now.  Although, if they are sold, the broker would probably get $2000, Marriott $1495 plus the normal sale fee, I would would end up with $20.....


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 18, 2010)

I think we all pretty much agree that an external resale sold by an un-"Approved Broker" that's processed after 6/20/10 won't be allowed to enroll in the Exchange Program.  (Although it's possible that Marriott has given itself the leeway to allow it in rare instances, much the same way that they allowed rare external resales to gain the MRP-exchange benefit - Dean is one TUG poster who was able to have one of his external resale weeks converted this way when he purchased another direct week.)

This is what's in the Disclosure Guide that seems to confirm what larue's rep said about resales after 6/20/10:


> 1.	Base Exchange Benefits, Base Plus Exchange Benefits, and Exchange Benefits. Exchange Company may offer Exchange Benefits other than Base Exchange Benefits and Base Plus Exchange Benefits to certain Members, from time to time. Exchange Company reserves the right to establish such rules and regulations as it deems necessary to adequately govern Member access to Exchange Benefits which may include certain fees. *In addition, Exchange Company reserves the right to restrict the offering or use of any Base Plus Exchange Benefits and Exchange Benefits to certain Members, including, without limitation, allowing use of such Exchange Benefits only to those Members who purchase their Interests from an Approved Broker.* The Exchange Benefits are subject to separate terms and conditions, which may be changed, substituted, or eliminated without prior notice. Some Exchange Benefits may be provided by independent third parties and Exchange Company expressly disclaims responsibility for the acts or omissions of any persons or entities providing Exchange Benefits.
> a.	Trust Members. Upon the sale of an Interest, Exchange Company may require the payment of an initiation fee. (The current initiation fee is $200 per Interest with a $2,000 minimum initiation fee; however, Exchange Company reserves the right to adjust the amount of the initiation fee from time to time and to waive the initiation fee on a case-by-case basis in Exchange Company’s sole and absolute discretion.) Until payment of any required initiation fee is received (or waived by Exchange Company), the owner of such Interest(s) will not be entitled to Base Plus Exchange Benefits or Exchange Benefits; however, payment of the initiation fee will allow access to the Base Plus Exchange Benefits. If the purchase of an Interest is not made from an Approved Broker, then the owner of such Interest(s) may not be entitled to Exchange Benefits in Exchange Company’s sole and absolute discretion, even if the initiation fee is paid. Additional payments may be required to access the Exchange Benefits.
> *b.	Exchange Members. If a purchaser of a Exchange Member’s Interest does not pay the then-current enrollment fee and enroll in the Program, such purchaser will not be entitled to be a Member and will not be permitted to access the Program in any manner.*



It appears to me that the door is open for a resale of an Enrolled Week to be allowed to join the Exchange Program, if the resale is done through an Approved Broker and if the then-current ($2000 at this time, as larue's post indicates) enrollment feel is paid.  But again, there's a lot of leeway and who knows how Marriott will proceed going forward.

{edited to add}  Ah, I see Jim got in there with the same thing ...


----------



## DanCali (Jul 18, 2010)

I don't understand the confusion here. There is absolutely no ambiguity. The "Trust Members paragraph is irrelevant to weeks owners. What applies are this:



> b. Exchange Members. If a purchaser of a Exchange Member’s Interest does not pay the then-current enrollment fee and enroll in the Program, such purchaser will not be entitled to be a Member and will not be permitted to access the Program in any manner.



and this:



> Weeks purchased externally before June 20, 2010 may be enrolled for $1,495 for the first week or $1,995 for one and a half or more weeks. Weeks purchased externally, with a deed recording date after June 20, 2010 are not eligible for the program.




There is no such thing as "then-current enrollment fee" for weeks bought after June 20. Period. Marriott says indirectly that it is effectively 100 billion US dollars for all intents and purposes.


----------



## anonymous54321 (Dec 15, 2010)

*Marriott MUST KEEP the system that they sold us*

As I write, I am staying for the first time at the Maui Ocean Club (on an exchange basis through Interval International). This afternoon, I was stopped alongside the beach by a Marriott timeshare salesman and I quickly chimed in to say that I'm already an owner of 2 weeks and I love Marriott! He then told me about the new points system. As he spoke, I quickly grew angry. This amounts to bait and switch -- only worse, because after owning for 12 years and having become accustomed to the system that I bought, suddenly the product I own no longer exists. The salesman aggressively told me that I would no longer be able to come to Maui with the new system (hellova sales pitch!). I said I sense a lawsuit. He rudely said that since I am a "secondary market owner" I "would not have a leg to stand on." (Can anyone imagine a Marriott employee speaking to an owner like that?). I was incensed by his tone and responded, "On the contrary, Mr. Marriott will not have a leg to stand on." He said, "Good luck with that..." ...beyond shocking! I came home and googled to see if others felt the same as I, and I see mass discontent.

Marriott MUST KEEP the system that they sold us. Whether we are original owners or secondary-market owners is immaterial. Those of us who bought on the secondary market had to accept that we were not getting the benefit of points. Now, those that bought directly from Marriott are seeing their points become worth less -- or worthless. Marriott must pay US, the OWNERS, if they want to buy away our rights and privileges. It is hubris -- and appears to be illegal -- not only to change the system after we bought, but additionally to tell us that we have to pay them for it!

No, thank you. I just bought a 5-year contract with Interval and now I'm told I can just stay at my home resort!

Someone organize a class action lawsuit? Hell yes!! Unless Marriott backs down and acknowledges that they had the best system before changing it, count me in to join and fight this.


----------



## dougp26364 (Dec 15, 2010)

anonymous54321 said:


> As I write, I am staying for the first time at the Maui Ocean Club (on an exchange basis through Interval International). This afternoon, I was stopped alongside the beach by a Marriott timeshare salesman and I quickly chimed in to say that I'm already an owner of 2 weeks and I love Marriott! He then told me about the new points system. As he spoke, I quickly grew angry. This amounts to bait and switch -- only worse, because after owning for 12 years and having become accustomed to the system that I bought, suddenly the product I own no longer exists. The salesman aggressively told me that I would no longer be able to come to Maui with the new system (hellova sales pitch!). I said I sense a lawsuit. He rudely said that since I am a "secondary market owner" I "would not have a leg to stand on." (Can anyone imagine a Marriott employee speaking to an owner like that?). I was incensed by his tone and responded, "On the contrary, Mr. Marriott will not have a leg to stand on." He said, "Good luck with that..." ...beyond shocking! I came home and googled to see if others felt the same as I, and I see mass discontent.
> 
> Marriott MUST KEEP the system that they sold us. Whether we are original owners or secondary-market owners is immaterial. Those of us who bought on the secondary market had to accept that we were not getting the benefit of points. Now, those that bought directly from Marriott are seeing their points become worth less -- or worthless. Marriott must pay US, the OWNERS, if they want to buy away our rights and privileges. It is hubris -- and appears to be illegal -- not only to change the system after we bought, but additionally to tell us that we have to pay them for it!
> 
> ...




You'll need to read through more posts and threads here before jumping on any bandwagon for a class action lawsuit. This thread was right after the change was announced and much uncertainty existed about the program. A class action lawsuit is really not necessary. Marriott salesmen, unfortunately, have become bottom feeders. I'm not sure when Marriott turned to scare tactics to sell their product but it seems as if they certainly have gone down that road. 

Fortunately, what you were told by the salesman amounts to a bunch of BS. Marriott itself said it only expects 30% of legacy week owners (deeded week owners such as yourself) to join the new program. Out of those, it's questionable how many will convert their weeks to points. I myself have become an enrolled owner but, I have not purchased additional points (doubt we ever will) and have little to no interest in converting out weeks to points. Instead, we'll use the one fee for all services (internal exchanges, lock-off, exchange for rewards points ect....) vs the old ala carte fee for doing anything other than reserving our home resort week.

The old system still exists and will never go away. The salesmen are attempting to intimidate current owners into buying new points in order to make a sale. It's a shame but, that seems to be the way it is.

Marriott made these changes to keep up with other points based systems. They made these changes because it was getting to the point they couldn't sell weeks because they were to expensive in an down economy. The can sell small points packages to what amounts to partial weeks. The new points based system does appear to be a success as far as Marriott is concerned. Legacy week owners can continue to use their home resort weeks and can continue to exchange them just as before (nothing has changed). There is fear that Marriott will have more control over Marriott inventory but, that could be a plus for Marriott owners since it will be inventory that other Marriott owners get first shot at rather than owners who bought a $1 week on E-bay, pay $300/year in MF's, then exchange into Marriott weeks that cost owners thousands in both upfront costs (even on the resale market) and in yearly MF's. 

DON'T believe the BS the sales staff is spewing. They think that scaring the customer is the way to make more sales. For all I know it works on some level. Read through more recent threads on this site and more recent posts to get up to date and accurate information from those who have become enrolled owners and see what's changed and what has not. To date I'm seeing good availablity for exchange and making reservations at my home resorts remains as it's always been.


----------



## ondeadlin (Dec 15, 2010)

BocaBum99 said:


> Dan,
> 
> You need to chill.  It's not as bad as you are positioning it.  It's no different than everything else that is happening in the market.  Change is inevitable and it won't be in owner's favor.
> 
> That's okay.  Just use that as a going forward assumption and act accordingly.  You will be much happier.



With a few months perspective on these arguments, I have to say that Boca's arguments have held up nicely.

The timeshare market as a whole is plummeting right now and Marriott owners would have found their weeks worth a lot less whether there was a point system or not. Even before it was plummeting, there was only one direction resale prices ever moved over the long term - down. Why? Because almost all assets depreciate. 

Timeshares have value, but their value is in their use. When purchased from the developer, their value on the whole has never been, and will never be, as an asset that appreciates or holds value. Have there been exceptions for those who bought very early in a resort's development? Sure. Those exceptions are gone now.

