# Another view on Marriott's new policy



## Kilby5924 (Jan 3, 2008)

Ok I have heard all the doom and gloom sayer about the possibility of Marriott changing it policy on reservation. 
 I will admit I was not as smart as many on this broad who bought resale and saved a bundle of money buy not buying from Marriott. I have to admit I was little peeved about Marriott allowing someone to purchase the same product I bought from them for pennies on the dollar. I even wished they would do something about it I wondered how they could continue to let someone sell their product for 60% off what they were selling it for. I realized that the last thing a business wants to do is have buy back there own product even at 60% and try to resell it. While am under no illusion about Marriott that are a business and will always look to there bottom line. It seems this will in some ways protect person who buy from Marriott since the new policy will make resales a different product. I don’t think that Marriott can attempt to sell timeshares some for more than $50,000 a week and allow someone to buy the same product for $30,000. 
Sheldon


----------



## rsackett (Jan 3, 2008)

Well I bought my one and only only week resale.  I had first signed a contract to buy from Marriott, but found TUG before the cooling off period ended, and could not believe that as soon as I took posession I had lost 50% of my up-front money.  So I recended.

If Marriott makes a change that effects resale prices, those folks who buy $50,000 timeshares from Marriott will be very sad when the day comes that they have to sell.

I bought my Manor Club for $8k,  if Marriott makes a change that makes my unit less valuable to me I will sell itthe MOST I can loose is $8,000.  A person who buys form Marriott stands to loose much more.

A change that effects resale costomers will effect all owners who ever sell their units.

Ray


----------



## AwayWeGo (Jan 3, 2008)

*$50 Grand?  For A Timeshare?  Are You Serious?*




rsackett said:


> If Marriott makes a change that effects resale prices, those folks who buy $50,000 timeshares from Marriott will be very sad when the day comes that they have to sell.


I cannot imagine any timeshare being worth $50*,*000. 

I have a tough time wrapping my feeble mind around the idea that some super-nice timeshare somewhere might be worth $25*,*000. 

Maybe I need to tour more high-end Vacation Ownership Resorts. 

Or simply restrict myself to TUG-BBS participation in the various Bottom Feeder Forums. 

You upper-brackets guys are _way_ out of my league.  Hats off to you.  

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## rsackett (Jan 3, 2008)

I can not pay 50K for a timeshare either.

Just look at the prices below for the Marriott on Marco Island:

Platinum float -*$79,200 *Gulf Front, *$71,800 *Gulf Side and *$59,600 *for Gulf View.

Gold Float - $42,600 Gulf Front, $35,400 Gulf Side and $32,100 Gulf View.

Silver Float - $24,200 Gulf Front, $20,100 Gulf Side and $18,100 for Gulf View

There are a few variations for fixed week but there's not many:

Christmas and President's week are *$89,400 *gulf front *$74,400 *Gulf Side and *$67,200 *Gulf view.

New Years week is *$98,700 *Gulf front, *$82.200 *Gulf Side and *$74,200 *Gulf View 
The most expensive week is New Years Gulf Front --3 bdrm Penthouse-*only $137,300*

Ray


----------



## taffy19 (Jan 3, 2008)

rsackett said:


> Well I bought my one and only only week resale.  I had first signed a contract to buy from Marriott, but found TUG before the cooling off period ended, and could not believe that as soon as I took posession I had lost 50% of my up-front money.  So I recended.
> 
> If Marriott makes a change that effects resale prices, those folks who buy $50,000 timeshares from Marriott will be very sad when the day comes that they have to sell.
> 
> ...


So true and it hurts even to think about it if you have to sell when you bought from the Marriott direct because of an unforeseen reason.  Most people do not buy a timeshare with the idea of having to sell it but they buy it with the plan to pass it on to their children once they can no longer use it themselves.  The children spent many happy vacations at their own resort or exchanged for others so may want to continue the tradition with their own kids too.  However, you never know what may change your circumstances all of the sudden because of poor health or a financial setback.

I hope that Marriott will see the light and will try to keep the resale values high like they did in the past.  It will serve their loyal customers well as well as their bottom line too as they will sell more weeks to their satisfied customers they have already.  Repeat business is a lot more cost effective than having to try to get new customers again.  JMHO.


----------



## m61376 (Jan 4, 2008)

iconnections said:


> So true and it hurts even to think about it if you have to sell when you bought from the Marriott direct because of an unforeseen reason.  Most people do not buy a timeshare with the idea of having to sell it but they buy it with the plan to pass it on to their children once they can no longer use it themselves.  The children spent many happy vacations at their own resort or exchanged for others so may want to continue the tradition with their own kids too.  However, you never know what may change your circumstances all of the sudden because of poor health or a financial setback.
> 
> I hope that Marriott will see the light and will try to keep the resale values high like they did in the past.  It will serve their loyal customers well as well as their bottom line too as they will sell more weeks to their satisfied customers they have already.  Repeat business is a lot more cost effective than having to try to get new customers again.  JMHO.



 I think that's a point that the original purchasers should strongly consider before feeling smug (I am referring only to the few here who have posted derisive comments); if Marriott imposes new restrictions that effectively cripples the resale market it will be bad for ALL owners, whether or not they originally purchased their unit(s) from Marriott directly.

As a matter of fact, an e-mail correspondence I had with a corporate salesperson about this rumor stated that there were no such plans and, in essence, that Marriott would never do anything to antagonize their current customers since many of their resale owners are also direct purchasers and they want to keep them happy.


----------



## ArtsieAng (Jan 4, 2008)

> rsackett
> 
> If Marriott makes a change that effects resale prices, those folks who buy $50,000 timeshares from Marriott will be very sad when the day comes that they have to sell.



I have been trying to follow the threads regarding Marriott's new policy, and believe that what you, and other say about resale value is true. However, it's not all bad for those who bought directly from Marriott.

Most people do not buy a timeshare to sell, they buy it to use. If a 6 month reservation window makes it easier for them to get the week they want to vacation, that may be enough to make them happy. 

I have never once thought of selling my Marriott's, and have to admit that having a priority period for reservations doesn't sound all that bad. 

Do you want a timeshare that can be sold for more $. Or, do you want a timeshare that gives you a decent shot at reserving the week of your choosing, so you can better enjoy your vacations, for many years to come? Tough call, IMHO.


----------



## CMF (Jan 4, 2008)

*The Best of Both Worlds.*



ArtsieAng said:


> Do you want a timeshare that can be sold for more $. Or, do you want a timeshare that gives you a decent shot at reserving the week of your choosing, so you can better enjoy your vacations, for many years to come? Tough call, IMHO.



These qualities are not mutually exclusive.

Charles


----------



## PerryM (Jan 4, 2008)

*Resales are vital to the survival of timeshares....*



Kilby5924 said:


> Ok I have heard all the doom and gloom sayer about the possibility of Marriott changing it policy on reservation.
> I will admit I was not as smart as many on this broad who bought resale and saved a bundle of money buy not buying from Marriott. I have to admit I was little peeved about Marriott allowing someone to purchase the same product I bought from them for pennies on the dollar. I even wished they would do something about it I wondered how they could continue to let someone sell their product for 60% off what they were selling it for. I realized that the last thing a business wants to do is have buy back there own product even at 60% and try to resell it. While am under no illusion about Marriott that are a business and will always look to there bottom line. It seems this will in some ways protect person who buy from Marriott since the new policy will make resales a different product. I don’t think that Marriott can attempt to sell timeshares some for more than $50,000 a week and allow someone to buy the same product for $30,000.
> Sheldon




*It’s NOT their PROPERTY!  (Marriott's)*

Marriott actually sells the units and it’s a real estate transaction.  There is NO difference between what Marriott does and the developer that builds your house in your sub-division – none.

Same with cars – there is a huge resale car market – once the original sale takes place its up to the manufacturer and dealer if they want to support their product with allowing resales on their property.  Most car manufactures have a program to re-certify their product back to some standard and give a warranty.

*Buying from Marriott gives you ONE and ONE additional benefit* – the ability to turn your unit over to them for some quantity of Marriott Reward Points and then for Marriott to rent your unit for way more than they pay for those points.  That’s the ONLY benefit from buying from Marriott.

If you don’t need that then EVERY Marriott owner can sell you their unit for EXACTLY the same usage at the resort or thru exchanges as Marriott does and save you 40%+.

*Remember, EVERY timeshare in the world will eventually be resold – EVERY.  * Some need to do it immediately for health reasons or death reasons or divorce reasons or stupid reasons.  The unit may be inherited by a family member and that person isn’t into the same vacations and wants to sell it.

*The point is that a healthy and viable resale industry is vital for ALL timeshare owners – even the developer if he would just look past the next sale.*

P.S.
More timeshare owners need to think of their timeshare as their real estate property - defend it or you will find slime balls who will try to take it from you.  They might not stick a gun in your ribs but may towns routinely use Emanate Domain to steal it and the timeshare developers are eager to screw you out of your property too.

