# Resale Values Plunge



## skidoc (Jun 28, 2010)

We have been considering buying a 2BR Platinum Branson EOY to use as a trader to allow us to go to Marriott and other II resorts.  This would be to complement our DVC ownership.  Over the past year, we've come close to winning a week on eBay, with typical sale prices between $1200 and $1500.  Yesterday, a Branson Platinum EOY 2BR sold for $314.  Whereas before I would have jumped, my impression is that these weeks will have little or no value as traders in the Marriott system as they are not eligible to be converted to points because they are resale.  My impression is that I should sit on the sidelines for 6months to 1 year to see if there is any way to trade into Marriott resorts via II down the road.  I feel bad for folks trying to sell their weeks on the resale market, and I'm bummed I didn't act before 6/20.


----------



## tombo (Jun 28, 2010)

There will be some steals in the next year or two. If you follow the main TUG rule of buying where you want to stay each and every year, a resale Marriott can be a great buy. Just realize that trying to reserve a prime week at your home resort during your season might be hard if not impossible depending on if Marriott allocates a disporoportionate amount of prime weeks to points. Trading through II might become harder depending on what power II gives the deposit you make which might can be manipulated by Marriott to a lesser demand week. The good news is that Marriott only expects 20% of owners to convert to points, so 80% of inventory will still be owned by people who still have control of their vote. Branson never had great trading power, and that will only get worse. Unless you want to go there every year paying $314 for a 2 bed room platinum Branson week is no longer a good deal.


----------



## dougp26364 (Jun 28, 2010)

As you can see by what Marriott has done, the rules for exchanging weeks is a moving target. Like TOMBO said, buy at a resort where you will be happy being an owner and enjoy visiting more often than not and you'll have a better shot at being happy.

I'm not a happy camper over Marriott's new program but, the two Marriott resorts we own were purchased with the intention of using them. So it doesn't matter as much to me what Marriott does as it will to those who bought in strictly to have Marriott to Marriott priorty for exchanges.


----------



## jimf41 (Jun 28, 2010)

Tombo,
I agree with you but the 20% number will only increase as time goes by. Each year Marriott will gain a bigger and bigger % of inventory for its trust.  The only real question that I see is how long will it take them to get a majority interest in all their resorts.

Using Ocean Pointe as an example they are starting out with 0%. I can envision them keeping the points given at that resort at a high level until they control 51% of the inventory there. When they get to that point I'm concerned about what they will do with control over the resort. 

If the interests of the remaining weeks owners and the trust are the same then everything will be fine. If not then it might not be so fine for the weeks owners.


----------



## jhpetri (Jun 28, 2010)

*Branson*

I think picking up a week for a few hundred dollars is a bargain. Until Marriott gets this rolling (and who is to say they won't offer points in the future to resale owners), I think trades will be available.

I am still debating the new program....my great fixed weeks are offered few points and I like being able to have access to II getaways. If I want to go to Aruba in October it's $400 (on a Getaway, Ocean or Surf club). No matter what Marriott does, there will still be times of surplus and I want to be able to take advantage of it.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jun 28, 2010)

I have always assumed there were lots of ebay buyers who weren't TUG and Timeshare Forums members.  Now I am wondering if all ebay buyers are "in the know."  

How would an average person know that Marriott has a new program?


----------



## tombo (Jun 28, 2010)

jimf41 said:


> Tombo,
> I agree with you but the 20% number will only increase as time goes by. Each year Marriott will gain a bigger and bigger % of inventory for its trust.  The only real question that I see is how long will it take them to get a majority interest in all their resorts.
> 
> Using Ocean Pointe as an example they are starting out with 0%. I can envision them keeping the points given at that resort at a high level until they control 51% of the inventory there. When they get to that point I'm concerned about what they will do with control over the resort.
> ...



The real problem with Marriott controlling your resort using votes is voter apathy and the fact that many owners have blind trust in and undying loyalty to Marriott. Marriott will in reality control the vote at resorts long before they hit 51%. Some people will cast their vote for whatever Marriott tells them to do because they trust marriott to do what is right (bad move IMO). Also even if Marriott only owns 20% of the resort, they will vote 100% of their vote for their agenda EVERY time. Marriott will vote their votes in a block vote for whatever agenda they are pushing, owners will split votes for and against whatever is proposed diluting their voting power. So if 35% of the total owners actually mail in their  vote, and the 20% of Marriott votes are cast, their will be a quorum. If just 8% of the voting owners vote do what Marriott recommends, Marriott will control the resort with only 28% of the vote in this example. 

Ask any board member how low the voter returns are at resorts. They typically have a very hard time making a quorum each year due to voter apathy, but you can bet that marriott will exercise their right to vote every time a vote is taken. That is not counting the fact that many people send in proxies allowing the HOA to vote for them. If the HOA is in the tank for Marriott, then Marriott will own the vote even quicker.