Bottom line? It's the same old advice that holds: (A) Buy where you want to vacation no matter whether you buy resale or from the developer; (B) Realize if you buy from the developer, you're going to lose a lot of money - if you're informed about this and decide it works for you, at least you won't be disappointed.


----------



## ocdb8r (Dec 15, 2010)

I agree that all of the doom and gloom surrounding the points system in the beginning was a bit much and overplayed.  The reality is that the new system only present an additional option for people to exchange.  Yes, it may shift availability of resorts but long term I don't think that shift will be very large.  Bottom line is that your deed only entitles you to the use you purchased at your home resort...the rest is just fluff.

At the end of the day, I think deeded weeks might end up finding a nice value niche.  The current downtrend is the result of the economy, maintenance fee bills hitting, and uncertainty around the point program.  Once people realize that in large part the greatest value will come from actually using the deeded week you own, value will stabilize.  It's only the mud weeks/super off-season weeks that are likely to become worthless as those are the only weeks where the point system is advantageous over owning a deeded week.

Look at the facts...in most cases the maintenance fees paid on the required points for a week exceed that which a deeded week owner pays (at least for current legacy resorts....not including mud seasons) and point owners have no way of avoiding skim (at least deeded week owners can USE their deeded week and avoid skim).  Further, I think II exchanges are a complete bust for point ownerspoint owners - the values they have set look ridiculous to me.  Even with a Marriott to Marriott exchange I will get WAY more in value using my lock-off than with a points contract...and exchanging outside of Marriott could really be bad.  I often get non-Marriott 2bdrms for my studio - with points I'm locked into paying for that 2 bedroom.


----------



## timeos2 (Dec 15, 2010)

*The dust settles and little changes*



ocdb8r said:


> I agree that all of the doom and gloom surrounding the points system in the beginning was a bit much and overplayed.  The reality is that the new system only present an additional option for people to exchange.  Yes, it may shift availability of resorts but long term I don't think that shift will be very large.  Bottom line is that your deed only entitles you to the use you purchased at your home resort...the rest is just fluff.
> .



The discussion of the change led to what may have been the most over the top and over done threads ever on TUG.  The bottom line is it's another trade option for those who buy in just like most other points systems tend to be. Nothing earth shattering or particularly negative to deeded owners. In other words much ado about nothing. Enjoy what works for you.


----------



## Fredm (Dec 15, 2010)

timeos2 said:


> The discussion of the change led to what may have been the most over the top and over done threads ever on TUG.  The bottom line is it's another trade option for those who buy in just like most other points systems tend to be. Nothing earth shattering or particularly negative to deeded owners. In other words much ado about nothing. Enjoy what works for you.



Well said!


----------



## GregT (Dec 15, 2010)

timeos2 said:


> Nothing earth shattering or particularly negative to deeded owners.



I think we can agree with respect to the exchange system itself, but there is the equally (more?) important component of brand image and customer loyalty.

Marriott used to be the white knight in the timeshare business.  A good brand is invaluable and  Marriott did damage to their brand (rightly or wrongly).     

Best,

Greg


ETA -- I removed the questions because the point of the post was the impact on the Marriott brand, not seeking answers to questions.


----------



## wof45 (Dec 15, 2010)

GregT said:


> Think about the questions we've asked post June 20th:
> 
> 1) How many of us are now waiting for DC fee increases?
> 2) Will DC points booking requirements increase?
> ...



I think we are being a little too tug concentric.

Marriott is now selling a DC points product, which needs to have value to be sold.  So concerns about the DC fee going up, and DC booking increases gong up, and MF goiong up all would make the product harder to sell, so Marriott needs to hold the line in order to sell trust points.

We are used to seeing MF go up after the resort sells out, which wouldn't happen for new trust resorts.

I personally do not see higher wear and tear from daily turnover, since the shorter the stay, the less cooking and fewer services are likely to be used.  I think the extra days are just as likely to extend 7 day stays as to become 4 day stays.  It will be interesting to see if the older resorts can change their processes so that someone who adds days to a week can stay in the same unit.


----------



## scpoidog (Dec 15, 2010)

*They did keep the system*



anonymous54321 said:


> As I write, I am staying for the first time at the Maui Ocean Club (on an exchange basis through Interval International). This afternoon, I was stopped alongside the beach by a Marriott timeshare salesman and I quickly chimed in to say that I'm already an owner of 2 weeks and I love Marriott! He then told me about the new points system. As he spoke, I quickly grew angry. This amounts to bait and switch -- only worse, because after owning for 12 years and having become accustomed to the system that I bought, suddenly the product I own no longer exists. The salesman aggressively told me that I would no longer be able to come to Maui with the new system (hellova sales pitch!). I said I sense a lawsuit. He rudely said that since I am a "secondary market owner" I "would not have a leg to stand on." (Can anyone imagine a Marriott employee speaking to an owner like that?). I was incensed by his tone and responded, "On the contrary, Mr. Marriott will not have a leg to stand on." He said, "Good luck with that..." ...beyond shocking! I came home and googled to see if others felt the same as I, and I see mass discontent.
> 
> Marriott MUST KEEP the system that they sold us. Whether we are original owners or secondary-market owners is immaterial. Those of us who bought on the secondary market had to accept that we were not getting the benefit of points. Now, those that bought directly from Marriott are seeing their points become worth less -- or worthless. Marriott must pay US, the OWNERS, if they want to buy away our rights and privileges. It is hubris -- and appears to be illegal -- not only to change the system after we bought, but additionally to tell us that we have to pay them for it!
> 
> ...



The old system is still there...If you choose not to enroll in the points you won't notice a difference.  

Prime example - the program has been out since June, but you went on a nice vacation and didn't know anything about it.  If you weren't stopped by the sales guy, you wouldn't be upset.  Ignorance can be bliss in some situations.


----------



## winger (Dec 15, 2010)

anonymous54321 said:


> ... The salesman aggressively told me that I would no longer be able to come to Maui with the new system (hellova sales pitch!). I said I sense a lawsuit. He rudely said that since I am a "secondary market owner" I "would not have a leg to stand on." (Can anyone imagine a Marriott employee speaking to an owner like that?). I was incensed by his tone and responded, "On the contrary, Mr. Marriott will not have a leg to stand on." He said, "Good luck with that..." ...beyond shocking! I came home and googled to see if others felt the same as I, and I see mass discontent.
> 
> Marriott MUST KEEP the system that they sold us. Whether we are original owners or secondary-market owners is immaterial. .....


Do not get up in arms about what a lying, cheat, low-life, bullying, ill-mannered salesman says (his mother should be ashamed of how he is speaking).  Just move on and enjoy your vacation (and future vacations).

Mr. Marriott is yet showing more signs of 'falling off his rocker' to let this sort of behavior continue to be the face of his family's legacy.  IF he does not know this sort of thing is going on, then he really must get on with the next phase of his life.


----------



## wof45 (Dec 15, 2010)

as a "secondary market owner" you have property rights to use a week using the reservation system just as anyone else during your season.

you also have the right to trade using II just like anyone else.

It really doesn't matter what someone else says.

It is interesting the my read of DC is that if you do not use an approved broker to transfer DC points, you would have to only reserve using points within 60 days.  It appears that Marriott built in a benefit of being a DC member instead of just owning DC points.


----------



## Mr. Vker (Dec 15, 2010)

i totally agree in the shift in the sale approach of the Marriott folks. Prior to the point rollout, all of the presentations have been professional, low key and informative. we just had one at HHI and it was awful. High pressure and just almost standoffish as we questioned and challenged him on the many low points we recognized in the program. I think they are having difficulty pushing this product and are very unhappy themselves.


----------



## travelhound (Dec 16, 2010)

Lawlar said:


> I already felt taken by Marriott (think MFs and the difficulty of reserving a desirable week), now I feel completely betrayed.  Marriott is only interested in its own profits and it seems to believe that the best way to make the big profits is to treat is customers like suckers.



I agree and am shocked by their lack of loyalty to people who invested in their scheme.  Marriott is the worst investment I have made... including the stock market crashes.


----------



## dougp26364 (Dec 16, 2010)

travelhound said:


> I agree and am shocked by their lack of loyalty to people who invested in their scheme.  Marriott is the worst investment I have made... including the stock market crashes.



Timeshare should never be looked on as a financial investment. I don't care who you buy with, your purchase is worth, at best, 50% of the price you pay the developer. Most times it's worth $0 once the right to rescind has past. 

Timeshare should only be looked upon as an investment in vacation lifestyle. Nothing more, nothing less. If you buy at developer pricing, it's a very rare day when you can sell for a profit. I know of only a couple of people who purchased at pre-build prices who claim to have sold several years later for a profit.


----------



## kjd (Dec 16, 2010)

Am I correct in this?  If a resale owner joins the points program they can then be allowed to trade their units in for MRP's.  That seems to be what some of these posts infer.  If anyone knows the answer please offer it.  I would not like to take a salesperson's word on anything.


----------



## NJMOM2 (Dec 16, 2010)

kjd said:


> Am I correct in this?  If a resale owner joins the points program they can then be allowed to trade their units in for MRP's.  That seems to be what some of these posts infer.  If anyone knows the answer please offer it.  I would not like to take a salesperson's word on anything.



Yes, resale units can trade every other year for MRP once they join the DC program.  The unit must have closed before 6/20/10 in order to join the DC program.

I have done it with my OceanWatch resale already for 2011 week.


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 16, 2010)

kjd said:


> Am I correct in this?  If a resale owner joins the points program they can then be allowed to trade their units in for MRP's.  That seems to be what some of these posts infer.  If anyone knows the answer please offer it.  I would not like to take a salesperson's word on anything.



Yes, it's true.  It's been discussed in various threads on TUG and this is from Dave's Summary sticky above:

_"Owners of weeks purchased on the resale market (i.e., not through Marriott) can (1) enroll those weeks and (2) gain the privilege of trading the use of their week(s) for Marriott Rewards points if they enroll, but only if their purchase closed and the deed was recorded by June 20, 2010. Such owners receive the same Trade for Points privileges (some resorts do not offer the MR points option) as devloper-purchase owners of the same resort and season._"

There is a link to the legal documents at Dave's sticky, also; check out the "Marriott Rewards Terms and Conditions for All Enrollments" document for details.  (You'll have to sign in to your my-vacationclub.com account to access the docs.)