Look no further than the Marriott rumors to retroactively go back and screw around with the usage of YOUR unit.  It does NOT belong to Marriott anymore, yet apparently there are blockheads in Marriott who believe they have every right to interfere with your right to sell your unit to a 3rd party.  This is arrogance of a kind that I can't imagine one human being has towards another.  To take rights away from you and to cause you to lose money just so Marriott can take that profit and give to the salesreps and stockholders.


Defend your rights or others will gladly take them from you...


----------



## arlene22 (Jan 4, 2008)

iconnections said:


> Most people do not buy a timeshare with the idea of having to sell it but they buy it with the plan to pass it on to their children once they can no longer use it themselves.  The children spent many happy vacations at their own resort or exchanged for others so may want to continue the tradition with their own kids too.



So true, Emmy. Your post makes me wonder if Marriott will consider our heirs "grandfathered" when the time comes to pass the ownership to them.


----------



## Icarus (Jan 4, 2008)

ArtsieAng said:


> Do you want a timeshare that can be sold for more $. Or, do you want a timeshare that gives you a decent shot at reserving the week of your choosing, so you can better enjoy your vacations, for many years to come? Tough call, IMHO.



Why do we have to choose one vs the other?

We all already have a good shot at getting what we want if we know how to play the game. It's always been about that with timesharing. (In other words, plan ahead, call at the 12-month mark to get the week you want, etc.) Why do we know this? We were all smart enough to learn this when we made our initial purchase and we're all smart because we read and follow TUG advice.

Unless what you are saying is that in your opinion, it's ok to create a separate class of owners because it will improve your own chances of getting the week you want. (I guess that's the old SNL Al Franken theory? But I guess you get points for being honest about it.)

Most of us that have sold or will sell in the future never thought that we would sell either. But things change sometimes. You might move and not be in a position to use your timeshare. You might have a medical situation in the family that changes things for you. You might have a financial situation that changes. You might have a change in family status that removes the reason for having the timeshare. Life is not static. Things change. When they do change, what if there are no Marriott resales at your resort because they are still selling new units there? What if the Marriott resales waiting list is several years long?

I don't think it's such a tough call. Timesharing has always been about knowing and using the program rules to get what you want.

-David


----------



## PerryM (Jan 4, 2008)

*Cut off that nose....*

Many Americans are poor shoppers – they can’t negotiate a deal, are poorly equipped with information, and forget about the other part of ownership – selling an asset.

We live in a 400 home subdivision in a St. Louis burb that is 35 years old now.  We were one of the first to move in and on our block there are but 2 original owners left out of 25 homes.  Turnover of homes is fantastic.

Timeshares are worse I believe.  In a 35 year period I’d guess that 95% of the folks will sell their timeshare.  I’ve never seen any statistics by ARDA but I’m going to assume that timeshare ownership is no better than home ownership when it comes to changing patterns of jobs, family, health, vacation, and other reasons.

So you will be looking at selling your timeshares, or your heirs will in a panic when they find that the 3 timeshares you dumped on them cost them $2,500 a year in MFs and they have better usages of that money – like braces for the kids teeth and car payments and mortgage payments.

Everyone of you timeshare owners should be very concerned that a viable resale market exists for your timeshare and that anyone who decides to stick their nose into your private business has that nose cut off.


----------



## ArtsieAng (Jan 4, 2008)

Icarus said:


> Why do we have to choose one vs the other?
> 
> We all already have a good shot at getting what we want if we know how to play the game. It's always been about that with timesharing. (In other words, plan ahead, call at the 12-month mark to get the week you want, etc.) Why do we know this? We were all smart enough to learn this when we made our initial purchase and we're all smart because we read and follow TUG advice.
> 
> ...



What I am saying is that many people don't care as much as others about the resale value of their timeshare. Most Marriott owners are not Tug/TSFM's members, and may not know how to best use the system to maximize their results. There are also people who don't own more than one timeshare, so they can't reserve a week 13 months out.

Even for many of us who can reserve 13 months out, and are very knowledgeable about timesharing, reserving a particular week can be difficult. 

I often wonder what the average Joe who purchased one timeshare to vacation with his/her family thinks. I'm not so sure that they wouldn't prefer a reservation advantage, rather than resale $.

As for myself, I work the current system very well, and have no problem getting what I want, and then some. I have always said that we should be careful what we're wishing for, when some people have requested changes in the current Marriott system. It's the people off these boards that I'm thinking about. 

Anyway, it's just another point of view.


----------



## Icarus (Jan 4, 2008)

ArtsieAng said:


> Anyway, it's just another point of view.



Understood.

The other point of view is that you should care about resale value because even though you may never plan on selling, something beyond your control might change in the future.

-David


----------



## ArtsieAng (Jan 4, 2008)

Icarus said:


> Understood.
> 
> The other point of view is that you should care about resale value because even though you may never plan on selling, something beyond your control might change in the future.
> 
> -David




I understand that point of view. However, I personally never thought of my timeshares as a financial investment. I think about them similar to the way one approaches purchasing a car. I have thoroughly enjoyed them, and realize that most likely the value on them will continue to drop, no matter what. 

Don't get me wrong, I'd be thrilled if they retained their value, and am not anxious to see the value drop. For that matter, I like the system exactly the way it is, and do not advocate any change. I just don't see it as all bad, that's all. There will be some perks, for some owners, out there.


----------



## Icarus (Jan 4, 2008)

ArtsieAng said:


> I understand that point of view. However, I personally never thought of my timeshares as a financial investment. I think about them similar to the way one approaches purchasing a car. I have thoroughly enjoyed them, and realize that most likely the value on them will continue to drop, no matter what.



Financial investment? I never said anything like that. I certainly never considered it to be a financial investment.

When I sold, my asking price was slightly above 60% of the current developer price. I basically wanted the same thing I could get if I was willing to wait out the 4 year waiting list for KBC resales. I understood that 40% - 50% of the developer price covers marketing and sales expenses, so I removed them from the equation in order to arrive at what I considered to be a fair asking price. I suppose I could have asked for more, but I wanted to sell it. There were many units listed with asking prices higher and lower than my unit with the same season, same view, same size. I've been very upfront about the details of my sale in other threads on TUG.

I don't know what the effect will be to resale prices if new resale owners have restricted reservation rights, but it's not going to make the prices any better. The concern is that it makes them worse in the event things change and you need/want to sell your units.

The problem with the car analogy is that eventually your used car will approach a value of zero. Well located and well-maintained real estate almost never approaches a value of zero. Sure, you have to remove the marketing and sales cost from the equation, but at the end of the day, in a good resort, you should be left with something of value. Even if the building has no value, the underlying land has value. Have you ever seen high end, prime, ocean front real estate go down in value for long periods of time? Sure, there are always temporary fluctuations in price, but prime resort ocean front real estate almost never goes down in value.

-David


----------



## PerryM (Jan 4, 2008)

*Expect more and you shall get it...*



ArtsieAng said:


> I understand that point of view. However, I personally never thought of my timeshares as a financial investment. I think about them similar to the way one approaches purchasing a car. I have thoroughly enjoyed them, and realize that most likely the value on them will continue to drop, no matter what.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I'd be thrilled if they retained their value, and am not anxious to see the value drop. For that matter, I like the system exactly the way it is, and do not advocate any change. I just don't see it as all bad, that's all. There will be some perks, for some owners, out there.




See, that attitude is ok for folks outside of TUG; within TUG you should be focusing on making vacations FREE each year via your timeshare portfolio.

I bought 5 timeshares direct from Marriott and sold all 5 for at least breakeven and made a profit on 3.  If you then take into account the rentals and savings of ownership versus renting I made out like a bandit.  

With Marriott’s it’s not brain surgery to make a profit by buying them resale and holding 5 – 10 years.  Even buying pre-construction Marriotts will have you at breakeven in 5 years.

However, if Marriott wants to now change the rules and punish YOUR sale then Marriott has decided to take on a very different role - a highly aggressive opponent that is ruthless.  Maybe that's what Marriott's new image is to become, I don't know.

Timeshares can be viewed 2 ways:

1)	An asset that can generate an income stream and has the ability to turn a net profit and fantastic vacations

2)	A pre-paid expense no better than a coupon book of rental vouchers that declines in value and has a questionable worth versus renting the same exact unit direct


I highly suggest that folks expect A LOT out of their timeshares; I sure as hell do.


----------



## ArtsieAng (Jan 4, 2008)

PerryM said:


> See, that attitude is ok for folks outside of TUG; within TUG you should be focusing on making vacations FREE each year via your timeshare portfolio.
> 
> 
> I highly suggest that folks expect A LOT out of their timeshares; I sure as hell do.