----------



## jlr10 (Jun 28, 2010)

rickandcindy23 said:


> How would an average person know that Marriott has a new program?



They won't.  I was speaking to a Marriott owner who had no idea that Marriott had rolled out changes.  If it weren't for TUG we wouldn't have known either.


----------



## tombo (Jun 28, 2010)

rickandcindy23 said:


> I have always assumed there were lots of ebay buyers who weren't TUG and Timeshare Forums members.  Now I am wondering if all ebay buyers are "in the know."
> 
> How would an average person know that Marriott has a new program?



Many don't know about the new program or what it means to resale values yet, but most resale buyers shop around and watch trends overall and at resorts they are interested in. Even if they don't know why the prices are dropping, they realize from closing auction prices that the sale prices are continuing to fall and try to buy at close to the bottom. Plus most buyers will google a resort they are looking at buying bfore making a bid. If you google Marriott right now you can find plenty of things on TUG and other places discussing the new Marriott points program. If you google "Marriott resale values drop" for example, this thread will pop up for any and all to see. The new points and their possible ramifications can be seen by all who do a simple search. I would bet that a whole lot more e-bayers know about the new program than current Marriott owners.


----------



## deedman (Jun 28, 2010)

in my opinion, it is inevitable that they will accept resale weeks to enroll into the points program.  It is either buy back all the weeks through ROFR, hope they can  get desired inventory out of II, or let them enroll.  It is in their best interest to get as many weeks into the trust as possible.  Sitting on the sidelines for 6-12 months is probably the best thing you can do.  If I were to do anything now (if I was actually in the market for a Marriott TS) it would be to pick up a week CHEAP in the next few months that worst case scenario you wouldn't mind visiting every year or trading through II or SFX.  That being said, the rental market seems to offer rooms that are as much or less then the MF, so why even get yourself into a system that seems to be up in the air at the moment.


----------



## Stefa (Jun 28, 2010)

jlr10 said:


> They won't.  I was speaking to a Marriott owner who had no idea that Marriott had rolled out changes.  If it weren't for TUG we wouldn't have known either.



I got something in the mail last week.   It was very generic and didn't explain the program other than to say I would have more vacation options if I joined (for $1495!) and to call their toll-free number if I had any questions.

Had I not been on TUG, I likely would have ingored the mailing since I would have had no idea what a significant change had taken place.


----------



## siberiavol (Jun 28, 2010)

deedman said:


> in my opinion, it is inevitable that they will accept resale weeks to enroll into the points program.  It is either buy back all the weeks through ROFR, hope they can  get desired inventory out of II, or let them enroll.  It is in their best interest to get as many weeks into the trust as possible.  Sitting on the sidelines for 6-12 months is probably the best thing you can do.  If I were to do anything now (if I was actually in the market for a Marriott TS) it would be to pick up a week CHEAP in the next few months that worst case scenario you wouldn't mind visiting every year or trading through II or SFX.  That being said, the rental market seems to offer rooms that are as much or less then the MF, so why even get yourself into a system that seems to be up in the air at the moment.



I totally agree about letting resales in at some point. I think it will be a while as they try to sell points to get rid of unwanted inventory.


----------



## RedDogSD (Jun 28, 2010)

1st point:  Never assume that the buyers on a market (Ebay) don't know anything about it.  Most people do research into what they are going to buy when the cost exceeds a few hundred dollars and any google search on Marriott vacation club will quickly lead to TUG or somewhere else talking about Points.  Once they realize that the weeks cannot enroll, the value of certain weeks goes down.

However, the value of those weeks that are fixed and in prime locations may go up since people now know that they cannot easily exchange into them and will have to actually secure them.  

2nd:  The reason that Branson's value is going down is that many people buy it purely for trading purposes and would never go there.  I considered this.  However, the value of those weeks that are places that people will want to go may not change too much.  I am going to keep my eyes out for inexpensive Marriott Palm Desert weeks (any of 4 resorts) in Red/Platinum season or a Newport Week although I know that those will never drop down that low, regardless of the points program.  I don't care what Marriott does on those weeks as I am happy to go there and am happy to exchange them for lots of resorts in the system with II, SFX, DAE, etc and I don't care if they are other Marriott properties or not.