----------



## josh1231 (Dec 16, 2010)

DanCali said:


> I still don't agree... This new policy that destroys resale values (excluding future resales from points) also affects the 350,000 owners who bought directly from Marriott. Their equity also evaporates into thin air... The more loyal the cusomer and the more they spent with Marriott, the more equity they lose...



Although I agree adding a huge ROFR fee to points bought externally hurts the resell value of those points, I don't see that it has greatly affected the resell value of weeks, and am not convinced it is going to decrease the value of weeks much quicker than would have been the case without the points system.

We both seem to be in agreement that the points system isn't for us. What I have a hard time understanding is your anger about what Marriott has chosen to do with the weeks they own. If they use a week for the points trust, it is a week they own, therefore it is theirs to do with as they feel, including depositing into interval, or making it available to those who use points.

I'm sure both of us have concerns about the availability of future trades at resorts where Marriott owns the majority, or a large number of weeks. I have already noticed reduced availability of weeks at resorts such as Ko Olina, Newport Coast, and Aruba Surf. What I am lacking is any quantitative evidence to determine the cause for this. Perhaps with the economy starting to recover, individuals are traveling more, or perhaps Marriott is not bulk depositing unused weeks into interval and instead keeping them for points users, or maybe it is some combination of the two. I do know travel is up to Hawaii, so maybe the days of rather easy trades into Hawaii with my gold Shadow Ridge are coming to an end.

I agree the value of deeded weeks is going to decline, however this would have happened regardless of the points program. For individuals like me who can travel at any time and are used to being able to trade my studio for a 2-bedroom, the points system is bad news. For many others, it’s a great thing. 

Marriott has been selling $150K condos in Branson for $1 Million, an act that could be considered villainous. That being said, I don’t see how Marriott can be seen as the villain for choosing to not deposit their weeks with Interval, any more than I could be seen as a villain for renting out my week instead of trading it to Interval so it would be available for weeks members to trade into.


----------



## DanCali (Dec 16, 2010)

josh1231 said:


> Although I agree adding a huge ROFR fee to points bought externally hurts the resell value of those points, I don't see that it has greatly affected the resell value of weeks, and am not convinced it is going to decrease the value of weeks much quicker than would have been the case without the points system.
> 
> We both seem to be in agreement that the points system isn't for us. What I have a hard time understanding is your anger about what Marriott has chosen to do with the weeks they own. If they use a week for the points trust, it is a week they own, therefore it is theirs to do with as they feel, including depositing into interval, or making it available to those who use points.
> 
> ...



I don't have a problem with Marriott doing what it wants with their weeks. I've been one ones saying nobody should count on bulk deposits, whether they are in II or the DC. But they don't live in a vacuum, and *setting policies that benefit only Marriott hurts resale values of weeks.*

Take for example the policy that weeks bought after June 20 cannot enroll. This policy is there only so Marriott can sell trust points, because otherwise people would just buy resale weeks and enroll them at a much lower cost per point (albeit, it'd be the "inferior" DC points). That, along with salespeople saying "points are the future" inevitably reduces demand for resale weeks. Lower demand translates to lower prices.

Similarly, the corollary from the above policy is that enrolled weeks cannot transfer the enrollment upon a subsequent resale. If enrollment was transferable, then (i) enrolled weeks would be worth more (making the initial enrollment cost an actual investment) and (ii) people would make a seller enroll prior to buying resale, and buy into points that way rather than from Marriott, hurting Marriott's sales. Hence, Marriott does not allow it even though it would be better for owners if they did.

Of course the causality of these policies to declines of resale prices if hard to demonstrate. But if you agree that even some potential buyers would find weeks less desirable because they can't play in points, that means less demand, and less demand means lower prices. It's econ 101...

I've also talked about some prices I observed pre- and post- June 2010 at a couple of resorts I follow in this post in a different recent thread. The gist of it is that prices have been flat this year until June but decreased post June, at some places more than others (depending on how rental prices can support resale values). And the economy really hasn't worsened much this year while MFs were announced only in November, after prices already dropped.

Lastly, if you still don't believe that these types of policies destroy resale value just take a look at the Starwood world. Starwood has 5 "mandatory" properties that allow you to buy resale and trade in points (in addition to II) - Maui, Kierland/Scottsdale, Vistana Villages in Orlando (Phases 1 & 2), Harborside/Atlantis, and Westin St. John (Phase 1). All other Starwood properties are "voluntary" and if you buy resale you can only trade in II but not with points. 

So take Vistana Villages (mandatory property) and compare with Vistana Resort (a voluntary property). They are both in Orlando, both highly-rated resorts, both trade well in II relative to Orlando resorts and have Starwood priority. The VR property has MFs that are 20%-30% lower than VV. In addition, the latter also has a $119 club fee because  it plays with points. So why is VV selling on eBay for $1K-$2K and VR is not selling even for $1? I can make a similar comparison with Westin Kierland Villas (Mandatory) and Sheraton Desert Oasis (voluntary). They are both in Scottsdale, both nice resorts. SDO MFs are ~$400 less. Grant it, the Westin is nicer (9.37 rating on TUG relative to 8.33 for SDO) and can also rent for more, but that doesn't justify the difference between a ~$1K resale price for SDO and a ~$17K resale price for WKV (you're paying for the Westin name in the annual MFs already). The ability to play with points and trade more easily (relative to II) to Hawaii and Atlantis is what makes WKV and SVV more valuable or, from a different perspective, the inability to play with points is what makes SVR and SDO less valuable.


----------



## kjd (Dec 16, 2010)

Thanks for the info about resale trades for points.  After paying $2,000 for nothing you're almost on the same level as a direct purchaser.  But, not quite.


----------



## laurac260 (Dec 16, 2010)

Lawlar said:


> Marriott sold the deeded interest concept as something special.  *Now it will be selling a new concept it will represent as having greater value, thereby decreasing the value/desirability of the existing deeded interests we own. *



Upon reading this sentence, I thought of all the "latest and greatest" inventions we have all bought into over the years and decades, that have all gone the way of the dinosaur.  Anyone still have their 8-track player?  A reel to reel projector?  A BETA player?  Even a VCR??  

I suppose the reply to this will be that Marriott didn't HAVE to make any changes.  Well, we didn't HAVE to buy DVD players but so many of us did.  VCR tapes still work.  And now, when we buy a DVD, we are asked if we want regular or blue ray.   

I have a deeded week.  Did the value of my deeded week drop?  I haven't checked, perhaps it has.  I know the value of my HOME dropped, but it still operates the same way it did 3 years ago.  It only matters when I try to sell it after all.  Unless you bought your deeded week to SELL does it really matter?


----------



## DanCali (Dec 16, 2010)

laurac260 said:


> Unless you bought your deeded week to SELL does it really matter?



Yes, it matters. A paper loss is as real as a realized loss.

The value of your home went down. So did your net worth. If you think the loss in the value of your home matters only when you try to sell it, why don't you try getting a new home equity line of credit and see what your bank says about that, especially if you still have a mortgage on your home...


----------



## CatJ114683 (Dec 16, 2010)

I am glad I jumped on here today to catch this particular conversation.  the feeling that Marriott has thrown its original owners under the bus is exactly how I feel and we have been in a quandry since the inception of this program on whether to participate or not.  Just today we were in conversation yet again with a Marriott rep to discuss conversion/vrs not.  The same attempt was made to have us purchase thousands more points at thousands more dollars.  We have had a gold week Lock off unit at MGV since 2004.  We have never stayed there. We always used it to trade through II.  Earlier this fall, we confirmed an Interval Trade with the 1 bdrm lock off side to a 2 bdm Four Seasons Resort in Scottsdale.  We also traded our 1 bedroom non-Marriott property for a 2 bd at the end of Feb at MGV.  We still have the studio lock of side to do something with.  I guess I value the II membership as much as the Marriott.  There are many resorts just as nice as Marriott out there that seem to be easily traded into, and II seems very happy to get the Marriotts for trades.  So, since I feel slighted by Marriott, we won't give them any more $$.


----------



## josh1231 (Dec 16, 2010)

DanCali said:


> I don't have a problem with Marriott doing what it wants with their weeks. I've been one ones saying nobody should count on bulk deposits, whether they are in II or the DC. But they don't live in a vacuum, and *setting policies that benefit only Marriott hurts resale values of weeks.*
> 
> Take for example the policy that weeks bought after June 20 cannot enroll. This policy is there only so Marriott can sell trust points, because otherwise people would just buy resale weeks and enroll them at a much lower cost per point (albeit, it'd be the "inferior" DC points). That, along with salespeople saying "points are the future" inevitably reduces demand for resale weeks. Lower demand translates to lower prices.
> 
> ...



I did say it hasn't greatly affected resale weeks, not that it hadn't affected them at all. It's very difficult to tell the actual extent.

It seems you are angry over threee things. First, Marriott will be decreasing their bulk deposits. Second, Marriott is going to prevent you from purchasing from someone else and then joining their club, and third, you feel your week is going to become less valuable.

If you believe that by not doing bulk deposits in the future, your week will go down in value, you are accepting that Marriott has been artificially inflating the value of your week, and therefore would seem to be angry that they will not be doing this in the future. I don't feel this is something to get angry about because again, they own the weeks and can choose who stays in them, thus reducing the rate at which individuals like myself trade their studio Shadow Ridge for a 2-bedroom Marbella.

You seem to also believe that by preventing individuals from converting weeks to the points system after the June date, you will not be able to receive the same trades you have in the past, therefore your week will decline in value. 

Both of these mean you are angry because Marriott will not let you use weeks they own. Again, I don't see how this can cause anger. 