You guys are too funny.....I do very well with my current portfolio. I'd say that I max out the possibilities, and have gotten many free vacations. I too expect a lot from my timeshares. I expect them to do exactly what I purchased them to do....Get me the best possible low cost/free vacations, in very nice locations, and surroundings. That is what I hope to continue to do with them in the future. I don't really see how the change in the Marriott system would affect that happening. 

If the value on them remains the same/increases, great. If it drops, I still hope to be able to get my fabulous low cost, free vacations. That is the only reason I purchased them.


----------



## PerryM (Jan 4, 2008)

*YES!*



ArtsieAng said:


> You guys are too funny.....I do very well with my current portfolio. I'd say that I max out the possibilities, and have gotten many free vacations. I too expect a lot from my timeshares. I expect them to do exactly what I purchased them to do....Get me the best possible low cost/free vacations, in very nice locations, and surroundings. That is what I hope to continue to do with them in the future. I don't really see how the change in the Marriott system would affect that happening.
> 
> If the value on them remains the same/increases, great. If it drops, I still hope to be able to *get my fabulous low cost, free vacations. That is the only reason I purchased them*.




Now that's the attitude that makes being a TUG member worth the time to learn and expense of adjusting portfolios.

Congrats,


----------



## thinze3 (Jan 4, 2008)

PerryM said:


> *Remember, EVERY timeshare in the world will eventually be resold – EVERY.  *



*And remember that EVERY platinum week that ever gets sold at Newport Coast Village would be rendered useless! IMO*


----------



## timeos2 (Jan 4, 2008)

It appears that the BS machine of timeshare sales is so effective that even seasoned TUG readers think they bought the sizzle (ability to exchange, a way to convert to points, etc) not the steak (the deeded use rights either as a fixed week or within a designated float use season). When those lines get blurred it's easy to get off track.


----------



## PerryM (Jan 4, 2008)

timeos2 said:


> It appears that the BS machine of timeshare sales is so effective that even seasoned TUG readers think they bought the sizzle (ability to exchange, a way to convert to points, etc) not the steak (the deeded use rights either as a fixed week or within a designated float use season). When those lines get blurred it's easy to get off track.



It will be fascinating to see if Marriott implements this 6 month reservation policy on resales and how this would play in Hawaii.

I'd bet a donut (Oh no, another bet) that Hawaii views this a predatory real estate practices and voids it in Hawaii.

Wyndham can't sell a single WM credit on Hawaiian land - I'd bet Hawaii prevents this practice too.


----------



## camachinist (Jan 4, 2008)

Yeah, thanks for that reminder 



> And remember that EVERY platinum week that ever gets sold at Newport Coast Village would be rendered useless! IMO
> __________________


----------



## Holly (Jan 4, 2008)

So very true.  I went to my first Marriott presentation last week and she was good....very good.  Had my husband, and almost me, convinced that we would get so many points that the $10,000+ difference between her price and what I could get a resale for was a wash.  If I hadn't been hanging around here for the last four years I would have bought on the spot.



timeos2 said:


> It appears that the BS machine of timeshare sales is so effective that even seasoned TUG readers think they bought the sizzle (ability to exchange, a way to convert to points, etc) not the steak (the deeded use rights either as a fixed week or within a designated float use season). When those lines get blurred it's easy to get off track.


----------



## suenmike32 (Jan 4, 2008)

Gee, I thought that thinze3's legwork, conversation and ultimate corresponce put this whole matter to bed.
By the way, if I didn't say thanks thinze3 ...THANKS!

Like Perry says at the end of each post, "Don't beat yourself up".  
However, if thize3's info is correct...we're not beating ourselves up..but we're beating this horse to death!
Mike


----------



## thinze3 (Jan 4, 2008)

camachinist said:


> Yeah, thanks for that reminder



Pat,
Don't worry, BE HAPPY  

We should all sleep good tonight.
See this post about my latest email.

Terry


----------



## Kilby5924 (Jan 4, 2008)

While timeshare in one sense is real estate it does not operate the same way, as most real estate and trying to treat it as such won’t work. EX I would never buy a piece real estate that would be worth 70 % less in twenty years yet most timeshare loose value as they age many of them become obsolete. You can buy a week on Hilton Head at Monarch for lot less than what you can buy Surfwatch even though most people would agree Monarch Has a better location and first rule of real estate is location, location, location expect when buying a timeshare.  EX You can’t depreciate your timeshare. EX. In most cases you cannot rent your timeshare out for enough to cover all your expense including your purchase price. When you are buying a timeshare you are buying an experience. Just look on this broad about the comment about Beach Palace HOA and their stance with Marriott people want the 40-inch TV not the 30-inch TV in real estate that wouldn’t matter. The only way that a timeshare is real estate is that it is deed and taxed. In a true resale market in real estate most resale if in same condition as the developer unit wouldn’t be going for 60 cents on the dollar unless they were in need of work. 
Timeshare is not an investment it might be a saving plan for future vacation but it is not an investment. 
Timeshare is a concept and it is sizzle that why Marriott can brand a building and call it a Marriott and charge more for you stay it than holiday Inn. 
And for those who concern about the new policy just buy a fixed week from Marriott or resale and when go to sell your investment the policy won’t affect you.


----------



## Icarus (Jan 4, 2008)

What is the current price of a Monarch week from Marriott compared to when they were selling "new" weeks there?



> And for those who concern about the new policy just buy a fixed week from Marriott or resale and when go to sell your investment the policy won’t affect you.



I wonder why nobody else thought of that. Problem solved, right? 

-David


----------



## richinfl (Jan 4, 2008)

*Grande Ocean impact of 6 month rule*

IF this new 6 month rule goes into effect I see a positive impact. I bought a Grande OCean Plantinum (Ocean side) unit from Marriott and go to Grande Ocean practically every year. I have no intentions of selling. My biggest problem has been getting reservations for the week I want under the new system exactly 12 months in advance..It has been a hassle and a major sore point with the entire Reservation system. 

As I see it, if this new 6 month rule goes into effect, the competition to reserve the week(s) I want will greatly diminish and it will reward the owners who bought directly from marriottt. WE paid a higher price why not get some benefits from it??? For the platinum week at MGO there is high demand with few resales even available. I say as an owner it will help me (ALOT) and impact any potential resale value on the open market only slightly. I recognize MGO (platinum) may be differnet that many resorts and issues may be different at those resorts but now I have two benefits from buying from marriott...trade for Reward points and reserve 12 months out...GREAT!!!

Buying from a reseller was a great bargain considering you were not giving up anything except reward point trades which are not a great bargain to begin with. The 6 month rule if implemented will definitely have an impact and its OK with me.

 Just another mans viewpoint!!


----------



## stevens397 (Jan 4, 2008)

Another 2 cents:

1. Starwood has done the same thing, in a sense, by labeling some resorts "Mandatory" and some "Voluntary".  Mission Hills (Rancho Mirage) and Kierland (Scottsdale) are almost identical in structure, furnishings and destination, but MH is voluntary and Kierland is Mandatory.  Only Mandatory resales can trade internally with Starwood.  So MH resales go for $16,000 and Kierland goes for $25,000!

2. Looking back, I remember buying my first timeshare directly from Marriott and being told how good it was for me that the industry had gone over to Floating weeks.  Note that NONE of these issues would be a problem if we all owned dedicated weeks!

Marriott will do what they choose to do.  Just like they change the valuation on points, they can do the same with our timeshares.  

And BTW, when I went to the 3 bedroom at the Westin St John 3 years ago, I looked into a developer purchase of the same unit for week 7.  Ready?  $122,000 and no points!


----------



## timeos2 (Jan 4, 2008)

*Nonsense*



richinfl said:


> IF this new 6 month rule goes into effect I see a positive impact. I bought a Grande OCean Plantinum (Ocean side) unit from Marriott and go to Grande Ocean practically every year. I have no intentions of selling. My biggest problem has been getting reservations for the week I want under the new system exactly 12 months in advance..It has been a hassle and a major sore point with the entire Reservation system.
> 
> As I see it, if this new 6 month rule goes into effect, the competition to reserve the week(s) I want will greatly diminish and it will reward the owners who bought directly from marriottt. WE paid a higher price why not get some benefits from it??? For the platinum week at MGO there is high demand with few resales even available. I say as an owner it will help me (ALOT) and impact any potential resale value on the open market only slightly. I recognize MGO (platinum) may be differnet that many resorts and issues may be different at those resorts but now I have two benefits from buying from marriott...trade for Reward points and reserve 12 months out...GREAT!!!



Someone also paid full developer price for the resale week then,  for whatever reason decided to sell. They pay the only amount that goes to the resort - the annual fees - same as you. What gives you a right to a reservation priority?  How you bought & what you paid is meaningless to the reservation process.  Just as it & annual fees mean nothing for trade value. If you paid too much to get the use of points don't blame the other, equal in every way that counts owners. Again what if all the resales got a voice and decided using points hurts them so retail buyers get a smaller window to reserve? Not fair? Neither is some bogus prefference for how you got your time.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Jan 4, 2008)

*I've Heard Of Full Freight But This Is Ridiculous.*




stevens397 said:


> BTW, when I went to the 3 bedroom at the Westin St John 3 years ago, I looked into a developer purchase of the same unit for week 7.  Ready?  $122,000 and no points!