----------



## ffxjack (Jun 28, 2010)

*voter apathy*



tombo said:


> The real problem with Marriott controlling your resort using votes is voter apathy and the fact that many owners have blind trust in and undying loyalty to Marriott. Marriott will in reality control the vote at resorts long before they hit 51%. Some people will cast their vote for whatever Marriott tells them to do because they trust marriott to do what is right (bad move IMO). Also even if Marriott only owns 20% of the resort, they will vote 100% of their vote for their agenda EVERY time. Marriott will vote their votes in a block vote for whatever agenda they are pushing, owners will split votes for and against whatever is proposed diluting their voting power. So if 35% of the total owners actually mail in their  vote, and the 20% of Marriott votes are cast, their will be a quorum. If just 8% of the voting owners vote do what Marriott recommends, Marriott will control the resort with only 28% of the vote in this example.
> 
> Ask any board member how low the voter returns are at resorts. They typically have a very hard time making a quorum each year due to voter apathy, but you can bet that marriott will exercise their right to vote every time a vote is taken. That is not counting the fact that many people send in proxies allowing the HOA to vote for them. If the HOA is in the tank for Marriott, then Marriott will own the vote even quicker.



Just went to the owners' meeting here at Grande Ocean this week and everything I learned today backs you up.  This resort has pretty high owner occupancy (84%) and is completely sold out.  Despite that, only 40% of owners voted for the last set of board members.

Realistically, most owners who bother to vote will probably go along w/the Marriott recs (kind of similar to proxy votes for owners of stock).  Marriott, of course, will own the vote of anyone who turns in their week and will be sure to vote en bloc for their interest.  Hopefully, these interests will always be aligned...


----------



## GaryDouglas (Jun 29, 2010)

tombo said:


> The real problem with Marriott controlling your resort using votes is voter apathy and the fact that many owners have blind trust in and undying loyalty to Marriott. Marriott will in reality control the vote at resorts long before they hit 51%. Some people will cast their vote for whatever Marriott tells them to do because they trust marriott to do what is right (bad move IMO). Also even if Marriott only owns 20% of the resort, they will vote 100% of their vote for their agenda EVERY time. Marriott will vote their votes in a block vote for whatever agenda they are pushing, owners will split votes for and against whatever is proposed diluting their voting power. So if 35% of the total owners actually mail in their vote, and the 20% of Marriott votes are cast, their will be a quorum. If just 8% of the voting owners vote do what Marriott recommends, Marriott will control the resort with only 28% of the vote in this example.
> 
> Ask any board member how low the voter returns are at resorts. They typically have a very hard time making a quorum each year due to voter apathy, but you can bet that marriott will exercise their right to vote every time a vote is taken. That is not counting the fact that many people send in proxies allowing the HOA to vote for them. If the HOA is in the tank for Marriott, then Marriott will own the vote even quicker.


 
Marriott will only be able to control votes for those that convert under the following rule:

"Owner represents and warrants to MVCEC that, as an Exchange Member, Owner will not exercise any vote Owner may have in the owners’ association ("*[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Resort Association[/FONT][/FONT]*") operating the resort in which Owner’s Timeshare Interest is located ("*[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Resort[/FONT][/FONT]*") *in a manner that is, in MVCEC’s reasonable discretion, detrimental to the Program*, including, without limitation, *voting to limit or terminate the Resort’s participation in the Program*."
The *green* type is a bit of a wild card, the *blue* is specific.
You don't lose your vote, but you would surrender some of your rights.


----------



## RandR (Jun 29, 2010)

rickandcindy23 said:


> I have always assumed there were lots of ebay buyers who weren't TUG and Timeshare Forums members.  Now I am wondering if all ebay buyers are "in the know."
> 
> How would an average person know that Marriott has a new program?



I have two friends that are Marriott ts owners and neither of them had any idea about the new program.  Marriott should be ashamed of themselves for not letting owners know about the program in a timely fashion.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jun 29, 2010)

GaryDouglas said:


> Marriott will only be able to control votes for those that convert under the following rule:
> 
> "Owner represents and warrants to MVCEC that, as an Exchange Member, Owner will not exercise any vote Owner may have in the owners’ association ("*[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Resort Association[/FONT][/FONT]*") operating the resort in which Owner’s Timeshare Interest is located ("*[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Resort[/FONT][/FONT]*") *in a manner that is, in MVCEC’s reasonable discretion, detrimental to the Program*, including, without limitation, *voting to limit or terminate the Resort’s participation in the Program*."
> The *green* type is a bit of a wild card, the *blue* is specific.
> You don't lose your vote, but you would surrender some of your rights.



This is an excellent post, Gary.  That voting limitation is, as it should be, a huge factor for Enrollment consideration.  But there seems to be a large number of TUGgers who believe that the number of Marriott's votes will increase by the number of enrollees, and that just isn't the case.


----------



## DanCali (Jun 29, 2010)

SueDonJ said:


> This is an excellent post, Gary.  That voting limitation is, as it should be, a huge factor for Enrollment consideration.  But there seems to be a large number of TUGgers who believe that the number of Marriott's votes will increase by the number of enrollees, and that just isn't the case.