The entire point of this thread however, is the decreased value of weeks. After one week of viewing information on the points system, I realized it wasn't for me, as I'm sure you did as well. As frequent users of this board, we then both realized a loss of value was possible. At this point, we could have sold and prevented any further monetary loss caused by the points system. Neither of us did, becuase we still believe there is value in ownership.

From the release of the points system to late August, early September, prices held rather steady. In September, just as they do every single year, prices began declining. You can't point to A causing B, when B has happened every year from the past 5.

You can't fault Marriott for pushing their new product anymore than you can fault Apple from pushing their new Iphones. I can't point to Apple's releasing a new Iphone, and subsequent drop in value of my now old Iphone, as evidence that Apple is out to get me. 

Apparently the points system doesn't work for you, just as id doesn't for me. There are people who love it. I have enjoyed my ownership, and am now looking for something that fits my travel style better for the day when I am unable to trade into resorts I am interested in staying at.


----------



## josh1231 (Dec 16, 2010)

DanCali said:


> Yes, it matters. A paper loss is as real as a realized loss.
> 
> The value of your home went down. So did your net worth. If you think the loss in the value of your home matters only when you try to sell it, why don't you try getting a new home equity line of credit and see what your bank says about that, especially if you still have a mortgage on your home...



A paper loss is a real loss, and one you would have had with or without the points system. Every year starting in September, the price of timeshares declines. This year is no different.


----------



## travelhound (Dec 16, 2010)

dougp26364 said:


> Timeshare should never be looked on as a financial investment. I don't care who you buy with, your purchase is worth, at best, 50% of the price you pay the developer. Most times it's worth $0 once the right to rescind has past.
> 
> Timeshare should only be looked upon as an investment in vacation lifestyle. Nothing more, nothing less. If you buy at developer pricing, it's a very rare day when you can sell for a profit. I know of only a couple of people who purchased at pre-build prices who claim to have sold several years later for a profit.



I agree you cannot expect your money back.  But you can expect a similar week at a Marriott.  The only way to get a similar week is to use your own.  They would much rather rent out your week and give you a terrible trade.


----------



## anonymous54321 (Dec 16, 2010)

*antecedent/ consequent*



scpoidog said:


> The old system is still there...If you choose not to enroll in the points you won't notice a difference.
> 
> Prime example - the program has been out since June, but you went on a nice vacation and didn't know anything about it.  If you weren't stopped by the sales guy, you wouldn't be upset.  Ignorance can be bliss in some situations.



_________

In fact, I made my reservations for exchanges before June (before the program rolled out).  Because of the uncharacteristically brusque sales pressure, I am now concerned about the potential of future exchanges.  Another basis for my concern is that, since I posted my comment two days ago, another salesman also told me that "from now on, it will be very difficult to stay outside of [my] home resort."  It is either the truth, or corroboration of a shamefully dishonest sales technique that you would never expect from Marriott. 

Thanks for all of your responses, clarifications and shared concerns!


----------



## dioxide45 (Dec 16, 2010)

anonymous54321 said:


> _________
> 
> In fact, I made my reservations for exchanges before June (before the program rolled out).  Because of the uncharacteristically brusque sales pressure, I am now concerned about the potential of future exchanges.  Another basis for my concern is that, since I posted my comment two days ago, another salesman also told me that "from now on, it will be very difficult to stay outside of [my] home resort."  It is either the truth, or corroboration of a shamefully dishonest sales technique that you would never expect from Marriott.
> 
> Thanks for all of your responses, clarifications and shared concerns!



The thing is, is that the sales weasels don't really know. They don't know if it will be easy or hard to trade in II. They don't know any better than you or I. They are there to sell points, not figure out if it will be harder or easier to trade within Marriotts in II.

Unfortunately they try to sell on fear. And I am sure that it works for some. The problem is that there really are not any actual merits that they can sell the points using. Since there are not many good things to say about the trust point product, they resort to underhanded tactics since is about the only option they have left.


----------



## wof45 (Dec 16, 2010)

dioxide45 said:


> The thing is, is that the sales weasels don't really know. They don't know if it will be easy or hard to trade in II. They don't know any better than you or I. They are there to sell points, not figure out if it will be harder or easier to trade within Marriotts in II.
> 
> Unfortunately they try to sell on fear. And I am sure that it works for some. The problem is that there really are not any actual merits that they can sell the points using. Since there are not many good things to say about the trust point product, they resort to underhanded tactics since is about the only option they have left.



I agree that none of us know how trades through II will be in the future.

But each of us has a different take on the benefit of enrolling existing weeks for DC points.  For many, there is an actual savings in fees to offset the enrollment and annual fees.  For some, there is the added benefit of being able to spend points on exactly what is wanted this year.  For those with a single week with few points, or who like to stay where they own, there may be no benefit.

The actual great thing about the pure trust points is that there is a points catalog that can be used to select where to go and how many points it will cost.  In the old weeks system, you picked the week you wanted, but to be sure of it, you did it long in advance.  In the new points system, you pick not only the week, but also the resort -- and you still need to plan long in advance to get just what you want -- but with better selection.


----------



## dan_hoog (Dec 16, 2010)

*genuine question*

How is the choice better with points, aside from partial week stays?  I can easily believe it is better now, based on what I hear.  I don't see how I could assume that in several years availability of times I desire would be any better with points than historically with weeks -- though the granularity is different.

Do you - or anyone - have thoughts on this.  It seems to me that size of the available pool of days, weeks, etc., compared to the size of the owner/client/trading base drives the likelihood of getting what you want, not really the program rules.

Is this a fair assessment?  Is there something about points that might actually have a benefit once its supply/demand reaches balance?





wof45 said:


> I agree that none of us know how trades through II will be in the future.
> 
> But each of us has a different take on the benefit of enrolling existing weeks for DC points.  For many, there is an actual savings in fees to offset the enrollment and annual fees.  For some, there is the added benefit of being able to spend points on exactly what is wanted this year.  For those with a single week with few points, or who like to stay where they own, there may be no benefit.
> 
> The actual great thing about the pure trust points is that there is a points catalog that can be used to select where to go and how many points it will cost.  In the old weeks system, you picked the week you wanted, but to be sure of it, you did it long in advance.  In the new points system, you pick not only the week, but also the resort -- and you still need to plan long in advance to get just what you want -- but with better selection.


----------



## wof45 (Dec 16, 2010)

dan_hoog said:


> How is the choice better with points, aside from partial week stays?  I can easily believe it is better now, based on what I hear.  I don't see how I could assume that in several years availability of times I desire would be any better with points than historically with weeks -- though the granularity is different.
> 
> Do you - or anyone - have thoughts on this.  It seems to me that size of the available pool of days, weeks, etc., compared to the size of the owner/client/trading base drives the likelihood of getting what you want, not really the program rules.
> 
> Is this a fair assessment?  Is there something about points that might actually have a benefit once its supply/demand reaches balance?



In my opinion, it is better now because we no longer need to wait for someone to reserve and deposit a prime week for us to trade for it.  We can pick from prime inventory 13 months in advance at any of the resorts -- at least in amuch better way than we do today.  I'll know better in a month when I go after Feb, 2012.

As Marriott sells more DC points and the over-supply is less, I would expect it to become harder to get as good a match.  I still think in weeks since now I can only use vacation weeks.  In a few years, I will be able to take advantage of part weeks or longer than a week.

My guess is that fewer weeks will make it to II in the future, which will hurt trading into Marriott or perhaps those who want to upgrade within Marriott using flexchange.

I haven't see any guarantee that people who do not sign up for the Marriott corporate II account will continue to receive the Marriott extra month benefit.  So far, it still seems to work on my old II account.


----------



## kjd (Dec 17, 2010)

I get the point about not having to wait for someone to deposit a week you want to trade for if you join the DC.  If you have enough points you can reserve it there and then.  It's a great concept.  Where is most of the inventory coming from in order to do this?

It's coming from Marriott's deposit of unsold units.  There is an assumpton here that Marriott will keep supplying the trust with their unsold units.  What happens when the timeshare market starts to pick up and the unsold units or the right to build them is used to meet the demand of new buyers?  As more new buyers surface will Marriott continue to maintain a good level of inventory for those already enrolled in the trust.  Or, is the current trust inventory the best you'll ever see?  

Everyone is thinking that Marriott will get more units by building new ones or through ROFR.  It is offered that Marriott will always make sure there are no problems with inventory in order to protect their business reputation.  Only a salesperson would believe that statement if it's not in the docments.

History tells us that Marriott has not treated direct purchasers or resale owners with any consideration once they have become owners.  Unless there is a guaranteed acceptable level of inventory in the new documents (contiained in the fine print) I would say that Marriott will treat point purchasers in the same manner the have treated legacy owners.  Marriott will call the tune and you'll try to dance.


----------



## wof45 (Dec 17, 2010)

marriott is selling trust points.

to do that, there must be inventory in the trust to back up what they sell -- they cannot sell points if there is no inventory to back it up.

There will perhaps never be as much trust inventory in the trust that is unsold, so the choice is probably better now than it will ever be.  But as with legacy weeks, if you want your pick of weeks, you need to request as early as possible.  The same is true using points.


----------



## kjd (Dec 17, 2010)

I agree that Marriott is selling points.  But if it would come to a decision between Marriott building another resort or another section of a resort vs benefiting 1,000 trust owners who have difficulty getting their confirmations, I think we can all imagine what the outcome of that would be.


----------



## pwrshift (Dec 17, 2010)

I was so sold on Marriott that every time I bought a timeshare from them I put equal funds into Marriott shares...call it a hedge or something.  I always felt that I should buy the shares of companies I enjoyed buying from...like eBay, amazon, apple, and more...and have always done well.  

My average buy price on MAR shares is about $15 ea for my 3003 shares, so as a shareholder I've done very well.  But my 'investment' in their TS was a stinker...other than the incredible holidays I've had as a result to their timeshares as well as flying business class to incredible world class cities and category 7+ hotels on MR points.  I have no regrets.