For a _timeshare_ ? 

Were they able to maintain a straight face when quoting that $122*,*000 price tag ? 

Did anybody whip out his or her checkbook to spring at that price ?  

Talk about _big bux !_ 

Sheesh. 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## Icarus (Jan 4, 2008)

That's what I consider to be a very logical and reasonable view IMO, John.

But logic and reason don't matter for those that just consider what I've called the SNL Al Franken view of the change. Al Franken used to postulate how some event affected "me, Al Franken", on his old SNL sketches.

Even that view isn't accurate unless they completely ignore the possibility that some day they or their heirs will want to sell their units. But the more important view is that it seems to serve their immediate desire to have a better shot at their own week because they bought it from the developer. Even though in the long term the change is probably detrimental to them.

Timesharing is not necessarily about logic. It's more of an emotional thing for some, I guess.

-David


----------



## thinze3 (Jan 4, 2008)

What if you died after this yet-to-be-determined date and left you developer bought weeks to your children?
Would they would be "not grandfathered"?? 

For more information click here.


----------



## arlene22 (Jan 4, 2008)

And I think my resale week should get higher priority because it's been paid for twice. Once when someone bought from the developer and again when I paid another 40%. 

No I'm not serious. How much a deed cost shouldn't matter. If Marriott wants to add cool new items like souped up MR Points, upgrade priority or an internal trading system and only offer it to developer purchases I think that's fair. And that would go a long way toward encouraging purchases directly from Marriott, without interfering with deeded rights (definitely foul).


----------



## hipslo (Jan 4, 2008)

arlene22 said:


> And I think my resale week should get higher priority because it's been paid for twice. Once when someone bought from the developer and again when I paid another 40%.



Great observation! 

Hey, what if I decide to buy a resale week and I decide, for whatever reason, that I want to pay the seller more than current developer pricing (maybe he's just a really great negotiator, and I'm a pushover).  I think that I should then get reservations priority over developer owners, shouldnt I?  After all, I paid more, didnt I?

Oh and all those folks who bought pre-construction, or a few years back, when prices were lower? Well, when I buy now, at current, higher developer pricing, of course I ought to get reservations priority over those other owners who paid less, shouldnt I?  Fair is fair, right?

This whole "I should have more rights because I paid more than you did for the same thing" concept doesnt really stand up to logical scrutiny, when you consider the other consequences of the same logic.


----------



## timeos2 (Jan 4, 2008)

*new plan*

I guess this will work. If resales only get 1/2 the reservation window then they should pay only half the annual fees. Of course the resort needs 100 percent fees so the retail buyers, happy to pay more anyway, pay 1 & 1/2 fees to cover the shortfall but get 12 months to reserve. Also the available slots for the prime times need to be split by percentage as well. So if 75 percent are retail they can reserve only 75 percent of the weeks. The other 25 are held back for resale buyers only. Are we all fair yet?

That way no group getsba windfall as the number of weeks for each will remain the same.


----------



## jimf41 (Jan 4, 2008)

timeos2 said:


> I guess this will work. If resales only get 1/2 the reservation window then they should pay only half the annual fees. Of course the resort needs 100 percent fees so the retail buyers, happy to pay more anyway, pay 1 & 1/2 fees to cover the shortfall but get 12 months to reserve. Also the available slots for the prime times need to be split by percentage as well. So if 75 percent are retail they can reserve only 75 percent of the weeks. The other 25 are held back for resale buyers only. Are we all fair yet?
> 
> That way no group getsba windfall as the number of weeks for each will remain the same.



As a purchaser from Marriott I like your plan. Only we'll change it a little bit to make it fairer to you. Instead of 6 months we'll make it 11.5 weeks, 12.5 weeks if you opt for the multiweek deal. I'm not good at math but in round numbers you'd pay about 95% of the MF and I'd pay 105%. That would cost me around $55 at MPB. No splitting %'s of weeks held back except as they do now for 13/12 buyers.

This has great possibilities. 
1.  *No lawsuits against Marriott*. Marriott could offer you an upgrade to the new system for a fee. What would be your complaint? They lowered your MF? They changed their system and discriminated agaisnt resale owners? No they offered you the same bennies direct buyers have, you just didn't want to pay.

2.  *No resale prices plummeting to 5% of their value.* I think somebody actually used that ridiculous % a while back. resales might take a little dip but they'd bounce back after people realized they could upgrade into the new system.

3. Resale owners who upgraded would now have a warm fuzzy about being part of the Marriott family. And that's a good thing because right now you have no business relationship with Marriott except for what is spelled out in your deed.

Oh, I forgot. You don't own any Marriott properties. I guess this plan won't apply to you. Maybe you should consider ownership in MVCI. You know if you buy one from the developer not only do you get a whole lot of points but if you press the salesperson you'll also get a nice beachtowel.

I just read what I wrote. It sounds a little snotty. I don't mean it that way. My sense of humor sometimes needs a little work. Maybe Perry can help me with that.


----------



## taffy19 (Jan 5, 2008)

timeos2 said:


> Someone also paid full developer price for the resale week then, for whatever reason decided to sell. They pay the only amount that goes to the resort - the annual fees - same as you. What gives you a right to a reservation priority? How you bought & what you paid is meaningless to the reservation process. Just as it & annual fees mean nothing for trade value. If you paid too much to get the use of points don't blame the other, equal in every way that counts owners. Again what if all the resales got a voice and decided using points hurts them so retail buyers get a smaller window to reserve? Not fair? Neither is some bogus prefference for how you got your time.


John, they have changed it once before so why can't they change it again? 

They introduced the 13 month reservation advantage to multiple week owners so it made it harder for the single week owners to make reservations for the most popular weeks. I hope they won't change the system again because it would affect resale values for all owners this time with these reservation restrictions no matter who they bought from. It may make reservations easier for some but, if the private resale market is so small, I don't think it would make that much difference but we all know that the more weeks you own, the easier it becomes to get the weeks you want.

Are they going to have an internal resale office so the new buyer will get a deed without these new restrictions if they would implement that? I still doubt it. The problem is too that their commission is so high so you are lucky to end up with 50% of the proceeds. Why not leave the resale market alone without any restrictions and let the market decide what the unit is worth?


----------



## ArtsieAng (Jan 5, 2008)

timeos2 said:


> Someone also paid full developer price for the resale week then,  for whatever reason decided to sell. They pay the only amount that goes to the resort - the annual fees - same as you. *What gives you a right to a reservation priority? * How you bought & what you paid is meaningless to the reservation process.  Just as it & annual fees mean nothing for trade value. If you paid too much to get the use of points don't blame the other, equal in every way that counts owners. Again what if all the resales got a voice and decided using points hurts them so retail buyers get a smaller window to reserve? Not fair? Neither is some bogus prefference for how you got your time.



Marriott gives him the right to a reservation priority, if they choose to do so. It's their product, and they need a reason for people to purchase directly from them, and not the resale market. Otherwise, no one will buy directly from Marriott, and there will be no resale market to worry about. 

Years ago, points were enough to make people buy directly from Marriott, These days the value is just not there. They need to offer a worthwhile  incentive, or everyone will just wait for a resale. If not a reservation priority, then something. Currently, it just doesn't make sense to purchase directly from Marriott. Maybe they realize that, and are looking to offer something that works for them, as well as the buyer.


----------



## ArtsieAng (Jan 5, 2008)

Icarus said:


> That's what I consider to be a very logical and reasonable view IMO, John.
> 
> But logic and reason don't matter for those that just consider what I've called the SNL Al Franken view of the change. *Al Franken used to postulate how some event affected "me, Al Franken", on his old SNL sketches.*
> Even that view isn't accurate unless they completely ignore the possibility that some day they or their heirs will want to sell their units. But the more important view is that it seems to serve their immediate desire to have a better shot at their own week because they bought it from the developer. Even though in the long term the change is probably detrimental to them.
> ...



Are you looking out for the good of man kind?


----------



## CMF (Jan 5, 2008)

*Reality Check.*



ArtsieAng said:


> Marriott gives him the right to a reservation priority, if they choose to do so. It's their product, and they need a reason for people to purchase directly from them, and not the resale market. Otherwise, no one will buy directly from Marriott, and there will be no resale market to worry about.
> 
> Years ago, points were enough to make people buy directly from Marriott, These days the value is just not there. They need to offer a worthwhile  incentive, or everyone will just wait for a resale. If not a reservation priority, then something. Currently, it just doesn't make sense to purchase directly from Marriott. Maybe they realize that, and are looking to offer something that works for them, as well as the buyer.



As many have evidenced here, there a many people who buy from Marriott with eyes wide open.