My consideration is - *if the program is so great, why would Marriott anticipate that a resort would want to terminate its participation? **And if the program is so great, why would it force owners how they vote?* Wouldn't they just vote for the resort to remain in the program anyway?

*Given that they can change things however they want in the future, perhaps the worst part of the program are yet to come???*


----------



## thadius65 (Jun 29, 2010)

I decided not to convert to points while at presentation, was offered to come back for a week and sit again within next year (18 months actually).  I am resale owner.  What are the chances if I buy another between now and then and decide to enroll that I could get both in? 

I would buy another only if excellent resale deal.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jun 29, 2010)

DanCali said:


> My consideration is - *if the program is so great, why would Marriott anticipate that a resort would want to terminate its participation? **And if the program is so great, why would it force owners how they vote?* Wouldn't they just vote for the resort to remain in the program anyway?
> 
> *Given that they can change things however they want in the future, perhaps the worst part of the program are yet to come???*



That's one way of looking at it, Dan, and you could be 100% absolutely positively correct.

But another way of looking at it is, Marriott has simply crossed all the T's and dotted all the i's.  Assuming that the way the voting rights are set up in the Weeks contracts allows for the possibility of an HOA to vote against Marriott's new offering in some form or fashion, Marriott has found a way to negate that possibility.  IOW, Marriott may not have put this into the terms of the Enrollment Agreement because they're expecting a vote against the new system, but rather because they want to protect the future of their interests by disallowing the possibility.  "Cover Your Bases."

Like I said, I have no idea if they're expecting a revolt or not.  I also haven't looked over the existing Weeks docs to try to figure out what exactly is in there that could be voted on in such a way that this new system would be directly affected.  (Although I'm sure it has something to do with Weeks that have been conveyed to the Trust being removed at a later date.)

Call it resignation or defeatism or whatever you want, I'm in the camp that says Marriott's voting power is strong to begin with and apathetic owners have historically made it that much stronger.  I understand why some want total voting control of their ownerships, but I also understand that control doesn't reach very far in practice.


----------



## DanCali (Jun 29, 2010)

SueDonJ said:


> Call it resignation or defeatism or whatever you want, *I'm in the camp that says Marriott's voting power is strong to begin with and apathetic owners have historically made it that much stronger.*  I understand why some want total voting control of their ownerships, but I also understand that control doesn't reach very far in practice.



This is one thing I agree with you on.

And that is why I am more concerned that they needed to "cover their bases"... 

What is (or will be) so terrible about this program that makes them feel owners would revolt enough to overcome their current level of almost total control?


----------



## thadius65 (Jun 29, 2010)

I decided not to convert to points while at presentation, was offered to come back for a week and sit again within next year (18 months actually).  I am resale owner.  What are the chances if I buy another between now and then and decide to enroll that I could get both in? 

I would buy another only if excellent resale deal.


----------



## tombo (Jun 29, 2010)

GaryDouglas said:


> Marriott will only be able to control votes for those that convert under the following rule:
> 
> "Owner represents and warrants to MVCEC that, as an Exchange Member, Owner will not exercise any vote Owner may have in the owners’ association ("*[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Resort Association[/FONT][/FONT]*") operating the resort in which Owner’s Timeshare Interest is located ("*[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Resort[/FONT][/FONT]*") *in a manner that is, in MVCEC’s reasonable discretion, detrimental to the Program*, including, without limitation, *voting to limit or terminate the Resort’s participation in the Program*."
> The *green* type is a bit of a wild card, the *blue* is specific.
> You don't lose your vote, but you would surrender some of your rights.



Owner will not exercise any vote where the owner's timeshare is located in any manner that MVCEC thinks is detrimental to the program. Wow. You don't think that is loss of vote? Abything in MVCEC's reasonable discretion that THEY determine  to be detrimental. So MArriott proposes something, owners don't like it, Marriott won't let owners vote against it because in their opinion to do, or not do their proposal will in their opinion be detrimental to the program. Then they make sure to say that you INCLUDING,WITHOUT LIMITATION  (in other words you can't remove them or do anything else they don't want done),you can't vote to limit or terminate Marriott's participation in the program no matter what they do including a poor job of management, charging huge assessments owners don't want (can't vote against assessments because to not assess would be detrimental), raising the mgt fees they charge your resort, etc, etc, etc . 

I want a job like that. I would love to be able to tell a boss that he can't fire me no matter what I do, or don't do with regards to my job, and he can't change my job in a manner I don't like,  or stop me from implementing anything I want to, do or prevent me from spending any money on my office or work place if I deem it to be needed, and anything they want to implement I feel would be detrimental to the organization can't be done, and anything I feel must be done, must be done. Marriott says that you can't vote against them running your resort as the mgt company, can't vote against any assessments or renovations they deem necessary, can't stop them from populating the board with Marriott employees, and any other thing they come up with that they feel is necessary.