But even if my TS are worth peanuts on the resale market, I can see that the DC plan was purely to protect their shareholders from further prolonged losses on The TS division.  I doubt that they would ever recover continuing on the past path.  As a shareholder I'm happy...as a TS owner I'm not happy with the new plan as they dumped on 400,000 owners that paid them many millions in TS purchases.  In addition, IMO the legacy portion of the new plan will be short lived as they become second class 'owners' to the DC point owners.  Watch your back.  JMHO.

Brian


----------



## vacationtime1 (Dec 17, 2010)

wof45 said:


> marriott is selling trust points.
> 
> to do that, there must be inventory in the trust to back up what they sell -- they cannot sell points if there is no inventory to back it up.
> 
> There will perhaps never be as much trust inventory in the trust that is unsold, so the choice is probably better now than it will ever be.  But as with legacy weeks, if you want your pick of weeks, you need to request as early as possible.  The same is true using points.



Assume someone wants to ski Park City every year.  A legacy week owner of a platinum season week will get a Park City ski week every year.  A points owner will not get a ski week every year because Marriott simply does not control enough inventory at its Park City resorts to guarantee a ski week every year -- even to a 20,000 point owner.  Marriott can manipulate the exchange inventory to a point, but even as the number of points owners increases, there will not be additional ski weeks and more and more points owners will be stuck using their points for mud weeks (which is what the trust owns) or non-Park City weeks, rather than the ski weeks that the sales weasels promised.

Marriott probably has enough inventory to support points sales for years.  The problem is that Marriott does not have enough inventory to give these points owners the units and the weeks that they thought they were buying.


----------



## dioxide45 (Dec 17, 2010)

wof45 said:


> marriott is selling trust points.
> 
> to do that, there must be inventory in the trust to back up what they sell -- they cannot sell points if there is no inventory to back it up.
> 
> There will perhaps never be as much trust inventory in the trust that is unsold, so the choice is probably better now than it will ever be.  But as with legacy weeks, if you want your pick of weeks, you need to request as early as possible.  The same is true using points.



This is true. Just as in the past there was a glut of MVCI inventory dumped in to II and many trades were easy, that went away when in one day Marriott sold all of their unsold inventory to the trust.

When Marriott starts to sell that trust inventory down, reservations will be tougher as there will be more owners gunning for the same amount of inventory. As stated, it is always best to reserve as early as possible


----------



## Lets have less Greed (Jan 3, 2011)

*You are right and something needs to be done about this*

It is indeed disturbing to read all this serious concerns with the point program,
If the point program in the USA is causing such a concern , there is even more concern than with the Asia points program,where the legal footings is on  Yello
, The question is what options do we have to correct this mis deed.I like to hear from Owners who have this concern, do not like to read messages from MASTERs of  the SPINNs, but rather honest people who want to see wrong been made right


----------



## pspercy (Jan 3, 2011)

*Thanks*



dougp26364 said:


> . .
> Fortunately, what you were told by the salesman amounts to a bunch of BS. Marriott itself said it only expects 30% of legacy week owners (deeded week owners such as yourself) to join the new program. Out of those, it's questionable how many will convert their weeks to points. I myself have become an enrolled owner but, I have not purchased additional points (doubt we ever will) and have little to no interest in converting out weeks to points. Instead, we'll use the one fee for all services (internal exchanges, lock-off, exchange for rewards points ect....) vs the old ala carte fee for doing anything other than reserving our home resort week.
> 
> The old system still exists and will never go away. .



Thanks Doug; I'm getting clearer on this and what happened to the deed if one enrolled in points was one question I had, now I see the answer is *nothing* :whoopie: 

They've extended the cut off date for $595/695 enrollment until June so I may just enroll when we go in April, there are some attractive features in the new scheme, particularly if one is not wedded to it every "Use Year". To date we've only exchanged once but future airfares might force that issue.


----------



## travelplanner70 (Jan 3, 2011)

I know people have dismissed a class action suit, but I do not understand why.  (Granted I am not a lawyer, but I did read King of Torts.  )  Whatever program Marriott introduced purposely devalued a deeded week. We bought into Marriott with the understanding from Marriott that we could trade into other comparable Marriott resorts - the benefit touted by salespeople for years - not to mention the value of a lock-off unit.  Their new system makes this impossible.  The comments that you should be happy to stay at your own resort do not address that this is not what was sold to us - just stay at your own resort.  Why else would you pay higher prices for their timeshares?  Now that the rules have been changed, we see the values of the timeshares approach the true value if you are buying into just one resort.  

This, of course, is JMHO.


----------



## dan_hoog (Jan 4, 2011)

This still seems like mostly speculation, with a bias toward an expectation to be harmed. 

However, in my opinion, if anything near what sales staff suggest happens, this will likely result in legal issues. Maybe AG based, not class action. 

If using the product and deeds as originally sold falls apart, with much difficulty trading to other Marriotts, less access to even home resort, such as possible in the 13 month example, it would only take serious bona fide harm and  complaints from a small percentage of non-enrolled owners to give them much grief. 

Unfortunately for Marriott, they can't claim effects are unexpected, since the sales staff tell us that without enrolling, our weeks are devalued. 

By excluding recent resales, they are changing the ability to transfer and sell existing weeks, as some new options - the DC program, they assert, are needed to maintain full value. 

They keep recordings of most sales calls by phone, so finding inflammatory evidence should be easy. 

Note - I am not a lawyer, just my opinion of risks they face. 

-Dan


----------



## scoccermom (Sep 15, 2014)

bump...

We thought our MVC weeks also would be devalued due to the new points system but we just bought two resale plat weeks at NCV for $21K.  So it appears that resales have appreciated recently from $7K to $10K.

Cheers


----------



## TheTimeTraveler (Sep 15, 2014)

scoccermom said:


> bump...
> 
> We thought our MVC weeks also would be devalued due to the new points system but we just bought two resale plat weeks at NCV for $21K.  So it appears that resales have appreciated recently from $7K to $10K.
> 
> Cheers







Have these weeks cleared Marriott's Right of First Refusal yet ?

If not, you may need to hold off on celebrating as Marriott is buying back a lot of Platinum Weeks …..

Let's hope the sale is a done deal !





.


----------



## camachinist (Sep 15, 2014)

Yep, I just stopped a buyer for one of mine today after perusing Dioxide's site and reading a few threads here. 

*Scoccermom*, is that number inclusive of all buyer costs or just the interval price itself? I ask because last year it seemed everything over ~8500 or so was clearing. Odd that Seth's brokerage was telling me at the same time they were doing 7500 deals and the list shows those as failing during that period.


----------



## scoccermom (Sep 16, 2014)

Passed ROFR.

Prices for resale weeks have jumped up suddenly.  Perhaps the points system isn't as attractive...I don't know.

Here's a recent one that sold on Ebay with 86 bids (Note that usage starts in 2016!):

http://www.ebay.com/itm/MARRIOTT-03...D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

My purchase was two weeks together.  Total including closing was about $21K.  

Prior to that, I offered $9K to several sellers but either got no response or the week was already in escrow or sold.


----------



## GregT (Sep 16, 2014)

I think there are two reasons why quality Marriott weeks have increased in price:

1) the economy is better
2) ROFR has increased

I know TUGgers have debated heavily the impact of ROFR previously (without conclusion) but I have certainly seen resale pricing impacted by ROFR in both HGVC system (2010/2011) and Marriott (2013/2014).

I think active ROFR is here to stay for Marriott, and that the days of inexpensive Platinum/High Quality Gold are over.

Looking back at this thread, I don't think Marriott destroyed the value of our resale weeks.  If anything, we appreciate the value of those weeks even if they can't be enrolled.

I do think Marriott has impacted the value of resale points, by increasing those junk fees.

Best,

Greg


----------



## camachinist (Sep 18, 2014)

scoccermom said:


> Passed ROFR.
> 
> Prices for resale weeks have jumped up suddenly.  Perhaps the points system isn't as attractive...I don't know.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the information. I think I'll contact buyback and get some current numbers as Dioxide has no listings for NCV buybacks and crunch the numbers. I was getting a lot of lowballs last year. What a difference a year apparently makes. Good luck with your purchases. Been a NCV owner for a decade and positive results both as a user and landlord.


----------



## Superchief (Sep 18, 2014)

GregT said:


> I think there are two reasons why quality Marriott weeks have increased in price:
> 
> 1) the economy is better
> 2) ROFR has increased
> ...



Greg,
I agree with your assessment. I think another important factor is the relative value of vacationing at a time share compared to hotels and resorts. Hotel prices have really escalated ($ and point requirements), as well as their taxes, resort fees, parking, and other incidentals. Additionally, food savings are substantial at a timeshare because meals can be enjoyed in the villa. 

I really don't see how a family of four can afford to stay at a traditional resort for a week any more, but timeshare vacations are more affordable.


----------



## SueDonJ (Sep 18, 2014)

camachinist said:


> Thanks for the information. I think I'll contact buyback and get some current numbers as Dioxide has no listings for NCV buybacks and crunch the numbers. I was getting a lot of lowballs last year. What a difference a year apparently makes. Good luck with your purchases. Been a NCV owner for a decade and positive results both as a user and landlord.



Not sure I'm understanding correctly, if you're using "buyback" to mean Marriott exercising ROFR on Weeks resales or Marriott actually buying back Weeks from Owners, but figured just in case it might help to drop the link here for TUG's ongoing Marriott Buybacks thread:

Marriott is BUYING BACK TIMESHARES [2012 / Ongoing]

(It's not often the thread drops off the first page of the forum but it's been quiet for a few weeks.)


----------



## camachinist (Sep 18, 2014)

I think the TUG term might be 'repurchase' as opposed to 'broker', relevant to MVCI's various programs for owners wishing to sell. What I'm talking about is the quick close direct repurchase program. Dioxide has no contributions for NCV so I'll collect some data on my various ownerships there and contribute.