The resale market and knowledge thereof is dwarfed my the Marriott marketing machine.

Marriott's system ain't broke so there is no need to go and try a fix anything.

You don't have to get all fancy pants and gimmicky when you have a good product.  I think this is correct but I may be wrong:  What does Disney give you for taking a presentation? Nothing. Why? They don't have to.  And, they have a product that will go poof in so many years . . . talk about loss of value.  Does Disney care about the resale Market?  I don't think so.  Will folks continue to give Disney their money and smile about chest all puffed out?  Yes.

Ideas for Marriott to sell more developer weeks:

1. Reduce price.
2. Partner with companies to offer non timeshare related benies to direct buyers.  Car rental and airline discounts.  VIP concierge services.
3. Exclusive direct buyer activities at the resort. Golf lessons.  Spa services. Wine tastings. 
4. Guarantee to buy back retail weeks at 80% of the purchase price.
5. Build a super high end segment of resorts that only direct buyers have access to.  Maybe like a mini destination club for Marriott retail buyers.
6.  Reduce interest rates on financing.

But number one is really the kicker.  I would probably pay maybe $5,000 more to buy from Marriott than what I paid out for each of my resale weeks.  But the price gap is much larger.  Back when I started I had signed on to buy a Grand Chateau 3 bedroom for $33,000.  I rescinded and I have bought 3 Marriotts [counting the pending Barony Beach purchase] and my Foxrun week for less than the price of one Grand Chateau.

Marriott needs to reduce their price to be competitive. Isn't this how every other sane business in the world operates?  Reduce price or improve the product. Marriott really should not make what they are selling now worth more by taking steps to devalue what's they've sold in the past.

Charles


----------



## ArtsieAng (Jan 5, 2008)

*Reality Check. *



CMF said:


> *As many have evidenced here, there a many people who buy from Marriott with eyes wide open.
> 
> The resale market and knowledge thereof is dwarfed my the Marriott marketing machine.
> 
> ...





The reality check is really that this is Marriott's call, and not the call of resale buyers of their product. They will do what they feel is best for them, in the long run. What, if anything changes is yet to be seen. 

They not only have a vast "Marketing Machine." They also have top notch attorneys, and a huge research department. Whatever they decide to do, if anything, will have been well thought out, market tested, and approved by their lawyers. 

BTW.....I will again say that I am not personally looking forward to any change in the Marriott system. However, it is what it is, and I will deal with it. I will try and look for the benefits, and not dwell on the negatives.


----------



## Dean (Jan 5, 2008)

I find it interesting that something that's only a rumor, and one that's not legally possible at many of the resorts from what I know, has created such an uproar.  Not to mention given fodder for the usual nay sayers and abuse artists.  When people ask if I'm an optimist or a pessimist, I tell them I'm a realist.  I make every attempt to go into transactions hoping for the best and planning for the worst and it has served me well over the years.  Truthfully, the worst would mean none of us would every buy a timeshare but that's likely another good thread.


----------



## CMF (Jan 5, 2008)

*Don't buy it.*



ArtsieAng said:


> *Reality Check. *
> They not only have a vast "Marketing Machine." They also have top notch attorneys, and a huge research department. Whatever they decide to do, if anything, will have been well thought out, market tested, and approved by their lawyers.



These assets do not guarantee good decisions. 

Charles


----------



## thinze3 (Jan 5, 2008)

ArtsieAng said:


> Marriott gives him the right to a reservation priority, if they choose to do so. *It's their product,* and they need a reason for people to purchase directly from them, and not the resale market. Otherwise, no one will buy directly from Marriott, and there will be no resale market to worry about...



Actually, the TS units which Marriott has sold at each resort are no longer *their product. *Marriott is nothing more than the Managers of the resort TS units after that. When they sold their product to me and everyone else, they did so with the general understanding that I would own a 1/52 share of that condo. I was assigned a condo number and a week. All 52 owners of that condo have the same equal rights to use it, based on the seasons they bought of course. This is what Marriott would be taking away - those equal rights.

I own my share and can sell it or give it to my children. It is still a 1/52 share ownership. Selling or gifting shouldn't change the value of the condo share I bought from Marriott. If Marriott decides to offer "incentives" to sell their shares of the condo, more power to them. If they decide to give someone annual points and then have the rights to that persons share of the condo for one year, more power to them. Just don't try to tell me that I don't have the same right to use MY share as anyone else!!


----------



## timeos2 (Jan 5, 2008)

thinze3 said:


> Actually, the TS units which Marriott has sold at each resort are no longer *their product. *Marriott is nothing more than the Managers of the resort TS units after that. When they sold their product to me and everyone else, they did so with the general understanding that I would own a 1/52 share of that condo. I was assigned a condo number and a week. All 52 owners of that condo have the same equal rights to use it, based on the seasons they bought of course. This is what Marriott would be taking away - those equal rights.
> 
> I own my share and can sell it or give it to my children. It is still a 1/52 share ownership. If Marriott decides to offer "incentives" to sell their shares of the condo, more power to them. If they decide to give someone annual points and then have the rights to that persons share of the condo for one year, more power to them. Just don't try to tell me that I don't have the same right to use MY share as anyone else!!



Exactly. For some reason some buyers (seems to be mostly retail) and Marriott seem to think that "Selling" timeshares to a buyer doesn't mean their right to control it ends. Wrong.  Once sold Marriott and how it was obtained by the current deed holder is irrelevant.  Like controlling your 30 year old kid once they are out of the nest (the timeshare deed is sold) you no longer hold control.


----------



## PerryM (Jan 5, 2008)

*Shhhhhh - we need to play along with Marriott...*



iconnections said:


> John, they have changed it once before so why can't they change it again?
> 
> They introduced the 13 month reservation advantage to multiple week owners so it made it harder for the single week owners to make reservations for the most popular weeks. I hope they won't change the system again because it would affect resale values for all owners this time with these reservation restrictions no matter who they bought from. It may make reservations easier for some but, if the private resale market is so small, I don't think it would make that much difference but we all know that the more weeks you own, the easier it becomes to get the weeks you want.
> 
> Are they going to have an internal resale office so the new buyer will get a deed without these new restrictions if they would implement that? I still doubt it. The problem is too that their commission is so high so you are lucky to end up with 50% of the proceeds. *Why not leave the resale market alone without any restrictions and let the market decide what the unit is worth?*



*OMG we can’t have resales reflect the true real estate worth – I’m serious!*

Marriott and most timeshares use the 4 to 1 ratio in calculating the sales price.  If a condo is worth $250k as a whole ownership condo then the developer needs $1,000,000 in sales (4 to 1).  This allows for half the $1 M to be sales and commissions leaving $500k.  Half of the remainder, $250k is the actual cost to build/aquire the unit and $250k for profit and servicing of construction loans.

That $1 M in sales is done with sliding prices (Pre-construction) and realizing that some weeks are worth more than others and hence the Platinum Holiday to Bronze weeks.

So when Marriott sells a Platinum week at MountainSide for $50k (example) the resale value should be 60% of that or $30k.  However the real estate value is just 1/4 of that sales price or $12,500.  That’s what the resale price should be without Marriott’s ROFR, resales, and buy back programs to prop up the resale value.

In the case of Wyndham resales are NOT 25%, to reflect real estate value, but just 15% or less to indicate that resales are selling below real estate prices and reflect little or no value to consumers since Wyndham does everything under the sun to kill the resale market.

So be careful what you wish for or Marriotts could easily sell for just 25% of the Marriott sales price instead of the 60% that we now enjoy – thanks Marriott for propping up the market.  Hope you keep doing it.

Like it or not we Marriott owners are benefiting from a sales illusion that Marriott casts over the resale market.


----------



## PerryM (Jan 5, 2008)

*Different marketing plans have different results...*



ArtsieAng said:


> *Reality Check. *
> 
> 
> 
> ...




This problem of Marriott’s sales force deciding that resales can only make reservations 6 months in advance is a very tough edict to foist upon EVERY Marriott owner.  EVERY Marriott owner will eventually sell their timeshare or transfer title to someone who will eventually sell it.

This is a lot different than when Marriott screwed around with the 12 month to 13 months reservation window.  *The two are 180º opposite but the sales gurus at Marriott don’t realize it yet*.

When Marriott came up with the bright idea of giving multiple week owners an extra month to work their units into a vacation of consecutive weeks that made sense.  Later when Marriott dropped the requirement of having the weeks at the same resort and allowed very smart owners to buy a Branson week and get not only get 13 months lead time but 13 months AND 1 day, this was a win win for everyone.  They added value to the system.

Punishing your buyer when you sell outside of Marriott is not remotely close to adding value with the 13 month rule.  You, the current owner, will find the resale market adversely reacting to this punishment and you will be greatly harmed with historic 60% resale rates dropping to just a fraction of that.  This would not be hard to demonstrate in court.