 In the future they have plans you won't like, and they are making sure there is nothing you can do to stop them. Otherwise why put the clauses in their taking away your voting rights in the first place? Marriott would not take the PR hit and grief from owners possibly costing them sales unless they know htey need to get the vote from owners for some reason or another.


----------



## tombo (Jun 29, 2010)

SueDonJ said:


> That's one way of looking at it, Dan, and you could be 100% absolutely positively correct.
> 
> But another way of looking at it is, Marriott has simply crossed all the T's and dotted all the i's.  Assuming that the way the voting rights are set up in the Weeks contracts allows for the possibility of an HOA to vote against Marriott's new offering in some form or fashion, Marriott has found a way to negate that possibility.  IOW, Marriott may not have put this into the terms of the Enrollment Agreement because they're expecting a vote against the new system, but rather because they want to protect the future of their interests by disallowing the possibility.  "Cover Your Bases."
> 
> .



You can't have it both ways. You love to say people can't and shouldn't expect to get anything not in the contract whether implied or inferred, only what is specifically stated in writing in the contract. Now you want to say you can't find anywhere where Marriott in writing protects the value of points if you convert, but you are sure they will because you like Marriott? In additon you now say that you don't feel they are taking away owner's right to vote in spite of what it says they will do in the contract.

Your points values aren't guaranteed to get you trades in the future like you can get now because the contract says Marriott can change points values at any time. Marriott is restricting your voting rights per the contract. Marriott has shown that the contract is all that counts in the end, not any verbal promises they made, no assurances, and definetelly not any good feelings you might have about Marriott, all that you can expect is what they promise you in writing. What they have promised you in writing is loss of voting rights if you convert and that they can change point values for any reason. If you convert, you can count on both of those things happening in the future, it is after all in writing.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jun 29, 2010)

tombo said:


> You can't have it both ways. You love to say people can't and shouldn't expect to get anything not in the contract whether implied or inferred, only what is specifically stated in writing in the contract. Now you want to say you can't find anywhere where Marriott in writing protects the value of points if you convert, but you are sure they will because you like them? In additon you now say that you don't feel they are taking away owner's right to vote because they will actually do what it says they will do in the contract.
> 
> Your points values aren't guaranteed to get you trades in the future like you can get now because the contract says Marriott can change points values if they want to, and yes you are losing your right to vote if you convert because their contract says so. Marriott has shown that the contract is all that counts in the end, not any verbal promises, assurances, or feeling you might have that they will do what is right with nothing making them do so.



Whoa.  Geeze, Tombo, where is this coming from?  Where did I say I want it both ways?!  I agreed with you FINALLY about the point values fluctuating and didn't say anywhere after that that my point values will be protected.  I said that at rollout they've been better protected than most because they appear to be giving me better exchange value than most, and I've weighed that against the very real probability of exchange devaluation in BOTH the Enrolled Points AND Weeks systems that I expect in the future.

And NOWHERE have I said that Marriott won't hold an Enrolled Points owner to that voting stipulation.  I fully understand that entitles them to severely impact my voting rights.  Look at my posts about it - I haven't said they won't exercise their rights out of the goodness of their hearts or because they want to protect Little Old Weeks Owners.  What I've said is that although I understand the limitation that voting stipulation puts on me, I also understand that while its intent is to prevent a revolt against the new system, Marriott may not actually be expecting a revolt.  They've covered all their bases just in case, which should be expected of them.

And it's a slight but important distinction - in every matter which is unrelated to this new system (which will be few and far between as the years go on, understood) an Enrolled Points owner is not giving up his right to vote.  The result of the stipulation is NOT that Marriott will be given more votes than they're already entitled to; it's that Enrolled Points owners' voting rights will be impacted to a certain defined degree.  Granted, whatever combination that results in Marriott being a 51%-plus majority is detrimental to all owners, but my thinking is that eventually Marriott will be a 51%-plus owner anyway as soon as they start ROFR'ing resales and conveying them to the Trust.

Tombo, please don't put words in my mouth.  You're making me think and that's always a good thing, but I can't defend against the things you only think I'm saying.


----------



## Green Eyed Hapa (Jun 29, 2010)

tombo said:


> Your points values aren't guaranteed to get you trades in the future like you can get now because the contract says Marriott can change points values at any time. .



Yes, those points values can definitely change. When we bought our Newport Coast 6 years ago we were given the option to exchange for 110,000 points EOY. At that time 110,000 got you 7 days at a category 5 Marriott Hotel. Today a category 5 Marriott Hotel 7 day stay is 150,000 points.