Edited to add that, indeed, I did read the entire linked thread before adding to this one. That's where I found out about Dioxide's various databases.


----------



## SueDonJ (Sep 18, 2014)

camachinist said:


> I think the TUG term might be 'repurchase' as opposed to 'broker', relevant to MVCI's various programs for owners wishing to sell. What I'm talking about is the quick close direct repurchase program. Dioxide has no contributions for NCV so I'll collect some data on my various ownerships there and contribute.
> 
> Edited to add that, indeed, I did read the entire linked thread before adding to this one. That's where I found out about Dioxide's various databases.



Yep, I had a feeling it was me being confused while you knew exactly what you were talking about.  Thanks!


----------



## timsi (Oct 1, 2022)

larue said:


> It depends on who sells your week.  See the following from the disclosure guide, Section VI, Miscellaneous Provisions:
> 
> a. Trust Members. Upon the sale of an Interest, Exchange Company may require the payment of an initiation fee. (The current initiation fee is $200 per Interest with a $2,000 minimum initiation fee; however, Exchange Company reserves the right to adjust the amount of the initiation fee from time to time and to waive the initiation fee on a case-by-case basis in Exchange Company’s sole and absolute discretion.) Until payment of any required initiation fee is received (or waived by Exchange Company), the owner of such Interest(s) will not be entitled to Base Plus Exchange Benefits or Exchange Benefits; however, payment of the initiation fee will allow access to the Base Plus Exchange Benefits. *If the purchase of an Interest is not made from an Approved Broker, then the owner of such Interest(s) may not be entitled to Exchange Benefits in Exchange Company’s sole and absolute discretion, even if the initiation fee is paid.* Additional payments may be required to access the Exchange Benefits.​
> According to a points specialist with Marriott, citing the provision above, if you sell your week through Marriott, the new owner is in with payment of an initiation fee of $2,000 (or more if you are selling weeks worth more than 10 shares).  If you sell through anyone else, according to this same person, the new owner can also join but will be limited to a 60 day advance booking option.




It is interesting that the Trust has been set up to ignore the concept of justice and fairness, at least regarding the resale transactions. I am not claiming that the concept is black and white but still, a week (or the points) sold by an owner will have different features (and intrinsic values) than a week (or points) sold by the developer, even if the weeks or the points may have been acquired by both from an existing owner and were identical prior to the acquisition. In practice this means a perpetual economic advantage for one side. 

*"Principles of Justice*
The most fundamental principle of justice—one that has been widely accepted since it was first defined by Aristotle more than two thousand years ago—is the principle that "equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally." In its contemporary form, this principle is sometimes expressed as follows: "Individuals should be treated the same, unless they differ in ways that are relevant to the situation in which they are involved." For example, if Jack and Jill both do the same work, and there are no relevant differences between them or the work they are doing, then in justice they should be paid the same wages. And if Jack is paid more than Jill simply because he is a man, or because he is white, then we have an injustice—a form of discrimination—because race and sex are not relevant to normal work situations. " 

Isn't true that the contracts sold by the developer have more value than the ones sold by the other owners just because of the unequal treatment?











						Justice and Fairness
					

An introduction to the justice approach to ethics including a discussion of desert, distributive justice, retributive justice, and compensatory justice.




					www.scu.edu


----------



## jabberwocky (Oct 1, 2022)

Why are we dredging up a thread that is over 8 years old?


----------



## sponger76 (Oct 1, 2022)

jabberwocky said:


> Why are we dredging up a thread that is over 8 years old?


Because someone really dislikes a certain dead horse (Abound), and wants to not only keep on beating it for weeks on end, but wants to do so in multiple locations (threads).


----------



## jabberwocky (Oct 1, 2022)

sponger76 said:


> Because someone really dislikes a certain dead horse (Abound), and wants to not only keep on beating it for weeks on end, but wants to do so in multiple locations (threads).


Got it. I guess the downside to the ignore button is pieces of the conversation are missing.


----------



## sponger76 (Oct 1, 2022)

jabberwocky said:


> Got it. I guess the downside to the ignore button is pieces of the conversation are missing.


I just really wish I knew what they did to piss him off so much. I don't know how they could have, since they haven't actually opened up to do anything yet.


----------



## VacationForever (Oct 1, 2022)

While the person is not on my ignore list, it is the same as ignore since I just skip a post immediately when I see who posted it.


----------



## kozykritter (Oct 2, 2022)

jabberwocky said:


> Got it. I guess the downside to the ignore button is pieces of the conversation are missing.


It appears the message that dredged it up was moved or deleted by the moderator. You would see the post otherwise, even if they were ignored by you. The exact content would just require a click to reveal.


----------



## TravelTime (Oct 2, 2022)

I read through a few posts. It is interesting that the fears of Marriott owners are similar to Vistana owners.


----------



## timsi (Oct 2, 2022)

jabberwocky said:


> Why are we dredging up a thread that is over 8 years old?


@TravelTime
It is indeed an old thread, I looked back to see the objections of the legacy Marriott owners in 2010 and I could not find anything related to the resort rules that prevented MVC to book 12 or 13 months before check in. Vistana is very different because the Abound rules may be in conflict with resort rules when it comes to the home resort reservation period.  

I responded to a 12-year-old comment because it is still valid today and possibly show owners that unless they have something in writing and verifiable, they should not bank on the idea of fairness when it comes to our relationship with any developer, and that includes matters related to the inventory. Most owners know that already, but others seem to forget it all the time.

You can find more details about why I went back in my comment here:
How strong is the exclusive right of the Lagunamar owners to compete for the entire inventory during the Home Resort Reservation Period? | Page 3 | Timeshare Users Group Discussion Forums (tugbbs.com)


----------



## Dean (Oct 4, 2022)

timsi said:


> It is interesting that the Trust has been set up to ignore the concept of justice and fairness, at least regarding the resale transactions. I am not claiming that the concept is black and white but still, a week (or the points) sold by an owner will have different features (and intrinsic values) than a week (or points) sold by the developer, even if the weeks or the points may have been acquired by both from an existing owner and were identical prior to the acquisition. In practice this means a perpetual economic advantage for one side.
> 
> *"Principles of Justice*
> The most fundamental principle of justice—one that has been widely accepted since it was first defined by Aristotle more than two thousand years ago—is the principle that "equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally." In its contemporary form, this principle is sometimes expressed as follows: "Individuals should be treated the same, unless they differ in ways that are relevant to the situation in which they are involved." For example, if Jack and Jill both do the same work, and there are no relevant differences between them or the work they are doing, then in justice they should be paid the same wages. And if Jack is paid more than Jill simply because he is a man, or because he is white, then we have an injustice—a form of discrimination—because race and sex are not relevant to normal work situations. "
> ...


I'm not sure that the term fairness and timeshare should be used in the same paragraph, timeshare systems in general are inherently unfair though some more than others.  They are heavily weighted in the favor of the developer plus the various VIP programs, also to benefit the developer in many ways, create an unequal footing between different members.  We can complain, we can choose not to participate or we can put ourselves in the best situation possible.  Many, if not most, of us have taken the latter approach.  In many ways the Trust is inherently more fair than the weeks system if looked at globally if one is looking at resale vs retail.  However, when one purchases retail or otherwise, there are contractual obligations and there's fluff.  For MVC and weeks, the points system add on option is fluff and is not contractual to the original retail purchaser or any resale buyer.  One should understand these issues before buying as they are obvious if one reads the legal documents of any timeshare I've ever looked at and does even limited investigation.  Actually your quote above could be used to argue the other side as resale buyers and retail buyers are inherently unequal as "they differ in ways that are relevant to the situation in which they are involved".  ALL MVC owners entered into a contract with MVC, or in some cases, with a previous company that then sold those rights to MVC and that includes language that states that to resell they are at a disadvantage.  For resort MVC is ultimately only the managing agent and such resorts could chose to leave the system or the system could exclude the resort.  It's happened before I think 9 times with MVC if I'm counting correctly.  So one way to approach this issue if one were so inclined, would be to work toward exiting the system.  I'm not aware of any resort that's voluntarily left the system.  I am aware of a couple that decided not to spend the money to be able to continue in the system but the rest were simply dropped because they didn't fit in.

Fundamentally though why would one continue to participate with a system they thought was truly inappropriate?  Not aimed at you, unless it applies directly to how you got here, but I'm always amazed at how otherwise bright and diligent people can get taken by timeshare sales and do essentially no investigation before handing over tens of thousands of $$$ or more.  IMO that situation puts the blame squarely on the buyer and the words "the timeshare salesperson said" are not a valid out.  We see it routinely here and elsewhere that people make assumptions that are near best case scenario and ignore many of the risks of both the system and their own personal situation when looking at possibly purchasing.  I personally don't buy the concept that companies are inherently bad or that they have no right to protect themselves currently and going forward.  

And the truth is that if one decides not to do business with companies that treat different people differently, they'd have to go off the grid completely because there probably isn't a company in the world that can hold up to that standard.  


> Isn't true that the contracts sold by the developer have more value than the ones sold by the other owners just because of the unequal treatment?


I would ague it is not true.  Every resale buyer has all the contractual options that the original buy had for that timeshare option.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Oct 4, 2022)

I just saw a Marriott's Ko Olina ocean view 2 bedroom go for just over $11,000 on eBay, annual use.  I may have bid on that one.  It's a good seller that I used for a Willow Ridge week I bought for a song.  I didn't want to see Ko Olina go cheaply, yet it did because I wouldn't bid more on something that I may not be able to use most years.  It's too rich for the kids' blood in MF's.  I would have to rent it about 2 of three years.  I wasn't willing to take the chance.  It would be an expensive II deposit. 

So Marriott may be devaluing deeded weeks, but that has happened with DP.  Suddenly Marriott resales were cheaper than before.  So it's true, but it's a good thing for those of us who wouldn't pay the high prices, anyway.  Each to his own.