Hopefully the sales morons who cooked up the 6 month punishment rule have been told to stick to selling daydreams and let the MBA’s handle real marketing plans that won't kill the corporation in the press.


----------



## vlapinta (Jan 5, 2008)

I often wonder what the average Joe who purchased one timeshare to vacation with his/her family thinks. I'm not so sure that they wouldn't prefer a reservation advantage, rather than resale $.


I guess I fall into the "average Joe" category. I own Ocean Watch which I purchased from Mariott to vacation with my family. So far being a member of Tug I have learned the best way to work the system, even owning only one! I have gotten great trades so far and haven't had a problem reserving a week I wanted to use. I have recieved ACs which we have been able to use. 
As someone else has stated, I look at my time share the same way I look at my car. Both will depreciate in time, but I will enjoy both while I have them. 
I made my decision to purchase from Marriott because at the time we wanted Ocean Watch and there weren't any resales available. We have never regretted our decision. Sure now there are people getting better deals on the resale market... I am happy for them. The only thing I hope from Marriott is that whatever decisions they make it keeps their product upscale. I am happy with the quality and hope they continue to keep it that way. 
Just an average Joe's opinion:whoopie:
Vicki


----------



## PerryM (Jan 5, 2008)

*Class warfare works for politicians - may it will work for Marriott...*



vlapinta said:


> I often wonder what the average Joe who purchased one timeshare to vacation with his/her family thinks. I'm not so sure that they wouldn't prefer a reservation advantage, rather than resale $.
> 
> 
> I guess I fall into the "average Joe" category. I own Ocean Watch which I purchased from Mariott to vacation with my family. So far being a member of Tug I have learned the best way to work the system, even owning only one! I have gotten great trades so far and haven't had a problem reserving a week I wanted to use. I have recieved ACs which we have been able to use.
> ...



This is a great point – existing owners getting an advantage over the folks who bought cheaper.

Who among us doesn’t want an edge over the competition – I sure do.  Those who pay for 1st class in an airline deserve to sit up front, get fed a real meal, and be the first ones off the plane.

This is class distinction and if a sales group wants to make one class of customers superior to another class of customers that’s up the company.  If Marriott wants 1st class owners and 2nd class owners and 3rd class owners that’s up to Marriott.

However, to install class distinction at a long ago sold out Marriott Resort is a stupid thing to do in my book.  If Marriott wants class warfare at a brand new Marriott, with the rules, spelled out ahead of the first sale, then that’s perfectly ok with me.

Retroactively going back on 15 year old resort that sold out 8 years ago, like Summit Watch, and implementing class warfare just seems to me to be incredibly stupid.

Maybe Marriott has watched class warfare work for some politicians and want to bask in their success - I don't know, it's just a guess on my part.


----------



## thinze3 (Jan 5, 2008)

*Perry Wins!*​

Perry 51% (reseller)
Obama 18% (developer)
Edwards 16 (donor) 
Clinton 15% (inheritor)


----------



## divenski (Jan 5, 2008)

ArtsieAng said:


> Even for many of us who can reserve 13 months out, and are very knowledgeable about timesharing, reserving a particular week can be difficult.
> 
> I often wonder what the average Joe who purchased one timeshare to vacation with his/her family thinks. I'm not so sure that they wouldn't prefer a reservation advantage, rather than resale $.



This "reservation advantage" assumes that there would be a lot of future resales outside the Marriott system. Not sure that's a good assumption because a 6 month window for resale owners could make some properties almost useless no matter what the price.

I am sure Marriott would sell this as an advantage, but the main beneficiary of such a change would be Marriott's bottom line, and not any owners of developer weeks.

It's good news that this is just an academic discussion.


----------



## hipslo (Jan 5, 2008)

PerryM said:


> So when Marriott sells a Platinum week at MountainSide for $50k (example) the resale value should be 60% of that or $30k.  However the real estate value is just 1/4 of that sales price or $12,500.  That’s what the resale price should be without Marriott’s ROFR, resales, and buy back programs to prop up the resale value.




Perry - were those numbers for MS supposed to be real, or illustrative?  No way is real estate value only 12.5 at MS.  Even assuming ALL weeks there are platinum, which of course is off by a mile, 12.5 x 52 = 650k.  Real estate value for 2br ski in ski out condos with resort amenities in Park City is well above 650.  Its been a while since I looked at the numbers, but when I last ran the analysis, purchasing all 52 weeks at MS, resale, could be done for a good bit LESS than real estate value.  This is the case for several other Marriott resorts as well.


----------



## PerryM (Jan 5, 2008)

*WAG the dog...*



hipslo said:


> Perry - were those numbers for MS supposed to be real, or illustrative?  No way is real estate value only 12.5 at MS.  Even assuming ALL weeks there are platinum, which of course is off by a mile, 12.5 x 52 = 650k.  Real estate value for 2br ski in ski out condos with resort amenities in Park City is well above 650.  Its been a while since I looked at the numbers, but when I last ran the analysis, purchasing all 52 weeks at MS, resale, could be done for a good bit LESS than real estate value.  This is the case for several other Marriott resorts as well.




The numbers were just for demonstration purposes; they are just WAGs.

I'd guess that at 2BR MountainSide that has a view of PayDay, the main lift, is worth $500k and Summit Watch is $400k.

I’m just making up more numbers but:

3 Platinum Plus weeks @ $75k each = $225k in sales
17 Platinum weeks @ $60k each = $1.02M
15 Gold weeks @ 20k each = $300k
17 Silver weeks @ 12k each = $204k

Total = $1.8 M in sales or 1/4 of that is $450k.  This is close to the estimate of $500k

There are 225+ 2BR condos in MountainSide and this would greatly depress ski in/out prices if they were all whole-ownership condos.  If just one were up for sale I'd guess its worth at double that or $1 M.

I am NOT claiming to be up to speed on Marriott's prices or Park City's real estate values.  These are just educated guesses on the spur of the moment.

P.S.

Another backwards approach to calculating the worth of a 2BR MS would be from guessing rentals:

3 Holiday weeks @ $4,500 each = $13,500
17 Ski weeks @ $3,500 each = $59,500
15 Gold weeks @ $1,050 each = $15,750
17 Silver weeks @ $700 = $11,900

Total rental for the year is $100,650.

I've found a rule of thumb to be rent is 1/10 the value of the real estate or $1,000,650 for a single 2BR.  Throw in 225+ or so MSs condos and you get half that or $500k.


----------



## hipslo (Jan 5, 2008)

PerryM said:


> I'd guess that at 2BR MountainSide that has a view of PayDay, the main lift, is worth $500k and Summit Watch is $400k.



You would have an absolute STAMPEDE to buy at anything close to those prices.


----------



## PerryM (Jan 5, 2008)

hipslo said:


> You would have an absolute STAMPEDE to buy at anything close to those prices.



I'm viewing each 2BR condo two different ways:
1) Individually sold would be $1M
2) ONE resort containing 225+ 2BR condos that generate rental income at $500k each

E.g.
If MS were a hotel it would be worth 225 units * $500k each = $125M.

If sold individually it would be worth $225M with 225 owners.

There is a difference on how the developers look at how much a condo is worth.  They seem to favor coming up with a price that is ONE total amount as if each condo were used for rental income.

Hope this explains the difference.


----------



## taffy19 (Jan 5, 2008)

CMF said:


> As many have evidenced here, there a many people who buy from Marriott with eyes wide open.
> 
> The resale market and knowledge thereof is dwarfed my the Marriott marketing machine.
> 
> ...


#1 and 6 make a lot of sense for new buyers but most timeshare owners would like #4 as you enjoy the product first and then get a big chunk of your cash back when you decide to sell.  

They only could do this if the prices are still rising while the resort is in active sales or with a sold out resort that is in very high demand and if the economy is still good so people are buying. Most likely, the developers want to sell new resorts first where people want to go which gives more exchange choices to the existing owners too which is an added benefit to us. 

Some of their buy-back deals have been very generous as we did that when we upgraded to a fixed unit in Maui but they charged extra for the fixed units at that time so could offer us more and we accepted the deal gladly.

May be all of us should write Mr. Marriott and let him know our concerns and remind him that the Marriott used to be different and one step above the rest but no more if they would go this route. I'll bet they never will make this change as some States wouldn't allow it from what I read here. 

This is why the maintenance fees are the same for all seasons too but can differ by size of the unit. That is tough on the owners who want to occupy or rent a good week but have to settle for a week that is less desirable and cannot even rent it to break even but the good weeks fetch so much more with a darn good profit. This happens when there are too many laws and restrictions in place. It helps some people but hinders others. JMHO.


----------



## Icarus (Jan 5, 2008)

ArtsieAng said:


> Are you looking out for the good of man kind?



Well, I sold my KBC unit in December for reasons unrelated to this thread, so your implication (even though you added a smiley face) is incorrect, just as the used car analogy is incorrect in my opinion.

You and I will just simply have to agree to disagree here. I'm not going to stoop to personal attacks when I disagree with somebody else's opinion.