----------



## tombo (Jun 29, 2010)

SueDonJ said:


> Whoa.  Geeze, Tombo, where is this coming from?  Where did I say I want it both ways?!  I agreed with you FINALLY about the point values fluctuating and didn't say anywhere after that that my point values will be protected.  I said that at rollout they've been better protected than most because they appear to be giving me better exchange value than most, and I've weighed that against the very real probability of exchange devaluation in BOTH the Enrolled Points AND Weeks systems that I expect in the future.
> 
> .



You said let's just look at the possibility of them just crossing their t's and dotting their i's, as though this is no big deal. You said perhaps they just put this in there to protect their future interests. It is giving them a pass and saying perhaps they don't have anything underhanded planned. Perhaps it is a benign legal clause. I feel just the opposite, I feel that their motives are to protect Marriott while taking rights from owners. It was never a clause they felt they needed to insert into contracts before. If it is no big deal, why make owners give up voting rights to convert now?

Currently Marriott wil be able to vote on what they own and what is in the trust, and that is what their interests are. What owner's own they should be able to vote as they always had the right to, not be forced to give up voting rights  in order to have access to points. Marriott wants to be able to vote on everything they own, and everything we own. How can that possibly be construed to be good for owners or acceptable?


----------



## SueDonJ (Jun 29, 2010)

tombo said:


> You said let's just look at the possibility of them just crossing their t's and dotting their i's, as though this is no big deal. You said perhaps they just put this in there to protect their future interests. It is giving them a pass and saying perhaps they don't have anything underhanded planned. Perhaps it is a benign legal clause. I feel just the opposite, I feel that their motives are to protect Marriott while taking rights from owners. It was never a clause they felt they needed to insert into contracts before. If it is no big deal, why make owners give up voting rights to convert now?



Never said it wasn't a big deal, never said they put it there for any reason other than to protect their own interests.  I even speculated that they put it there because they HAD to, because there is something in the existing deeded Weeks contracts that could potentially affect the holdings in the Trust.  That's my supposition for why they needed to include it here whereas they've never needed to include it before, but I never said that it's just a formality.  It has real impact on Enrolled Weeks owners, no doubt, that have to be weighed against everything else.



tombo said:


> Currently Marriott wil be able to vote on what they own and what is in the trust, and that is what their interests are. What owner's own they should be able to vote as they always had the right to, not be forced to give up voting rights  in order to have access to points. Marriott wants to be able to vote on everything they own, and everything we own. How can that possibly be construed to be good for owners or acceptable?



Again, a slight but important distinction.  Marriott will not be able to vote our interests insofar as they do not relate to this clause.  Marriott is not adding our votes to its vote count.  Marriott is negating our votes in certain issues.  Most people probably see this as semantics and will say however way you slice it Marriott still gains a measure of control here.  That's absolutely correct, but it still is an important distinction.  And like I said, IMO Marriott already has a whole boatload of control and with owner apathy and future conveyances to the Trust, they're going to have a whole lot more.  This clause is important to recognize, sure, but it's not my hill to die on any more than point fluctuations are.  The ultimate questions are still, for me, which system gives me greater usage value now and in which system is Marriott more likely to protect usage value in the future?


----------



## tombo (Jun 29, 2010)

SueDonJ said:


> The ultimate questions are still, for me, which system gives me greater usage value now and in which system is Marriott more likely to protect usage value in the future?



Isn't it a shame that you have to decide which system Marriott will screw you the least in? Marriott had weeks system in place for decades, they invented it, implemented it, sold it, maintained it, and now they dumped it. Because of their actions owners have to decide if Marriott can sell enough points to current owners to give points the advantage over weeks. Or if few owners convert to points you must guess if Marriott will be able to siphon enough good weeks from II so that they will make keeping what you purchased a losing proposition with regards to exchange availability. Ultimatelly you need to  decide if you need to convert to points because you feel they will in one way or another shift the best inventory to points and away from weeks, or if points will fail miserably and weeks is still  the best way to retain your ability to exchange what you own. Marriott to make profit and to devalue resales changed everything for the benefit of  nobody but Marriott.

If Marriott had decided to go home with the one that they brought to the dance, no one would have had to make any decisions other than to buy more weeks (resale or wrongly IMO retail), or not. Marriott recently left their dates on the dance floor and decided to pursue new dance partners, but in their arrogance they were kind enough to give their original dates a chance to still dance with them ,however they can only dance with Marriott if they agree to some demands that weren't a part of the original invitation to the dance.  Unfortunatelly some will still dance with Marriott after being treated so rudelly. I will gladly walk home with my deeded week and pride  leaving Marriott Points to those who will dance to any tune Marriott chooses.