----------



## JIMinNC (Oct 4, 2022)

rickandcindy23 said:


> I just saw a Marriott's Ko Olina ocean view 2 bedroom go for just over $11,000 on eBay, annual use.  I may have bid on that one.  It's a good seller that I used for a Willow Ridge week I bought for a song.  I didn't want to see Ko Olina go cheaply, yet it did because I wouldn't bid more on something that I may not be able to use most years.  It's too rich for the kids' blood in MF's.  I would have to rent it about 2 of three years.  I wasn't willing to take the chance.  It would be an expensive II deposit.
> 
> So Marriott may be devaluing deeded weeks, but that has happened with DP.  Suddenly Marriott resales were cheaper than before.  So it's true, but it's a good thing for those of us who wouldn't pay the high prices, anyway.  Each to his own.



Because price discovery is so difficult and fragmented in the timeshare resale market, just because one sale was made on eBay at a very low price, may not be directly reflective of what most similar weeks sell for elsewhere. I don't follow KoOlina resale values, so I have no idea how good of a deal/low of a price that $11k eBay sale really is, but if it's significantly below the average, then I would expect there would be a very good chance Marriott might take it back with ROFR once it's presented to them by the closing agent.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Oct 4, 2022)

JIMinNC said:


> Because price discovery is so difficult and fragmented in the timeshare resale market, just because one sale was made on eBay at a very low price, may not be directly reflective of what most similar weeks sell for elsewhere. I don't follow KoOlina resale values, so I have no idea how good of a deal/low of a price that $11k eBay sale really is, but if it's significantly below the average, then I would expect there would be a very good chance Marriott might take it back with ROFR once it's presented to them by the closing agent.


True.  I was going to bid more and thought better of it.  I saw an annual week with the same view go for a much lower price on RW than I thought it should.  It was around the price I bid.  But I was outbid by $100.  Who knows how high it would have gone?  

I just didn't ask Rick before I bid, so I would have to explain it after, when I ask him to sign the contract.  The conversation is always, "_Lucy, you have some splaining to do_."  This is truly how some conversations start around here.  For all of the younger folks, my name is not Lucy.  The older people will understand.


----------



## jwalk03 (Oct 4, 2022)

Dean said:


> I'm not sure that the term fairness and timeshare should be used in the same paragraph, timeshare systems in general are inherently unfair though some more than others.  They are heavily weighted in the favor of the developer plus the various VIP programs, also to benefit the developer in many ways, create an unequal footing between different members.  We can complain, we can choose not to participate or we can put ourselves in the best situation possible.  Many, if not most, of us have taken the latter approach.  In many ways the Trust is inherently more fair than the weeks system if looked at globally if one is looking at resale vs retail.  However, when one purchases retail or otherwise, there are contractual obligations and there's fluff.  For MVC and weeks, the points system add on option is fluff and is not contractual to the original retail purchaser or any resale buyer.  One should understand these issues before buying as they are obvious if one reads the legal documents of any timeshare I've ever looked at and does even limited investigation.  Actually your quote above could be used to argue the other side as resale buyers and retail buyers are inherently unequal as "they differ in ways that are relevant to the situation in which they are involved".  ALL MVC owners entered into a contract with MVC, or in some cases, with a previous company that then sold those rights to MVC and that includes language that states that to resell they are at a disadvantage.  For resort MVC is ultimately only the managing agent and such resorts could chose to leave the system or the system could exclude the resort.  *It's happened before I think 9 times with MVC if I'm counting correctly.*  So one way to approach this issue if one were so inclined, would be to work toward exiting the system.  I'm not aware of any resort that's voluntarily left the system.  I am aware of a couple that decided not to spend the money to be able to continue in the system but the rest were simply dropped because they didn't fit in.
> 
> Fundamentally though why would one continue to participate with a system they thought was truly inappropriate?  Not aimed at you, unless it applies directly to how you got here, but I'm always amazed at how otherwise bright and diligent people can get taken by timeshare sales and do essentially no investigation before handing over tens of thousands of $$$ or more.  IMO that situation puts the blame squarely on the buyer and the words "the timeshare salesperson said" are not a valid out.  We see it routinely here and elsewhere that people make assumptions that are near best case scenario and ignore many of the risks of both the system and their own personal situation when looking at possibly purchasing.  I personally don't buy the concept that companies are inherently bad or that they have no right to protect themselves currently and going forward.
> 
> ...



Just curious- what resorts left the Marriott system?


----------



## JIMinNC (Oct 4, 2022)

rickandcindy23 said:


> I just didn't ask Rick before I bid, so I would have to explain it after, when I ask him to sign the contract.  The conversation is always, "_Lucy, you have some splaining to do_."  This is truly how some conversations start around here.  For all of the younger folks, my name is not Lucy.  The older people will understand.



It's actually, _"Luuuucy, you have some splainin' to do." _So, yes, I'm old enough to understand!


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 4, 2022)

jwalk03 said:


> Just curious- what resorts left the Marriott system?


Swallowtail and Spicebush on Hilton Head, and the Aspen and Cedar buildings at Streamside come immediately to mind.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Oct 4, 2022)

JIMinNC said:


> It's actually, _"Luuuucy, you have some splainin' to do." _So, yes, I'm old enough to understand!


Yes it is, and Rick does it perfectly.


----------



## bnoble (Oct 4, 2022)

Something tells me that he's had some practice.


----------



## Dean (Oct 4, 2022)

jwalk03 said:


> Just curious- what resorts left the Marriott system?


There were 3 very early only (Loon Mountain, 1 in the Caribbean and I'm not sure the third).  After that Spicebush, Swallowtail, "Saturday Villas" on HHI, the 2 portions at Vail and Longboat Bay Club.  There are at least 2 MVC built resorts that have been threatened with the possibility of expulsion that I am aware of.  Aruba Ocean Club (I guess not truly completely built by MVC) and Beach Place though others may have more details than I.  Loon Mountain isn't even a timeshare anymore.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Oct 4, 2022)

bnoble said:


> Something tells me that he's had some practice.


A little bit.  

The one timeshare that he okayed without even a bat of an eye was our Westin Ka'anapali oceanfront 2 bedrooms (OF center).  We bought two.  He didn't hesitate, when I told him I could rent the studios for the MF's of the entire unit, and we would stay free each year (and still have the underlying value of the weeks we could sell later, if we wanted).  

I was noticeably surprised to rent them 3 days after listing on RW.  He noticed my shock and said, "You acted so sure that you could do it, so why are you shocked?"  In theory, yes, I thought I could, but when it actually worked, of course I was happy and aghast at the same time.


----------



## dj_drf (Oct 4, 2022)

Dean said:


> There were 3 very early only (Loon Mountain, 1 in the Caribbean and I'm not sure the third).  After that Spicebush, Swallowtail, "Saturday Villas" on HHI, the 2 portions at Vail and Longboat Bay Club.  There are at least 2 MVC built resorts that have been threatened with the possibility of expulsion that I am aware of.  Aruba Ocean Club (I guess not truly completely built by MVC) and Beach Place though others may have more details than I.  Loon Mountain isn't even a timeshare anymore.


I'm curious about the situation with Aruba Ocean Club; can you provide any insights?


----------



## Dean (Oct 4, 2022)

dj_drf said:


> I'm curious about the situation with Aruba Ocean Club; can you provide any insights?


As I said, I'm sure there are those far better versed on this for both but if I understand correctly, it centered around the roof leaking, repair costs and BOD conflict associated.  My understanding on  Beachplace is it was a conflict between the BOD and MVC related to repair costs and standards including TV size/type and Marriott parking.  One might also include the rest of Vail related to standards where they had to meet to remain internal.  I wouldn't be surprised if there were others over the years.  Many of us, myself included, didn't expect Harbour Pointe to stay with MVC.  And I won't be surprised if there are others going forward.


----------



## timsi (Oct 4, 2022)

Dean said:


> I'm not sure that the term fairness and timeshare should be used in the same paragraph, timeshare systems in general are inherently unfair though some more than others.  They are heavily weighted in the favor of the developer plus the various VIP programs, also to benefit the developer in many ways, create an unequal footing between different members.  We can complain, we can choose not to participate or we can put ourselves in the best situation possible.  Many, if not most, of us have taken the latter approach.  In many ways the Trust is inherently more fair than the weeks system if looked at globally if one is looking at resale vs retail.  However, when one purchases retail or otherwise, there are contractual obligations and there's fluff.  For MVC and weeks, the points system add on option is fluff and is not contractual to the original retail purchaser or any resale buyer.  One should understand these issues before buying as they are obvious if one reads the legal documents of any timeshare I've ever looked at and does even limited investigation.  Actually your quote above could be used to argue the other side as resale buyers and retail buyers are inherently unequal as "they differ in ways that are relevant to the situation in which they are involved".  ALL MVC owners entered into a contract with MVC, or in some cases, with a previous company that then sold those rights to MVC and that includes language that states that to resell they are at a disadvantage.  For resort MVC is ultimately only the managing agent and such resorts could chose to leave the system or the system could exclude the resort.  It's happened before I think 9 times with MVC if I'm counting correctly.  So one way to approach this issue if one were so inclined, would be to work toward exiting the system.  I'm not aware of any resort that's voluntarily left the system.  I am aware of a couple that decided not to spend the money to be able to continue in the system but the rest were simply dropped because they didn't fit in.
> 
> Fundamentally though why would one continue to participate with a system they thought was truly inappropriate?  Not aimed at you, unless it applies directly to how you got here, but I'm always amazed at how otherwise bright and diligent people can get taken by timeshare sales and do essentially no investigation before handing over tens of thousands of $$$ or more.  IMO that situation puts the blame squarely on the buyer and the words "the timeshare salesperson said" are not a valid out.  We see it routinely here and elsewhere that people make assumptions that are near best case scenario and ignore many of the risks of both the system and their own personal situation when looking at possibly purchasing.  I personally don't buy the concept that companies are inherently bad or that they have no right to protect themselves currently and going forward.
> 
> ...