Many people that are arguing against the change bought from the developer. I bought from the developer. My situation changed after I bought from the developer and when I weighed everything out, the best option was to sell. I looked into selling through Marriott and there was a 4 year waiting list. So I exercised my option to sell on the resale market at what I considered to be a fair price. I'm glad I had that option and that it gave me a reasonable price when taking into account what I might have gotten by waiting 4 years until my slot came up on the Marriott resale list. At some point, everybody's situation will change even if you don't realize it today.

For one thing, according to the rumors here, it doesn't matter where you purchased. All the rumors have stated that any current resale owners will be grandfathered in under the new program. So this isn't really about current resale owners vs current developer purchased owners. To me, this is more about what the effect might be when your situation changes and for whatever reason you or your heirs want to or need to sell your unit, no matter how you purchased it. If that doesn't matter to you, and all you want to consider is that in some large number of years time you might get a slight advantage in booking the week you want or trading into another unit because you don't own a non-grandfathered resale week, that's fine by me. But it is a very short term view, in my personal opinion.

-David


----------



## Eric (Jan 5, 2008)

Charles,

Your kidding , right ?
1.They are the #1 company in sales so why the heck would that reduce price ? People are paying thier price so they don't need bottom feeders.
4. No need to and they would lose money 
5. They make more money on financing than sales

Really Charles, you need to do more homework 






CMF said:


> Ideas for Marriott to sell more developer weeks:
> 
> 1. Reduce price.
> 2. Partner with companies to offer non timeshare related benies to direct buyers.  Car rental and airline discounts.  VIP concierge services.
> ...


----------



## ArtsieAng (Jan 6, 2008)

Icarus said:


> You and I will just simply have to agree to disagree here. *I'm not going to stoop to personal attacks when I disagree with somebody else's opinion.*
> 
> 
> But logic and reason don't matter for those that just consider what I've called the SN Al Fran ken view of the change. *Al Fran ken used to postulate how some event affected "me, Al Fran ken", on his old SN sketches.*
> -David



I have no problem agreeing to disagree. We are certainly both entitled to our opinions, whatever they may be. 

 I was not attacking you but rather simply replying to your statement, which perhaps I took incorrectly, but felt was indeed personal, and implied that it was somehow wrong to consider what would work best for myself/others with a similar opinion.

Again I may be incorrect, but I thought that your concern for people who purchased directly from Marriott was the possible impact on the resale value of their timeshares? If so, than stating that current owners would be grandfathered in, or how you purchased your timeshare,  would be irrelevant to the conversation.

However, somewhere along the line you said something that I do very much agree with. I can't find it at the moment, but if I remember correctly, you mentioned that a timeshare is an emotional purchase. I think that is correct, and key to this discussion. 

Most people buy a timeshare for the dream of vacationing with friends, and family for many years to come. Hopefully, passing that dream on to their children. That being the case, they might be more inclined to choose a reservation advantage, opposed to resale value. BTW, I'm not so sure the majority of owners out there would even be aware of the impact on the resale value.

Either way, my point was simply that the change, should it occur, wouldn't be terrible for everyone. Some owners will be very happy, regardless of any loss in resale value. IMO


----------



## Icarus (Jan 6, 2008)

What I said was something along the lines that logic doesn't matter, for many people a timeshare purchase is more of an emotional thing, and it was in response to one of the many posts from people that said they didn't care about the resale value of their timeshares. I'm sure if you look back in this thread you can find the actual post.

But we can agree to disagree about this and anything else and continue to be civil about it. You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

-David


----------



## CMF (Jan 6, 2008)

*No need for school work on this one.*



Eric said:


> Charles,
> 
> Your kidding , right ?
> 1.They are the #1 company in sales so why the heck would that reduce price ? People are paying thier price so they don't need bottom feeders.
> ...



All of my recommendation would give Marriott a better product.

Charles


----------



## PerryM (Jan 6, 2008)

*Marriott can do better, will they?  NO!*



CMF said:


> As many have evidenced here, there a many people who buy from Marriott with eyes wide open.
> 
> The resale market and knowledge thereof is dwarfed my the Marriott marketing machine.
> 
> ...



*Marriott timeshare is doing just fine and in my book needs NO changes whatsoever.*

However, looking at Marriott as a whole with tens of thousands of hotel rooms to rent, timeshares to sell and rent, fractionals to sell and rent, and whole-ownership units to sell and rent, they can do a lot better.

They can start an integrated internal exchange system that integrates ALL their product lines from the Ritz to the lowest class hotel room.  This would generate gobs and gobs of exchange fees, open new frontiers for integrating their entire mix of whole ownership units to hotel rooms and even allow for the inclusion of other, outside, units to be included in the offering.

This would be a Point Based exchange system available ONLY to Marriott sold units, either timeshares, fractionals, or whole-ownership units.

Will Marriott look forward to the next 30+ years and offer a 21st century solution that owners would clamor for?  NO.


----------



## Eric (Jan 6, 2008)

Why not just give the weeks away ? That would be an ever better product. It's a Fortune 500 company. They answer to stockholders. Lowering prices and lowering interest rates does not make it a better product.







CMF said:


> All of my recommendation would give Marriott a better product.
> 
> Charles


----------



## hipslo (Jan 6, 2008)

Eric said:


> Lowering prices and lowering interest rates does not make it a better product.



...unless it increases sales volume significantly.....


----------



## Eric (Jan 6, 2008)

It doesn't work that way. All resorts sell out at THIER price so lowering them is not an option and as overpriced as they are, I don't blame them if people buy them. 



hipslo said:


> ...unless it increases sales volume significantly.....


----------



## hipslo (Jan 6, 2008)

Eric said:


> It doesn't work that way. All resorts sell out at THIER price so lowering them is not an option and as overpriced as they are, I don't blame them if people buy them.



Maybe but they'd likely sell out more quickly at lower prices, expecially the less than premium seaons.  Some resorts remain in sales for years and years.  Time is money.


----------



## PerryM (Jan 6, 2008)

*Raising the price is the only solution....*

*Marriott sells out their MOST expensive weeks first!  Why on earth lower the price?*

The Platinum Plus Holiday weeks are snapped up even before the first sale takes place.  Folks give Marriott their credit card to pre-authorize the sale the instant sales start.

Marriott sometimes forces Platinum Holiday weeks to be sold in a combo package of some other week.  E.g. Week 52 + a Platinum week or Gold week.

The Platinum weeks sell fast and are gone in 2 years.

It’s the remaining dogs, the Gold, Silver, and Bronze that take an additional 3 years to sell.

Lowering the price of the Platinum and Platinum Plus Holiday weeks is not needed.  What is needed is making the dog weeks more attractable and again, lowering the price doesn’t seem to be the answer.  The MFs are all the SAME on Platinum Plus Holiday thru Bronze.

Marriott needs to make those doggy weeks more palatable.

So if anything, raising the price of hot weeks is needed, not lowering them.


----------



## CMF (Jan 6, 2008)

*Absurdities.*

OK.  M is the best timeshare developer in the best of all possible worlds and they don't have an itch to change one little thing because they sell everything they have at their asking price la de la.

This is fine and well if in fact Marriott will not impose [or attempt to impose] changes that will diminish the rights of resale buyers.  However, if Marriott does implement a change it is because it feels compelled to do so.  Marriott will not implement a change, and a controversial one at that, on a whim.

So, assuming that Marriott feels pressure to change, then what?  My short list of alternatives to the "rumored" 6 month reservation restriction is just brainstorming.  But I do not concede that it has no merit.  I challenge you to assume that Marriott feels some sort of pressure to protect either retail buyers or retail sales and propose alternatives to the 6 month reservation restriction for accomplishing the same.  Don't just knock down my ideas.  Come up with something of your own.

Charles


----------



## PerryM (Jan 6, 2008)

*One happy camper here...*

What’s funny about the timeshare world is Disney, the #1 timeshare out there.  They make all the other developers look silly.

To top it off, they don’t actually sell a deeded timeshare they sell a Right To Use their resort and then Mickey washes his paws of the whole mess and gets to start over again.

I believe Disney resales are 90% of the Disney’s prices and “Resale” is NOT a bad word in the mouse kingdom but one that is revered.  Disney salesreps will gladly track down resales for you and call their list of clients to see if anyone wants to sell their Points.

Marriott has picked a middle ground between Disney and Wyndham which is at war with its owners and does everything under the sun to kill resales which average just 15% of developer’s sales.

I, for one, like the status quo with Marriott and hope it continues for a long time.  Sure I have suggestions on how to integrate all the parts of Marriott into one cohesive unit but my job as the consumer is to learn Marriott’s rules and exploit them to my advantage.  I’ve done this now for 8 years and really like it.

I do get upset when the sales clowns keep jerking our chain and create these insane rumors and then use them to screw Ma and Pa.  Marriott doesn’t need to do that.