----------



## DanCali (Jun 29, 2010)

SueDonJ said:


> Again, a slight but important distinction.  Marriott will not be able to vote our interests insofar as they do not relate to this clause.  Marriott is not adding our votes to its vote count.  Marriott is negating our votes in certain issues.  Most people probably see this as semantics and will say however way you slice it Marriott still gains a measure of control here.  That's absolutely correct, but it still is an important distinction.  And like I said, IMO Marriott already has a whole boatload of control and with owner apathy and future conveyances to the Trust, they're going to have a whole lot more.  This clause is important to recognize, sure, but it's not my hill to die on any more than point fluctuations are.  The ultimate questions are still, for me, which system gives me greater usage value now and in which system is Marriott more likely to protect usage value in the future?



Wow - you are unrelentness in their defense....

Are you just not seeing the bigger picture? How is it an "important distinction" if owners lose the ability to fire a management company either way, or pick a Board member who opposes their policies? 

The fact that owners can still vote on virtually meaningless issues is NOT an "important distinction". It's a distinction so minor it's not even worth mentioning...


----------



## SueDonJ (Jun 29, 2010)

tombo said:


> Isn't it a shame that you have to decide which system Marriott will screw you the least in? Marriott had weeks system in place for decades, they invented it, implemented it, sold it, maintained it, and now they dumped it. Because of their actions owners have to decide if Marriott can sell enough points to current owners to give points the advantage over weeks. Or if few owners convert to points you must guess if Marriott will be able to siphon enough good weeks from II so that they will make keeping what you purchased a losing proposition with regards to exchange availability. Ultimatelly you need to  decide if you need to convert to points because you feel they will in one way or another shift the best inventory to points and away from weeks, or if points will fail miserably and weeks is still  the best way to retain your ability to exchange what you own. Marriott to make profit and to devalue resales changed everything for the benefit of  nobody but Marriott.
> 
> If Marriott had decided to go home with the one that they brought to the dance, no one would have had to make any decisions other than to buy more weeks (resale or wrongly IMO retail), or not. Marriott recently left their dates on the dance floor and decided to pursue new dance partners, but in their arrogance they were kind enough to give their original dates a chance to still dance with them ,however they can only dance with Marriott if they agree to some demands that weren't a part of the original invitation to the dance.  Unfortunatelly some will still dance with Marriott after being treated so rudelly. I will gladly walk home with my deeded week and pride  leaving Marriott Points to those who will dance to any tune Marriott chooses.



Can't find anything to disagree with here, Tombo, you're exactly right that Marriott has changed the game for all of us.  You've chosen to make this a matter of pride, not saying you're right or wrong but that choice would leave me with less usage value from my timeshares than I could be getting.  You said a few days ago that you're willing to cut off your nose to spite your face.  Me, I want to keep my nose.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jun 30, 2010)

DanCali said:


> Wow - you are unrelentness in their defense....
> 
> Are you just not seeing the bigger picture? How is it an "important distinction" if owners lose the ability to fire a management company either way, or pick a Board member who opposes their policies?
> 
> The fact that owners can still vote on virtually meaningless issues is NOT an "important distinction". It's a distinction so minor it's not even worth mentioning...



Come on, Dan, haven't you ever heard the caution, "know your enemy?"  Just because I'm trying to figure out why Marriott does something doesn't mean that I'm defending whatever they do.  And somewhere there's a thread where we disagree about Marriott potentially grandfathering Premier/Plus status and surprise!, you're the one thinking that Marriott will do something for owners that they're not required to do.  Does that mean I can say you don't see the bigger picture?   

About the vote clause - take the total number of votes for a specific resort down to their simplest terms and you might end up with this:
6 Weeks Owners
3 Enrolled Weeks Owners
3 Marriott Developer Inventory
2 Marriott Management Agreement-bestowed

Now consider an issue that Marriott wants passed, and interpret the clause to mean that Enrolled members are only held to the stipulation that they do not vote in opposition to Marriott:
6 Weeks against
3 Enrolled abstained
3 Marriott for
2 Management for
Final tally 6 against, 5 for, and Marriott loses.

Now consider the same issue, but the clause is interpreted as some have said that Enrolled owners must vote in favor of Marriott OR give their votes to Marriott:
6 Weeks against
3 Enrolled for
3 Marriott for
2 Management for
Final tally 6 against, 8 for, and Marriott wins.

That's the "important distinction" in how the clause can be implemented.

Of course the vote numbers are tipped more heavily in Marriott's favor because of the sad reality of voter apathy, and to more or less degrees depending upon how much Developer inventory Marriott holds.  As well, as someone else has already pointed out in a thread somewhere, it's difficult to envision Enrolled owners NOT being in favor of something that Marriott wants to implement for Enrolled owners' benefit.

But in its simplest form, the difference can be greater than what it appears.