In my opinion the potential conflicts are not in plain sight and easy to spot during a basic due diligence process. For starters, the rescission period is extremely short especially since you are on vacation. Many new owners may not even go back home before it is too late to rescind. I think in Europe they have a 15 day cool off period which makes a bit more sense.

Many of the key elements are buried deeply in hundreds of pages of legal documents and disclosures, and even if you happen to come across them during your walk from the pool to the beach, they are not easy to interpret because they are ambiguous, or you may not understand the context. After two days, we can’t even agree on the meaning of commercial use. Unless you understand the industry well, you have no way of knowing what a lot of paragraphs mean, and you need information that is not easily available at the time.

At the resorts you own, how many deeds are owned directly by the developer?  You can find yours in the auditor’s report. What does it mean if the developer owns 5%, 15%, or 25%? What does it mean in terms of inventory management, rentals, acquisition of deeds on the secondary market etc. And if you know all that, what does it mean for you, are you still comfortable if the ones who handle the reservation system may be able to book the units they rent first? If you buy a Flex product (or MVC trust) how do you actually know if the inventory they promise is really there? As you can see things are a lot more complicated in practice and social media does not always help because most owners do not understand themselves the rental business of the developer. If the developer has an important rental business, do you know how they book their units? I did not see it described in any public document, but I assume they do not have an army of clerks who stay up at night and compete with you for every unit. How is a new owner supposed to know?

What does it mean: “Only Owners who acquire their Vacation Ownership Interest directly from the Seller of a Network Resort […] are eligible to become members of the Network “? Where does it say that the developer will buy deeds on the resale market and resale them (as retail) with the full features?

The value of the features the owners loose when they sell is somewhat measurable. If you look at the SVV phases, the mandatory ones will sell now for 3-5k more than the voluntary phases. The MVC points that you mentioned, bought resale will have to pay a junk fee that is not pocketed by the person who sells but by the developer. So yes, the developer sales are (in part) more expensive because of the value lost by the owners who sell.


----------



## l0410z (Oct 4, 2022)

SueDonJ said:


> Swallowtail and Spicebush on Hilton Head, and the Aspen and Cedar buildings at Streamside come immediately to mind.


In the documentation from my 1995 Monarch purchase I have a list of Marriott Ownership Resorts.  Of the 15 resorts listed in 1995, 4 resorts are no longer Marriotts.  You mentioned two (Swallowtail and Spicebush) and the other 2 are Barbados Beach Club and Paradise Island Beach Club.  The other 11 are Monarch, Sunset Points, Harbour Club, Heritage, Royal Palms, Sabal Palms, Cypress Harbour, Desert Springs, Summit Watch, Manor Club and Streamside.


----------



## Dean (Oct 4, 2022)

l0410z said:


> In the documentation from my 1995 Monarch purchase I have a list of Marriott Ownership Resorts.  Of the 15 resorts listed in 1995, 4 resorts are no longer Marriotts.  You mentioned two (Swallowtail and Spicebush) and the other 2 are Barbados Beach Club and Paradise Island Beach Club.  The other 11 are Monarch, Sunset Points, Harbour Club, Heritage, Royal Palms, Sabal Palms, Cypress Harbour, Desert Springs, Summit Watch, Manor Club and Streamside.


So there were 4 early, Loon went out very quickly from what I've heard.


----------



## Dean (Oct 4, 2022)

timsi said:


> I think it is the third time you suggested I should consider selling my timeshares. What is that all about? Some of my comments may not be convenient for the developer, but why would any owner make such a comment repeatedly?


I haven't made any remarks along this lines that are person specific but I do hold that if one is sufficiently unhappy they should plan an exit strategy.  I don't know if that applies to you or if you're just complaining a lot about one issue, you'll have to answer that one yourself.  I think all the times I've made the statement lately were with similar posts about this type of subject.



> In my opinion the potential conflicts are not in plain sight and easy to spot during a basic due diligence process. For starters, the rescission period is extremely short especially since you are on vacation. Many new owners may not even go back home before it is too late to rescind. I think in Europe they have a 15 day cool off period which makes a bit more sense.
> 
> Many of the key elements are buried deeply in hundreds of pages of legal documents and disclosures, and even if you happen to come across them during your walk from the pool to the beach, they are not easy to interpret because they are ambiguous. After two days, we can’t even agree on the meaning of commercial use. Unless you understand the industry well, you have no way of knowing what a lot of paragraphs mean, and you need information that is not easily available at the time.


I believe that anyone committing to such a large investment should understand what they're getting into.  Many of these issues and risks are also plain to see for anyone who actually reads their contract and does a 20 minutes internet search.  A new owner should understand that before they commit, not after, if not, I really don't think they have much to complain about.  



> At the resorts you own, how many deeds are owned directly by the developer?  You can find yours in the auditor’s report. What does it mean if the developer owns 5%, 15%, or 25%? What does it mean in terms of inventory management, rentals, acquisition of deeds on the secondary market etc. And if you know all that, what does it mean for you, are you still comfortable if the ones who handle the reservation system may be able to book the units they rent first? If you buy a Flex product (or MVC trust) how do you actually know if the inventory they promise is really there? As you can see things are a lot more complicated in practice and social media does not always help because most owners do not understand themselves the rental business of the developer. If the developer has an important rental business, do you know how they book their units? I did not see it described in any public document, but I assume they do not have an army of clerks who stay up at night and compete with you for every unit. How is a new owner supposed to know that?


Personally I don't think it makes much difference what the % of weeks owned by the developer are for weeks already declared into the system from an owners standpoint at that resort unless the owner is voting their shares to the detriment of the other owners.  It might matter on the points side when trying to reserve with points without a home priority.  To a degree we're subjecting ourselves to the whims of the developer and later, the management company.  If we're not comfortable with that, we shouldn't play, though we should be diligent and pay attention.   BTW, I read through your thread on the MX resort and what you posted doesn't support your premise IMO.  Still I understand it's not the entire set of documents which one would need to take in the entirety to be more certain.  



> What does it mean: “Only Owners who acquire their Vacation Ownership Interest directly from the Seller of a Network Resort […] are eligible to become members of the Network “? Where does it say that the developer will buy deeds on the resale market and resale them (as retail) with the full features?


A complicated subject no doubt.  That's where ROFR would come in.  I think there would have to be wording precluding the practice rather than wording required to allow it.  So one would have to be able to produce documentation that would prevent the issue you are referencing.  



> The value of the features the owners loose when they sell is somewhat measurable. If you look at the SVV phases, the mandatory ones will sell now for 3-5k more than the voluntary phases. The MVC points that you mentioned, bought resale will have to pay a junk fee that is not pocketed by the person who sells but by the developer. So yes, the developer sales are (in part) more expensive because of the value lost by the owners who sell.


As it has always been in timeshares.  As long as the buyer gets the items that are contractually spelled out, they are whole even if they have less than the original buyer.  So one would go back to the legal documents to answer that question.  I can't speak for the systems I am not well versed in.  Related to MVC not having the ability to trade for Bonvoy points, DC points or applicable to the VIP system would be in line with all the legal documentation I've seen.


----------



## timsi (Oct 4, 2022)

Dean said:


> As it has always been in timeshares.  As long as the buyer gets the items that are contractually spelled out, they are whole even if they have less than the original buyer.  So one would go back to the legal documents to answer that question.  I can't speak for the systems I am not well versed in.  Related to MVC not having the ability to trade for Bonvoy points, DC points or applicable to the VIP system would be in line with all the legal documentation I've seen.



What is rather odd is not that the features of the resale contracts are lost but that they are only lost for the individual owners. The developer can acquire the same deeds on the secondary market, not invest one dime and declare they are "brand-new" contracts will all the features. Don't you think the poor seller, who has already lost a fortune, would have liked few thousand dollars more in his pocket?  I am not sure this is spelled out in the legal documentation. You may say it is implicit, but most people would not know it, they probably assume the seller is a true developer, not just a flipper. 

The value of these features is also quite high compared to the usage value of the deeded week, in some situations. Many people have bought on the idea of an internal Vistana exchange, they never intended to go to their home resort during that season. Strip the internal exchange value and they may be worth nothing.


----------



## Dean (Oct 4, 2022)

timsi said:


> What is rather odd is not that the features of the resale contracts are lost but that they are only lost for the individual owners. The developer can acquire the same deeds on the secondary market, not invest one dime and declare they are "brand-new" contracts will all the features. Don't you think the poor seller, who has already lost a fortune, would have liked few thousand dollars more in his pocket?  I am not sure this is spelled out in the legal documentation. You may say it is implicit, but most people would not know it, they probably assume the seller is a true developer, not just a flipper.
> 
> The value of these features is also quite high compared to the usage value of the deeded week, in some situations. Many people have bought on the idea of an internal Vistana exchange, they never intended to go to their home resort during that season. Strip the internal exchange value and they may be worth nothing.


No doubt some of the non contractual choices are some of the ones we value the most and have spent $$$ on but at the end of the day we need to realize what we've actually bought and how tenuous those options are.


----------



## vpplayer (Oct 5, 2022)

rickandcindy23 said:


> I just saw a Marriott's Ko Olina ocean view 2 bedroom go for just over $11,000 on eBay, annual use.  I may have bid on that one.  It's a good seller that I used for a Willow Ridge week I bought for a song.  I didn't want to see Ko Olina go cheaply, yet it did because I wouldn't bid more on something that I may not be able to use most years.  It's too rich for the kids' blood in MF's.  I would have to rent it about 2 of three years.  I wasn't willing to take the chance.  It would be an expensive II deposit.



$11K for KOBC Annual OV is probably about right. For the same reason as you mentioned (we won't go as often in the future -- certainly not every year), we decided to add an EOY (odd) OV to our Annual (both OV) and purchased on RW for $5K in July (passed ROFR).


----------