So put me down as someone who wants the existing status quo to outlive me.


----------



## CMF (Jan 7, 2008)

*Well?*

So what can Marriott do to be more like Disney?

Charles


----------



## PerryM (Jan 7, 2008)

*It is what it is....*



CMF said:


> So what can Marriott do to be more like Disney?
> 
> Charles



What can Camry do to be more like Bentley?

Two different products, two different markets.

Disney started down the correct path, in my opinion, with the RTU timeshare.  At the end of 40+ years the resort reverts back to whole-ownership and can be sold, torn down, or re-sold for another 20+ years like Disney is doing now.

The point is that at the end the resort becomes normal real estate and will reflect normal pricing which is 100 times better then timeshares.  Actually it’s 52 times better.  I'd like the owners to actually own the resort and thus the resale value would be sky high at the end of the RTU period and owners would actually get real estate appreciation. 

Marriott can’t stop and must go forward with its business model which is exactly what it is doing right now and doing very well.


----------



## CMF (Jan 7, 2008)

*Hmmmm?*

I must not understand RTU.  I thought this was a bad thing for owners.  At the end of the RTU you own nothing.

What makes Disney a Bentley Perry?  Is not the points based because there are others that are not as highly regarded Marriott.  Is it the locations inside the parks?  Marriott has more locations also in nice areas?  Is it the quality of the resorts?  I've seen two Disney properties and they are not head and shoulders above Marriott; aren't many of them smaller than Marriotts?

I contend that Marriott can do more - it does not have to, but it can.

Charles


----------



## timeos2 (Jan 7, 2008)

CMF said:


> I must not understand RTU.  I thought this was a bad thing for owners.  At the end of the RTU you own nothing.
> 
> What makes Disney a Bentley Perry?  Is not the points based because there are others that are not as highly regarded Marriott.  Is it the locations inside the parks?  Marriott has more locations also in nice areas?  Is it the quality of the resorts?  I've seen two Disney properties and they are not head and shoulders above Marriott; aren't many of them smaller than Marriotts?
> 
> ...



Perry has clearly stated it. The Disney RTU is the cleanest way to end a timeshare - something not many others seem to plan for. The downside is that Disney set it up strictly to benefit Disney - the RTU buyers get ZERO at the end of the plan and in fact are on the hook for the high fees up to that very last year.  The buyers of DVC seem to ignore the fact that as the end date approaches the prop of RTU/buyback is going to end (why buy back what you get for free in 2042?) and resale prices will plummet. They have already started to slip for the earliest end dates but still retain a much better resale value than most timeshares at this time (including Marriott).  Ignoring the end of that RTU & buy back, the total control Disney holds (no owner say - much like Marriott tries to do but DVC actually has the right) and the extremely high ongoing costs are the only negatives to the DVC system.  Had they deeded the property over to the buyers & still kept the end date so those buyers would share in the ultimate sell off THAT would be the perfect timeshare.  As it is Disney keeps all the profits and in fact can exit with perfectly maintained resorts on the RTU buyers dime. That isn't going to make many DVC owners happy in the end.


----------



## PerryM (Jan 7, 2008)

*RTU is the correct solution to timeshares...*



CMF said:


> I must not understand RTU.  I thought this was a bad thing for owners.  At the end of the RTU you own nothing.
> 
> What makes Disney a Bentley Perry?  Is not the points based because there are others that are not as highly regarded Marriott.  Is it the locations inside the parks?  Marriott has more locations also in nice areas?  Is it the quality of the resorts?  I've seen two Disney properties and they are not head and shoulders above Marriott; aren't many of them smaller than Marriotts?
> 
> ...




RTU is what many here espouse – pre-paid vacations pure and simple.

I don’t know much more about Disney’s program but to calculate the “worth” of the timeshare is exceedingly simple – you call Mickey and ask what it would cost to stay at the very same resort.  Multiply that by the number of times you can stay there and you know exactly what the timeshare is worth.

I’m guessing that these are well know figures in the Disney timeshare world and thus as the timeshare gets close to the end of usage the value of the timeshare will be reflected in the resale price.

Of course you need to add MFs to the above but it’s a great way to sell a timeshare.  Top it off with a flexible Point system and who could ask for a better way to sell and use timeshares?

Mickey eventually winds up with the property and will tear it down and start over again.  You were expecting more?  ("You" is rhetorical here)

ALL timeshares should be sold like this and then some developers would allow the owners to wind up owning the resort that would be liquidated and split up among the remaining owners for a juicy fat profit.

You’d have to ask the developers why they are not taking the optimum approach to this kind of usage – I suspect they can’t come up with any other answer but Duh!


----------



## CMF (Jan 7, 2008)

*It makes sense but. . .*

You are not telling me that owners buy Disney because of the RTU feature . . . right? 

Charles


----------



## thinze3 (Jan 7, 2008)

From what I understand, some of the Royals TS's in Mexico actually have a RTU that ends with the complex being sold and those who own the RTU actually getting the money. I think I read about one of them ending in the year 2016, which is right around the corner. I would be much more likely to buy into something like this than DVC.


Found this one as an example.


----------



## PerryM (Jan 7, 2008)

CMF said:


> You are not telling me that owners buy Disney because of the RTU feature . . . right?
> 
> Charles



Ma, Pa and the little ones wouldn't know a RTU if it bit them.  They are buying the Disney dream that we all grew up with.

However, if they do their homework they will find that the Disney RTU is probably a better deal than to rent the same exact resorts with cash.

One could argue that going back to Disney every year for the next 40 years would get old and that exchanging in II with an expensive Disney unit is probably a crazy idea.  But some folks do go back year after year and so do their grown up kids and their kids.

I just think that the RTU model is how the timeshare world should have evolved.  I believe the first Hawaiian timeshare was a RTU Point based resort.  So somewhere we went terribly wrong.


----------



## PerryM (Jan 7, 2008)

thinze3 said:


> From what I understand, some of the *Royals TS's in Mexico actually have a RTU that ends with the complex being sold and those who own the  actually getting the money*. I think I read about one of them ending in the year 2016, which is right around the corner. I would be much more likely to buy into something like this than DVC.
> 
> 
> Found this one as an example.



This is how ALL timeshares should be working and you would find that the resale value keeps very high and there is a reason to be an owner of a timeshare as it gets retired.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Jan 7, 2008)

*R. T. U. = Not All Bad.*




CMF said:


> I must not understand RTU.  I thought this was a bad thing for owners.  At the end of the RTU you own nothing.


RTU timeshares provide a neat, clean, painless, effortless & automatic exit strategy that deeded timeshares don't include. 

I own my deeded timeshare(s) forevermore-amen till I assume room temperature or give'm away or sell'm.  Till then they're mine with all privileges & obligations thereto appertaining. 

By contrast, with RTU I'm totally off the hook at the end of the stated lease period -- 30-40 years, whatever it is, with DVC on the 1 hand or on the other hand just 3 years (renewable) with those attractive RCI Points timeshare leases. 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## CMF (Jan 7, 2008)

*Perry - Please drop all the shoes.*



PerryM said:


> This is how ALL timeshares should be working and you would find that the resale value keeps very high and there is a reason to be an owner of a timeshare as it gets retired.



What is the correlation between RTU and high resale?  Common sense would tell that they devalue as the lease end nears.  And, what is the reason to be there when someone turns out the lights? Is there a party?

Charles


----------



## PerryM (Jan 7, 2008)

CMF said:


> What is the correlation between RTU and high resale?  Common sense would tell that they devalue as the lease end nears.  And, what is the reason to be there when someone turns out the lights? Is there a party?
> 
> Charles



The one item that holds back timeshares from being a true real estate investment is the inability for 52 owners to do something with a 40+ year old condo.

If a developer sold 52 RTU weeks per condo and that at the end of 40 years the RTU ends with the condos reverting back to whole ownership then the 52 final owners would split the proceeds of the sale of that condo.

The initial sale has 40 usages and calculating the rental rate * 40 = the worth of the RTU timeshare.  The actual selling price would reflect a discount to this and a realization that rental rates will inflate each year for 40 years.

This is what Disney does.  At the end of 40 yeas (just and example) the Disney RTU is worth 0.

If, however, the condo is to be sold for market prices and the proceeds split among the last 52 owners then there is a residual value and that represents the appreciation of the condo for 40 years.

This would allow the timeshare to be sold as a timeshare and for the last 52 owners of the condo to get quite a reward.  This would cause the timeshare to hold it’s value during those 40 years and follow real estate appreciation close to whole ownership condos.  This is the best of 2 worlds for the timeshare owner; fractional ownership with whole ownership.


----------



## CMF (Jan 8, 2008)

Thanks Perry.  Are there any developers that follow the model you outlined?

Charles


----------



## PerryM (Jan 8, 2008)

CMF said:


> Thanks Perry.  Are there any developers that follow the model you outlined?
> 
> Charles



I know of none, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.


----------