----------



## tombo (Jun 30, 2010)

SueDonJ said:


> Can't find anything to disagree with here, Tombo, you're exactly right that Marriott has changed the game for all of us.  You've chosen to make this a matter of pride, not saying you're right or wrong but that choice would leave me with less usage value from my timeshares than I could be getting.  You said a few days ago that you're willing to cut off your nose to spite your face.  Me, I want to keep my nose.



How do you save a post?  I need to save this one from you for sure.

So you agree with a whole post I made? I am in shock! I might need to re-read what I posted because perhaps I mispoke. 

Once I recovered from my initial shock I reread your post and realize that unlike me, you will not cut your nose off to spite your face, so still some disagreement. Whew, you had me worried there for a minute.


----------



## josh1231 (Jul 1, 2010)

skidoc said:


> We have been considering buying a 2BR Platinum Branson EOY to use as a trader to allow us to go to Marriott and other II resorts.  This would be to complement our DVC ownership.  Over the past year, we've come close to winning a week on eBay, with typical sale prices between $1200 and $1500.  Yesterday, a Branson Platinum EOY 2BR sold for $314.  Whereas before I would have jumped, my impression is that these weeks will have little or no value as traders in the Marriott system as they are not eligible to be converted to points because they are resale.  My impression is that I should sit on the sidelines for 6months to 1 year to see if there is any way to trade into Marriott resorts via II down the road.  I feel bad for folks trying to sell their weeks on the resale market, and I'm bummed I didn't act before 6/20.



Now, getting back on the original subject....

Resale prices have dropped steadily for the last 4 years I have been watching them. I have seen several Branson Platinum every years selling for $1k-$1.2k. This one had huge closing costs of $620 +380 MF. Also, first year usage is in 2011, you wouldn't close until at least September, meaning you would only get the least demanded summer weeks in Branson because it's probably too late to reserve the high demand weeks (It's sold out or close I believe so I'm assuming it's difficult to book in the summer), if you would get anything during the summer at all. Then you wouldn't get usage again until 2013.

So all in all, I don't see this as anymore than just the normal decrease in value that I would expect. 

I bought a Shadow Ridge Gold a year ago for $3k, at the time a good deal. Now on ebay it's worth about $2k. These same weeks were $5k 2 years ago.

I personally haven't noticed any unexpected, significant change in value on the weeks that I keep track of, Newport, DSV I&II, Shadow Ridge & Ko Olina.

I am interested in seeing resale value when points hit the market, and see how they compare with weeks. That should be interesting.


----------



## ccpinternational (Jul 1, 2010)

If any Marriott Platinum week sell less than $1000, I see it as a buy, buy buy.

We bought Four seasons Aviara at $3500, we never even think about trading for other places.


----------



## ccpinternational (Jul 1, 2010)

If any Marriott Platinum week sell less than $1000, I see it as a buy, buy buy.

We bought Four seasons Aviara at $3500, we never even think about trading for other places.


----------



## abdibile (Jul 1, 2010)

I would also think that this low price was due to the exorbitant closing costs and the not so reputable seller.

Reserving a summer week in Branson is not hard, lots of developer owned (now trust) units there.

I just got a July 2 2011 checkin without calling in the first possible day.




josh1231 said:


> Now, getting back on the original subject....
> 
> Resale prices have dropped steadily for the last 4 years I have been watching them. I have seen several Branson Platinum every years selling for $1k-$1.2k. This one had huge closing costs of $620 +380 MF. Also, first year usage is in 2011, you wouldn't close until at least September, meaning you would only get the least demanded summer weeks in Branson because it's probably too late to reserve the high demand weeks (It's sold out or close I believe so I'm assuming it's difficult to book in the summer), if you would get anything during the summer at all. Then you wouldn't get usage again until 2013.
> 
> ...


----------



## josh1231 (Jul 1, 2010)

abdibile said:


> I would also think that this low price was due to the exorbitant closing costs and the not so reputable seller.
> 
> Reserving a summer week in Branson is not hard, lots of developer owned (now trust) units there.
> 
> I just got a July 2 2011 checkin without calling in the first possible day.



I'm not sure about the non-reputable seller part. He's about the only timeshare sales person on ebay I've ever seen with a 100% feedback, and over 2800 reviews. I'd buy from him in a heartbeat, judging by his ebay feedback profile.

Either today or yesterday would have been the first possible day you could reserve, so waiting 1 day past the first reserve date is quite a bit different than waiting 3 months past.

That being said, I feel pretty certain I could obtain a Branson every year for $1k anytime I wanted one, a gold EOY just went for $46. I only live 3.5 hours away I have thought about it many times. If I was going to buy, I would plan on $1.5 with closing costs and no title insurance. This would make an every other year worth about $500, so what this sold for isn't out of line, in my opinion, taking into account the $620 in fees.


----------

